Taylor Swift’s Grammy-nominated All Too Well: The Short Film was a resounding success, thanks largely to Swift’s vision as director. Now, Swift has offered a behind-the-scenes look at how the Sadie Sink– and Dylan O’Brien-starring video was made.
It’s a pretty unfiltered video, too, a no-frills compilation of clips of Swift on set. Throughout the video, there are points where it’s clear Swift knows what she wants to see from her actors and knows just what to say to make that happen. In one moment, for example, Swift tells Sink, “We should always see a falseness to your smile. It should be contrasted by how real your smile in the last shot was.” Then, Swift watches Sink’s performance as it’s being filmed and she’s clearly impressed.
Beyond the set, Swift was involved in the editing process as well, as there are other clips that show her bouncing ideas off of editors. The video wraps with Swift explaining what’s behind Sink’s character in the video: “We’re watching a person lose an element of innocence and naivete. We’re watching her figure out how to turn it into something beautiful, and she’s… in the older her, there’s a stillness and a stocism and a seriousness, and a… stillness but a sadness. She’s fine, but she’s not who we met. So it’s just sort of one of those things of what’s lost and what’s found and, like, we’re watching a person come of age.”
Watch the behind-the-scenes video above and revisit All Too Well: The Short Film below.
Netflix has debuted the first half of their six-part Harry & Meghan docuseries, and you’d better believe that Piers Morgan fired those episodes up ASAP. The royal fanboy criticizes Meghan Markle at every opportunity, years after he famously stormed off he set of Good Morning Britain following Meghan’s allegations of racism from the Windsors. That anger-bear display followed his admission that Meghan “ghosted” him after a pub date, and he’s never been able (or willing) to let go.
Piers recently pitched a fit over “d*ckhead” Harry’s memoir, and he similarly trounced Meghan’s book. And Piers seems convinced that Harry and Meghan should refrain from ever discussing the circumstances that led them to leave the royal family, so the Fox Nation host has invested a lot of social media time into rage sessions, in which he argues that King Charles “should strip this petulant, selfish, greedy, hypocritical brat of all his remaining royal titles/status ASAP.” So, one should expect that Piers is not a fan of what he’s watching go down on Netflix.
The series’ trailer already set Piers off, and the same goes for the actual show. While he live-tweeted the first three episodes, Piers unoriginally compared the Sussexes to the Kardashians, and even though he didn’t stop watching, he still pointedly declared, “God, they’re so boring! #HarryandMeghanNetflix.”
This is worse than Keeping Up With The Kardashians. Something I didn’t think was humanly possible. #HarryandMeghanonNetflix
He’s also very amused that Harry accepted money to help “create a story” while also desiring some semblance of privacy. It’s all black-and-white to Piers, apparently, and the same goes for his rationale that Britain can’t contain pockets of racism because TV stations continued the customary practice of airing high-profile royal weddings. Alright!
‘It’s amazing what people will do when they’re offered a huge amount of money – hand over photographs to create a story’ – Prince Harry, who was paid £90 million by Netflix to hand over photos & create a story. This is so funny. #HarryandMeghanNetflix
Disgusting how they’re repeatedly trying to brand Britain a racist country. Most tolerant place in Europe, as all the coverage of their engagement/wedding showed. #HarryandMeghanNetflix
He continued his tirade, but he had to cut it short at a certain point. As revealed below, Piers had to break away from tweeting to pen his official “review of this nauseatingly self-serving narcissistic rehashed whine-a-thon.” Oh boy.
Markle now trashing her own father, who is still recovering from a massive stroke. Ms Compassion hasn’t even called him. #HarryandMeghanNetflix
UPDATE: My review of this nauseatingly self-serving narcissistic rehashed whine-a-thon will drop soon on @TheSun & @nypost – in a global event. pic.twitter.com/lwtZRtXOGq
Don’t Worry Darling was one of the most drama-plagued movies of 2022, with rumors of on-set drama, alleged feuds, and awkward press conferences. Also, one of the film’s leads spit on his one of his co-stars, unless he didn’t. So it’s no wonder that Don’t Worry Darling won The Drama Movie of 2022 at the 48th People’s Choice Awards. (Other nominees in the the category included Death on the Nile, Halloween Ends, and Luckiest Girl Alive, proving, once and for all, that “the people” have weird taste.)
“We made this movie in 2020 when many people were not confident that audiences would ever return to theaters if they ever reopened,” director Olivia Wilde said in her acceptance speech. “And yet more than 190 brilliant crew members showed up every single day during a pandemic to make something that they hoped that you guys would show up for. And you did show up. And we’re so, so grateful.”
But it’s not Wilde’s speech that has people talking — it’s her “revenge dress.”
The lingerie look was plucked straight from the brand’s 2023 ready-to-wear collection and featured a plunging neckline with a tiered, voluminous skirt and all-over intricate lace detailing. She accessorized with a gold hardware-embellished belt, bold smudged eyeliner from Haus Labs and effortless loose waves. [Wilde] seemed to channel Princess Diana, who invented the revenge dress in 1994 after wearing a sexy LBD when her estranged husband King Charles III admitted to having an affair.
This, not the breakup with Harry Styles, is the ending to the Don’t Worry Darling-era… at least until the inevitable spit jokes at the 2023 Oscars.
Mariah Carey hopped on The Late Show last night (December 7) to take Stephen Colbert’s “Colbert Questionert,” a recurring segment in which the host asks his guests the same set of general questions. While introducing the segment, Colbert referred to Carey as the “Queen Of Christmas,” at which point Carey had to get something off her chest.
Cutting Colbert off, Carey said, “First of all, may I say: I never called myself the ‘Queen Of Christmas.’ Can we please be clear on that?” She continued, “Others have said, ‘The self-proclaimed ‘Queen Of Christmas.’ I’m like, ‘Really? I’m gonna do that?’ They can look up every interview I’ve ever done and, not to get super religious, but I was like, ‘I think if anybody would be the ‘Queen Of Christmas,’ that would be Mary.’ And then somebody else uses my quote against me!”
She then explained what has sparked her love for the holiday, saying, “Christmas is for all and I just happen to actually really love Christmas, because I grew up and I had kind of a tough childhood, and I always wanted Christmas to be perfect, and it never was. And so then when I was able to provide myself and my friends, and then later, now my kids who are 11 — hi, ‘Roc and ‘Roe — we have the most festive Christmas ever. […] It’s actually authentic and it came from a place of longing to have some normalcy and some, you know, peace and… just a lovely holiday, and somehow, someone would be throwing mustard at somebody else, or ketchup or whatever. So I went through that, and now, it’s just… I wait for it all year long. So it is actually a real thing.”
She also made sure to note that she and her “All I Want For Christmas Is You” collaborators only make “1/16th of a penny” from streams of the song.
After nearly 300 days of being detained by the Russian government, Brittney Griner is on her way home. In a tweet posted on Thursday morning, President Joe Biden announced that a long-speculated prisoner swap between the United States and Russia has come to fruition and ended Griner’s time in a penal colony.
Griner was detained back in February after allegations that hashish oil was found among her belonging at an airport in Moscow. It did not take long for the United States government to label Griner as wrongfully detained by the Russian government, but despite that, Griner was found guilty on drug charges in August and sentenced to nine years in prison.
The potential of Griner coming home as part of a prisoner swap has been floated for months, with some reports indicating that the United States government wanted to release a Russian arms trafficker named Viktor Bout in exchange for Griner and a U.S. Marine named Paul Whelan, the latter of whom is serving a 16-year sentence in Russia for espionage. According to numerous reports, Whelan will not return to the United States as part of the swap, while Bout, who is known as the “Merchant of Death” and was arrested by the American government in 2008 in Thailand, will return to Russia.
For over two decades now, Deadmau5 (real name Joel Zimmerman) has been a leading figure in electronic music. The core of his visual identity is of course the signature helmet he wears, a simple sphere with a smiling face and two big circular ears on top. Now it turns out that after all these years of sporting the iconic headwear, Zimmerman’s spine has seen better days.
Yesterday (December 12), Zimmerman shared an x-ray of his (presumably) chest, which shows a spine that has a scoliosis-like sideways curve to it. He captioned the Instagram post, “‘Wear a mouse head’ they said. ‘It’ll be fun!’ They said.”
Indeed, Zimmerman has put a heavy load on his head, neck, and shoulders over the years. A 2011 Engadget feature notes that at the time, Zimmerman wore two different helmets during live performances: a neon-lined version and an LED version. The neon one weighed about 11 pounds while the LED model weighed “almost three times as much.” At the 2012 Grammys, though, Zimmerman debuted a carbon fiber head, which, given the material’s relatively light weight, was presumably not as heavy as previous iterations.
Meanwhile, in 2020, Deadmau5 came through with a memorable collaboration, linking up with The Neptunes (Pharrell Williams and Chad Hugo) for the single “Pomegranate.”
Putting creative work out into the world to be evaluated and judged is nerve-wracking enough as it is. Having to market your work, especially if you’re not particularly extroverted or sales-minded, is even worse.
So when you’re a newly published author holding a book signing and only two of the dozens of people who RSVP’d show up, it’s disheartening if not devastating. No matter how much you tell yourself “people are just busy,” it feels like a rejection of you and your work.
Debut novelist Chelsea Banning recently experienced this scenario firsthand, and her sharing it led to an amazing deluge of support and solidarity—not only from other aspiring authors, but from some of the top names in the writing business.
Banning shared on Twitter that 37 people had responded as “going” to her book signing at Pretty Good Books in Ashtabula, Ohio, on December 3, but only two showed up.
“Kind of upset, honestly, and a little embarrassed,” she wrote.
u201cOnly 2 people came to my author signing yesterday, so I was pretty bummed about it. Especially as 37 people responded “going” to the event. Kind of upset, honestly, and a little embarrassed.u201d
— Chelsea Banning Author (@Chelsea Banning Author) 1670160901
A librarian by trade, Banning spent 15 years crafting the story for her fantasy trilogy about King Arthur’s children. The first book in the series, “Of Crowns and Legends,” was published in August and Banning has been trying to market it ever since.
“For a while I felt like I was throwing my book into the void and getting nothing,” she told NPR. “This felt like last straw.”
Then something amazing happened.
That tweet—which Banning had considered deleting shortly after she posted—started making the rounds. And much to her surprise and delight, Banning got responses from the likes of Margaret Atwood, Jodi Picoult, Neil Gaiman, Stephen King and other famous authors, who shared their own unattended book signing woes.
u201c@chelseabwrites Join the club. I did a signing to which Nobody came, except a guy who wanted to buy some Scotch tape and thought I was the help. :)u201d
— Chelsea Banning Author (@Chelsea Banning Author) 1670160901
u201c@chelseabwrites Terry Pratchett and I did a signing in Manhattan for Good Omens that nobody came to at all. So you are two up on us.u201d
— Chelsea Banning Author (@Chelsea Banning Author) 1670160901
u201c@chelseabwrites I have sat lonely at a signing table many times only to have someone approachu2026and ask me where the bathroom is.u201d
— Chelsea Banning Author (@Chelsea Banning Author) 1670160901
u201c@linwood_barclay @chelseabwrites At my first SALEM’S LOT signing, I had one customer. A fat kid who said, “Hey bud, do you know where there’s some Nazi books?”u201d
— Chelsea Banning Author (@Chelsea Banning Author) 1670160901
Even some famous nonauthors unexpectedly swooped in to lift Banning up.
u201c@chelseabwrites YO,,, Here to hype up ya next signing!!!u201d
— Chelsea Banning Author (@Chelsea Banning Author) 1670160901
u201cThat is the beginning .. then word gets out and they come !u201d
Story after story poured in from dozens upon dozens of household writing names who had experienced two or one or zero people showing up to a book signing event. Anyone who has ever felt like they had failed due to a lack of interest or audience would find the thread inspiring, or at the very least, comforting.
But what was just as heartwarming as the successful writers commiserating with Banning was the fact that she shared her story in the first place. It’s not easy to be vulnerable like that—most of us want to share our wins, not our perceived losses, with the world. But Banning demonstrated how opening up invites others to do the same, which lets everyone know they are not alone in their struggles.
What a beautiful thing all around. And to make it even better, Banning sold out of her signed copies that very same day. Here’s to the power of sharing and caring!
The legality of abortion is one of the most polarized debates in America—but it doesn’t have to be.
People have big feelings about abortion, which is understandable. On one hand, you have people who feel that abortion is a fundamental women’s rights issue, that our bodily autonomy is not something you can legislate, and that those who oppose abortion rights are trying to control women through oppressive legislation. On the other, you have folks who believe that a fetus is a human individual first and foremost, that no one has the right to terminate a human life, and that those who support abortion rights are heartless murderers.
Then there are those of us in the messy middle. Those who believe that life begins at conception, that abortion isn’t something we’d choose—and we’d hope others wouldn’t choose—under most circumstances, yet who choose to vote to keep abortion legal.
It is entirely possible to be morally anti-abortion and politically pro-choice without feeling conflicted about it. Here’s why.
There’s far too much gray area to legislate.
No matter what you believe, when exactly life begins and when “a clump of cells” should be considered an individual, autonomous human being is a debatable question.
I personally believe life begins at conception, but that’s my religious belief about when the soul becomes associated with the body, not a scientific fact. As Arthur Caplan, award-winning professor of bioethics at New York University, told Slate, “Many scientists would say they don’t know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments. The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on.”
But let’s say, for the sake of argument, that a human life unquestionably begins at conception. Even with that point of view, there are too many issues that make a black-and-white approach to abortion too problematic to ban it.
Abortion bans hurt some mothers who desperately want their babies to live, and I’m not okay with that.
One reason I don’t support banning abortion is because I’ve seen too many families deeply harmed by restrictive abortion laws.
I’ve heard too many stories of families who desperately wanted a baby, who ended up having to make the rock-and-a-hard-place choice to abort because the alternative would have been a short, pain-filled life for their child.
I’ve heard too many stories of abortion laws doing real harm to mothers and babies, and too many stories of families who were staunchly anti-abortion until they found themselves in circumstances they never could have imagined, to believe that abortion is always wrong and should be banned at any particular stage.
I am not willing to serve as judge and jury on a woman’s medical decisions, and I don’t think the government should either.
Most people’s anti-abortion views—mine included—are based on their religious beliefs, and I don’t believe that anyone’s religion should be the basis for the laws in our country. (For the record, any Christian who wants biblical teachings to influence U.S. law, yet cries “Shariah is coming!” when they see a Muslim legislator, is a hypocrite.)
I also don’t want politicians sticking their noses into my very personal medical choices. There are just too many circumstances (seriously, please read the stories linked in the previous section) that make abortion a choice I hope I’d never have to make, but wouldn’t want banned. I don’t understand why the same people who decry government overreach think the government should be involved in these extremely personal medical decisions.
And yes, ultimately, abortion is a personal medical decision. Even if I believe that a fetus is a human being at every stage, that human being’s creation is inextricably linked to and dependent upon its mother’s body. And while I don’t think that means women should abort inconvenient pregnancies, I also acknowledge that trying to force a woman to grow and deliver a baby that she may not have chosen to conceive isn’t something the government should be in the business of doing.
As a person of faith, my role is not to judge or vilify, but to love and support women who are facing difficult choices. The rest of it—the hard questions, the unclear rights and wrongs, the spiritual lives of those babies,—I comfortably leave in God’s hands.
Most importantly, if the goal is to prevent abortion, research shows that outlawing it isn’t the way to go.
The biggest reason I vote the way I do is because based on my research pro-choice platforms provide the best chance of reducing abortion rates.
Abortion rates fell by 24% in the past decade and are at their lowest levels in 40 years in America. Abortion has been legal during that time, so clearly, keeping abortion legal and available has not resulted in increased abortion rates. Switzerland has the lowest abortion rate on earth and their rate has been falling since 2002, when abortion became largely unrestricted.
Outlawing abortion doesn’t stop it, it just pushes it underground and makes it more dangerous. And if a woman dies in a botched abortion, so does her baby. Banning abortion is a recipe for more lives being lost, not fewer.
At this point, the only things consistently proven to reduce abortion rates are comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control. If we want to reduce abortions, that’s where we should be putting our energy. The problem is, anti-abortion activists also tend to be the same people pushing for abstinence-only education and making birth control harder to obtain. But those goals can’t co-exist in the real world.
Our laws should be based on reality and on the best data we have available. Since comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control—the most proven methods of reducing abortion rates—are the domain of the pro-choice crowd, that’s where I place my vote, and why I do so with a clear conscience.
This article originally appeared on 4.10.20 via The Conversation
Fifty years ago, when Paul McCartney announced he had left the Beatles, the news dashed the hopes of millions of fans, while fueling false reunion rumors that persisted well into the new decade.
In a press release on April 10, 1970 for his first solo album, “McCartney,” he leaked his intention to leave. In doing so, he shocked his three bandmates.
The Beatles had symbolized the great communal spirit of the era. How could they possibly come apart?
Few at the time were aware of the underlying fissures. The power struggles in the group had been mounting at least since their manager, Brian Epstein, died in August of 1967.
‘Paul Quits the Beatles’
Was McCartney’s “announcement” official? His album appeared on April 17, and its press packet included a mock interview. In it, McCartney is asked, “Are you planning a new album or single with the Beatles?”
His response? “No.”
via The Daily Mirror
But he didn’t say whether the separation might prove permanent. The Daily Mirror nonetheless framed its headline conclusively: “Paul Quits the Beatles.”
The others worried this could hurt sales and sent Ringo as a peacemaker to McCartney’s London home to talk him down from releasing his solo album ahead of the band’s “Let It Be” album and film, which were slated to come out in May. Without any press present, McCartney shouted Ringo off his front stoop.
Lennon had kept quiet
Lennon, who had been active outside the band for months, felt particularly betrayed.
The previous September, soon after the band released “Abbey Road,” he had asked his bandmates for a “divorce.” But the others convinced him not to go public to prevent disrupting some delicate contract negotiations.
Still, Lennon’s departure seemed imminent: He had played the Toronto Rock ‘n’ Roll Festival with his Plastic Ono Band in September 1969, and on Feb. 11, 1970, he performed a new solo track, “Instant Karma,” on the popular British TV show “Top of the Pops.” Yoko Ono sat behind him, knitting while blindfolded by a sanitary napkin.
In fact, Lennon behaved more and more like a solo artist, until McCartney countered with his own eponymous album. He wanted Apple to release this solo debut alongside the group’s new album, “Let It Be,” to dramatize the split.
By beating Lennon to the announcement, McCartney controlled the story and its timing, and undercut the other three’s interest in keeping it under wraps as new product hit stores.
Ray Connolly, a reporter at the Daily Mail, knew Lennon well enough to ring him up for comment. When I interviewed Connolly in 2008, he told me about their conversation.
Lennon was dumbfounded and enraged by the news. He had let Connolly in on his secret about leaving the band at his Montreal Bed-In in December 1969, but asked him to keep it quiet. Now he lambasted Connolly for not leaking it sooner.
“Why didn’t you write it when I told you in Canada at Christmas!” he exclaimed to Connolly, who reminded him that the conversation had been off the record. “You’re the f–king journalist, Connolly, not me,” snorted Lennon.
“We were all hurt [McCartney] didn’t tell us what he was going to do,” Lennon later told Rolling Stone. “Jesus Christ! He gets all the credit for it! I was a fool not to do what Paul did, which was use it to sell a record…”
It all falls apart
This public fracas had been bubbling under the band’s cheery surface for years. Timing and sales concealed deeper arguments about creative control and the return to live touring.
In January 1969, the group had started a roots project tentatively titled “Get Back.” It was supposed to be a back-to-the-basics recording without the artifice of studio trickery. But the whole venture was shelved as a new recording, “Abbey Road,” took shape.
When “Get Back” was eventually revived, Lennon – behind McCartney’s back – brought in American producer Phil Spector, best known for girl group hits like “Be My Baby,” to salvage the project. But this album was supposed to be band only – not embroidered with added strings and voices – and McCartney fumed when Spector added a female choir to his song “The Long and Winding Road.”
“Get Back” – which was renamed “Let it Be” – nonetheless moved forward. Spector mixed the album, and a cut of the feature film was readied for summer.
McCartney’s announcement and release of his solo album effectively short-circuited the plan. By announcing the breakup, he launched his solo career in advance of “Let It Be,” and nobody knew how it might disrupt the official Beatles’ project.
Throughout the remainder of 1970, fans watched in disbelief as the “Let It Be” movie portrayed the hallowed Beatles circling musical doldrums, bickering about arrangements and killing time running through oldies. The film finished with an ironic triumph – the famous live set on the roof of their Apple headquarters during which the band played “Get Back,” “Don’t Let Me Down” and a joyous “One After 909.”
The album, released on May 8, performed well and spawned two hit singles – the title track and “The Long and Winding Road” – but the group never recorded together again.
Their fans hoped against hope that four solo Beatles might someday find their way back to the thrills that had enchanted audiences for seven years. These rumors seemed most promising when McCartney joined Lennon for a Los Angeles recording session in 1974 with Stevie Wonder. But while they all played on one another’s solo efforts, the four never played a session together again.
At the beginning of 1970, autumn’s “Come Together”/”Something” single from “Abbey Road” still floated in the Billboard top 20; the “Let It Be” album and film helped extend fervor beyond what the papers reported. For a long time, the myth of the band endured on radio playlists and across several greatest hits compilations, but when John Lennon sang “The dream is over…” at the end of his own 1970 solo debut, “John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band,” few grasped the lyrics’ implacable truth.
Fans and critics chased every sliver of hope for the “next” Beatles, but few came close to recreating the band’s magic. There were prospects – first bands like Three Dog Night, the Flaming Groovies, Big Star and the Raspberries; later, Cheap Trick, the Romantics and the Knack – but these groups only aimed at the same heights the Beatles had conquered, and none sported the range, songwriting ability or ineffable chemistry of the Liverpool quartet.
We’ve been living in the world without Beatles ever since.
Seaside Heights is a town on the Jersey Shore: a place synonymous with Snookie, The Situation, and a heaping helping of fist-pumping.
So you probably wouldn’t be judged for thinking it’s not a place of overwhelming inclusivity. In this case, though, you’d be wrong.
Let’s set the scene: It’s a spring night during prom season and deliriously happy high schoolers are sauntering down the boardwalk on their way home from a night they’ll never forget.
As couple after couple passes by one particular rooftop bar, some bros overlooking the scene are screaming at couples to kiss. And then there’s a pause.
Walking down the street is a gay couple in matching tuxedos (adorable). They’re holding hands (adorable).
But here’s the thing — as openly gay “Good Morning America” producer Mike Del Moro noted on Twitter (where he live-tweeted this occurrence), they’re doing it in a town “where — not so long ago — young men would shout the word ‘f****t’ out their car window as we’d stroll along the boardwalk.”
Del Moro, who was on the boardwalk with his mother and boyfriend, was instinctively nervous for the couple.
That makes total sense. Even in an ultra-liberal center like San Francisco, I’ve been harassed for holding hands with my husband. So in a place like Seaside Heights, Del Moro definitely had cause for concern.
What happened next, though, was a heartwarming step in the direction of progress.
Let’s let Del Moro’s tweets do the talking:
u201cLast night, while out for Motheru2019s Day with our families (read: getting some late-night ice cream because treat yourself!) we noticed a group of rowdy bros gathered on a rooftop bar obnoxiously yelling u201cKISS HER!u201d in unison at every apparent couple that passed by.u201d
u201cItu2019s prom season here, so at that time of night youu2019ll see high schoolers in their formal attire. As we walked by the rooftop bros, an adorable teenage gay couple passed us in perfectly fitting midnight bue tuxes, matching pink ties, holding hands.u201d
u201cI looked at Alec (my boyfriend), my mom, my sister, and stopped to make sure the couple was okay as they walked by… worried that something might happen. The rooftop crew quickly switched from u201cKISS HER!u201d To u201cKISS HIM!u201du201d
u201cAfter some hesitation, the young men kissed… and let me tell you: both the rooftop crew and everyone else on the boardwalk just went absolutely wild for them and we all breathed a sigh of relief.u201d
Del Moro makes it clear this occurrence doesn’t mean that “everything’s fine.”
It’s just one instance. But it is movement. And, as Del Moro notes, “it’s an encouraging moment for young LGBTQ folks out there.”
For the teens at the center of the story, the moment was worth every second.
You know how the internet works, so it won’t surprise you that the happy couple was immediately found, identified, and lauded for being out in a place where being authentically yourself can become dangerous.
They’re Theodore Vidal and Colin Beyers, boyfriends who couldn’t be more happy that things are changing in their town.
Speaking to BuzzFeed, Vidal, who revealed that he had been bullied after he first came out, said their encounter with the strangers on the rooftop was completely unexpected. “It was so surprising that these guys were supporting us,” Vidal said. “Especially after what I’ve gone through.”
“It’s an area where you normally would get discriminated against and the fact that those guys cheered us on was shocking,” Beyers told BuzzFeed. “It’s one of those small victories that makes the hard times worth it.”
Speaking with me over direct messages, Vidal said that all the positive attention had made him and his boyfriend feel “welcome in the world,” which is not always the case for LGBTQ youth. “It’s made such an impact on me.”
This is a reminder that things are getting better in small ways every day.
Admittedly, the story — however heartwarming — is still pretty problematic. Quick PSA to all dudes on roofs: Please stop screaming at people to kiss each other.
Catcalling is a bad idea regardless of why you’re doing it, and there’s no reason to put undue pressure on young people of any gender to kiss each other in public. And while this moment turned out great, it could have definitely been awkward or even upsetting.
That said, we shouldn’t let those imperfections take away from the fact that this story proves LGBTQ acceptance is making real strides against toxic masculinity and bigotry.
Personally, I’m looking forward to the day when gay couples can walk around without being jeered at or celebrated. In the meantime, though, this feels like a step in the right direction.
“It’s moments like what happened at Seaside that give me hope and make all the hardships worth it,” Beyers told me. “It’s funny, because we really didn’t do anything; all we did was be ourselves in front of some drunk people.”
Hey, that kind of bravery is often more than enough.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
