Reform’s Danny Kruger criticises UK’s ‘totally unregulated sexual economy’

[SerendipityJane]

Reform’s Danny Kruger criticises UK’s ‘totally unregulated sexual economy’
Former Conservative laments divorce changes and says Reform UK will pursue policies to boost birthrate

The UK is “suffering from having a totally unregulated sexual economy”, the Reform MP Danny Kruger has said, and he indicated he expected the party to have a “limited but important role” in resetting sexual culture.

Kruger said Reform UK had a “pronatalist ambition” and would seek policies to encourage people to have more children, including exploring changes to the tax system to make payments based on households rather than individuals.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/feb/24/reform-danny-kruger-uk-totally-unregulated-sexual-economy

Don’t be a dick, unlike your good self? You told me off for something I didn’t say and now you’re defensive AND insulting. And I’m still wondering why thinking Goodwin is older than he is more of a problem than what he has to say.

Good point. Waiting until late 30s can also make it harder to conceive of course, though not always...

The 'fur baby' trend is harmful to dogs too. I read this book some years back - it was written in the 2000s but the insights hold re the stress dogs often feel when they are forced into a baby substitute role

https://www.amazon.co.uk/First-Friend-History-Dogs-Humans/dp/1450208738

Definitely! And so many people are getting a dog who do not have the sort of lifestyle or accommodation that suits them. I often hear lone dogs yelping and in obvious distress during the day when they have been left home alone whilst ther 'people' are out at work. And so many have no idea how to train a dog - and a poorly trained dog must be a very stressed dog.

A dog is a big responsibility, and as you suggest can also be a very costly one. Vets bills are now hugely expensive.

I agree that's a problem
I am not sure, if correctly looking after a dog requires too big a lifestyle/accommodation change those people should be having children instead. I wouldn't say babies were less high maintenance or expensive.
That's why the far superior option for the discerning spinster is cats. Or possibly that's just the toxoplasmosis talking.
(Plus some families have spoilt fur babies and human children. Sometimes the fur baby tries to eat the children. Stupidity with dogs isn't specifically a childless person thing)

That's true re some having both and treating neither well. The (still ongoing) XL Bully issue often seemed to involve 'gentle giants' owned by families with kids, who ended up turning nasty...

Agree with you about cats 🤣 though I do like dogs too.

Exactly. There should be a licensing system imo. I think Covid was part of it : lockdown puppies etc even though a time you're shut in isn't really ideal to get a dog in. And it was during Covid that the XL Bully problem escalated. I think also the Romanian rescue issue : it's obviously great to rescue a dog if they'll behave properly but a lot of people seem to have adopted Romanian rescues without checking their background thoroughly etc

Yes, often a couple getting a dog is almost a precursor to having a baby. Or they get a dog to "complete" their family/because their kids really want one. (This was especially a thing during COVID.) And I'm not anti-dog at all, we had one growing up and she was lovely. I just don't think the "dog as a surrogate child"** or people getting dogs and then not having children because they put all their attention into the dog is as big a trend. And where people are bad dog owners it's usually better if they don't have children as well IMO.

**One exception to this is parents when their grown children leave home and they end up spoiling the dog far more than they ever spoilt me the hypothetical children.

So basically, it doesn't matter what policies they suggest, or points they make, they mean them in the wrong way so they should be opposed.

I don't think that's a particularly reasonable or practicable way to talk about politics. It's legitimate to wonder how policy ideas will actually be implemented, and personally I don't think there is any party now in the UK where I feel especially confident about their ability to create good legislation.

But I think demonising every suggestion a party makes because they are wrong 'uns ultimately makes real political discourse and solutions a lot harder to achieve. It's the exact mirror image of people who always support the policy ideas of a particular party even if they are batshit.

Oh my gosh, my parents became so weird with their dogs in their elder years. They actually would not leave them at home alone and brought them to every family gathering.

This was after years of criticising (not unreasonably) the over-parenting trend that would not allow kids to stay home alone or walk to school until quite late ages. Back in the early 80s she used to sometimes miss half my lunch being out doing errands, I'd have to sit on the front step and wait for her. Occasionally I'd head to the neighbour's so I could get back to school on time.

Interesting they changed later : I remember in Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, Amy Chua mentions but then dismisses the idea that couples get dogs when their children fly the nest, before admitting that when her children left she wanted to add a third dog to the two they already had (not sure if she did though..).

The dog got salmon! I never got salmon! I don't want to complain too much because I did have a loving childhood although my mum was also very anti what you would call overprotective parenting/helicopter parenting. But yes, I think that some parents spoil the "replacement children" in a way they didn't the actual children. (And this was after years of being really sniffly about people who treat their pets like children).

My point related more to the instinctive drive to nurture ...which is why appeals to over population have little impact.

I always think of the weird scenes in the book Children of Men, where people are dressing up dogs in prams, or even dolls, and outright pretending they are children.

Yes. That's a response to infertility isn't it? Like short shift I completely agree humans have an instinctive drive to nurture, and to have children. I just disagree I guess that the problem is people getting dogs instead of having children. Or in the case of others arguments selfish young people putting career before children/feminism and gender roles/the sexual revolution and "sexual economy". Even very different societies to ours (including ones with much stricter gender roles) have seen birth rates decline as societies industrialise and urbanise. In fact the more "traditional" the society re gender roles/expectations for women the faster and harder the birth rate has fallen. Although is likely coincidence not causation.

Human nature and human instincts are really powerful and we don't fully understand them. Romania and China both introduced radical government programmes to try to influence the birth rate (in different directions). They both led to quite horrific human rights disasters and unintended consequences. So while I'm fine with discussing ideas about making life easier for parents with children/work life balance, Reforms (Godwin and Krugers) fixation on female fertility etc naturally sets of alarm bells in people's heads. I think that's an instinctive and natural response not propaganda. Plus reducing human need to simplistic transactions "sexual economics" is only going to exacerbate the feeling that society is becoming alienated/transactional IMO.

Also agree appeals to overpopulation likely have little impact on people's choice to have kids (even if they agree with the sentiment, people will find reasons to do what they do). But that's also why berating people for not having enough children, or trying to encourage women to have more through weird incentive schemes/pushing family values/explaining how important it is to the economy etc likely won't work either.

Haven't had time to follow this thread, but thought maybe we should revive the "Wages for Housework" campaign.

This then would mean it wouldn't be about right wing conformists presuming women should stay at home, but provide choice for adults setting up home together.

Or just go for Universal Basic Income.

Still that wouldn't have the levers reactionary men want to keep women "bare foot and pregnant"

I think if you promoted that you would immediately be vilified as a far right misogynist who wants women "back in the kitchen."

I don't think these kinds of measures would have a huge impact on behaviour.

They might have a small impact, and I think that is probably fairly worthwhile. There are a lot of families that might prefer to have one more child - whether they have one, two or three, they stop one short of what they would prefer. And if small changes allowed many of them to have that one extra child, while it wouldn't revolutionise the problems of quick drops in the population, small differernces allow for better solutions overall.

It's also worthwhile simply in terms of allowing individuals more scope to make choices that line up with their human biological/social cycles. We are pretty flexible as a species, but the more stresses we have that we have to adapt to in an unnatural way, I think the more personal and social problems we see.

Would it be nice if political progressives were looking at these ideas. Maybe, but I don't think there is a chance any time soon that will happen. It's too taboo even to talk about things like mothers wanting to spend more time with children, and it's too opposed to the ideology a lot of them subscribe to around reproductive role.

Well, but some on the left, or you could call them "political progressives" (I'm not sure what definition you are using) have presented ideas. The falling birth rate has been known about for a while and reducing the strain on families has been discussed on the left and right. But when men like Orban in Hungary introduce solutions to the falling birth rate there its been centred around promoting the "traditional family" with policies that in practice end up focusing on women as the ones being at fault. We know that approach doesn't work and actually makes the problem worse.

Likewise Godwin blaming modern feminism and younger women's ignorance of the menopause or Kruger talking about the sexual economy aren't actually promoting progressive or effective ways to make it easier for families to have more children. If they were Reform would be looking to strengthen employment protections, raise the minimum wage or opposing the two child benefit cap. Those "small measures" might indeed be worthwhile but they are opposed to most of them. The "we just think or shouldbe easier for families" is the bailey they retreat to.

Sexual economy has nothing to do with pressures on families wanting 3 children and settling for 2. If he meant the second, why did he talk about the former?

I think of political progressives as being a kind of subset of the left, mainly - it's a bit vague but I think that is in a way an accurate description of the belief system.

They are generally people who have ideas like "the right side of history:, who believe that we need to progress to a better and better society and that this is the natural trajectory of society. I think ultimately that idea comes out of Marxism though many don't know that. They tend to be big into identity politics and hierarchies of oppression.

I would also say that identifying women as being in a significant was part of the falling birth rate, moreso than men, isn't really about blame. It's just accurate, women's reproductive role, and changes to it because of technological advancements, is a huge part of changes in birth rates. They are to a large extent the ones who need to be appealed to.

There is a lot of messaging younger women, especially certain sub-groups, get about not having families before establishing a career, and even about how they should be having fun in their 20s. It's not that unusual to see people who feel that this focus has left them not taking account of family choices as soon as they ought to have. So I don't really agree that it doesn't happen. Although I think it is less common now than it was.

I'm not sure what you think "sexual economy" means, it seems like an understandable and useful concept to me, it's basically the economics, and energy flows, around reproductive choices. Which is not too far from the root meaning of the word economic.

When you say 'ideology they subscribe to around reproductive role', can you explain what you mean by that?

I agree re 'sexual economy' being an understandable term to use. I can see why pp feels uncomfortable with it, though- I used to investigate red pill/incel type forums and there was a lot of throwing around of stuff like 'Sexual Market Value', 'marriage = paying for sex', 'cheap vs expensive women' etc,
Obviously 'sexual economy' can be used in a perfectly reasonable way, but manosphere-type language is seeping into broader discourse so I can see why pps feel unearthed about using those terms.

I think men's behaviour is important too. It's possible, as you say, that it may not have changed much. I do feel maybe it's harder now for women to fond men who want to commit, esp as stuff like dating apps & porn can give men endless dopamine to discourage commitment.

This is classic fascist policy on women and the family.
Take a stand against the far right. Consider going on the demo on March 28th in London..

On this topic, there's also associations with Baumeister & Vons's sexual economic theory- several parts of which seem rather dubious

Some quotes from the Wiki page,,with citations :
Baumeister's proposal defines sex as a marketplace deal according to the highly controversial maxim (sometimes associated with a paraphrase of Donald Symons) that sexuality is "something that women have and men want". Baumeister claims that sex is a resource that women hold overall. According to this claim, women hold on to their bodies until they receive enough motivation to give them up, such as love, commitment, time, attention, caring, loyalty, respect, happiness and money from another party. On the other side, men are the ones who offer the resources that entice women into sex.[1]
Sexual economics is based on social exchange theory: it alleges that people are willing to give up something if they can get in exchange what they believe will benefit them more.[6] The theory rests on the belief that typically one party is more eager to exchange resources for what the other party holds, thus causing a bargaining power imbalance.[7] At this point, the party who is less willing to exchange what they have has a higher control in this relationship. In the example of a sexual relationship, if one side wants to have sexual intercourse less than the other, he or she can hold out until a more attractive offer is made.[8
The theory rests on the belief that sexual activity is "naturally" more desirable for males than females in human societies. In some primates, male aggression against females has the effect of controlling female sexuality for the male's reproductive advantage. Furthermore, the evolutionary perspective provides a hypothesis to help explain cross-culture variation in the frequency of male aggression against women. Variables include the protection of women by family or community, male alliances, and male strategies for protecting spouses and achieving adulterous mating and male resource control.[13]
According to the model, men give women resources, and then women will allow sex to take place. Under the context of sex, the trade of sex and resources keeps happening (Baumeister alleges that female control of sexuality and male competition for mates are consistent traits through eras and cultures, in contrast to some available ethnographic evidence[14][15]), and society has acknowledged that female sexuality has more value than male sexuality.[citation needed] For instance, men and women in the west have different feelings about their virginity. Women are more likely to think of their virginity as a precious gift and cherish it, while men see their virginity as a shameful condition and want to get rid of it early in life.[16] This is to some extent a culturally bound response, as in some societies virginity has little to no value.[17][18]
It is also claimed that prostitution (the exchange of sex for money or equivalent items) may be a threat to women's status because sex is mostly considered as part of an intimate relationship instead of a contract.[19]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_economics