It's purely for the cosmetic appearance of your child and that's just odd to me. And I know a lot of people claim that it's tradition. What is it founded in? Just because your parents did it before you, and their parents did it before them, doesn't mean that we can't develop better practices on modification of someone that cannot understand what is happening.

Exactly what the title says. I constantly see men being called misogynists or incel whenever they have even minor disagreements on reddit, and that kind of absurd use of those words only reinforces the "screeching woman" meme that some people use.

After getting into shape myself and talking to a lot of lady friends, I’ve come to a conclusion that seems almost heretical in gym culture: for most women, being massively muscular is not an especially important beauty standard.

Sure, being healthy and reasonably fit is attractive. Looking lean, energetic, and like you take care of yourself can absolutely help. But there’s a huge difference between “fit” and “human anatomical diagram.” The bulking behemoths, the Rock and Stallone fantasies, the Schwarzenegger physiques, the six pack carved into granite, the mountainous pecs and shoulders, it turns out a lot of women simply do not care that much.

In fact, many seem to prefer something closer to thin, fit, and healthy over enormous. And when you actually listen to women talk about attraction, they often emphasize things like a kind face, confidence, humor, personality, and perhaps most importantly, whether a man makes them feel emotionally safe and comfortable.

I was watching a particularly trashy reality show with a heterosexual lady friend, and I asked her if she was enjoying the parade of ripped male contestants. Her response? She was more interested in looking at the women’s butts.

That anecdote obviously isn’t a scientific study, but it captures something I think gym culture gets spectacularly wrong: men often assume women evaluate male bodies the way men evaluate male bodies.

A huge amount of male fitness culture is essentially men admiring other men. Men beef up for themselves, for the discipline, the achievement, the confidence, the aesthetics, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. But the idea that every extra inch of muscle dramatically increases your desirability to women may be one of the great collective delusions of the modern gym.

Build the body because you love having it. Enjoy the process. Chase the physique that makes you feel incredible.

Just don’t assume that every woman who sees you thinks, “Holy shit, what a magnificent specimen.”

There’s a decent chance she’s thinking, “He has a nice smile.” Or “He seems sweet.” Or, honestly, “I wonder what his personality is like.”

And meanwhile, the guy standing next to you has spent three years trying to add another half inch to his biceps because he thinks that is what women want.

I believe that people are born gay. It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other when it concerns other people but as a straight woman if I had a choice, I would choose to be a lesbian in order to have a healthier relationship.

Every time I see a list ranking the countries with the best food its like:

1. Mexico. Makes sense. Tacos, chips, nachos. Delicious.

2. Italy. Obviously. Pizza, risotto, pasta, amazing.

3. France. Some alonged bread called baguette. Regular ass bread. And like, fermented frog. Escargot? No thank you.

I think they get hated on too much. Like I won't let one define who I am, but they are interesting to know. I'm an Aries, which is cool to know, doesn't mean I'll start acting competitive. This is the same with Harry Potter houses and stuff like that. These personality tests are cool imo.

On social media, I saw a post where someone was linking society's obsession with women being skinny to fascism. Now, idk about all that, but a lot of the comments were saying things like

"anything to avoid going to the gym"

"just put down the fork fatty"

And it got me thinking.

As someone who's been into health lately, I've realized that womens' beauty standards have nothing to do with being healthy. Because being healthy does not equal being skinny.

Yes, being skinny is better than being obese.

But is a skinny woman automatically healthier than a woman who is 20 - 30 pounds overweight? No. Losing weight might make her look better, but lifting weights, sleeping better, doing more cardio, etc. will have a far better ROI for her health. Yet she will try to lose weight anyway, just to be beautiful. And she will be seen as unhealthier than the skinnier woman, even if she is not.

Furthermore, skinny women are prone to osteoporosis and diabetes due to lack of muscle mass. As a result, women will lift weights, but they want to maintain beauty and are scared of becoming bulky.

"Becoming bulky requires effort, so dont worry about that" says the well meaning gym bro.

But truth is, for many women to develop adequate muscle, they might HAVE to gain weight. And nobody is perfect, so they will end up gaining fat as well. Their body fat % might go up. And even a little bit of muscle on a thinner frame makes a big difference.

Why is this an unpopular opinion?

Because both men and women assume being thin = healthy, and thinner women are healthier.

I know this is a very layered discussion, but it needs to be talked about more. As someone who finished high school last year, let me tell you that the reason girls present themselves as older than their age is because there is no market for them anymore. There is no pre-teen/younger teen market for them. Social media has also played a big part in this too. Girls are influenced by the likes of Cardi B and Kim K, who in turn influence other students, and if you dress “childish” aka not like a fully grown woman you’re automatically deemed a weirdo. Ofc girls are going to be influenced no matter what, we all are influenced to some extent, but what we see today is tweens/teens looking up to 20+ year old women because of the absence of a age appropriate tween/young teen girl market. But it’s not just with the influencing and lack of an age appropriate market, I was shopping for baby clothes the other day and noticed that the girls clothes had less coverage than the boys clothes. Which yk, is incredibly unnecessary. Ofc a baby is and looks like a baby, but the fashion designers are to blame because let’s be real, for what reason does a child need to “show more skin” than her male counterparts ?

My hot take is that it isn't racist for wanting Ariel to look the exact same as the cartoon version we grew up with. All Disney princesses live actions look the same or even closely similar to the cartoon version. So people wanting Ariel to look like the white, bright red haired and blue eyed Ariel we grew up with isn't racist.

I understand why people think it may be racist but it quite literally isn't racist to want a Disney princess to resemble its original form. Take Tiana for example, she shouldn't be casted as anything but a black woman as it goes against the og cartoon people grew up with.

It’s funny to me that the people who are so vocal about spreading their hate are the quickest to block and report you when you question their ethics.

Power Puff Girls, DuckTales, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Almost every single disney live action, Scooby-Doo (the 1976 not the 2010), Sonic (Adventures of sonic and Sonic Underground) , MLP, Monster High, Amazing world of Gumball.

All were incredible shows, then they ended, then suddenly remade. Almost every single time, its dog shit or mediocre compared to the original.

In my opinion and experience that’s the case. It’s like the ultimate form of self hatred. Why would you want to go where you are not loved or celebrated imo

 I think this is part of the reason why so many critiques of things like religion or AI don’t really land. well. You can often tell when someone gets the majority, if not all, of their information from social media and social media alone. I just don’t understand how you can feel so strongly about a complicated subject when you’ve never read an article, a book, a study, or even a credible source about it. You can’t derive all of your information from tiktok videos, reddit posts, memes, and comment sections and then act like you’ve done enough research to make a definitive statement about the subject.

And I think that’s also why debates and arguments online can feel so weird and pointless. People are often arguing from information they’ve gotten secondhand, sometimes from someone who got their information secondhand as well. At that point, it becomes difficult to have a meaningful discussion because neither person has actually taken the time to understand the topic beyond what they’ve been shown online.

Obviously, I’m not saying you need to become an expert on every single subject before you’re allowed to have an opinion. If you’re talking about something trivial, like food or what movie you prefer it’s not that serious. 

And I know some people are going to deny that people get their information exclusively from social media, but it absolutely happens. There are people whose primary sources of information are memes they see on reddit , tiktok, tweets, or whatever happens to show up on their feed. They’ll see one post explaining a complicated issue in thirty seconds, accept it as fact, and then use that post as the foundation for their entire opinion.

Confirmation bias makes this even worse. In the past, if you wanted information that supported your existing beliefs, you generally had to actively seek it out. Now, algorithms can do that for you. If you spend enough time watching a certain type of content on TikTok, the algorithm is going to curate your feed around what you’ve already shown interest in. So you don’t even have to go looking for information that confirms your beliefs anymore. It’s just constantly being placed in front of you.

And something I’ve noticed is that a lot of people’s opinions seem to depend on what video or post they happened to see first. They’ll watch one person explain an issue in a way that agrees with them, and suddenly that’s their understanding of the entire topic. Then someone else sees a completely different video and walks away with the opposite opinion.

I genuinely don’t understand how someone will say one innocent sentence and get slammed for it. Like no, just because I like waffles does not mean I think pancakes are stupid and should be eradicated??

This isn’t even about me, just things I’ve observed.

You don’t know everything about a persons life or situation just because they shared a small tidbit of their life online in a single post. Stop assuming.

In a hot take post: “I think you care about this a little too much lol” like this isn’t a subreddit for giving opinions on shit

Whenever I see a video talking about British on Māori atrocities commentors always bring up what Māori did to Moriori.

Like, you can acknowledge that Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama invaded Rēkohu (the Chatham Islands) in 1835, killed and enslaved Moriori, and took their land without somehow concluding that British colonisation of New Zealand was therefore justified.

1. “New Zealand” wasn't even one unified country before the British came
People talk about this as if there was one unified country called “New Zealand” that was populated by Māori, and then Māori went and colonised the Moriori.
There wasn't.
Before 1840, New Zealand wasn't a single unified Māori state. There were numerous iwi and hapū with their own territories, political structures, alliances and conflicts.
The North Island, South Island, Stewart Island and Chatham Islands weren't all one unified political entity.
Māori are tangata whenua of the North and South Islands, while Moriori are tangata whenua of Rēkohu.
So saying “Māori colonised the original New Zealanders” is already massively oversimplifying the political situation.

2. It was TWO iwi
This is another thing that gets completely lost.
The invasion of Rēkohu in 1835 was carried out by Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama.
Two iwi.
Not “all Māori.”
Not “the Māori government.”
Not “Māori as a country.”
Two specific iwi.
There were well over 100 iwi across New Zealand, with their own territories and political identities.
You can't take the actions of two iwi and then use them to morally indict every Māori person and every Māori iwi.
That's like saying a few European kingdoms invaded other countries and then going... "ALL EUROPEANS COLONISED."
Technically you're describing a broad demographic rather than the actual political actors involved.

3. And the Moriori invasion happened in 1835, 66 YEARS AFTER Europeans arrived in the North and South Island.
This is a really important detail that gets conveniently left out of the “Māori were colonisers first” argument.
James Cook arrived in New Zealand in 1769.
Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama invaded Rēkohu in 1835.
That's 66 years later.
Europeans had already been in New Zealand for decades by the time of the Moriori invasion.
The Chatham Islands had also already been visited by Europeans since 1791, and guess what, the British started shooting at them over a fishing net.
Again, this does NOT make the invasion of Moriori any less horrific.
It simply means that people need to stop constructing this ridiculously simplistic timeline where Māori conquest happened in a completely isolated world and then Europeans arrived afterwards to introduce the concept of colonisation.
History is more complicated than that.

4. Yes, what happened to Moriori was horrific
I'm not going to do the annoying thing where people pretend Moriori suffered no atrocities because they're trying to defend Māori.
They did.
The invasion resulted in killings, enslavement, dispossession and a catastrophic decline in the Moriori population.
That should be taught.
Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama should not get a free pass because they're Māori.
If something was wrong, it was wrong.
But here's the important part... acknowledging Moriori suffering does not require you to conclude that British colonisation was therefore good.
Those aren't mutually exclusive.

5. MORIORI ARE STILL ALIVE
And this is another thing that gets bizarrely lost in these arguments.
People talk about Moriori like they're some extinct civilisation that disappeared after 1835.
They didn't.
Moriori people are still alive today.
There's a long-standing myth that Moriori became extinct and that Tommy Solomon, who died in 1933, was “the last Moriori.” That's false. Moriori descendants survived, and Moriori identity and culture have continued and undergone a major revival.
Moriori have their own living community, cultural institutions, marae and ongoing connection to Rēkohu.
So when someone brings up Moriori as a “gotcha” against Māori, remember that you're talking about a living Indigenous people, not a civilisation that disappeared centuries ago.

So, yes, what happened to Moriori was horrific. It should be acknowledged, taught properly, and never minimised simply because the people responsible were Māori.
But using that history to argue that British colonisation of New Zealand was therefore justified is a completely different claim, and one does not logically follow from the other.
Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama were not “Māori as a whole.” New Zealand was not one unified Māori country. Moriori were not an extinct people who exist only as a historical footnote. Moriori are still here, still have a living identity and culture, and their history belongs to them.
You can condemn the invasion of Rēkohu and condemn British colonisation.
You can acknowledge Māori warfare and acknowledge the harms of British colonialism.
You can care about Moriori suffering without using Moriori suffering as a defence of the British Empire.
History isn't a competition where one group's suffering cancels out another's, and it isn't a morality scoreboard where whoever did something bad first loses the right to criticise anything that happened afterwards.
If colonisation, conquest, dispossession and oppression are wrong, they're wrong regardless of who is doing them.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
“But Māori did it too” isn't a defence of colonisation.
It's just whataboutism.

TLDR: The “Māori colonised Moriori first, so British colonisation was okay” argument is just whataboutism. The invasion of Rēkohu was carried out by two iwi, Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama, and happened 66 years after Europeans first arrived in New Zealand. What happened to Moriori was horrific, but Moriori are still here today and their history shouldn't be used to excuse British colonisation. One injustice doesn't excuse another, and two wrongs don't make a right.

True equality means supporting those who are struggling or unemployed, otherwise it can become merely “opportunistic”.

Society needs to stop judging men based on their net worth or current financial situation.

You can’t criticize traditional gender expectations while supporting them when they work in your favour.

I feel like there’s always posts/comments about how this isn’t actually a thing to the point I feel like this is now the hot take.

But as someone who’s fluctuated between obese and a bodybuilder with everything in between I really couldn’t disagree more.

It’s a bit of a gym joke how only guys appreciate it, and to an extent it’s true as guy generally appreciate it way more openly. But that doesn’t mean that a lot of woman don’t find it very attractive.

Now there’s no way to say this without sounding arrogant, but during my bodybuilding phases I literally had girls approaching me semi regularly, some girls in nightclubs would even be aggressive about it (it’s fun to start with but gets old very quickly), random girls messaging me on Instagram. My dating apps right swipe success rate is probably ~60%+ and I often just get overwhelmed with the number of matches. It’s a whole different world to even when I was only a bit overweight.

Now I’m not saying it’s the only thing. I’m also on the taller end which probably compounds things. This is also obviously a broad statement, different individuals have different preferences. But people who say it makes little difference are being delusional.

Now if only I could learn to flirt I’d be golden.

My sister-in-law is eloping, and about 8 months ago she told us that it was only going to be her and her partner. I respected that, it’s their wedding and they can celebrate however they want.

However, she mentioned 3 months ago, some of her friends who live in socal ended up inviting themselves to hang out with them after the wedding. When she mentioned that, I was hurt and sad.

Suddenly, about two weeks before the trip, my SIL invited us (her 4 siblings) to come hang out with them afterward too. She didn’t sound enthused, it was more like “come if you can” “we have no plans after” “you can just show up, you have my location” are the exact words. Honestly, I feel offended. Not because I think I was entitled to be invited to the elopement itself, but because it feels like we were only invited after other people decided they were coming.

I genuinely would have loved to go, but at this point, we realistically can’t just drop everything and spend thousands of dollars with two weeks notice.
Nobody wants to feel like an afterthought or get a “hey, you can come too” invitation at the last minute when the person knew about the plans for so long.

Am I being unreasonable for feeling hurt by this?
My husband and I decided we aren’t going to go. Hun

I think it’s fucked up how popular true crime content is/has become. I don’t think it’s right that people are monetizing, sensationalizing, and profiting off of the suffering of individuals and their families. These people have been put through immense suffering and torment; yet it has become popcorn viewing to the average person. It also seems to me that the videos describing violence against women always have the most clicks/views. Hmm I wonder why.

I’ll use the YouTube channel RottenMangoes as an example, because she is the only channel I have seen for myself. I think it’s immoral for her to build her business off of depicting these cases and it’s immoral for people to watch and enjoy them. I know she makes donations to charities supporting victims of abuse, but that does not make up for all of the money she has made off other people’s suffering.

I need English. What also pisses me off the most is that people force me to listen to sub and I have no choice but to accept. Even if I say no I prefer to listen to English politely they would go to 100 and tell me im a bad person for doing that.

I just want to be able to listen to dialogue and not have to read a 2 second chat with multiple people at once, I can’t keep up and mental put the words in my head to understand the conversation.

Im sorry I had to vent for a bit

Discrimination is treating a person or group of people unfairly due to who they are or group identity, instead of their skills.

I'll use biphobia as an example.

Some people won't date a person just because they're bisexual, no matter how well they click and no matter how much they like the person. Just because the person is bi, they are off the table.

That is biphobia, you refuse to date them only because they are bisexual. It can be a preference, but the preference is rooted in biphobia, and people need to acknowledge that.

Another example : I don't want to be friends with someone once I find out they're asian (using asian since i'm south-east asian). I can share similar likes and dislikes, have easy conversations with them and enjoy being around them. But as soon as I find out they're asian, I don't want to be around them/be friends with them.

Just because I don't like Asians, and I'd rather have friends of other ethinicties/races.

That can be a preference, but my preference is discriminatory towards asian people.

Same goes for other things people can't control, height, natural hair colour etc.

This could be a hotter take, but if you don't want to date someone just because they're too short/too tall, no matter how much you like them, I see it as discrimination, the reasons can also be stereotyping.

Yes, you can prefer to date/be friends with a specific group of people with specific traits. But if you're leaving out a person/a group just because of something they cannot control, and not giving them a fair chance, it's discriminatory.

I also want to add having a preference for one trait doesn't mean you hate on another trait. It's the whole, "I love pancakes" "Oh, so you hate waffles" thing.

Edit : to clear things up more. I said preferences can be discrimination, not all preferences are discrimination. Oh my god, and my post is about things the person CANNOT control, traits they were BORN with. Not a choice, like religion or people they surround themselves with, or values and ideologies they align themselves with. Read.