I suspect (but have no science to back it up) that it’s a risk factor for many things. I had ear infections more or less constantly in my childhood and were on antibiotics the whole time until they finally stooped working. The end result is that I’m now deaf on one ear. I get why they were prescribed, it stopped the acute pain but no one thought about the long term
There are a lot of dismissive replies to this comment but as a woman who has tried this in "safe" but unfamiliar cities, things can get scary very quickly. Catcalls are inevitable, and only the beginning. A catcall from a passing car that has slowed to swerve towards you is terrifying. Yes, self-defense and being aware of your surroundings help, but don't exactly lend themselves to the state of mind described in this article. I am not speaking from paranoia, but from experience.
Thank you for the reminder. As a 95 kg white male who only on a few very rare occasions felt even a bit nervous walking anywhere, it is good to get a reminder that different people experience our same world very differently.
> It is not the physique / weight but the intent, which is some kind of sexual harassment at a minimum.
that seems like a weird take. Most of the time I'd think people wandering unfamiliar streets will be accosted by assholes looking for money than looking for someone to sexually harass. Even catcallers will have various motivations which might not involve intent to sexually harass (even though that's usually the effect).
Men have a lower risk of being sexually assaulted while a mugger or a scammer will happily target individuals of either sex if they think they can get away with it. Men do tend to the preferred target for someone looking to start a fight however which can make a difference depending on the area and how territorial the local thugs are.
Still, I'd feel way more comfortable as a 60kg woman who was fit and knew how to defend herself than I would as a 60kg man who had no idea how to fight and little muscle. In either case if someone assaulted me I would be targeted because I'm being perceived as weak and vulnerable, and in only one of those scenarios would I be in a position to quickly give an assailant cause to reassess and back off.
Staying aware of your surroundings and taking sensible precautions when wandering (anywhere) is good advice for anybody.
>Still, I'd feel way more comfortable as a 60kg woman who was fit and knew how to defend herself than I would as a 60kg man who had no idea how to fight and little muscle.
I imagine that just demonstrating that you're ready and able to fight would be enough to dissuade an attacker who was just looking for an easy mark, but even if they persist I'm not sure raw strength would necessarily win out over skill and stamina. I suppose it's a matter of how skilled and how athletic/healthy you are vs the person you'd be fighting. I doubt I'd find a decent answer to the question though. I'm not sure it could be researched ethically and even it could, what would a representative sample of street muggers and rapists even look like? It might need to include everything from gangbangers and strung out junkies to drunken frat boys and mentally ill homeless people.
Strength is critical in fighting. I have assumed that even an expert can't go up against people in different weight classes in fighting sports, and that basic skill is something that all sporty people have.
My original point was not about being accosted. You would be surprised how quickly someone yelling about your genitals will take you from "aimless strolling" to fight or flight, regardless of their weight or your level of fitness.
This is my first comment but I have read this site daily since I created the account in March. I felt that my experience would be a valuable addition to the thread and I am not attempting to speak for all women. I'm sorry if it came off that way and I am genuinely happy that you haven't had this experience. This site seems to be a bit of an echo chamber sometimes so I thought I'd offer a differing opinion.
I hope you keep commenting! I think your experience brought a good balance to an otherwise one-sided viewpoint.
I think a lot of people here haven't really been exposed to actual dangerous areas in the world, but even in seemingly safe areas, I know a lot of my female friends feel very unsafe walking there alone. All it takes is one drunk dude...
Thank you! I love seeing the technical posts, I'm such a nerd. I haven't had much to contribute, just absorbing. This post was different, I learned about flânerie in college, loved the concept and tried it, and got a reality check. Thought it would be worth a comment.
Very much so, advancements in cosmetic surgery as well as the strict training and supplements that were not available for older generations of actors. Take someone like Kumail Nanjiani who very clearly were on HGH for his role in The Eternals
The effect of steroids, and ultra aggressive cutters, on male actors is pretty outrageous. It's more outrageous, though, that a lot of the male actors refuse to admit it and in turn will try to sell or advertise their workouts. I think Nanjiani was kind of the nail in the coffin to the idea that actors were natty, though. His body recomp, in the time frame, was truly comical.
In the last 20 years more and more movies started delivering appropriate casting for f->m age gaps, mainly because of pr0n revolution and popularity of MILF trope.
American Pie 1999. Jennifer Coolidge -> Eddie Thomas = 19.
Don Jon 2013. Julianne Moore -> Joseph Gordon-Levitt = 21.
>It’s also the age of 35 year old women playing the mothers of 25 year old men
Its my gripe with the latest Dune adaptation. No way that actress was old enough to be Paul's mom unless she had him when she was 6 years old. She looked more like his siter than his mother.
It bugs me when they don't have age apropriate family members with such obviously wide age gaps.
I understand your complaint in the larger context of popular culture. But in the context of Dune, which takes place 1000s of years in the future, and in which there exist a genetically manipulating pseudo-cult group of witches/spies who are desperately seeking the ascendancy of humankind to a higher plane of existence, it is slightly more reasonable that Jessica Atreides looks the way she does, as a hyper attractive concubine that was intended (you might say "designed") to eventually develop the bloodline of a pseudo-god. But that also only really makes sense if you're invested in the narrative.
The real kicker is that Paul probably should have looked younger. In the novel, he arrives on Arrakis when he is 15.
This is the basic problem with adapting Dune. It has absolute loads of worldbuilding, and tells a reasonably complex plot at the same time. It doesn't matter how many times it's adapted, the viewer is just going to have a better time if they have read the book.
Jessica is a Bene Gesserit, they are explicitly noted to stay youthful in appearance and live a long time. This is one of many hundreds of details that just have to be shown, there's no time to explain them.
> No way that actress was old enough to be Paul's mom unless she had him when she was 6 years old.
If you know anything about Dune's lore, you would know why this is the case. The movie absolutely does not go into enough detail about this or explain the abilities of Bene Gesserit.
Well there is only 12 years age difference between actors, but Chalamet looks 15-17 all the time. Maybe creators wanted to emphasize strict gene selection happening behind curtains, and people in year 10,191 have better healthcare/skincare on position of queen.
Never met 40+ woman who looked as if she just finished university? Smooth skin, no moles or wrinkles, energetic. Genes + upkeep + generally healthy lifestyle + good sleep. And probably no kids.
Its not outrageous to have 15 year old son and looking very fine, plenty of world even in 2022 start having kids before/at 20. Look at all the photos of young moms from Ukraine escaping, often almost teenagers around young mom, in age that here where I live local women start thinking about having a child.
Considering the peculiar genetic projects of the Bene Gesserit and other Dune groups is unnecessary: the real world trend of somewhat aged people looking so good that they can pass as significantly younger (in particular, actors who are credible as younger characters) can be easily and obviously extrapolated to the wealthy nobility of a far future high tech SF setting.
Jessica Atreides at about 40 is supposed to look so extraordinarily youthful that a younger actress like Rebecca Ferguson is needed.
This is not a new trend though. In Lawrence Oliviers Hamlet from 1948, Hamlets mother is played by an actress which is 10 years younger than Olivier.
The article shows a graph of the age gap between leads, and it shows it slightly narrowing, while both men an women stars are getting older on average.
They don't cite the source, but the claim in the article is that the average age of top-billed actors has gone up faster than the average age of the audience, not that yesteryear had 0 older stars.
His latest movie was also filmed 3 years ago in large part due to how long CGI takes but also how long movies are edited. So not only do Actors age more between filming and release, but it also takes longer for a new actor to catch on.
Aka they film a movie when their 20, it’s a breakout hit when their 23, their next movie comes out when their 26.
It was filmed 3 years ago because the release was delayed due to the pandemic. They didn't want it to flop because people weren't going to the theaters.
It was finished filming almost a year before they started shutting down movie theaters for the pandemic and they didn’t release promotional materials back then.
So, that pushes the earliest summer release as 2 to 2.5 years after filming each scene assuming COVID actually delayed things.
You can see they had settled on June 2020 as the release date, but, you know what happened next. That release date was fully locked in until it became clear COVID wasn't going away.
There were other, earlier delays: the film was initially scheduled for 2019, but they spent most of that year doing reshoots.
Implying gift/inheritance not theft. If I was a grandpa and had one in my shed, I'd probably give it to my grandkid that happens to be a top gun pilot/instructor.
Yep, and the reverse also... 35+yo people playing highscoolers was the norm.
I mean, i guess it's kinda hard to film scenes not-in-chronological-order with a teenager who visibly changes during the filming, but it's not an impossible thing to do.
I was rewatching earlier seasons of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, and it's hilarious that the character Xander Harris(0) was perceived as a scrawny high school nerd.
> I was rewatching earlier seasons of Buffy The Vampire Slayer, and it's hilarious that the character Xander Harris(0) was perceived as a scrawny high school nerd.
Uh, except he wasn't perceived as scrawny, and was a jock-adjacent slacker, almost an anti-nerd.
Funny that actors in their 20s, especially early 20s isn't the obvious solution when bodily change has slowed but age can still easily pass for HS aged.
> Funny that actors in their 20s, especially early 20s isn't the obvious solution when bodily change has slowed but age can still easily pass for HS aged.
They are. Sure, there are some that are wildly out of that range, but since someone else raised BtVS let's look at how old the main cast was in 1997, when they were playing sophomores in high school:
I hard that in the recent book from the Howard brothers.
If you are under 18 there are all sorts of restrictions on hours worked, supervision, etc. So it is a lot easier to get a 18+ actor to play a 12-17 year old than someone the actual age.
Part of the reason child actors struggle to transition to adult roles. 3-4 year enforced gap in their career.
Now do the actors of Beverly Hills 90210. When the show started, Ian Ziering was 26. Jason Priestly was 21. Lukey Perry was 24. Gabrielle Carteris was 29. Shannon Doherty was 23.
It’s seems more reasonable to use 26 year old actors to play a ~16 year old high school students than 11 year olds.
Daniel Radcliffe on the other hand was actually 11-12 when playing an 11-12 year old character. By comparison Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy simply didn’t fit nearly as well because he was a 2 years older. https://fantasytopics.com/harry-potter-cast-real-life-ages-d...
I haven't seen a conclusive answer. My search results suggest that she may be 22, but it is mostly based on the fact that she has some voice acting credits from 2003. Someone on Reddit mentioned that they read an article saying "(...) she moved to LA w her family when she was 6, and then took up acting classes “a while later”" and this suggest that voice acting would probably be after this. So she would be from 1997 at least and that would make her 25 (or more). The show had its premiere on January 2021.
Regardless it is remarkable or even more remarkable.
I looked her up, because my daughter was asking about her.
Sure, if you think the point of twitter is to build a brand by dispensing your profound wisdom from up on high. The vast majority of people use twitter as entertainment, and the fact that people who like to pontificate about federated microblogs don't get this is why it won't take off in any meaningful way.
Of course there is no objective way. TikTok is more optimized for silly, effortless entertainment, and Twitter is more optimized for opinion leaders to reach out the maximum number of recipients. They all have a purpose.
Whenever I buy cheap clothes I end up regretting it. A quality t-shirt will not only last 3 times as long as a cheap one, it’ll actually look good during its lifespan
Beer is pretty funny that way. The most fancy, expensive and artisanal beard guy stuff is often impossible to distinguish in a blind test, it's just sharp tasting hop juice.
Atleast with beer you can actually get different tastes.
The tests with water are funny, when knowing the name or price people pick the most expensive one as the best tasting, when it turns out that all the bottles were filled with tap water.
Maybe it's also different levels of carbonation, there are definitely at least 2 brands of locally available water that I can pick out. One just tastes a little bit off (and is REALLY carbonated) and the other one is so salty you can only stomach it when you're used to it. My parents used to buy the brand and only after not drinking it for a few years I was unpleasantly surprised...
But in general, yeah - uncarbonated ones I've never ever tasted any difference to local tap water.
Dasani's uniquely terrible. IDK what they do to it, but it's awful (to me—apparently someone likes it). I've not had another name-brand non-super-cheap bottled water that was outright bad.
Every now and then I'll get a cheap gas station or local brand bottle of water (when traveling, say) and on the first sip it's like "yep, that's just not-very-good tap water, not even filtered". Other times it's fine, but it's pretty obvious the ones that just went with whatever the cheapest local source was and didn't do anything to it.
Dasani is owned by Coca Cola and is very much filtered. Taste could differ based on the source of water though. But I would be skeptical of being able to taste the difference if the source of water was the same.
That said there was a YouTube video about 4 years ago for bottled water in China. They tested like 8 Brand’s of bottled water and all contained stuff that could make you sick and the suggestion was to still boil water.
It's not about the actual thing, it's how consuming it makes you feel. So if drinking one beer makes you feel cool and part of a group and another beer that tastes the same doesn't, then many people will think the first beer is authentic and more real.
In a way the author of the article is actually wanting this phantom sense of belonging and authenticity. They are looking for that feeling of buying and consuming stuff.
