boy: shit baby you're so wet already
girl: that's actually just vaginal discharge and my body is cleansing itself from bacteria and dead cells to prevent infection and to maintain optimal reproductive health i'm not even all that turned on right now and i would prefer to go get some food or something
girl: that's actually just vaginal discharge and my body is cleansing itself from bacteria and dead cells to prevent infection and to maintain optimal reproductive health i'm not even all that turned on right now and i would prefer to go get some food or something
“you shouldn’t be depressed, people have it worse than you”
finally, after years of searching, the person with the worst life ever is found. formally, they are granted permission to be sad. but only them. only they have earned it. no sads for anyone else at all ever
Disney and marketing to children.
Has anyone else noticed how Disney Channel has changed over the last decade and a half? I don’t just mean new shows, new concepts, etc. I mean the way they put together their cast, and most importantly the outfits.
First of all, lets look at an old favorite, “Lizzie Mcguire”. In this show we see the clear separation of the popular people and the less popular people. Lizzie is considered less popular to appeal to the average American kid who feels not so cool in school. Her enemy, popular Kate Sanders, is a normal looking girl who really isn’t so different from Lizzie herself. They wear slightly different clothing (Kate’s being more “girly”) but all in all it is a typical description of what you would actually see in a middle school. Kate is not especially thin and her clothing doesn’t appear to be excessively expensive. Lizzie wears basic clothing that any child watching could relate to or purchase.
Now lets look at another fave. In the show “That’s So Raven”, Raven is a Fashion designer. Raven is a plus size girl and she has a very unique style. You may recall her wearing bright orange fur, light up clothing, and other ultra fab Raven originals. In the show she is constantly promoting body positive messages by refusing to feel bad about her shape even though she is confronted about it by people in the fashion field. Raven shows young kids that it is okay to wear clothes you make, and that it is okay to have a style entirely your own.
Now lets look at today’s popular Disney shows. In the show “Wizard’s of Waverly Place” Selena Gomez is precisely the size of the average Victoria Secret model. She wears extremely expensive clothing (sometimes Free People or Wildfox Couture) in each episode accompanied by salon sew in extensions, and high quality professional make up. The show is partially themed as a kind of “Selena dresses wild and however she likes! She is expressive!” BUT when we look at the best friend, Harper, we see a quirky style and a girl with a more realistic body size. SO WHAT YOU ASK? Harper is mocked in this show. Not verbally, but circumstantially. Harper cannot get a boyfriend. Harper is awkward. Harper isn’t popular. Harper isn’t the leader. Harper isn’t cool! And the show portrays Alex (Selena) as such a good human and befriending her anyway! This is a disgusting portrayal of how more beautiful people are cast as powerful lead characters while normal looking people are cast as lesser, unimportant people. And they are doing it in a kids show. How is that supposed to make your eight year old feel when she looks more like Harper than Alex?
Let me explain how all of this is damaging your kids.
It is brand marketing to children. This is illegal in several countries because of the damage it is known to cause. Everything this girl wears can be bought somewhere in a high end department store for a shit ton of money. Children are becoming increasingly concerned, not just with body image, but with the ever marketed “style image” that they have come to see as the only way to attract a Justin Bieber or the like. Seventeen is a good example of the product pushing that teaches kids (much younger than 17) how to look like the coveted Selena Gomez. “Wizards of Waverly Place” teaches children that in order to be quirky and likable they must dress and look like the completely unrealistic beauty standard that is Selena Gomez.
It is a consistent theme in all of their shows to have high end clothing and picture perfect people, but none are quite as blunt as Wizards. I’m not saying it is super dangerous for your kid to watch the show, but if they are already experiencing insecurity in their body image and expressing that they don’t feel pretty in their clothing, maybe this is something you should keep them away from.
If you can’t concentrate in school because the mere sight of a girl’s bare leg is too much of a distraction, you are probably a danger to society tbh
what you said was: "i don't respect women who don't respect themselves"
what you meant was: "i and society as a whole hold women up to ridiculous respectability standards directly relating to the "purity" of said women while hypersexualizing them at the same time and if you are a woman and don't fit my awkward monolith of criteria then i refuse to acknowledge your humanity"
what i heard was: "hi i'm a misogynist piece of shit, please punch me in my face"
what you meant was: "i and society as a whole hold women up to ridiculous respectability standards directly relating to the "purity" of said women while hypersexualizing them at the same time and if you are a woman and don't fit my awkward monolith of criteria then i refuse to acknowledge your humanity"
what i heard was: "hi i'm a misogynist piece of shit, please punch me in my face"
Animals are more than ever a test of our character, of mankind’s capacity for empathy and for decent, honourable conduct and faithful stewardship. We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or some claim to equality, but in a sense because they don’t; because they stand unequal and powerless before us.
" A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. If our concern is about suffering in this universe, it is rather obvious that we should be more concerned about killing flies than about killing three-day-old human embryos… Many people will argue that the difference between a fly and a three-day-old human embryo is that a three-day-old human embryo is a potential human being. Every cell in your body, given the right manipulations, every cell with a nucleus is now a potential human being. Every time you scratch your nose, you’ve committed a holocaust of potential human beings… Let’s say we grant it that every three-day-old human embryo has a soul worthy of our moral concern. First of all, embryos at this stage can split into identical twins. Is this a case of one soul splitting into two souls? Embryos at this stage can fuse into a chimera. What has happened to the extra human soul in such a case? This is intellectually indefensible, but it’s morally indefensible given that these notions really are prolonging scarcely endurable misery of tens of millions of human beings, and because of the respect we accord religious faith, we can’t have this dialogue in the way that we should. I submit to you that if you think the interests of a three-day-old blastocyst trump the interests of a little girl with spinal cord injuries or a person with full-body burns, your moral intuitions have been obscured by religious metaphysics. "
-Sam Harris, on stem cell research. (via we-are-star-stuff)
