The Bates family makes having 19 kids seems like a lot of fun most of the time. But they don't sugarcoat those terrifying moments, made all the more terrifying by the fact that there are 21 people to account for (including Gil and Kelly Jo).
Such was the case tonight on Bringing Up Bates when a fire broke out in the laundry room of the family home. Unfortunately, despite their family fire safety talks, the little boys, Judson and Jeb thought it would be an OK idea to play with a lighter, and things quickly got out of hand. And by out of hand, the two kids almost burned down the whole house.
Luckily, everyone got out safely, and it was really only the laundry room that was destroyed.
Still, I had a healthy flashback to Manchester by the Sea only time about five while watching the episode, and it made my stomach churn to even know a glimmer of the panic Kelly Jo and Gil must have felt before they knew all their children were safe and sound.
Also, and this is just slightly off topic, but I absolutely loved seeing how in love Gil and Kelly Jo were on tonight's show. They always talk so wonderfully about marriage, but it was really nice to see an expression of that when the pair were reunited after five days apart. Gil was so cute talking about how excited he was to see his wife and explaining that very few times in their marriage had they been apart for so long. It gave me hope knowing that after so many decades together, these two are still like little school kids buzzing around before Christmas when they get to see one another.
I'm sure the fire also helped fuel (ya, ya, pun intended) their love for one another. After a scary incident like that it's only natural that you would lean on your partner for comfort and security.
I think this was also the first time in the Bringing Up Bates' history that we got to hear Gil's scary voice as he lectured Jeb and Judson about fire safety and the danger of playing with lighters. He's such an incredible dad, and he did such an amazing job of blending that tough guy attitude with reassurance that he loves both of them very, very much.
All in all the Bates may have lost some clothes (some might be an understatement... with a family that big, it's lots and lots of clothes), but they're all coming out wiser and closer for this experience.
Well, Dean wanted Sam to stop playing peacemaker and finally a pick side. He certainly did just that and it's one that will most likely come with major consequences.
At the end of last week's episode, Mary confessed to Sam and Dean that over the past few months she's been working with the British Men of Letters. Of course, it did not go over well — and mainly with Dean. He basically reamed her out for not only lying, but for the fact that she isn't acting like the mother that they've wanted and missed for their entire lives.
We get where Dean is coming from, especially since Mary lied. Plus, the fact that Mary's working with the BMOL (who we don't trust one bit and are super sketchy) is troublesome to say the least. However, Mary was right when she told Dean that she's "playing three decades of catch up." Not to mention, she is most definitely "more than a mom." Mary is and will forever be a badass hunter. It's in her blood, just like it is in Sam and Dean's. This is a tricky situation and one with conflicting views. We can see where both sides are coming from, though we can't help but side more with Dean on this one.
At the end of Mary's confession, Dean kicked her out of the bunker. He and Sam ignored her for days on end. Sam tried to talk some sense into Dean, who eventually told Sam to stop trying to make peace with everyone and pick a side for once. Eventually, Sam gave in and met up with Mary, who showed him around the BMOL's temporary headquarters.
Mary wants her boys to understand that this group is trying to eradicate all monsters for the greater good. She hopes for a better future for Sam and Dean without hunting. Though, if we really think about this, can Sam and Dean ever have a "normal" life? Even if they aren't hunters, will they ever be "normal"? They have lived through so much and have done some pretty dark things. All of that is going to weigh on them for the rest of their lives, so "normal" just doesn't seem possible. Either way, we get where Mary is coming from.
While Sam was at the BMOL headquarters (without Dean's knowledge), Dean went off with Mr. Ketch to kill a nest of vampires, but they were nowhere to be found. Where did they go? Oh, you know, they were on their way to the BMOL's location. It got extremely bloody, especially when the Alpha Vampire (yes, the one from Season 6) arrived. To make a long story, they defeated the vamps and Sam used The Colt to kill the Alpha.
Thanks to Sam's time with the BMOL and eradicating an Alpha vamp, the youngest Winchester is totally on board now. That's right, Sam is joining the British Men of Letters. As he told Mick, "You're changing the world and I want to be part of it."
Oh boy. How the heck is Dean going to feel about all of this? Despite him making up with Mary at the end of the episode (he's just going to get used to her making decisions he doesn't agree with), Dean still hasn't officially joined the BMOL and has no idea of Sam's choice.
Who knows if Dean will end up joining, but we have a feeling he won't totally agree with Sam's decision. We all saw how he reacted to Mary aligning with Mr. Ketch and Mick. We've seen this before. Sam will go one direction, while Dean goes another. That may not happen this time around, but the way the BMOL do things and based on their past actions, Dean may choose to abstain. Remember how Dean felt when Sammy partnered up with grandpa Samuel to hunt monsters? That was one big disaster. This could easily go that way, too.
What truly bothers us about the BMOL is they believe all monsters are bad, but that's not the truth. One name: Benny. The BMOL are just going to kill all of the monsters? Where is the line going to be drawn? Here's hoping Dean steps in and can make Mary and Sam see why the BMOL may end up doing more harm than good.
Maybe the BMOL will end up surprising us in a good way, but we're so not on board with them like Sam and Mary. And, we really don't need Dean to be separated from his family because of another bad decision he doesn't agree with made by his family members. It's too heartbreaking.
Once again, it's up to Dean to save the world and talk some common sense into everyone.
One in 8 women will have a thyroid disorder during her lifetime — a condition also known to emerge during pregnancy.
Up until now, however, not treating mildly low thyroid was considered a no-no due to possible threats to the pregnancy and the child. But a new study by the National Institutes of Health shows that not treating the condition could be the way to go.
Low thyroid function during pregnancy had formerly been linked to compromised neurological development in the fetus as well as higher risks for preterm birth and miscarriage. Other studies showed that having mildly low thyroid function — also known as subclinical hypothyroidism — may affect the baby’s cognitive development and raise the chances of pregnancy and birth complications.
The new study in the New England Journal of Medicine throws that school of thought out the window.
“Our results do not support routine thyroid screening in pregnancy since treatment did not improve maternal or infant outcomes,” Dr. Uma Reddy with the NIH’s Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development pregnancy and perinatology branch and study author, said in a statement.
Reddy told SheKnows that the study didn't look at women with hypothyroidism, which is something that women should seek treatment for when pregnant. Our results shouldn’t be applied to women with hypothyroidism, as they weren’t included in our study, she added.
Pregnant women need enough thyroid hormone to support themselves and the fetus. If a woman’s thyroid is already overtaxed upon getting pregnant, her thyroid levels may decline and she could develop a thyroid issue while she is expecting, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists reports.
Can untreated low thyroid hurt your baby?
Researchers looked at the thyroid levels of more than 97,000 women between October 2006 and October 2009. The women were fewer than 20 weeks pregnant. Scientists screened them for thyroid-stimulating hormone and thyroid hormone thyroxine, also called T4, levels. A mildly high thyroid-stimulating hormone level and normal T4 levels indicate subclinical hypothyroidism; if you have low maternal T4 and normal thyroid-stimulating hormone levels, it indicates hypothyroxinemia (the type of thyroid issue that is common in pregnant women).
As a result, 677 women who had subclinical hypothyroidism (elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone, normal T4) were either put on levothyroxine (synthetic T4) or a placebo. And 526 women with hypothyroxinemia (normal thyroid-stimulating hormone, low T4) were randomly put on the medication or a placebo. Children born to women in all of the groups were tested for IQ and seen by child-development specialists until they were 5 years old.
The research team found no differences in cognitive functioning among children of subclinical hypothyroidism mothers who received medications and those who were not treated. Additionally, there were no differences in rates of stillbirth, miscarriage, preterm birth and gestational diabetes between both groups.
The results confirm those of a 2012 trial that screened about 22,000 women and followed their offspring until the age of 3. Dr. John H. Lazarus, a researcher on that trial and endocrinology professor at Cardiff University in Wales, told SheKnows that the latest study’s results don’t mean women do not need thyroid screening during early pregnancy.
Additionally, more specific studies on how a mother’s thyroid function impacts the child’s developing brain are needed.
“Mothers should be told that the current knowledge indicates no reduction in IQ in children born to mothers with mild thyroid failure,” he said. “I believe the question of thyroid screening is still to be debated.”
Jury’s still out on testing
Dr. Serena Chen, an infertility specialist in New Jersey, told SheKnows that the topic of prenatal thyroid testing and treatment is quite controversial. She said that treatment for infertility patients who have suffered miscarriages might be beneficial while low-risk first pregnancies may be OK to skip treatment. The jury is still out, though, she said.
While it’s common for women to develop thyroid issues during pregnancy, the condition may not normalize after delivery, Chen notes. In fact, a woman with thyroid problems during pregnancy may have a higher risk for thyroid dysfunction over her lifetime. All women over 40 should have thyroid-stimulating hormone levels checked annually, Chen recommends.
Women with subclinical hypothyroidism, which Chen said involves having a thyroid-stimulating hormone level between 2.6 and 4.5, has been shown in some studies to be associated with higher rates of miscarriage. Using thyroid hormone medications to lower to thyroid-stimulating hormone seems to eliminate the “excess risk,” though it is controversial and not shown in all studies.
What should your numbers be? As of 2017, most U.S. laboratories say the normal thyroid-stimulating hormone range is between 0.5 to 4 or 5. Others say the cutoff should be 3, which would increase the number of people with thyroid problems.
We're all familiar with "The Hollywood Heart Attack" — a man of a certain age clutching his chest or arm, falling to the floor in terrible pain. But for Hilary, whose heart attack happened at age 34, one year after the birth of her first child, the experience was very different.
"Suddenly, I felt this incredible pain in my chest," she told SheKnows. "I tried to sit down and relax and deep breathe, but the pain didn't let up. I broke out into a cold sweat and felt extremely nauseous. I also felt numbness and tingling in my wrists. I was convinced it was a panic attack (which I'd never had before), but my husband convinced me to go to the hospital to get checked out."
On the drive to the hospital Hilary started realizing something could be really wrong. She had been trained in CPR, so her mind kept jumping to the conclusion that it was a heart attack, which she quickly dismissed because of her age.
What Hilary experienced was spontaneous coronary artery dissection. SCAD occurs when a tear forms in a blood vessel in the heart, blocking or slowing down blood flow and resulting in a heart attack. It's a rare condition, happening to women between the ages of 30 and 50 without a prior history or risk factors for heart disease.
"I was extremely surprised," she said. "I'd had no warning signs before the SCAD heart attack. In fact, I'd been to the doctor the day before for an unrelated issue, and they listened to my heart and took my blood pressure and everything was normal."
Because SCAD is so rare, and there are no predicting factors or means of prevention, it's not the first thing doctors think of when healthy young women manifest symptoms — especially because they aren't necessarily the same as what we've come to associate with heart attacks in men. In women, SCAD symptoms include chest pain; pain in the back, arm or jaw; a fluttery feeling in the chest, shortness of breath, extreme tiredness, nausea and dizziness.
If you've ever had a panic attack before, some of these symptoms might sound familiar, but Dr. Suzanne Steinbaum, a cardiologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, urges women to be aware of what's normal for them.
"Seventy percent of women don't call 911 because they're afraid of being wrong, but if the symptoms are unusual for you, get help," Steinbaum told SheKnows.
In Hilary's case, this meant not dismissing her symptoms and being clear about what was going on for her when she got to the hospital.
"When I arrived in the ER I made the decision to open my mouth and say, 'I think I'm having a heart attack.' That got me treatment immediately," she explained.
The medical community doesn't yet fully understand what causes SCAD, but Steinbaum said it might have to do with hormonal fluctuation, high blood pressure, or autoimmune diseases that affect the blood vessels, which are more predominant in women than in men.
In order to treat SCAD, blood flow to the heart must be restored, which can happen via the placement of a stent, bypass surgery, blood-thinning and blood pressure drugs and cardiac rehabilitation, and of course, the long-term effects of SCAD are different for everyone. Some survivors endure ongoing chest pain, but for Hilary, that hasn't been the case; the physical impact has been small. She tires easily, she says, and her cardiologist has advised that she avoid stress, so she's learning to moderate activity and resist the impulse to "do it all."
"I'm definitely less concerned about what other people think and I don't feel guilty about prioritizing self-care," Hilary said.
In spite of SCAD's unpredictable nature, Steinbaum urges women not to panic.
"We can't live scared, but we can live empowered and educated," she added. "Heart disease is 80 percent preventable, so go get your Well Woman visit and know those numbers — your cholesterol, blood pressure, blood sugar. When you have a handle on these things, you are empowered."
The English Bulldog is relatively docile (dare we say lazy?). While diminutive compared to a traditional guard dog, the stocky build, fearsome face and general demeanor will give potential aggressors pause. But because they're so agreeable, it takes a lot (like someone attacking Mommy) to really set them off, so while some (especially males) may be somewhat dog-aggressive, you have less to worry about when walking them in public areas of the complex, even if children are around.
A racing Greyhound retires at the tender age of 2 to 5 years, but will live as long as 14. They lived their racing lives in kennels, so they're accustomed to behaving when unattended for long periods. They need a good jog once a day, but their exercise can double as yours. Just make sure they're always on a leash when they're not in an enclosed area — even the retired ones can run up to 45 miles per hour, and you can only hit about 12 to 15.
Boxers are fiercely loyal with a sweet disposition. If anything did happen to you, rest assured, they're more than capable of holding their own — but with an intimidatingly broad chest and bully-like face (think Bulldog and Pit Bull breeds), it's unlikely they'd have to do more than stare intently.
A Chihuahua's bark is bigger than its bite — waaay bigger. Nefarious figures rarely appreciate the loud, imploring, attention-grabbing temper-tantrums they're capable of. But don't think for a second that's their only guard-dog trait. They're courageous and difficult to intimidate. You can't expect the same level of physical protection as from a Boxer, but you shouldn't be surprised if they try, either.
Labradoodles were specifically bred as hypoallergenic guide dogs. A cross between a Poodle and a Labrador, they can also be specially bred for other traits like lower shedding or less aggression using multigenerational breeding techniques (don't worry, that doesn't imply mating dogs in the same family tree — at least not where a reputable breeder is concerned).
Pugs are small dogs, so they're perfect for college students who tend to live in cramped quarters. Better yet, they're adaptable, so your constant moving won't faze these little guys. They need to be walked for toilet time, but indoor play meets their exercise requirements just fine. They snore, but it's adorable.
Schnauzers are great dogs for older or retired singles. They're great companions, make great watchdogs and (bonus!) don't require a lot of grooming. After all, you've got grandkids to spoil rotten. They also come in miniature and standard, so you can have your choice of sizes.
Not only are Standard Poodles great with children, they make wonderful watchdogs. As an added bonus, they're the hypoallergenic component of the mixed Labradoodle. They're good-natured and gentle and make excellent playmates for kids. An active poodle is also a good running companion for you.
When you work from home, dogs can be a challenge. Even if your clients know you work at home, you still don't need dogs barking their heads off to get attention while you're trying to get things done, or worse, when you're on an important call. Great Danes are gentle giants. They're calm and rarely bark. But a word to the wise: While they don't bark often, when they do, it's loud and deep, so it will surely be heard on the other end of a call.
Border Collies were bred for herding, so it's no surprise they're active and love running. You can bring your Border Collie on your daily run or take him on a good, long hike. He's a sure-footed companion for anyone who is active.
If you’ve ever had sex with a person with a penis and thought, this is fine, but what would really improve this experience would be knowing the average velocity of the thrusts, you’re in luck.
Later this year, a smart condom ring called the i.Con will become available, which promises to add more data to the bedroom — where it belongs.
Clearly, the name is supposed to translate to “icon,” but I read it as “I con,” as in, “I con people into thinking they should have sex with me.”
The description on the British Condoms site opens with an updated version of the classic infomercial sales pitch:
“Have you ever wondered how many calories you’re burning during intercourse? How many thrusts? Speed of your thrusts? The duration of your sessions? Frequency? How many different positions you use in the period of a week, month or year? Ever wondered how you stack up to other people from around the world?”
ONLY EVERY DAMN DAY. Tell me more, fancy British people!
As it turns out, i.Con has many functions, although none are as an actual condom. This doohickey is a ring that sits over the base of a condom (sold separately), and, according to the manufacturer, is “extremely comfortable, water resistant and lightweight.”
It essentially works the same as any wearable fitness-tracking device — it measures different variables during sex, which are then transmitted via Bluetooth to the i.Con app so you can view and share your performance results. You have the option of keeping your performance data anonymous, but something tells me that people using this device are probably into the competitive sharing component — in which case, you can share it with a set group of friends or just make it public.
So let’s get to the good stuff: What does the i.Con keep track of? Turns out, a lot, including calories burned during sex, both the speed and average velocity of thrusts, total number of thrusts, girth, average skin temperature, different positions used and the frequency and total duration of sex sessions.
The product is fully adjustable to different girths, charges in about an hour and lasts for 6 to 8 hours of “live” usage — which, for some, could translate to weeks or even months of use between charges.
The i.Con will retail at £59.99 ($73.58 USD), and although it’s not available yet, you are able to do early bird registration, so you’ll be informed the second the high-tech cock ring is released to the public.
Mashable reported that the developers behind the device claim they are in the final stages of medical testing for having the i.Con double as an STI indicator, although they don’t mention how that component would work.
Would an STI sensor be a positive development in sexual health? Absolutely it would. But do I buy it? Nope. But do you know what does work? Showing up at a clinic or your doctor’s office or a Planned Parenthood and getting an actual blood test. No, it’s not as fun as a robot condom, but at least you know it’s accurate.
Reality TV stars Tori Spelling and her husband, Dean McDermott, just announced the arrival of their new son, Beau Dean. (Maybe they like the BoDeans — we have no clue.)
Beau Dean is the couple's fifth child. We're dizzy just typing "fifth child." The other four are Liam, 9; Stella, 8; Hattie, 5; and Finn, 4. Whew. Excuse us while we lie down with a cool washcloth over our eyes and a gin and tonic on the bedside table.
Spelling told People that the whole family is "over the moon in love with Baby Beau." Well, sure. We'll bet he's super-cute (and a lot more manageable than the family's pet pig).
Spelling posted a picture of their new son's tiny fingers on Twitter:
This pregnancy took Spelling and McDermott by surprise. Like, major, jaw-hitting-the-floor surprise. The couple has been notoriously plagued by marital troubles and financial problems over the years, and a new baby was reportedly not in the plan.
Spelling took the news in stride, though: "[W]e always wanted a big family...This baby happened at the best time. Nothing is ever perfect, but I'm so madly in love with my husband and with our kids. The idea of adding to that is such a blessing."
Mission accomplished! Beau arrived on Thursday afternoon, weighing in at 5 pounds, 12 ounces and measuring 18.5 inches long — definitely smaller than the family's porcine friend Nutmeg. We're guessing Beau eats less than Nutmeg too.
The queen has revealed in the past that she always keeps a mirror, lipstick, a pen, some mint lozenges and reading glasses in her purse, and on Sundays, she includes a few small bills, "precisely folded" to donate to her church. That's adorable! It's just like any sweet grandma's purse. Only now we know the truth. The queen's purse is actually her secret communication tool to talk to her security guards when she's out in public.
The royal historian, Hugo Vickers, gave the scoop to People magazine.
"It would be very worrying if you were talking to the Queen and saw the handbag move from one hand to the other," Vickers said. That's the signal the Queen uses to tell her staff she's over her current conversation and wants them to come break it off. They would, at least, be discreet about it.
"It would be done very nicely," Vickers said. "Someone would come along and say, 'The Archbishop of Canterbury would very much like to meet you.'"
That's not the only way the queen uses her purse to send signals, though. The Telegraph reported that if she sets her handbag on the table during dinner, it's telling her security that she wants the event to end within five minutes. And if she sets it on the floor, she's having a crap conversation and she wants her lady-in-waiting to rescue her.
And obviously, the queen has a secret signal that means "send in security and rescue me immediately," which, TBH, all of us could use at every bar and party ever. That's if she spins her rings on her fingers, which honestly I would forget about and do in about two seconds just because I'm fidgety, so good on the queen for having that kind of restraint.
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle aren't engaged yet, so there's still a sliver of hope that the world's cutest prince will stay on the market — even if it's tiny. That hope does seem to be shrinking though. Harry and Markle are together all the time, and headlines keep dropping talking about how serious they are. Ugh.
Like right now, they're in Jamaica together to attend Harry's best friend's wedding. All of Harry's friends are there, so him inviting Markle basically means he's making her part of the crew. Markle "kept it secret," a source told Us Weekly, but she is officially part of the squad.
That same insider adds that they're closer than ever, and Harry's BFF's wedding isn't the only one they're thinking about.
"They will be engaged by the end of summer," the source said, adding that they "have spoken candidly about their future," and "they see a life together." Insert super-sad face here.
According to Us Weekly, the biggest hurdle they still have to overcome is the fact that Markle is based in Toronto, where she films Suits, and Harry obviously can't uproot from London. Long-distance relationships are tricky, so maybe that will break them up.
Nah, probably not, because nothing is good in the world. Sources told Us Weekly that Markle spends all her time off the set of Suits in London, where she's basically moved into Harry's place. Once the show wraps this summer, she's reportedly planning to make the move permanent.
"Meghan feels a move to London is inevitable," another insider said. "It’s not like Harry can uproot!"
Also, even though they live apart, they keep taking romantic trips together. Before Jamaica, they went to Norway to see the Northern Lights. (Insert eye roll here.)
If Harry is about to be off the market, we demand a new prince to replace him. A world with no single royals is not a world I want to live in.
As if travel wasn't already stressful enough, going to Europe is about to become a lot harder for U.S. residents. Until now, Americans traveling to Europe haven't need a visa to visit as long as their stay clocked in at 90 days or less — but yesterday, the European Parliament voted to end this policy according to Reuters.
When the U.S. and the European Union struck the original deal, called the visa waiver program, it was with the understanding that the U.S. wouldn't require visas for travelers from EU member countries. But citing security concerns, the U.S. has been requiring visas for travelers from Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania. In other words, we haven't been holding up our end of the deal.
So the EU is retaliating by ending the policy that made it so easy for Americans to travel throughout Europe. It could be a costly decision too — more than 12.6 million U.S. citizens traveled to the EU in 2016, a number which could drop significantly if people have to start filling out time-consuming visa applications for every trip.
Now that the European Parliament has voted to end the visa waiver program, it will have to be approved by the European Commission, which is the executive branch of the European Union. If the Commission also decides that U.S. citizens should have to apply for visas, your life is going to be a lot more complicated the next time you plan a trip to Europe.
I have a hard enough time coming up with a packing list and making sure my e-ticket is on my phone when I'm going through airport security, never mind having to fill out mind-numbing paperwork in the months leading up to a trip — but it looks like it's about to come to that.
Alright, so by now, you’ve probably had a lifetime’s-worth of retinol information shoved down your throat (hopefully not literally, though, or you should probs head to the doctor), but do you actually use a retinol? Like, not counting the two random times you slathered one on before forgetting about it for six months, or that other time you tried a retinol and it melted your skin off in sheets of pain, but every single night for years on end? Exactly.
Hey, we’re not judging you—retinols are kind of a pain in the ass. Only apply a tiny, pea-size amount to your whole face, wait exactly 15 minutes before moisturizing, use every third day to start, and cross your fingers that your skin doesn’t implode? Yeah, it’s a lot. Which is why we’re so in love with retinol oils, a new breed of anti-aging products that basically caress your skin while pummeling it with retinol, decreasing the irritation and flakes that usually come with retinol.
Image: ImaxTree
But this isn’t really a new technology, says Yale dermatologist and all-around skin badass Mona Gohara. “The retinol itself is the same, it’s just being delivered to your skin in a more cosmetically elegant, consumer-friendly, and less-irritating way,” she says. “In the hierarchy of moisturizing ingredients, oils are the most hydrating and skin-barrier-repairing ingredients, so a retinol oil could be a great choice for anyone with dry or sensitive skin.”
And, dear reader, let me assure you that Gohara is right. As someone who has the skin resilience of a Fabergé egg—like, to the point where sometimes, my skin just breaks out into hives for fun, before crumbling into flakes—I was able to tolerate retinol oils without any horror stories, a first for me and retinols. Because these suckers are oil-based, though, you’ll want to apply them as the last step of your nightly skin-care routine, after your toners, essences, serums, and moisturizers, or just mix a few drops in with your moisturizer.
If you’re still worried about irritation, stick to the golden rule of retinols: Use them every third night for three weeks, then every other night for two weeks, and then nightly, if your skin tolerates it. And remember that consistency is key. If you use them consistently, you should notice smoother skin, smaller pores, and reduced fine lines within three months. Rather than have you dig through the internet to find the best retinol oil to try, though, we’ve rounded up our favorites, at every price point, to get you started. Click through to see the MVPs, and try one out tonight (and every third night after that).
Nowadays, you can’t flip a channel without witnessing Lena Dunham’s breasts jiggle during a romp in the sack or women exploring their sexuality behind prison bars. And it’s a good thing! Finally, there are mainstream media shows — some of which are primetime, others that make their way to us via Roku — that depict an authentic female perspective of sex. After all, real-life intercourse isn’t the bashful version we typically see on TV — shirts on, covers up to the woman’s collarbone, post-shag chitchat and cuddling.
These seven shows have struck gold in the vein of discussing the once taboo subject of women’s sex lives and in turn, paved the way for more accurate, real-life and messy depictions of getting laid.
Girls have one-night stands and relationships. Girls are skinny and curvaceous, small-breasted and big-bosomed. Girls pee after sex. Girls get yeast infections and UTIs. Girls masturbate! Girls even have sex naked. (Like, fully naked, even with their shirt off — gasp!) Thanks to show creator Lena Dunham, HBO’s Girls demonstrates the messy side of sex that we all experience — the emotional, the unconventional and the unglamorous.
Jane the Virgin
Jane Villanueva might’ve been chaste when the series began (and when she miraculously became pregnant), but don’t let the title fool you. This show offers a lot of sex — sex scenes, sex discussions and ample innuendos. Jane the Virgin explores women’s sexual liberation even if they haven't done it yet. Issues such as birth control, in vitro fertilization, pregnancy complications and abortion are staple themes throughout Jane’s narrative.
Shameless
Poor people bang too. The sex on this Emmy Rossum-led Showtime series is just as its title suggests: without shame. People do it at work, in cars, in parking lots, on top of the dryer, while kids are home, in teachers’ offices, on webcams, in the grocery aisle, on drugs, against sinks, against toilets, on kitchen floors — you name it. Women run the show on Shameless; Fiona, V and Debbie all crave intercourse and have a sexual appetite as ravenous as a man’s. Birth control, abortion, unplanned pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases and masturbation are all topics given their due time on the series.
One might think there aren’t many parallels to be drawn from sexual relationships made behind bars, but Netflix’s Orange Is the New Black is one of the premiere sources of authentic narratives about relationships and sex. It explores women and men, women and women and women by themselves. It deals with transgender issues, all facets of female sexuality and the many branches of diversity: body, age, gender, race and sexuality.
How to Get Away with Murder
Even people who are trying to get away with murder make time for sex! Anything mirroring an even remotely traditional sex life goes out the window when you unite a group of precocious yet reckless law students and a sexually charged professor who have to work together to not only cover up a homicide, but to also prove their various clients’ innocence. The cast of the primetime show is diverse in race, age, gender and sexuality, and some of the most unexpected yet steamiest love scenes shatter preconceived boundaries about how television should be portraying sex.
House of Cards
Imagine the president and first lady having sex lives — EGAD! Now imagine their already tenuous relationship being fraught with sexual deceit, threesomes, bisexuality and the kicker — threat of divorce. House of Cards shines a light on unconventional relationships both inappropriate and unfathomable — that between politician and reporter, two leaders of a country, a president and his security guard and more. Claire may only be the first lady, but girl gets her own, whether the head of state likes it or not.
Sex can be hard, rough and messy, and when you’re younger, it can also be fragile, cruel and heartbreaking. Parenthood presents us with both. Crosby Braverman fathered a child he knew nothing about until a former one-night stand contacts him; Julia Braverman is unfaithful to her marriage; Drew Holt gets his college girlfriend pregnant and they contemplate abortion; Amber Holt gets slut-shamed mercilessly, particularly when she beds her cousin’s ex; and Zeek and Camille Braverman explore what it means to continue making love when you’re older. The Braverman family touches on all kinds of love and sex: young, old, fresh, mature, broken, strong and all of the confusing spaces in between.
Which shows helped your understanding of what it means to have sex as a woman?
When I was a baby, my thighs were so chubby that one of my aunts used to "eat" them like drumsticks. I’ve seen the pictures. Today’s pediatricians would have scolded my grandfather for feeding me rice and beans every chance he got before I was 10 months old. Back then, I was just a happy baby with baby rolls and thighs that served as a family punchline.
It’s a story I heard often when I was growing up, usually told with the requisite giggles from my mother and a pinch on my legs from whomever else was within reach. I thinned out as I grew, but I never thought myself skinny.
Instead, “big” was how I classified my body because “big” was how I had been referred to by my well-meaning family my entire childhood. “Big” because I was 5 feet tall at 8-years old. The same height as my mother and almost every other adult woman in my family. “Big” as in "not dainty," with curves that snuck up on me when I was 12 and muscle definition that would have put me in the “athletic” category. But that word didn’t exist in the Spanglish craziness my family resided in. Instead, children were scolded for not finishing what was on their plate and reprimanded for needing to watch what they were eating — usually in the same breath. Then we were offered dessert.
My father noticed my new set of hips when I was 15 and let me know it. I wore a size 10 and only now realize I only thought that was a bad thing because my mother constantly preened about the size 6 she could still squeeze into after five kids no one could believe she’d had. If I could wake up with that body today?
A’ye, M’ijita.
Dad pinched the curve of my hip. “You need to lose some weight,” he said. What he meant, I now know, was that he had seen men his age watching me as we worked side by side at a family-owned Mexican restaurant. Maybe he wouldn’t have to worry so much about the few that crossed boundaries by calling the restaurant asking for me or saying things that made me blush because I didn’t know how else to react as I refilled their waters and brought fresh bowls of salsa and chips. These men saw my curves and ignored my age. My father, I think, was hoping that by cutting out the chips I snacked on while I worked, I’d lose the body I was growing into. He had no way of knowing what his words would trigger.
I started making myself throw up after watching a news special about a woman caring for eating-disordered girls in her revolutionary treatment center. The point of the special was to enlighten and educate on the dangers of eating disorders and the needs of those suffering. I took it as a how-to manual.
Sometimes I wonder if my actions are the cause of the body I see in the mirror today. The underactive thyroid. The polycystic ovarian syndrome. The number on the scale. Just because I was the only set of ethnic hips in the sea of curveless white girls at school, I thought that meant I needed to better control what I was eating. And because I had failed at being an anorexic previously, the consolation prize was closet bulimia. If I didn’t have the control not to eat, I could at least force my body to get rid of the evidence.
I should have just opened my eyes.
My daughter is 9 and often confused for a teenager. She’s built like her father’s side of the family: tall and lean. My nickname for her is “Little.” I used to skip the word “fat” when it was included in any of the books I read to her. Honestly, I stopped being surprised at how often that word appears in children’s picture books.
“She’s so big for her age,” strangers still often say when they realize how young she actually is. I always smile and gently correct them, whether or not she is paying attention.
“Yes,” I say, “She’s very tall.”
Because I can’t control what the rest of the world says or what she will hear, I try to sidestep any of the emotional triggers adults verbalized when I was a kid.
I never criticize my own body in front of her. And I never diet. Instead, we all eat what’s best for our bodies. We exercise, not for bikini season, but because we want to be healthy and strong. I’m not doing everything right. I can’t say with certainty today that I have managed to help my daughter sidestep the increased chances of developing an eating disorder tomorrow. Because of my history, she’s at a greater risk. Because of my history, I will do everything in my power to make sure that she loves herself, now and always.
It’s National Eating Disorder Awareness Week, (Feb 26 – March 4) spearheaded by The National Eating Disorders Association. #NEDAwareness week is to bring awareness to eating disorders and lifesaving resources. This year’s theme: It’s Time to Talk About It. Click here for information on getting screened and getting help. You are not alone.
When babies are hungry, they are hungry. So you feed them — even if you are on live TV. And it's also a pretty good way to keep a baby quiet during a 5-minute TV segment.
Writer and guest contributor Rachel Sklar nursed her baby while she was interviewed on a CBC News broadcast about a new Barbie line that had just come out. All went according to plan until her 1-year-old baby's hand popped into the frame.
She tweeted about the incident, writing, "I went on TV while nursing and you couldn't tell (until the end).
Rachel Sklar tweet
Rachel Sklar tweet
Maybe baby Ruby just wanted to wave to all the television fans out there!
I love this woman. She had no child care and she figured out a way to make the interview happen anyway. Because that's what parents do. I've breastfed in all kinds of places out of necessity. I’ve nursed babies on an airplane with a stranger 5 inches from me. I've nursed twins on the side of the road...
Image: Kelcey Kintner
(Although please someone go back in time and stop me from giving that thumbs up sign.)
And I've even breastfed a baby while grocery shopping. My son was screaming like crazy and there was nowhere to nurse him. Plus, I only had a limited amount of time to shop. So I put him in the Bjorn facing me and breastfed him while I made my way around the store. A friend had tipped me off that this was actually possible but she's super-athletic so I was skeptical. But it really worked. And I don't think other shoppers noticed. They were probably just thrilled that the loud baby in Aisle 6 had stopped crying.
Because sometimes a kid is hungry at inconvenient times. And it's also a great way to stop a child who is trashing the house while you're on the toilet. So breastfeeding moms, keep on nursing. On live TV or just about anywhere else.
This week's question is topical (though, to be fair, when isn't vaccination topical?), and it comes to us from Twitter.
Question:
Image: STFU Parents
Answer:
Considering vaccination was the subject of an article just last week titled "Trump energizes the anti-vaccine movement in Texas," I would say this question is not only relevant, but perhaps frighteningly so. An excerpt from that story says, "The battle comes at a time when increasing numbers of Texas parents are choosing not to immunize their children because of 'personal beliefs.' Measles was eliminated in the United States more than 15 years ago, but the highly contagious disease has made a return in recent years, including in Texas, in part because of parents refusing to vaccinate their children. A 2013 outbreak in Texas infected 21 people, many of them unvaccinated children." And in the state of Texas, "personal-belief exemptions increased from 2,314 in the 2003-2004 school year to 44,716 in 2015-2016." That leads me to think a few things, Purple Tweeter.
First, I think that even though you're probably overwhelmed with wedding-related details right now, at some point in the future, if you haven't already, you should consider having a chat — or perhaps a third, or 13th chat — with your sister about her decisions. Show her the statistics. Help her to understand that her kids aren't more important than other kids, and in fact she's doing them a great disservice by assuming their bodies aren't vulnerable to disease. Show her pictures of the measles and explain that this was a kid who was healthy, who didn't need to experience such pain, whose parents shouldn't have had to treat a disease that was preventable. Make sure the picture is recent. Even though Googling will provide you with plenty of examples, here. Let me offer you one posted by a personal friend of mine whose son has Type-1 diabetes:
Image: STFU Parents
But moving past the main issue of your sister being anti-vaxx and having two children who aren't vaccinated, let's discuss your wedding question. Obviously, one quick and easy way to solve this problem is to implement a strict no-kids policy, which would extend to your sister's kids. You would just have to gently explain, as many couples do, that as much as you'd love for the kids to be there running around and being adorable, you can't make exceptions because it wouldn't be fair to your other parent friends and relatives.
This can be a touchy situation without any mention of the anti-vaxx movement because some people are offended when their kids aren't invited to weddings even if they're not the bride's sister. Plus, your sister may complain that she doesn't have the extra money to pay for a babysitter after going through all the trouble of attending your wedding. For the sake of keeping the peace and protecting your sanity, not to mention your guests' immune systems, I would offer to pay for the babysitter yourself if she brings up money, assuming that she is in fact spending money on a dress, helping you decorate, traveling, and/or extending herself in some way. It may help you to side-step this fevered scenario without ruffling any feathers, and that's always helpful when smoothing out wedding predicaments.
That said, many people do choose to have kids at their wedding, and if even one other kid is allowed to be there, your sister will feel entitled to bring her kids as well. In that case, I think the only real option is to tell her not to bring the kids. You can explain this in myriad ways by trying to be "respectful," or you can flat-out say what's on your mind, although that may not go over very well.
Image: STFU Parents
The thing to take into account here is that your sister's unvaccinated kids are a threat not only to other children and babies who may be too young to receive certain vaccinations, but also to pregnant guests, elderly guests and people recovering from diseases such as cancer. No one should be worried on his or her wedding day that a child is spreading germs and preventable diseases to people who are immunocompromised. There's too much stress as it is to be concerning yourself with something so serious. A wedding day disaster should be an overpriced, multitiered cake toppling to the floor, not a recovering cancer patient picking up an illness or infection from an unvaccinated child.
And as the article about Texas points out, a third of students at some private schools now are unvaccinated. (Several other states report similar findings.) This means that, in some cases, kids are at an even greater risk of contracting and spreading germs. In the case of your wedding, it is your responsibility to your guests to prevent something like that from happening.
Part of what makes weddings so special is the intergenerational element. When I got married, my 93-year-old grandmother flew 1,000 miles to be there. I never would have felt comfortable with other guests bringing their unvaccinated children (even if that guest was my sister), but I would have felt downright horrible if it had somehow resulted in my grandmother or my friend's newborn (who made a brief appearance) getting sick.
This goes beyond a general disdain for "chicken pox parties." It's an inappropriate setting for unvaccinated kids to be in. And while I also believe unvaccinated kids shouldn't be in schools, playgrounds, grocery stores, amusement parks or Chuck E. Cheese's, I have no jurisdiction over those places. The one thing I could control on the day of the wedding was who was going to be there, and that's something every bride and/or groom should embrace.
Tell your sister that you're concerned that her unvaccinated kids could be carrying germs that might put another guest at risk. Cite the article about Texas that reports that "in 2013, Texas experienced the largest outbreak of whooping cough, or pertussis, since 1959: nearly 4,000 cases. Five newborns who were too young to be vaccinated died." Remind her that you care deeply about her presence at your wedding, but you can't absorb more stress with regard to your guests' health. Be honest.
Hopefully, she'll understand that choosing not to vaccinate does come with consequences and she won't be upset. But if she is, try to be prepared for it. If you plan on having kids, it might be better to discuss all of this now anyway. It's going to come out one way or another. I used to roll my eyes at parents for insisting that every single person their newborn comes into contact with receives an MMR booster, but I might be letting up on that. After all, who's crazier: the person who's paranoid enough to believe her baby could come down with whooping cough in 2017 or the growing number of parents who are choosing not to believe science and put their kids and others at risk?
Image: STFU Parents
Whatever happens, I hope you have a wonderful wedding. Congratulations on your marriage, and good luck with your delusional sister. With any luck, and a whole lot of well-researched proof, she'll come around on this dangerous anti-vaxx stance and you can all live happily ever after, free of total-body skin rashes and highly contagious disease.
Do YOU have a question about parents on social media? Send whatever is on your mind to stfuparentsblog AT gmail.com!
There's really big news from the celeb social media front. Ariana Grande has overtaken Taylor Swift for the second-most followed Instagram account of all time.
Of course, the fight for the No. 1 spot is already settled — Selena Gomez has been sitting comfortably at the top since March 2016, and with 111 million followers, is still in the lead by more than 12 million. She surpassed Beyoncé, Kim Kardashian and Swift to get it, all of whom have held the No. 1 position before.
But even though Gomez has had a commanding lead for a full year, the fight for second place has been dramatic and brutal. Swift, with her 98.3 million followers, used to hold the honor, which TBH, was pretty cute since she and Gomez are besties and all. Grande wasn't gonna let that fly, though. She swooped in and stole second place with 98.5 million followers. So rude.
Granted, Grande is currently on tour, so she's been posting regularly.
Ariana Grande vs T Swift for 2nd most Insta followers 1
Ariana Grande vs T Swift for 2nd most Insta followers 1
Swift, on the other hand, has been pretty quiet for the last few months after her carefully crafted, PR-approved image took a number of hits. Her last post was almost a month ago.
Ariana Grande vs T Swift for 2nd most Insta followers 2
Ariana Grande vs T Swift for 2nd most Insta followers 2
Don't worry, though — this drama is unlikely to end any time soon. Bey and Kardashian are still right behind Grande and Swift, and one of them could take over the No. 2 spot at literally any moment. Stay tuned — you don't want to miss that!
Why is everyone putting so much stock in Katy Perry and Orlando Bloom's relationship? They kind of casually dated, and then they broke it off. They both say they're still buds. Their joint statement painted a picture of the most polite breakup in history: "Before rumors or falsifications get out of hand, we can confirm that Orlando and Katy are taking respectful, loving space at this time."
So why is the internet so hell-bent on making this into some big dramatic thing?
There are so many rumors flying around about this breakup right now, and none of them seem all that believable. The worst one is that Bloom is rebounding or was cheating on Perry or something because he was hanging out with a "mystery woman" over the weekend. That "mystery woman" was actually Erin McCabe, daughter of Global Green president Les McCabe, and she and Bloom went to a birthday party and a charity event over the weekend. So what? That's fine. People hang out with other people. Everyone calm the eff down.
Perry addressed the ~scandal~ in a tweet, reaffirming that she and Bloom peacefully split up and everyone should just move on and forget about it already.
"How bout a new way of thinking for 2017!?" she wrote. "U can still b friends & love ur former partners! No one's a victim or a villain, get a life y'all!"
Today is not a good day for cable TV execs: Netflix has announced that after rewriting the book on original scripted dramas, comedies and movies, it's now taking on unscripted (aka reality) TV, too.
An article in The Hollywood Reporterbreaking down Netflix's new venture doesn't mince words when it comes to analyzing what this means for conventional cable programming, quoting one producer who warns, "These guys are monsters — they're coming in to play and play hard."
The article goes on to say, "By year's end, Netflix's unscripted output, which includes docusoaps, competition series and talk shows, will be in the double digits. It's expected to explode from there."
While this may have TV execs shaking in their boots, lovers of good TV everywhere are celebrating. My immediate thought upon hearing the news was, Holy shit, does this mean we're finally going to see reality TV done right?
Unscripted TV is often the subject of brutal mockery and characterized as a lowbrow form of entertainment, and I can't say I disagree. My degree in sociology means that I have an intense interest in human behavior, yet the thin narrative arcs, contrived storylines and mind-numbing personalities featured in most reality shows mean that I've avoided them for years. I can't stand watching banal, unintelligent people getting paid millions to document their banal, uninspired lives. They're absolutely wasting the format.
But Netflix? The producer quoted above is absolutely right: Netflix is here to play. It's been incredible to see the way Netflix has revamped every genre it's touched, including political dramas (House of Cards), comedies (Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, Master of None) and ensemble dramas (Orange Is the New Black, Stranger Things).
While TV networks have continued churning out the same formulaic comedies attached to laugh tracks and featuring predominately white casts, Netflix tossed the status quo out the window and consistently featured more original storytelling and diverse casting than we've ever seen before, and people fucking love it.
THR reports that it's precisely this commitment to undiluted storytelling that has people so excited: "The biggest allure is Netflix's focus on straight-to-series orders, bypassing what has increasingly led to a challenging development process elsewhere."
Rather than pitching ideas, producing pilots, watering down creative direction and having the input of 20 different divisions on each series concept, producers can pitch directly to Netflix and see results fast.
We don't yet know what reality shows Netflix has up its sleeve (its director of alternative, Brandon Reigg, promises shows in every reality category), I'm crossing my fingers that this underutilized genre gets the full Netflix treatment by taking a tired premise and making it fresh, diverse and intelligently produced.
Anyway, it's that time again — another Duggar is engaged! It's Joy-Anna this time (obviously, since she was the only one courting), and she just got engaged to her boyfriend, Austin Forsyth.
"We just got engaged!" a clearly excited Joy-Anna told Us Weekly. "I’m so excited to be engaged to my best friend — Austin made it so romantic, it’s amazing."
Forsyth seemed equally stoked about tying the knot with Joy-Anna.
"I'm just overwhelmed with emotion," he said (cue all the "Awws"). "I'm so excited to be engaged because that means the next step is marriage, and I’m excited to see what the future holds for us!"
Forsyth has been a Duggar family friend for most of his life, and he and Joy-Anna have known each other for 15 years. They announced in November, just a week after sis Jinger's wedding to soccer star Jeremy Vuolo, that they were officially courting. Forsyth chose a special place in the woods to pop that courtship question.
"It’s a place that I’ve come many times to just get away and spend time with the Lord," he told reporters at the time. "I just knew that this was the place that I wanted to ask her."
Forsyth has always been adorably head over heels for Joy-Anna. A recent episode of Counting On just about had us swooning when he asked Duggar patriarch Jim Bob for permission to begin courting Joy-Anna.
"Over the years, I've been watching, and I really admire her heart for the Lord and her character," Forsyth told Jim Bob. "She's such a diligent worker. She gets all the younger siblings working. She's a good delegator — and, of course, her beauty."
Oreo comes out with new flavors on the regular, but their latest Peeps variety, released in honor of springtime and Easter, has a surprise that goes beyond the flavor of the filling. It turns out Oreo Peeps, which have a golden vanilla cookie and marshmallow Peeps-flavored crème, are staining people's tongues and teeth pink. (Note to self: Find out if the crème filling in Peeps Oreos doubles as a budget-friendly lip stain.)
Considering that dyeing eggs pretty colors is an Easter tradition, I guess it kinda makes sense that Peeps Oreos would turn our pearly whites a pastel shade worthy of the season's celebrations. And apparently, they're turning something else pink too. Peeps Oreos may not be able to make your poo smell like roses, but they can make the two look a little more alike. Following in the footsteps of beets — and let's be honest, we've all had a post-beet moment of panic in the bathroom — Peeps Oreos are apparently the same color coming out as they are going in.
But hey, there are worse things that could happen. After all, if ever there were a season to have your smile painted the same color as the blossoms beginning to bloom on trees and the eggs in your Easter basket, it's spring, right? (Just go with it.)
