Why K-Pop is good

By: Kayla Madison

So, I’m not really sure how to explain why K-Pop is good. It just is.

So, I’ll just kinda explain why I like it, because I didn’t before this year, 2020.

Fortunately, I don’t like BTS. Their fans are literally crazy and they’ll like, eat me. I listen to NCT and all their subunits: Ateez, TXT, Got7, Monsta X, SuperM, Red Velvet, Twice and, Stray Kids.

Here’s what I’ll say, no matter what – there’s always someone hot in a K-Pop group. It’s unethical to stan for that reason, but it’s a reason nonetheless. I won’t lie. I can’t lie.

I may not know Korean, but I know whatever they’re singing or rapping about…is facts. It’s so catchy. All the songs I’ve listened to are so catchy. Doesn’t matter what I’m doing, it’s always in the back of my mind.

With stanning comes the secret shipping, making it known that you have a ship in a group of guys isn’t good for them, it hurts the group and it also hurts the company. If the company is SM, do everything in your power to hurt them, and not the group. SM sucks so much. Ask anyone into K-Pop. They’re terrible. So are the MAMA awards, but going into that would take me hours.

How I got into K-Pop is pretty simple actually. I’m not sure what I was watching, but “God’s Menu,” by Stray Kids, popped up and I was like “that’s funny.” I gave it a listen and my jaw dropped all the way into the asthenosphere. It was so good. The boys looked heavenly. The vocals *chefs kiss*, FELIX’S PART, holy who knew a voice could go so deep *tear starts rolling down*.

My bias for that group…yes, I have a bias for every group I’ve ever listened to, well it’s more than 1 haha. Lee Know, Seungmin, Han, Hyunjin…I’m naming everyone. Apparently I don’t have a bias; I love them all.

Anyways, ever since I’ve listened to “God’s Menu” I’ve sunk deeper into the fascinating world that is K-Pop. Don’t knock it before you try it. Give it a listen.

This is NCT 127 (my fav right now); Yuta, Jaehyun, Taeil, Johnny, Doyoung, Haechan, Taeyong, Mark and, Jungwoo ~picture from their official Instagram~

How the sports world reacted to the capitol protests

By: Caden Ligman

With Congress in session to count the electoral votes that would confirm Joe Biden as the 46th president of the United States, hundreds of Pro-Trump organizers stormed the capital building in Washington DC. Protesters broke through barriers and were soon marching around the offices of our elected officials. Something so disrespectful and violent has not happened at the Capital since the British stormed the capital in 1814.

Many people blame President Donald Trump for inciting these protesters after making baseless claims about voter fraud. This isn’t the beginning however, of Trump’s “conspiracy” theories about the presidential election. Months before the election took place last November, Trump repeatedly preached to his supporters that the only way he could lose the presidential race was if it was rigged.

The NBA recently has been seen as a very left-wing organization, with many of its members speaking out against our President, and many of his policies and actions. This time was no different. While this historic event was playing out, current and former NBA players spoke in interviews and took to Twitter to address the subject.

One of the sport’s biggest stars, Stephen Curry, responded to one of Trump’s tweets saying, “​There is literally a tweet for everything. Cat got your tongue today huh?” referring to Trump’s inaction to stop his supporters from storming the capital.

Similarly, former NBA star Dwane Wade tweeted out, “Black people get pulled over and don’t make it out alive. We can’t sleep in our own beds without being killed. We can’t jog without being killed. We can’t walk down the street with our hoodies up without being killed but they can do this???”

Coaches of NBA teams also spoke out in recent interviews. Philadelphia 76ers head coach Doc Rivers said this, in an interview Wednesday night, “I will say it, because I don’t think a lot of people want to. Can you imagine today, if those were all black people storming the Capitol, and what would have happened? That, to me, is a picture that’s worth a thousand words for all of us to see.”

Seeing this historic event play out has opened many people’s eyes to the reality of what it is like to live in America today. What is happening at the capital not only exposes the discrimination of black people in America but also exposed the true values of our president and what his real motives are. No one knows how all of this will play out, but in the words of 76ers coach Doc Rivers, “Democracy will prevail, it always does.”

Why Trump’s ban of transgender people from the military is transphobic

By: Quentin Miller

Image taken from: Time Magazine

On July 26th, 2017, Trump tweeted out this: “After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military, our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail.”

On January 22nd, 2019, this ban was put into temporary action by the Supreme Court, despite there being multiple lower court cases going on. 

In the wake of controversy related to the 2020 election, many Trump supporters have been trying to defend these actions to win over support of the LGBTQ+ community for Trump. Claiming that, just as Trump said, it was for economic reasons only.

Here’s why that’s factually incorrect.

First of all, he didn’t just claim it was for economic reasons. While he did say it was for the military budget, he also claimed it was to prevent “disruption that transgender(s) in the military would entail,” a blatantly transphobic statement claiming that transgender people are somehow disruptive, dramatic, or a burden. 

Second of all, if you do any research on the topic, you will learn that almost no medical  insurance in the U.S. covers facial reconstruction, hormone treatments, or genitalia reconstruction. Those are the only medical procedures that trans people “need” to go through, to transition. The health insurance issued to all U.S. army members, regardless of rank or division, is called Tricare. And while it is an extremely nice health care program, according to its own website, Tricare.mil, it only covers cosmetic surgery under these conditions: 

  • Correction of a birth defect (includes cleft lip).
  • Restoration of a body form following an accidental injury.
  • Revision of disfiguring and extensive scars resulting from neoplastic surgery (i.e., surgery that removes a tumor or cyst).
  • Reconstructive breast surgery following a medically necessaryTo be medically necessary means it is appropriate, reasonable, and adequate for your condition. mastectomy.
  • Reconstructive breast surgery due to a congenital anomaly (birth defect)
  • Penile implants and testicular prostheses for conditions resulting from organic origins or for organic impotency.
  • Surgery to correct pectus excavatum.
  • Liposuction when medically necessary.
  • Panniculectomy (tummy tuck) performed in conjunction with an abdominal or pelvic surgery when medical review determines that the procedure significantly contributes to the safe and effective correction or improvement of bodily function.

None of these apply to transgender people. This means, the U.S. military wouldn’t even be paying for these treatments.

Third of all, let’s just say there was a contract change, and Tricare would be responsible for paying for transitioning treatments. If we do the math, the argument that this is too big of an economic burden on the U.S. is still ridiculous.

There are anywhere between 2,000 and 15,000 people in the military (counting active duty and reserve troops). Now, I’m going to be doing an extremely high ball estimate, so we’re going to use 15,000.

Now, the most expensive set of treatments a trans person can get is, genitalia reconstruction (aka gender reassignment surgery), facial reconstruction, and hormone therapy. A reasonable estimate for the cost of these surgeries is about $61,500 upfront plus $1,500 a year for continued hormone therapy.

But, many transgender people aren’t interested (these people could be non binary, or could be using other non surgical methods of dealing with body dysmorphia) or have already had these transitions, so let’s cut the amount of trans people in half.

Let’s also take into account that those prices are for the average consumer, not insurance companies. Insurance companies negotiate prices that they pay hospitals for treatments, meaning they get massively discounted prices for everything. And the insurance company with the most bargaining power is, you guessed it, Tricare. So let’s just cut the cost in half, which is still way higher than what the military would be paying. So we’re left with 7,500 x $30,750 and we get an initial cost of  $230 million plus $750 a year for every transgender person taking hormone therapy, which can be stopped and continued at any time.

Just a reminder, the annual budget of the military is approximately $721,531,000,000, with around $200 billion of wiggle room. So, the military would be able to pay for the initial treatment of every transgender person in the military 3,137 times over, not even including the $200 billion they normally spend over their allowed budget. And again, that is an extremely high estimate for how much they would actually be paying.

So, not only would the government not have to pay anything at all, as cosmetic surgeries for non medical reasons aren’t covered, it would barely even be a dent in their budget.

So, the only possible reason that Trump could have for not wanting transgender people in the military is because he wants to discriminate against them, which isn’t surprising coming from the man who was sued by the Justice Department for discrimination in the past.

Heteronormativity in the portrayal of historical figures

By: Irene Cohen and Ellie Mulvaney

Stigmas have been prevalent in modern society since its creation; limiting those who act or think differently than the status quo. Even now, there are conscious and subconscious prejudices against these people or ideas that taint the way they are perceived.

Homosexuality is one of such stigmas that has been frowned upon or discouraged in many communities, from the past through to present day. There are many figures in American history alone that have been rumored or confirmed as LGBT+, though this is often omitted when their stories are recounted. Let’s look at who some of these people are and why their sexualities were kept under wraps.

To begin, we have a revered poet and author responsible for works such as ​”I Hear America Singing​” and “​Song of Myself”;​ the latter of the two being a mildly controversial poem that sparked intrigue over the topic of sexuality. The University of Illinois reports that this poem contains a certain “Section V”, which contains explicit themes in a setting with another man. He titled the group of works centered around this man ​”Leaves of Grass”,​ and upon its discovery by his employer, this homoerotic poetry cost him his job. He was quickly rehired, but the work remained controversial and even prohibited in places. Since he self-published it in 1855, it underwent multiple transformations to muffle it’s suggested nature by scandalised editors, and was banned in Boston in 1882. At the time, Robert K. Martin was credited with saying “Whitman intended his work to communicate his homosexuality to his readers.”

Back then, being anything but straight was heavily condemned, and hidden almost completely by those who that pertained to. Despite progress made in terms of acceptance in the present day, there still is heavy criticism around the LGBT+ community. Could this in part be accredited to the lack of normalization?

In the case of Walt Whitman, even after his unconventional poems, that called mass amounts of attention to his identity, his sexuality is not commonly known. In my own years of studying and analyzing his work, this detail has always somehow been excluded from what I’ve learned about him. Teaching about honored individuals while being fully transparent in who they are can not only provide role models for LGBT+ youth, but also give more insight into the lives and experiences of said individuals.

A personal idol of Walt Whitman, who had similar gender preferences in relationships, was the renowned president Abraham Lincoln. Famous for documents such as the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln is one of the US’s most prominent political figures.

As familiar as many are with his achievements in office, his personal endeavors are much less known. One piece of information that many point to, to support the claim that Lincoln was actually gay, is the fact that Lincoln admitted to sleeping with another man, Joshua Speed, for four years, though Speed was far from the only man to have shared a bed with Abraham Lincoln over the years. Lincoln’s law partner, William Herndon, mentioned that Billy Greene had once said to him “They were as perfect as a human being could be,” in reference to Lincoln’s thighs.

Another, Captain Derrickson, was known to sleep in Lincoln’s bed and use his nightshirts when Mrs. Lincoln was out of town. Despite this overwhelming amount of corroboration for the idea that Lincoln was gay, historians to this day are maintaining that this esteemed president was heterosexual. One could argue that had any of these citations been with women rather than men, the claim that these people had an intimate relationship with Lincoln would be almost completely certain.

Looking back in the history books, it is evident that there is a lack of LGBTQ+ figures. The idea that people have only now begun to identify as anything but straight is nothing but illogical, though historians have seemingly edited out the parts of history they deemed unnatural or distasteful to further this notion. The public not seeing this aspect of the identities of figures they respect, or idolize, can be toxic to the queer community. Treating being gay as some sort of taboo stunts the movement and normalization of the existence of queer people.

Hopefully, the discussion opens up more and more in the future about just how many capable, and successful, people lived a non-heterosexual lifestyle.

Are Christmas cards becoming less popular?

By: Jimmy Somerville

I’m asking the question today, are Christmas cards becoming less popular? More specifically, the type of Christmas card I put an image of above, where you and your family select photos of your family together, and maybe some other pictures of the family children.

Some Christmas photos also give a quick explanation of said family, and most Christmas cards share the age of each of their children if they have any. Also, most family Christmas cards have a small phrase that usually goes with the Christmas theme such as the one above; “Simple Moments Bring Great Joy.” Christmas cards are also sent through the mail and arrive at your front door in envelopes usually.

As I’ve noticed through the last couple of years though, I feel like I haven’t seen as many Christmas cards around the house which, weirdly, greatly satisfied me; I enjoyed them. I liked reading and looking at them, and it’s funny because half the families I see, have no idea who they are. So, I’m basically just learning about new families that my parents know.

Now, to answer my question, are Christmas cards becoming less popular? I’d say yes, as you can already update your friends, on your life, on social media, and they can also update your families and other families on their lives on social media.

Christmas cards were used to update your old friends and family, as social media wasn’t always around. This was a good way to see your friends and family at least once every year. You get to see how big, how tall, how old, and how different your friends and family look by looking at the Christmas cards.

When you are following your friends on social media, you are already updated on their lives pretty much every day, so this sort of defeats the purpose of a Christmas card, but I think we should still use them for the tradition.

I couldn’t find any statistics of if Christmas cards were becoming less popular, but I did find an article, in the Chicago Tribune, asking the question “Are Christmas Cards a thing of the past?” It seems as if they were answering with “yes” to this question.

I say Christmas cards should still be just as popular as they always have, as I believe it is a great and fun tradition.

-Jimmy Somerville
For more information, please visit:

Amy Coney Barrett and the threat she poses to the LGBTQIAP+ community

By: Annika Getz

Amy Coney Barrett is the newest member of the Supreme Court (the replacement of Ruth Badger Ginsburg). Many would argue that her election to the court is in itself, against the rules of our democracy, saying that we should have waited for the presidential election before replacing RBG.

However, aside from that, many people have concerns about Barrett herself, and the possible threat she poses to LGBTQIAP+ rights.

Barrett has been asked about gay marriage several times, and each time, she evaded the questions, saying she wasn’t permitted to answer them. This concerns many LGBTQIAP+ members and allies.

Barrett frequently says she “Doesn’t have any agenda” with regard to queer rights. Many are worried that she doesn’t seem to feel the need to try to end the discrimination and oppression against LGBTQIAP+ people.

Barrett also often refers to people in the community as having a “sexual preference.” This is a term used frequently by anti-LGBTQIAP+ advocates, and very much suggests that sexual orientation is a choice, which of course, is incorrect. Sexual orientation isn’t something that people can change about themselves. To suggest that it is completely invalidates that part of a person’s identity.

The court is currently looking at the Fulton vs. Philadelphia case, which discusses whether or not faith based child welfare organizations can refuse to work with gay couples. Many are concerned about what the court will decide, as it is made up mostly of conservative Christians, including Barrett, who many worry could be inclined to vote against LGBTQIAP+ rights.

It could be argued that this would fundamentally be unconstitutional, as the First Amendment enforces Separation of Church and State (many people argue that the term Separation of Church and State wasn’t actually in the constitution, but according to American United, “…the concept of church-state separation certainly does. If you doubt that, just read the writings of Jefferson, James Maddison, and generations of U.S. Supreme Court justices tasked with interpreting and applying the Constitution”).

Separation of Church and State ensures that the government cannot hold one religion superior over others religions, or groups of people. This means that they would not be able to constitutionally allow for child welfare organizations to discriminate against LGBTQIAP+ people. Many worry that the court will overlook this, and allow it anyways. Barrett herself seems to be leaning to vote against the rights of LGBTQIAP+ people.

So, Barrett may say that she’s not against the LGBTQIAP+ community, but she often contradicts herself, and the concern that we in the LGBTQIAP+ community are facing is a legitimate one.

The fact that this is even a debate is concerning in itself. One’s sexual orientation is a part of their identity, and it’s infuriating that some people in this country think that anyone else’s identity is a political issue.

Horrible Homework

By Nora Doyle and Olivia Miller

Image taken from: Study.com

Ugh homework!

It’s something every kid has to do if they want to succeed in school.

But why do we do it?

Most students think it’s pointless and adds to the daily stress of school. We have work in class everyday, about 6 hours a day, so why give us more at home? That’s supposed to be the space where we get to relax, eat, sleep, and do things we actually enjoy.

If you were to ask any student, they will most likely say homework hurts them more than it helps them. Maybe they are right, I mean, do we really need homework? What good does it do? Who even created the idea in the first place?

The question of who is to blame for the invention of homework is sort of a controversial question. According to ‘Market Business News’, many people argue that homework was invented by Italian educator Roberto Nevilis, in either 1095 or 1905. But, if both of these are looked into, neither are possible according to this site. This is because in the year 1095, there was no formal system of education in, and around, Europe. Even in the 1500s, education was given by private tutors.

It couldn’t have been invented in 1905 either, because 4 years before that, in 1901, the state of California passed an act to ban homework for any child studying below the 8th grade. The law was passed because during that period, homework was frowned upon by parents. They felt that homework interfered with a child’s time for house chores. Sweet times, right? Anyway, Mr. Nevilis couldn’t have been spreading the idea of homework when he couldn’t even do it himself.

So when did it truly start?

According to ‘Market Business News’, homework has historically existed in one form or another for simply just practicing at home. It could have been singing, poetry, playing an instrument, or reading the Bible. So, in a certain way, homework has always been a thing when it comes to education.

Homework is a very controversial topic when it comes to deciding whether or not it is beneficial to students. There have been many arguments and laws throughout the years surrounding homework. According to Study.com, in 1930, homework became frowned upon because it was declared as a form of child labor, which had recently become illegal.

Opinions vary among students, teachers, and parents. Coming from a non biased point of view, here are some pros and cons of homework that have been proven, or come from a variety of studies.

Pros: According to Goodschools.com, homework is beneficial to a student’s learning when it comes to developing study skills. “From time management and organisation to self-motivation and independent learning, homework teaches students a range of positive skills that they will carry with them throughout their academic and working lives. Home learning motivates students to take responsibility for their workload, while also encouraging the development of positive research practices.”

Another pro to giving students homework, according to Vittana.org, is that it, “Provides an indication of academic comprehension. Assigning learning tasks at home is a useful way for teachers to identify whether students are understanding the curriculum. Teachers can analyse gaps in comprehension or information through homework, making it easier for them to tailor their approach to each student’s needs. they can recognise students who need extra support in certain learning areas, while also identifying children who may benefit from more complex learning tasks.”

Cons: According to the American Psychological Association, a Duke University social psychologist, Harris Cooper says, “Too much homework can do more harm than good. Researchers have cited drawbacks, including boredom and burnout toward academic material, less time for family and extracurricular activities, lack of sleep and increased stress.” He believes in the 10 minute rule, which implies “That students should do no more than 10 minutes a night per grade level — from about 10 minutes in first grade up to a maximum of about two hours in high school. Both the National Education Association and National Parent Teacher Association support that limit.”

So, next time you complain about doing homework, consider the good that it does, but also keep in mind that too much homework can make you burnt out, so limit yourself, but get it done!

Trump’s documented racism 

By: Quentin Miller

Image taken from: Fox News

I don’t think it’s controversial to say that Trump has made some very sketchy statements about race/ethnicity in the past, but just how bad is his racism? Here’s a list of things he has said publicly about many different races and ethnicities, organized by said races and ethnicities (all following facts have been checked by ‘USA Today’ and PBS.)

Black people: 

  • Implied that laziness was a trait found in lots of black people, insinuating that black people are to blame for systemic issues.
  • Referred to black protesters as thugs.
  • Claimed that a group of black men should have been executed before proven guilty (The Central Park 5 case).
  • Used, and continues to use, the term “the blacks”.
  • Asked what black people have to lose, saying they don’t have jobs or money.
  • Supported “stop and frisk” policies, which allowed police officers to pull over anyone for seemingly no reason, which increased police violence against minorities by a disproportionate amount.
  • Said that areas of high amounts of black populations are “like hell”, saying that getting shot is very common in these areas.
  • Asked a black reporter if the CBC are her friends. 
  • Asked why the Civil War was necessary, implying that slavery is somehow not a big enough motivator.

Hispanic people:

  • Referred to Mexican immigrants as rapists, drug dealers, and overall criminals, then corrected himself by saying “some” are good people.
  • Tweeted a picture of him eating a taco salad and captioned it “I love Hispanics”
  • Claimed that immigrants (while he did not say Hispanic immigrants it can be inferred by the previous talking points in his speech) were stealing black jobs, trying to turn black people against immigrants.
  • Claimed he would force Mexico to pay for a wall to stop illegal immigration, further demonizing Hispanic immigration 
  • Referred to immigrants as animals.

Asian people:

  • Called the coronavirus the Chinese virus. 
  • Called the coronavirus the Kung Flu

Muslim/Middle Eastern people: 

  • Temporarily banned immigration from the Middle East.
  • Says that we should have more white immigrants from places like Norway and less Middle Eastern immigrants escaping from actual wars 

Jewish people:

  • Refused to acknowledge Jewish people during a speech about the Holocaust.
  • Apologized for not acknowledging Jewish people, also claimed he was the least anti- Semitic person ever.

The controversy of capital punishment

By: Olivia Knafla

Image taken from: safecalifornia.org

The death penalty, otherwise known as capital punishment, has been a very controversial subject for quite some time. There are many arguments both for and against the death penalty, and in this article we will be exploring both sides and their reasonings.

The first argument that we will be looking at revolves around the following idea: many people who would otherwise commit a violent crime are deterred from doing so as they don’t want to risk execution. However, there is no real proof of this situation ever taking place, or at least any that has been recorded to date. I won’t stay on this topic for too long, however, it was worth mentioning as it is commonly brought up in debates between whether the death penalty is right or wrong.

The death penalty also presents a financial issue. According to the Death Penalty Information Center (DIOC), it costs more to execute a prisoner than it does to keep them incarcerated for the rest of their life. It’s not necessarily the execution itself that is so expensive (sometimes reaching the millions), but instead, the extensive trial leading up to it.

Under the Constitution, every U.S. citizen is granted the right to a fair trial, meaning that oftentimes death row inmates require very experienced lawyers. On top of that, DNA testing is a common thing to be used in these trials, and it’s not exactly cheap.

Outside of the trial, death row inmates spend their entire stay on death row apart from general prison populations. They stay in special buildings, which require additional upkeep and guards. From the DIOC again, it is stated that these buildings alone cost states millions more annually than what it would have taken to sentence these inmates to life imprisonment.

All this being said, for those against the death penalty, this presents a solid case for their argument, saving both money and human lives. However, many people who are in favor of the death penalty argue that justice cannot be thought of in financial terms. Some people believe that the money is worth spending to rid the world of criminals who have committed the worst of crimes, and many people have expressed that opinion on online forums such as Reddit and Quora. 

The final issue we will be looking at today is that of false conviction. This is possibly the most spoken about, and it presents a great controversy among people.

It is estimated that 1% of the US prison system, or roughly 20,000 people, have been falsely convicted. However, when we focus solely on death row inmates, that percentage only increases.

A study by The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that roughly 4% of people on death row were, and are likely, innocent. As of July 2020, states have executed 1,516 people since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. If you calculate 4% of that number, that leaves you with 60 people who were executed after being falsely convicted.

For those against capital punishment, this is enough evidence to get rid of it altogether. And while false execution is a serious risk and is not something to be overlooked, many people in favor of the death penalty believe that this is a risk worth taking.

On top of that, the trial leading up to the execution of an individual is quite thorough, with years or even decades between sentencing and execution. It is estimated that nearly a quarter of death row inmates in the United State die of natural causes while awaiting their execution date.

To conclude, there are many arguments that are both for and against capital punishment, and many people who believe in the statements for both sides. There are plenty of reasons to take one side or the other, but it seems that the controversy of this issue will not be going away anytime soon.

When it comes down to it – is it moral to punish somebody by taking their life? That’s for you to decide.

Teenage portrayal in the media

By: Annika Getz

A lot of times, when a TV show or movie has a teenage character, the character is played by an adult. This may seem harmless and unimportant, but a lot of teens, including me, actually find it to be very harmful for teenagers to be portrayed this way.

I can understand why producers do this, both from a marketing standpoint, and a practical one. Younger actors have more regulations for when they can work, and the work environment they’re in, and adult actors also often look better on-screen: less acne, less voice cracks, etc.

However, when these companies make the easy choices regarding their actors, they don’t think about the effect it will have on teenage viewers. When we see these actors, looking completely perfect, and not at all the way we look, it makes us set unfair standards for ourselves.

We start to think that that’s how we’re supposed to look, when really, these actors have already gone through the awkward stage we’re currently in, and many of them have had some sort of plastic surgery.

However, this is just one person’s opinion, so I thought I’d interview several of my friends (all Freshmen), to see if anyone felt the way I did. I found that many people do. I won’t be using their names, to ensure their privacy, but here’s what they had to say:

“When teens are inaccurately portrayed in the media, it often makes me feel like I am doing something wrong with how I dress, how I act, how I look, etc.”

“Media tends to portray High Schoolers with actors who fall in line with Western beauty standards. This is extremely harmful to self esteem, as those who don’t fit those standards, are rarely portrayed, or are seen as side characters.”

“It bothers me when teens are played by adults, whose bodies are often way more matured. I feel like this sets a standard that’s impossible to meet for many people.”

I think it’s very clear that when the media portrays teenagers as these beautiful, flawless, people, it not only inaccurately portrays what teenagers actually look like, but is harmful for any teens or children watching.

 

Images taken from: