They're not all that different. Actors and the "unofficial" hierarchy of nudity and sex acts.

1. mainstream actresses (tv and/or film)
2. runway model, luxury goods model (perfume, fashion, jewelry)
3. glamour model
4. stripper, softcore porn actress, OF with no sex content (hardcore or solo)
5. hardcore porn actress, OF with hardcore content

This list isn't saying one is better than the other, like saying a mainstream actress performing simulated sex with her chest showing is better than a glamour model or even a hardcore porn star. It's to say that this is how society (unofficial) views #1 in relations to other jobs that makes women strip.

Plenty of #1 do some sort of #2. Sometimes they do #3 (which includes Playboy). Some in #2 make the transition to #1. #3 can either be found in #4 or #5. It's harder for those in #5 to be either a #1 or #2, but there have been those in #1 who have switched to #5. 

What do they all have in common? Each level has plenty of women, or all, willing to shed their clothes to some degree. Only enough #2 is the most tame; it's tamer than #1 given #1 there can me either partial nudity of top half of the body, full and/or full frontal. 

There are a lot of similarities between #1, #3, #4 and #5 on what can be done in front of camera due to age and how sex scenes are setup.  When you have those in #1 supporting their past coworkers who decide to do #5 that's telling. And it ain't telling in a "aren't they so supportive, compassionate and openminded people!" sorta way.

People defend sex scenes in tv/film saying the actors feel awkward in doing them since there are cameras staring back at them, but they don't bring up the very fact that the same thing applies to porn to some degree. Porn actors also receive direction, there are cameras staring back at them, they need to show certain angles (which is "hitting your mark"), there is acting involved contrary to belief, and often times the act of performing sex when needed once the camera rolls can be tiring - just like switching on for mainstream acting once the director gives the green light. Mainstream actors will say that shooting a tv series or film isn't glamorous - well, ask a pornstar whether or not shooting a hardcore scene is glamorous. It's not.

How often times a young, unconnected aspiring actor goes to NYC or LA in hopes to become an established actor to be only shuffled into doing porn work, either soft or hardcore? I bet there are plenty. Why? Because producers and casting directors system of casting is relatively shallow: need a warm body, need to be somewhat decent looking and can read with the ability to memorize lines. 

Am I saying #1 is the same as #5? Not quite, but again they're much closer than you'd think. If anything they're the more posh identical twin of #4.

You see, tv and mainstream acting when nudity and sex scenes enter the picture are not that much difference than their more seedier cousin down the road that is porn.

Mainstream actors can get all offended that their sex scenes are being equated to softcore porn, or even hardcore porn (there have been many plenty of events where actual sex was done on set in a mainstream film), but what you see is what you get as a viewer. You can cut and put a softcore scene right next to a mainstream sex scene, so they're side by side, hit the play button and you'd be hard pressed nowadays to tell the difference. What scene would be the mainstream tv/film scene and what would be the softcore film? Sometimes you can tell due to better cinematography and lighting, but often they can make us hesitant with our confidence to differentiate.

When skeptics say they couldn't adhere to a religion because they can't be sure it's 100% bulletproof they're committing a double standard.

•  Why commit yourself to a person, whether within marriage or as just significant others, when there's always a possibly that one party could commit infidelity, either emotionally and/or physically?
• Further more why dedicate yourself to a romantic relationship when that person isn't perfect? After all, if you can't commit to a non-bulletproof religion why commit to an imperfect person?
• For actors, why take on a role that doesn't necessarily promise more roles - and better roles  - with prestige directors? Why even take on a project where as an actor you don't know how the final theatrical will be received? Faith, possibly? Trust?
• Why settle for a certain citizenship when the government of your country will commit crimes against humanity, no matter how small?

The hesitancy to not commit yourself to a religion because, in your view, it's not bulletproof is just pedestrian thinking. As humans we commit ourselves to imperfect systems and to imperfect people, so when some non-religious person says they can't become a Catholic because it has "holes" they're talking rubbish. If they're dating someone ask them if they're dating them because that person is perfect and has no "holes." Hold them up to the "not perfect" standard they hold Catholicism to or for their lack of belief. By their logic they should never be in a longterm relationship let alone a serious relationship - and that anyone who wants to be in a relationship with them, well, they shouldn't because they themselves are not perfect. Why commit yourself to an imperfect god? 

Opinions, opinions ...

 Unpopular opinions I have as a Catholic amongst other Catholics (on the internet).

• The fine-tuned argument is relatively compelling. Much more compelling than "born out of nothing" vacuum argument.
• Theory of evolution is a theory and should be questioned. I am not sure if I'm a "of course I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution" type because that comes across as an odd qualifier when discussion of evolution arises. It's like saying "of course I don't hate gay people!" or "of course I support same-sex marriage, I mean it's just marriage in general!" in order clarify you aren't that type of Christian/person. Of course I don't hate the LGBT+ but I also don't support fake marriage that is same-sex "marriage." I mean that shit's hilarious.
• Bishop Barron has his good days and bad days. 
• The US Jesuits need a purge of their own ranks. 
• I support married women in the work force if it works out time-wise when it comes to childrearing. 
• NO is an inferior mass on most counts when compared to TLM and Anglican Ordinate. 
• Rite switching - from Latin to Eastern, is akin to the non-religious who are on their spiritual journey trying out various religions to see what they like or Protestants church hopping. Looking at you Matt Fradd. It's one thing to attend a Byzantine Catholic Church because you prefer their masses or if it's the closest parish to you, but it's another to change rites all together. If Catholicism is Catholicism no matter the rite, then there would be no need to change. What's next, the slide into Orthodoxy? There's a slippery slope to be acknowledged here.
• If you're a religious brother or sister, wearing your habit should be the first thing you do when you get up in the morning besides brushing your teeth, washing your face and eating breakfast. Karate Grandma Sister Jane without the habit is lame. Lame. Lame. Lame. 
• Do away with weekly ethnic masses (i.e. Spanish, Polish), at least in the States. Masses should be in English and/or Latin. Ethnic masses definitely creates balkanization within parishes. Anyone who says otherwise isn't paying attention.
• Catholic school education when done right is better than a public school and is equal to homeschooling. 
• 
  

You're an "adult" who can make their own decisions. Okay. Don't get pissed off if people eat meat, eats the occasional donut or two, believes in a divine and chooses not to live in either NYC, LA, London or Paris.

The talking of "he is an adult who leads his own life and makes his own life decisions" is relatively vapid. The phrasing always struck me as a bit smug and self-important. Why? It's uses the age of majority as some sort of standard when in reality that line is, well, arbitrary to begin with. Usually the phrase is used when someone defends questionable actions when someone more conservative objects. 

A 10 year old has enough mental capacity to know exactly what they want, granted they aren't making the same decisions that an 18 or 20 year old would make, but nonetheless making age appropriate decisions that are usually not subjected to a parent's order or wishes. Some examples would be what PG-13 movie to watch or whether or not to join Peter and Tim at the park to play some football after homework is done. A 10 year old can make a decision on whether or not to eat a pop-tart for breakfast with a glass of orange juice or wheat cereal with a glass of milk. As a parent, you usually respect either decision and rarely do you subject them to eat both a pop-tart and cereal while drinking orange juice and milk.

One issue with Western civilization is how they raise children into adults. 18 isn't a major number. It does not denote anything besides "legally an adult and as an adult you'll be charged as an adult if you commit a crime." If a libertine uses the "they're an adult - respect their choice and move on", then they should also use that same phrase to defend people who do stuff that's opposite to what they think is right, moral and ethical. 

Why so many posts talking about nudity and sex scenes?

 Good question. I think it's good for me to come out clean.

Probably at the age of nine - maybe eight I was exposed to video games like Tombraider and comics like X-Men. I loved video games and comics when I was a kid - and I still do to an extent. Their depiction of women made an impression on my young mind. It would later pave the way to me being receptive to hardcore porn. I do not remember when I began watching hardcore porn, but let's say it was around the age of 10. As the years past I would eventually become a porn addict. With this addiction came other complications healthwise that would arguable jeopardize my ability to start a family. Later, I would actually spend hundreds of money buying hardcore porn. 

In my early twenties I also got into film, so much so I entertained the notion of becoming a film producer. I learned as much as could about funding and casting, the politics of it all and how movies were bought and distributed worldwide. It's an interesting business to be a part of - on the business side of things.

When nudity and sex scenes came up I was sorta kinda indifferent - and this was the best of my reactions. At worst I felt uncomfortable if not disappointed - for the actors and for the storyline. I adopted a "it depends on the context" perspective. Later did I realize that a vast majority of such acts weren't needed, at best they could've been implied, and that if the explicit sex acts and nudity were excluded the story would've been just fine if not better. But given my experience with hardcore porn as a consumer something in me thought "something is really off" about this normalization of sex and nudity on screen. I recognized that they might be more related than different and that those who partook in it weren't nearly the sophisticated "ah-tists" that they believed themselves to be.

I've seen, read and observed many things about the porn industry and what I've seen, read and observed in mainstream tv & film when nudity and sex scenes are involved is that the mainstream process is awfully similar to both softcore and hardcore film making. People who try to separate the two seem desperate at times; their arguments and talking points aren't convincing.

Given today's growing acceptance of sex workers doing OnlyFans and the willingness of young women to shed their clothes to hump their co-stars in the name of "art" and "storytelling" in mainstream tv and film once they turn 18 (if a 17 yr actresses is offered a role that does have nudity in it, some studios and directors actually wait for them to 18 specifically so they can sign the "nude is a go" clause, this would sometimes delay principle photography i.e. Thomasin Mckenzie), I will not go gently into the night and be quiet when such things happen. I feel sorry for such actresses.

Like Beckett Cook or Jospeh Scriambra, both homosexuals and atheists turned Christians, whose mission is to object the LGBT+ lifestyle; like Katy Faust, product of a same-sex household, who advocates for a two parent opposite sex household; part of my reason I bring up sex & nudity within mainstream entertainment a lot on this blog is to talk about the overlapping similarities between them and the adult industry (which includes the likes of OnlyFans and stripping).

Unlike them I am not as articulate, intelligent, patient or charitable as they are. I wish I was. But I will tell it like I see it. Kirk Cameron may not be the best actor in the world, but he has awareness that nudity and (fake) sex acts in front of the camera for "art" is just bizarre. I want to expose this bizarreness - this debauchery for all that it is in hopes to deter actors, actresses, directors, screenwriters, producers and the audience from partaking, normalizing and approving of such acts. 

The medium of tv and film has overstayed its welcome when it introduces bare skin in such a way. We as a society have given it too much power that it does not deserve - and never did deserve. 

Am I being a prude? Who cares. Okay, maybe I am. What's so bad about being a prude? Prudish? Maybe more people should be prudish. If we can question our parents, then we can question tv & film actors and the system that they earn their living from. After all, their tv shows and films are advocated for and whatever nudity and sex is depicted is defended, but not the values of our parents - our parents are finite while tv and film, just by sheer invention of a device they did not build, live on forever. 

Yes, 99% of nudity and sex scenes depicted in mainstream tv and film are softcore porn.

The word in bold are often the same words, or group of words, used to justify nudity and sex scenes in mainstream tv and film. This does not include implied sex scenes where there is no nudity.

The defense of "it all depends on the context of the nudity and sex scene" holds very little traction.

Calling someone a prude because they object to 99% nudity and sex scenes is admission that you don't have an argument. It's like calling someone racist these days or a Nazi.

Accusing someone that if they didn't view sex as taboo then we wouldn't be having this conversation is not a good talking point. One can object to softcore porn depicted on screen yet enjoy sex or have a more healthier mentality towards sex at the same time. The two aren't mutually exclusive. 

Trying to turn the tables and say that you're sexist because one is putting shame on women fails because most nudity is done by actresses, so it's natural to focus on women. I say so what - politically we put shame on others for not voting and thinking the we want them too. There are countless archives of female celebrities with their nude screen caps. Plus, shame is good at times. In this case, I think it's good - for both men and female actors.

But wait. You probably got to this point and said I'm the asshole. I'm only the asshole because I say things that make you upset - not because what I say is necessarily false. Don't believe me? Read on.

When a softcore porn writer and producer sorta kinda admits that, yes, the nudity and sex scenes seen today are equal to the nudity and sex scenes in softcore porn films then it's just confirming what we already know - or least should know. So much for the "it all depends on the context" talking point. 

In the adult industry, work like Bridgerton, Normal People, and a lot of HBO’s lineup would be categorized as “softcore porn”—frontal nudity, but no penetration or visible “money shot.” This is clearly not mainstream Hollywood or media’s definition. A Vulture article described Normal People’s sex scenes (which occasionally dominated up to a third of the episode) as “never pornographic but quite explicit.” If explicit sex does not make a scene pornographic, what does? As sex-forward shows only seem to get more graphic—and more popular—the need to hold on to this distinction is looking a little dishonest, and maybe a little desperate.

Hey, take it from the horse's mouth not mine. 

When actresses like Amanda Seyfried comes out to say that she felt pressured to do nudity once she joined the age of majority then you have face the reality that there's something really off within the tv/film world. 

When you have the likes of Sarah Bolger who said she'd have zero issue with going nude because of the opportunities that it might afford her, or that a character with nudity might let her work with actors and directors she admires, then we have evidence that actors are no more than strippers on demand who literally sell their bodies, though in different ways than sex workers.

No, "selling one's body" in the form of nudity and sex scenes in mainstream tv and film isn't the same as "selling one's body" for a job or even the military. Why? Because there isn't sex or nudity involved you dumbasses. It's like people who equate getting a tuition free education because you're a Division 1 athlete is the same as being enslaved since you don't get paid (pre-NIL). Okay. Um, you're a moron. 

When you have the likes of Emma Stone insisting on showing her breasts after an implied sex scene even though such nudity wasn't written in the script in The Favorite because she thought it would add to the screen, then you have a fine example of someone who volunteers their body that is the vacuum of today's nihilistic entrainment industry in the name of "art" and "storytelling." Maybe she confused her work with nude modeling with art students. 

And no, depicted violence isn't the same thing as nudity and sex, though excessive violence is both disgusting and tiring. In fact, violence and nudity were never were the same thing - neither were two sides of the same coin. People know sex sells. People follow certain actors' careers because, mainly, of their sex appeal. If we can complain about porn violence in the form of The Purge or Saw franchise (with the former also inserting sex scenes into its script), then we can also complain about the nudity and sex scenes - even if there's just one or two or three of them in a single movie or series. 

In the movie Charlie Countryman, actress Rachel Evan Wood objects to a simulated oral scene that was that her character receives by a man. This scene was cut. She states -

No, Rachel, it's not a double standard. The people in charge aren't unaware that women are sexual being too and enjoy sex - whether giving or receiving pleasure. The thing is society still views sex as a private matter and somewhere in their brain and soul they know that the oral scene is borderline softcore porn. If left in, it would be 99% awkward for the audience. The allowance of violence isn't even the same thing given violence has been depicted in film long before any sexual act was explicitly shown.

What does it make it okay if a younger person seduces an older person but not the other way around? (Given the younger character is 18 or older.)

Lately I've been stumbling upon opinions and thoughts on relationships depicted on tv and film that involved two characters with a relatively large age gap. The amoral-moral relativists and feminists (sometimes one in the same) will say that is all depends on the context of the relationship. What they mean by this is if the younger character, usually the female, has has the upper hand (aka initiates the seduction) then it's amoral if not a good thing because the cards are flipped where normally it's the older character, usually a male, that seduces the young woman.

This strikes me as immensely shallow and hypocritical because according to their reasoning, when they play the age of majority card, that as long as there's consent it doesn't matter who seduces who unless one party later regrets the sexual encounter.

Let's move to real life. Sexual education isn't a crime in the States but there are questions asking if it can be counted as rape to a degree. Sometimes seductions can be said be an art form of manipulation. Again, if we shift back to tv and movies, if the female does the manipulation there won't be much talks of how it's weird that a young female is having sex with a much older male with a healthy "she's 18/an adult she knows what she wants ... " rhetoric thrown in, but if the seduction was done by the older male there'd be a good chance forums and discussion boards would bring this element up and raise concern about it.

Why is it okay for a fictional female character who is 18/19/20/21 to seduce an older man but not the other around? Wouldn't it be cringe either way?

When Actual Bigots (Modern Day Leftists) Can't Take a Little Pushback From Christians.

 

Servant vs Outer Range: Battle of Slow Burn, Mystery Box TV Shows

SPOILERS

Battle of two tv series and their "weirdness." These two tv series are on two different streaming networks - Amazon Prime hosts Outer Range while Apple TV+ hosts Servant. What they have is common is a lot.

• slow burn and "mystery box" type shows
• stranger comes to main characters residences and then strange things happen
• stranger seems to know more than the main characters 
• main characters are trying to figure out what's happening around them as they deal with grief, community pressure and their own personal relationships
• cults are involved via stranger

One show, Servant, was guaranteed renewal with an original six seasons trimmed down to four. Outer Range is your typical series where the renewal is "wait and see." In my mind Outer Range at least deserves two seasons. Servant has overstayed its welcome, though Season 4 is upcoming and as stated is its last. Thank God. 

Servant intrigued me by its first episode. Season 1 was alright, maybe even above average, though it definitely had potential to be great. I was looking forward to Season 2 but I heard very mixed review about it. The writers forced a relationship that can only be said to be disgusting for the sake of - I don't know. The relationship doesn't make much sense. By the sound of it Servant has mostly betrayed its steadiness found in Season 1 for the sake of "things need to happen" and "characters need to to stuff even it's sorta kinda out of left field." It's just screams lazy writing and I'm not the only one who shares this view. It's a slow burn that fell in love with itself because it could given it was riding on M. Night Shymalan's name as an executive producer (which is different from a producer) and it was guaranteed multiple seasons. There was no pressure to have concise writing. 

Out Range seemed more humble. The writer and creator is relatively newbie to entertainment thought sadly some of the actors seemed confused on the meaning of their characters and the overall meaning of the show. I will say Outer Range is more ambitious with its ideas, trying to pull together multiple themes and storylines as it intersects with the main characters.

• Western drama of land issues
• family drama dealing with tragedy and abandonment
• sci-fi aspect of a big black hole in the ground

The relationships in Outer Range also seemed more fleshed out, more mature than Servant despite only having eight episodes to introduce and develop its characters. Servant just arrogantly puts characters in from of you and you have to deal with their inane and out-of-character actions "because-this-what-the-writers-wanted-to-happen-so-you'll-swallow-it-and-love-it."

Servant fans are just stupidly defending the show from any and all criticisms on Reddit. Outer Range, well, I don't think there are a lot of fans of the show for a number of reasons (arguable both shows have the same amount of viewership but Servant has more fans), but discussions are mostly critical of it. Servant fanboys are all "ya just gotta wait and see because in the final season it'll tie in together." Yea, though I heard Season 3 of Servant is better than Season 2 (to some degree), I doubt that the writers in a single and its final season will explain most of everything - both in dialogue and in actions (what is shown and not shown, and to what degree) that's been ailing its audience. The writers of Servant are all over the place and don't know what it wants to be. 

Outer Range also deals with religion (role of faith in everyday life, role of faith facing tragedy and the oddness of life) better than Servant. Servant's take on religion seems utterly shallow and though I have not watched Season 2 yet, it seems it has not developed the religious characters at all. In Servant the main characters, the Turners, are irreligious (atheist and agnostic). In Other Range the Royal is seen as a skeptic who at leasts verbally admits his frustrations. Cecil, his wife, is religious but later develops doubts given some absurdities she has come across. 

But, like Servant, the first season of OR is vague in its particulars. The audience sees Cecilia attend a church which seems non-denomination but in Ep. 6 it directly borrows lines from the Catholic mass with its Eucharist. The place where the religious service is said doesn't resemble a Catholic Church or chapel - it purposely generic with no pews but chairs and a bare cross in the background of the altar. What we do know about OR's denomination is that, for the sake of the Diversity & Inclusion narrative, a chapel member denounces the lesbian couple who were visiting when asked to stand up to receive a prayer in form of a welcome. 

In Servant, what appears to be a religious main character, Leanne, isn't given much exposition on what she actually believes and how those beliefs play out in her actions come duress or being idle. It's just she prays a bastardized version of Our Father in a relatively see through night gown (you can tell the writers wanted to play the "good Christian girl is actually naughty" trope) before she goes to sleep, writes some stuff in her Bible and makes wicker crosses. It's surface level stuff that's never given any deeper meaning or purpose. 

Outer Range >>>> Servant

• Autumn >>>> Leanne
• Royal + Cecilia >> Dorothy + Sean
• Perry & Rhett >>>> Julian
• Big Black Mysterious Hole In Ground = Jericho 
• Servant cult > Outer Range cult
• Cast of Outer Range >> Cast of Servant

It's always been the same thing.

 WARNING: EXPLICIT CONTENT

As one fellow human who also thought about it said, and I paraphrase, "99% of nudity and sex scenes are not needed in mainstream entertainment. Rarely does such scenes add to the character, the narrative or move the plot forward. When nudity and sex scenes are added there's a very good chance the writers and directors got real lazy and needed to fill screen time, or just didn't know how to go about growing intimacy between two characters." 

The Inconsistency of Sins of Lust

 I never fully understood when Catholics say that crimes of lust are the least of the sins, especially when issues of pre-marital sex, infidelity or homosexual acts are discussed. I personally believe that sins of lust are actually more grave than lay Catholics make it out to be, mainly because they themselves are caught under the "love is divine" aspect of it (i.e. John C. Wright) - or they themselves have committed sins of lust. Here's an example of the inconsistency:

It is said that passionate kissing outside of marriage is near mortal sin (according Aquinas). I think that's absurd in many cases. Yet infidelity, pre-marital sex and homosexuality are said to be "the least" grave sins hence why in hell sexual partners are supposedly in the first circle of hell. C'mon.

If there's one thing where I find the Church vague is it's this. 

Age of Consent

When people say "X or Y is 18 he/she is an adult. He/she can make their own decisions i.e. do drugs, have sex with whom they want etc.)" when casually dismissing any questionable acts of this 18 year old, I ask them that if the age of consent was 17 or 16, would they act the same way and if, say, the act was sex, would the the older party still engage. 

I ask this question because it's what I've observed in Western society. All of a sudden what is supposedly forbidden is now on the table without any discernment if one should do X or Y action. 

It's utterly bizarre to see nothing wrong with an 18/19 year old having sex with a 30 year old, especially if that 18/19 year old is exceptionally naive and not wise, yet has issues with people getting married in their early twenties and having kids before 25. 

I suppose this is the modern day feminist and the fruits of the Sexual Revolution - dulling the critical thinking skills and making all sexual things amoral unless there's consent of between the "adults." I mean, with this logic, don't get pissed of if two adults decide to have six kids - to say that one's a baby maker and they're actively destroying the earth with their carbon footprint would so immensely amusing.

Boom: Another One Bites The Dust

Another name added to CelebrityMovieArchive and its ilk. Sorta resembles the "naughty wall" found in skeevy hole in the walls or rooms that only select employees are allowed into. 

Predatory Hollywood once again found an actress to shed some skin, or at least wear some lingerie that reveals more than it hides, once they came of age. Of course, this actress is equally responsible for her exposure (no pun intended). She, probably without hesitance, signed her contract that has clauses in it on her acting on what she's willing to do and what not to do. She - and all actresses - with full consciousness accepted being asked to dress in skimpy lingerie, to undress and to hump their co-star. 

This actress' filmography, though short, already has a pattern to it: play easily impressionable young girls who are caught up in highly unfortunate situations where they later deal with their bad actions. In one role she was brutally killed point blank. In another she was also killed via poison. Another role her character was almost raped. And another character she makes a choice that can only be said to be stupid, if not awkward, that belies the logic that was ingrained into her. 

Because art. Or something. 

As I said, actresses are just hired strippers upon request who every now and then do softcore porn scenes. If the scene asked them to jump up and down naked with green paint being thrown at them there's a good chance they'll do it. Just ask Irish actress Sarah Bolger.

Mom, dad, siblings and grandparents must be proud. (I bet they are.) But no judgement, right? Yea right. Their daughter is just a "sophisticated" version of an an actual pornstar, stripper and some girl with an OnlyFans account.

As one person who's familiar with the industry said, and I paraphrase, "Worlds are created when they shouldn't exist. Occasionally there's nudity." 

Edit: And like clockwork, I opened my search engine to find this in its newsfeed -

Actresses don't need to be on the casting couch to get a role, but they will be pressured to do things in the name of "art" that they're unwilling to do. 

Things That Turn Me Off: Bodily Aesthetics (On Women)

 In no particular order.

• acrylic nails that are at least a thumbnail longer than normal
• tattoos on fingers and hands
• tramp stamp
• garish foot and leg tattoos (usually they're filled in with color)

Basically if you have a tattoo there's a good chance I may not like it on you. What was listed can be seen on woman who are into the "lifestyle/fitness" vlogs where they opt out of the usually 9-5 job and become an "entrepreneur" aka secure some fitness/modeling deal(s) as they crazily work on their glutes to get a huge following on Instagram. One or two very simple tattoo can look okay though if they aren't drawing attention to themselves. But let's go on.

• breast implants that say "we're bolted on" (there are some breast augmentation that look natural as can be, probably even two perfect, and these are aesthetically fine - hey if you fool me then you fool me)
• lip injections 
• butt implants
• weird eyebrow style (i.e. too thin and/or long)

If you combine at least three of these you'll be looking like some kind of low-income trash Barbie trying to be something. What that something is I don't know. Whatever it is it's a sad and weird display of existence. Give me a plain Jane with a relatively flat chest, decent teeth, and a small cross tattoo on her wrist who likes to have a pint every now and then. It's fine if she shops at Kohl's. She doesn't have to be particularly smart or even ambitious (have some goals at least). Those are the preferable basics though. 

A vast majority of working professionals who are women usually don't have the listed features, so that's a good thing. 

Europeans don't realize their "free" healthcare is literally a more organized government version of America's Medicaid.

 It's so amusing. 

This Reddit post lists the typical grievances of a non-American - private enterprises where things are "free" in Europe. 

America's Medicaid is a jointly federal and state government funded healthcare plan for those that are below a certain annual income threshold.

The Hypocrisy of "Eating/Being Healthy": Tobacco, Alcohol, Junk Food and Meat

After all, there has been countless solid studies - and just plain common sense in today's age - that smoking cigarettes as a normal, every day activity is just plain stupid.

If we shame others for eating meat and processed food and all that comes with it (moral, environmental, health), despite the human body actually having a good mechanisms to re-calibrate itself to fight off the long term effects of said food, it's a double standard to allow smoking to go into the shadows and live care free. 

If actresses are concerned about their health, so they eat "healthy" and go to the gym weekly, it's amusing that they suck up nicotine like it wasn't a health hazard. Did they forget? Probably not. Do they care? Probably not. It's their Oreo cooke, but if we're being honest give me the processed Oreo cookie over a cigarette get to together. You'd think out all of the activities that are deemed unhealthy smoking would be the first one to be avoided but no. 

If we're going to talk about "being healthy" then we have to acknowledge that alcoholic drinks - wine, beer and whiskey are "soft" drugs, which can do more damage to your body than, say, eating a pop tart every other month. The difference is how alcoholic drinks are viewed within modern society versus junk food and meat. 

Let's be honest: cigarettes, despite its old depiction of those who smoke being sexy, are ultimately seen as skeevy. Usually those who smoke tend to be lower-middle class if not working high stress jobs (corporate world, restaurant industry). The need to smoke isn't born out of a vacuum; it's usually learned - either a parent or friend or coworker did so they pick up the habit. There are of course cases were models smoke in order to keep their weight, which oddly enough is a bizarre of living life, but it's. more of a turn off of smoking a casual cigarette "just because." Smoke makes your clothes smell, it makes your mouth smell and you heck aren't healthier afterwards. At least with the Oreos I can brush my teeth and exercise.