My Timothée Chalamet and Armie Hammer Google Alerts have been a little thin lately, but thanks to um… Reddit (yes, there is a Call Me By Your Name subreddit), I have a located a crucial update on the fabled sequel to the Most Beautiful Film Of 2018.

In a new interview with The New Indian Express, Call Me By Your Name author André Aciman gave a confusing update to the status of CMBYN sequel.

Quick refresher: Director Luca Guadagnino is “serious” about a sequel. Chalamet is “1000%” in. Hammer's down. Aciman promised that he is literally working on a second book about the two men as I write this. But, screenwriter James Ivory — the only one of the men involved to nab an Oscar for his contribution to the film — flat out said he would not be writing another script about Elio (Chalamet) and Oliver's (Hammer) love.

Now, back to Aciman: The news outlet asked Aciman if his process for writing the sequel had changed after seeing the film; does he write with a “cinematic medium in mind?”

“No, no absolutely not,” he responded. “I don’t even know how to write that way. I can never write with cinema in my mind, because it’s not how I vision the page and the rhythm of the sentences… What I do like is, it’s not a sequel, it’s more like a prequel…”

And yes that is where the quote ends. With a “…” which is also coincidentally what is currently in my brain. A prequel? This changes things. For one, Aciman's first novel ends differently than the film — in the book, there's a flash forward where Elio and Oliver interact for the first time in decades. This older storyline is the one that Guadagnino has expressed interest in exploring in his follow-up story with Chalamet and Hammer (and one of the reasons that the sequel was pushed — to let the cherub Chalamet age a bit on his own). But with news of the Aciman writing a prequel instead of the expected sequel, this changes things. We need to start filming, now!

Of course, there's always the chance that Guadagnino is doing his own thing, in which case we may have — dare I say it — double the CMBYN to look forward to: a new prequel on paper, and a proper sequel on the screen.

If this is true then I have one thing to say to Aciman:

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

pregnancy cheese rind
18 weeks can i have a glass of wine
PREGNANCY TERRINE
pregnant chicken not hot all way through
how much alcohol in kombucha

I wrote you this poem – do you like it? It’s a collage of some of the Google searches I carried out in the first four months of my pregnancy. I put the terrine bit in caps because I think that one really cuts to the nub of the hysteria.

Despite being a privileged person for whom the concept of terrine is an occasional thing, being pregnant has tested me in certain ways. Food is one of the things I care most about, so it follows that I’m most in tune with the ways in which pregnancy has tested my ability to eat food. I am, at 20 weeks, more attuned to this than I am any 'flutters' or baby movements which may be occurring inside my body, but which could also be indigestion.

It began with nausea, which I am loath to call 'sickness' because I was rarely physically sick. I am even loath to call it 'morning sickness' because the 'morning' part is a myth perpetuated by the patriarchy. I just felt hazardously sick and bleary all day long – like a smudge, rather than a person.

It was tolerable, though; I just moaned and kicked my legs about underneath the fleecy blanket on my sofa. What was less tolerable was this: I had no idea what I wanted to eat. In my pre-pregnancy life, rooting around in my brain and my crisper drawer for things I might like to eat was my number one hobby, my job and a defining part of who I was. But now I was pregnant, it had disappeared! I was so bereft that I didn’t fully believe it was ever coming back. I would scroll through Instagrams of people’s brunches, homemade pies and fancy sandwiches and think, Oh yeah, I remember when I was a person who enjoyed eating.

I ate bits and bobs when the moment took me and I stopped planning meals in advance. A bit of toast here, a buttered jacket potato there, a chicken-avocado sandwich when I was ravenous. I was off all the things I thought a foetus probably required – spinach, kale, fish, butternut squash, carrots. But I developed an unusual obsession with oranges and their juice, and found fleeting moments of joy in mangos and kiwi fruits. I had dry crackers on standby because the forums told me I should do.

I have never worried a huge amount about what I put in my body, but what does that mean now my body doesn’t belong to just me?

Smells were appalling. Have you ever smelled smells? They are disgusting. I had always relied on the smell of coffee to summon me from my pit in the mornings, but now I was unable to tolerate the brewing of coffee in my home.

And so it was on a breakfast of orange juice and not coffee that my husband Rich and I met a midwife for the first time. Erin told me that I should stop using the gym lest all my joints pop out of their sockets, I should eat lots of chickpeas and I should perform pelvic floor exercises three times a day: “At breakfast, lunch and dinner – easy.” Oh yes, a cinch! Just the amuse bouche my mealtimes were looking for.

By about 14 weeks, I was eating again. In my glee, I unthinkingly consumed a toastie with raw cheese in it (unpasteurised milk contains listeria!). Then, I psyched myself up over a period of weeks for a glass of Beaujolais. And I ordered terrine when the NHS website only warned me about pâté (more listeria!). After the terrine, I wondered if that had been the best decision – was that a distinction the NHS website felt inclined to make?

And this was the surprise – this new type of food guilt that would sweep in unannounced. Every woman knows the advice around food in pregnancy is questionable and extremely subject to change, but as soon as you’re pregnant it becomes very easy to vividly imagine how you might feel if something awful were to happen tomorrow, the day after you’d enjoyed a raw egg. I have never worried a huge amount about what I put in my body, but what does that mean now my body doesn’t belong to just me?

After that first midwife meeting, I laughed at the idea that my moderate use of the cross-trainer might result in anything other than a slight sweat, but I also went straight to Stratford Westfield to get a falafel wrap and flood my body with chickpeas.

And I stopped drinking my homemade kombucha – the murky, urine-coloured brew on my worktop just doesn’t fill me with confidence, however much alcohol it contains.

But not being able to plan meals in advance was a lesson worth learning. I’m not reading a great deal about childbirth, I’m struggling to commit to an NCT class and I don’t yet know a thing about breast pumps. The only way for me, personally, to cope with the enormity of this is to do one tiny bit at a time. Or in other words, there’s nothing that isn’t easier after a slice of toast.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

A Love Letter To Carbs

The Best Brunches In Every Part Of London

How To Become A One-Drink Wonder

Most people are terrified of 'settling' in their relationships. But don’t we all fall in love with imperfect partners in the end? Susan* is a 30-year-old Londoner who’s about to get engaged to someone who – on paper – probably wouldn’t meet half the criteria on her 'ideal partner' checklist, yet is the person she sees her future with. We asked her to tell us more about the fantasy of love, the reality of relationships, and why settling doesn’t always mean that you could do better. As told to Cristiana Bedei.

When I met my now soon-to-be fiancé, five years ago, I didn’t really think much of him – or us, as a thing. There was no magic or butterflies. We were in the same group of friends at uni and we had flirted a bit, but he was way more interested in me than I was in him. So I was just kind of messing around and seeing where that would go, when we ended up sleeping together.

He was not my usual type, to be honest. On a dating app, he wouldn’t have stood a chance, with his serious tone and all. Also, I was 25 and pretty much committed to finding a male version of myself to be with, picturing us listening to the same music, going to the same events and doing things together all the time – this person just wasn’t any of this. And to this day, we don’t have that much in common.

Somehow, what started as a casual one-night stand naturally progressed into a relationship that I was not sure about for a long time, with people around me asking: Do you think this could work? I didn’t know, then. And I was terrified of hurting him for not reciprocating his feelings.

It was pretty unsettling, the way all new and unexpected things are, but I was also over the highs and lows of my previous relationships and wanted to give this a chance. It felt comfortable, but it was also very ordinary. Where was the crazy, romantic head-over-heels passion? Was this what love was really 'supposed' to be like? I was questioning my feelings a lot, but not my expectations. I really stressed myself out for about a year, until I realised that maybe this was not the relationship I had imagined for myself, but it was the relationship I wanted, and still want today. I am not interested in looking for anything more, for anyone else, because even if it isn’t super exciting all the time, it is enough and we do really love each other.

It’s true, our life probably wouldn't make it into any romantic movie or TV series and I’m sure some people would call us boring, but we look after each other with love, respect and honesty. I’m okay with trading some passion for support, for showing up for someone who’s there for me when I need them. I’m done with the fantasy, with chasing a spark that would disappear anyway. I’m much more invested in building a sustainable future with someone who I trust and can come home to after a bad day and just be myself, even my tired-looking, annoying self. But I had to learn this, I had to rewire my brain into separating emotional rollercoasters and actual feelings.

A lot of relationships, even among my friends, seem to thrive on stormy arguments, break-ups and make-ups. And with dating apps and stuff, we’ve naturally become pickier – I mean, the whole point is to literally filter out people we don’t think would be a good match for us. I understand the thrill – been there, done that – but it’s not for me. I didn’t settle for the first person that came along, but I am so glad that in my 30s I’m not out there looking for someone, having to go on dates with strangers and so on. It’s not like I’m feeling the pressure of the 'biological clock' either, I don’t even want to have kids. I like going about my day, doing my thing in peace, then seeing my partner in the evening and going to bed together – I’m ready to do it over and over, for the rest of my life. Does this sound terribly average? Even unromantic, perhaps? We don’t do a lot of romantic things, anyway.

We don’t really plan dates or buy each other expensive gifts. He's bought me flowers once or twice, in five years. When it comes to birthdays and celebrations, I tell him what I want because it’s just easier. People may find it weird that, after such a long time together, he doesn’t know what to get me, but we have very different tastes and, honestly, I really don’t mind. I know he loves me and if you date anyone long enough, you’re going to see each other’s failings, that’s just how it is.

The question is: where do you draw the line? Do you know what you need and what makes you happy? I choose stability over fairy tale, but I’m with someone who feels like a best friend, where trust, honesty and respect are very strong, where there’s enough love and commitment to think of building a life together, and that’s where I’m meant to be, that’s who I’m meant to be with. And I wouldn’t settle for anything less.

*Name has been changed to protect the subject's identity

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

9 Definitions Of A Soulmate

6 Older Couples On Staying Together Forever

What Do You Do If Your Couple Friends Break Up?

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

<em>Someone Great </em>Is The Next Great Breakup Movie

Netflix Is Making The Baby-Sitters Club A Series

<em>Jessica Jones </em>Is Cancelled, With One Final Season

Are you ready for a psychological thriller? Because ITV is about to deliver one of the best dramas they've had going for a long time. Buckle up because we've got four days of intense, absorbing television to consume.

Cheat follows the wild and difficult relationship between a university professor and one of her students. Katherine Kelly stars as Dr Leah Dale, a promising academic who's long prided herself on her integrity, rigour and following the rules. Her father previously taught at the same university and she's up for a coveted, permanent teaching position. Before anything even happens, we know she has a lot to play for. Not to mention that she's trying for a baby with her partner but also fantasising about shagging one of her colleagues while masturbating in the toilets. As the first episode gets going, though, she's delivering a lecture on power dynamics for a module called Coercions. The tone for what's to follow is efficiently, if not so subtly, set.

Molly Windsor plays Rose Vaughan, a distant yet curious young woman who gives off the impression that she doesn't really care about the whole university thing. She turns up late, has a reputation for not engaging with the lessons and it's likely she's not often challenged because her wealthy father donated hundreds of thousands of pounds to renovate a building on campus. There's something unnerving lingering behind her eyes, and you'll be nervous about her potential even before she starts getting into any trouble. The turning point is when Rose hands in her dissertation. Leah is suspicious that the essay is far too good to be Rose's own work, while Rose of course says that she wrote it. At the very last minute, just before the grades are sent out, Leah decides to fail her, which Rose takes as a personal attack and quickly schemes how to get her own back. “You don't know what I'm capable of,” Rose tells Leah when she dares to challenge the dissertation's authorship.

From there, it all gets really bloody sinister. Each woman becomes entirely consumed by the other – Leah determined to prove that Rose is a cheat and Rose fixated on getting her own back. Before they know it they're diving into a black hole of destructive behaviour, with dangerous consequences. There's a scene where the pair sit opposite each other, separated by a glass wall. It very much looks like they're speaking in prison, but it's not clear who's the inmate and who's the visitor. What could have happened to warrant jail time? All because of a plagiarised essay? The trailer gives away the police investigation – there's blood on the floor, a zipped bodybag and the investigating officers don't seem to have gotten to the bottom of it either. Nervous? Us too. If there's one thing we're sure of, it's that there's little Rose won't do for vengeance.

Cheat runs from Monday to Thursday, showing on ITV One at 9pm each night

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

<em>Traitors: </em>The<em> </em>Must-Watch<em> </em>Female Spy Thriller

The Trailer For <em>His Dark Materials </em>Is Here

<em>Game Of Thrones</em> Season 8 Trailer Is Finally Here

When revered designer Phoebe Philo departed French label Céline last year after a decade at the helm, her dedicated following of Philophiles were understandably bereaved. Over 10 years, Philo’s aesthetic had infiltrated our fashion subconscious and influenced the wardrobes of so many, whether it was by popularising function over aesthetics (she made Stan Smiths the comfy and cool footwear of choice way before trainers became everyday-appropriate) or through high street labels like COS and Zara imitating her laid-back sophistication and delivering it to the masses.

Their horror was magnified when it was announced that Hedi Slimane, the former Dior Homme and Saint Laurent designer with a penchant for skinny, rock 'n' roll silhouettes, would be taking over the brand. How could LVMH, Céline’s parent company, replace Philo’s intelligent, women-focused designs with those of a man who celebrates a specific body type (read: heroin chic)? Where would smart, working, real women find sartorial inspiration now?

Let's put aside the fact that this conversation neglected to acknowledge that women have as varied and as broad a taste in fashion as they do in music, and that while Slimane’s aesthetic is the antithesis of Philo’s, it’s adored by many. The latter question has been answered tenfold, though: by Victoria Beckham upon her return to London after a decade in New York, by Bottega Veneta’s newly appointed Daniel Lee (who, Philo fans will be pleased to know, had a five-year tenure at Céline), and by the Olsens' label The Row. Indeed, there are plenty of places Philo’s disciples can find their new mecca. But what about those who, in reality, can’t?

A common and problematic thread could be found in the chatter surrounding Philo’s departure: one concerning class, inclusivity (or rather, a lack of it) and privilege in fashion. While there is no issue with bowing at the altar of Philo’s Céline, or of brands that share a similar aesthetic and direction – her clothes were important, moving, and industry-shaping, and her impact undeniable – this kind of minimalism carries a subliminal message of superiority.

One look at the language used in the bounty of homages paid to Philo, and the type of woman this aesthetic is made for becomes quite clear. Her Céline was “anchored in a real woman“, brought us a “unique brand of restrained elegance” and was “the uniform which holds working women together today“. And thank god, because “we work. We wipe our children’s mouths with the backs of our hands as we rush out the door. We don’t have time to consider whether our prints match or our buttons align. To try on different outfits each morning, like so many different personalities. To fuss and preen. That seems silly, somehow weak.” Philo’s brand enabled women to be “viewed for more than [their] surface appearance“.

It’s a line of thought that crops up time and time again when selling minimalism: the clever, well considered, morally superior and elegant way to live is by stripping yourself of excess and showiness, and by rising above passing trends. Why partake in poorly made fast fashion, all garish hues and loud prints, when you could KonMari your wardrobe and be the proud owner of a capsule uniform of 10 refined pieces: “Camel coats, well-cut trousers, silk shirts, a classic leather shoulder bag with a gold catch. Trusty, classy tools to help you do a job of work while all the world was falling apart“?

It feels as if a minimalist aesthetic is expected to be accompanied by a yoga/Goop/wheatgrass shot lifestyle which is, in itself, implicitly fatphobic.

Bethany Rutter

As Chelsea Fagan, the author of The Financial Diet, explains: “The implication of this kind of minimalism is obvious, and yet it somehow never seems to get addressed: the only people who can 'practice' minimalism in any meaningful way are people upon whom it isn’t forced by financial or logistical circumstances.” You see, to imply that minimalism is for the smart, working, real woman is to turn a blind eye to its narrow limitations, and therefore the women it excludes.

The first and most obvious issue with minimalism – which, thanks to Instagram, reaches far and wide, from fashion to interiors – is that it’s associated with a homogenous brand of woman. Often slim, often white, the #minimalist woman is central to a wellness-led life that now reigns supreme both on- and offline. The brands that offer this kind of aesthetic don’t tend to produce clothing above a UK size 14 or 16, which means that plus-size women are ostracised from the outset.

Journalist, blogger and author Bethany Rutter agrees. “It feels as if a minimalist aesthetic is implicitly expected to be accompanied by a yoga/Goop/wheatgrass shot lifestyle which is, in itself, implicitly fatphobic, and so the aesthetic itself is often really restricted to thin women,” she tells Refinery29. “That's also repeated in the availability of the clothes themselves, which means plus-size women are often not able to dress in a more minimal, simple style.”

According to PwC Insights' UK Plus Size Clothing Market Review, the plus-size market was worth around £6.6 billion in 2017 – estimated to be more in 2019 – and outperforms the overall womenswear market in the UK. Yet there are still far more limited options for plus-size women to shop. Specialists like Evans, SimplyBe, Curvissa and Elvi cater to this market, but can fall into the trap of not providing a wide range of styles. “I often wonder how my style would be different if the fashion industry treated plus-size women better, as it's still a really underserved market,” Rutter muses. “There are often trend items I would like to try that just don't get made in plus sizes, which is a big failing of the fashion industry.”

Where there’s a plethora of high street and designer brands that cater to all personal styles in smaller sizes – whether your penchant is for athleisure, normcore, hyper femininity or minimalism, if you’re a size 6-14 there’s something out there for you – brands that do provide fashion for plus-size women tend to serve a very specific aesthetic.

“It's difficult to find plus-size capsule pieces as brands tend to not think about how a specific item of clothing may look on a bigger body,” plus-size style and lifestyle blogger Stephanie Yeboah tells us. “I don't think brands want to keep in mind that bigger bodies can dress 'sophisticated' too, and this boils down to the fatphobic microaggression that fatter bodies either lean towards the 'mumsy/soft' characteristic, or the 'loud, bubbly and brash' characteristic. Thus, we are given options that adhere to these stereotypes: empire line dresses, smocks, butterfly prints, or loud, unforgiving prints with cold shoulders and poorly cut pieces.”

Earlier this month, a tweet summarising this very argument gained traction online. Twitter user Adwoa wrote: “If you’re slim and you can’t dress, I really don’t know for you cos you have all the clothes in the world.” She continued in the thread: “Imagine unlimited clothes in your size at every price point and all you know is New Look 2011 vibes, God forbid. Similarly, if you’re fat and fashionable well done because they really be trying to force cold shoulder and butterfly print upon plus size people.” The tweet had 2.6k retweets and 9.6k likes at the time of writing – and it’s not the first time this point has been made on social media. Another user commented below the tweet: “Also, certain body types within the bracket of 'slim' are praised and stylish for wearing absolutely anything. (They live on the IG explore page).”

This is another concerning facet of minimalism: when plus-size women are able to find specific items that fall under the aesthetic’s umbrella – the aforementioned camel coats and well cut trousers – they’re often berated for being lazy with their style, rather than the 'perennially chic' accolade given to slim bodied women. So when items do become available, is minimalism size-inclusive? “Not at all,” journalist Gina Tonic tells Refinery29. “The perception of these looks is stylish on thin people and lazy when worn on fat people. In fashion, and definitely even more so with Instagram, fat people have to work twice as hard on unique outfits and looks to be recognised, whereas hundreds of thin women have fashion Instagram accounts with thousands of followers where they wear the same jeans and a jumper every day.”

It’s a point Polyester zine founder and journalist Ione Gamble reiterates. “Plus-size women are expected to perform hyper femininity, otherwise we're seen as slobs,” she explains. When we describe minimalism as fashion for 'real women', we’re “implying that anything brash, loud, colourful, trashy, or in 'poor' taste is all low culture and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. The creative industries in general seem to romanticise minimalism in this way that is kind of gross – and deeply rooted in classism. It's why my zine, Polyester, was founded; to prove that things – art, clothes, music, everything – can be over the top, feminine, have bows and frills and glitter, and still be deeply rooted in intellectual ideas and grounded in social issues.”

Gamble makes a critical point about class: “There's this snobbery entrenched in fashion education, and the industry at large, that implores us to only take minimalism seriously; when to do so is to uphold outdated ideas about pretty much anything interesting. We need to dissect the reasons why we consider one thing to be intellectual, or 'serious', and the other dismissed as not so.” Rutter agrees that the language we use has a detrimental effect on how we perceive minimalism versus plus-size fashion: “I think there's a lot of class tension around minimalism,” she says. “The adjectives we use around whatever the opposite of minimalism is are also quite loaded and stigmatised – words like 'garish' and 'gaudy' – whereas I don't feel there's a minimalist equivalent.”

The intellectual connotations of the minimalist aesthetic stem from another class issue running through this debate. Countless features have been written about the KonMari method created by Marie Kondo, the author and 'organising consultant' whose enthusiasm for tidiness has seen her books bought by millions around the world. However, the premise of 'sparking joy' by ridding yourself of things, which has been pitched to the privileged classes as a mindful and environmentally friendly way of living and taps into minimalism's original premise, just isn’t an option for most people.

“It's all very well getting rid of all your possessions if you can buy them again any time you want,” Rutter points out. “It's fine to encourage people to have a capsule wardrobe but the implication is always that the pieces must be of the absolute best quality, which is going to be inaccessible to a lot of women.” Herein lies another issue at the intersection of minimalism, class and size inclusivity: while the privileged have any number of brands at their disposal that are not only high quality but are also made with the environment in mind, the majority of brands that cater to plus-size women tend to fall under the umbrella of fast fashion.

Beyond the plus-size specialists, a host of high street names have lines that range from UK size 16-26. Marks & Spencer, Very.co.uk, Next, Debenhams, ASOS, New Look, Monki, Pretty Little Thing, Dorothy Perkins and Boohoo all have pieces available for plus-size women – but brands like these often come under fire for contributing to fashion’s ethical and environmental problems. It’s a vicious cycle that means plus-size bodies often have to choose between ethical fashion and personal style. This isn’t a criticism of those who are making their wardrobes more sustainable or assessing their relationship with capitalist-driven consumption, but when those options aren’t available for all, we must think twice about pedalling a mindfulness-first approach to fashion.

The perception of these looks is stylish on thin people and lazy on fat people. In fashion, and even more so with Instagram, fat people have to work twice as hard on unique outfits to be recognised.

Gina Tonic

“I remember reading a quote,” Gina says, “that said something along the lines of 'minimalism is for rich people, because one or two crazy expensive items express their wealth easily, but as working class people save up and buy more items that are worth less, and then feel the need to show it all off because they've earned it (even if it's not stylish), the maximalism trend stems from that.' It feels similar to the idea of calling minimalism an 'intelligent' style; less is more only when you can afford to have it both ways.”

Thankfully, it does feel like progress is being made, albeit slowly, by a handful of brands changing the narrative around plus-size fashion. Last week, plus-size specialist Navabi collaborated with blogger and consultant Danielle Vanier on a 14-piece collection made up of monochromatic staples and pieces central to a minimalist’s wardrobe: tailored trousers, navy midi skirts, trench coats and white shirts. “After living and working in Stockholm, I began to crave simple, chic pieces,” Vanier told Refinery29. “Over the years, I've tried to put together a wardrobe that is made up of these sorts of clothes, but because I am plus-size, this has been difficult. I've known from day dot that if I was ever given a chance to design a range, it would be minimal. Navabi is such a well respected brand, known for their great fit, fabric quality and their genuine love and respect for larger people; it was a no-brainer when they asked me to collaborate.”

The US is making headway at a faster pace than us Brits. Universal Standard, founded in New York in 2014, aims to cater to the 67% of American women who wear a size 14 (that’s a UK size 16) or above but don’t see themselves reflected in fashion. “We saw a vast disparity in what was available to women, based solely on their size,” cofounder and creative director Alexandra Waldman tells Refinery29. “The styles on offer for women over size 12 were really limited and most often of terrible quality. Seeing as how they represent some 70% of the female population, it made no sense. Obviously from a purely personal perspective, as a size 20 woman, I hated the limitations imposed on me by the people making fashion in my size. In Universal Standard I knew I could create a line of clothing that I wanted to wear.”

And Comfort, a minimalist and plus-size specialist, is a thrilling new label on the market. “The brand was born out of a deeply personal experience: I wanted to make clothes my mum could wear, after seeing the lack of options for her in the mainstream market,” founder Karine Hsu explains. “For years, much of what was offered in plus sizes was overly decorated in mediocre or loud prints and rhinestones, instead of focusing on versatile, investment pieces. I noticed that the simplest things were often the hardest to find. That's why I wanted to focus on simple, well designed pieces that were comfortable and well made.”

It goes without saying that plus-size women do not have a homogenous personal style; this conversation isn’t about one particular body type claiming one particular aesthetic as its own – it’s about choice, inclusivity and accessibility. As Waldman says: “There are very few size-inclusive brands in the market in general – minimalist fashion is just a further subdivision within that gap.” The pedestal upon which minimalism has been placed is just the tip of the iceberg of one of fashion’s biggest issues. What really needs to be fought against is the notion that the crème de la crème of fashion is the preserve of the privileged. “We're often not allowed to choose our own identities,” Rutter says, and that is the crux of the problem. When brands start catering to everyone, bodies of all kinds can begin to shape their own narrative – one outfit at a time.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Update (13th March):

On Friday 8th March, amid lawsuit controversy, Marc Jacob has denied using grunge band Nirvana's iconic smiley logo on the brand's Bootleg Redux Grunge collection. According to Pitchfork, lawyers for the fashion house filed a motion for dismissal in a California federal court, arguing that the brand did not copy elements of the band's happy face.

Instead, the document states, Jacobs was drawing “inspiration from the looks that his friends were wearing in downtown Manhattan and in the Pacific Northwest,” and that the designer has been “inspired by grunge style” and incorporated grunge references throughout his career.

We'll update this story as it unfolds.

This story was originally published 31st December 2018.

When designer Marc Jacobs announced that he'd be reissuing the infamous “Bootleg Redux Grunge” collection that both made his name and got him fired from Perry Ellis back in 1993, we were beyond thrilled. Now, though, it seems like the collection has landed the designer in a spot of trouble.

According to TMZ and The Fashion Law, the band Nirvana are suing the Marc Jacobs International brand for using its trademarked (and iconic) smiley face logo on a T-shirt in the relaunched collection. The T-shirt reads 'HEAVEN' and has the designer's initials in the place of eyes.

According to reports, Nirvana, LCC (the legal unit founded in September 1997 by Dave Grohl, Krist Novoselic, and the Courtney Love-controlled Cobain Estate) has handed a lawsuit to the brand, claiming that the T-shirt “infringed Nirvana’s copyright, misleadingly used Nirvana’s trademarks, and utilised other elements with which Nirvana is widely associated to make it appear that Nirvana has endorsed or is otherwise associated with” the reissued collection.

You may be questioning why the band's representatives are coming down hard on Marc Jacobs, when fast-fashion retailers have been using Kurt Cobain's 1991 yellow hand-drawn logo on T-shirts for years. Well, unlike the likes of H&M and Urban Outfitters, allegedly Marc Jacobs did not receive authorisation or pay a license fee to use Nirvana’s intellectual property.

The product description on the brand's site also alludes to the band's lyrics. “This exclusive piece from the 1993 Grunge collection was created by Marc Jacobs during his time at Perry Ellis. This bootleg smiley tee sure smells like teen spirit.”

The T-shirt sits alongside checked shirts, cropped cardigans and biker boots, all pieces from the original Perry Ellis collection, which Jacobs re-released in November. He said (via press release) of the collection: “The ‘Grunge’ collection epitomised the first time in my professional career I was unwavering in my determination to see my vision come to life on the runway, without creative compromise.”

Despite being criticised on social media for the smiley T-shirt, Marc Jacobs has yet to respond to the reports. We'll keep you posted.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Why Minimalist Fashion Has A Privilege Problem

Ganni Launches The Perfect Spring-Ready Collection

Take A Look At Staud's First Shoe Collection

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

UK Travellers Will Pay To Visit EU Post-Brexit

"I Moved To Ireland Because Of Brexit"

All The Ways Brexit Will Affect UK Women

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

We Asked 3,670 Women About Their Vaginas

The Jamu Stick Promises To 'Exfoliate' Your Vagina

'Irresponsible' Vaginal Rejuvenation Advert Banned

On a recent Wednesday evening, Cristina F. was stressed about a murder confession.

Chris Watts, a Colorado man in prison for killing his wife and two young daughters had spoken to investigators in February, and now some five hours of that audio were to be released to the public. As one of the administrators for Facebook discussion group dedicated to the case (Refinery29 is not publishing the name of the group in order to protect the members’ privacy), it would be Cristina's job to post everything coming the next morning from the Colorado Open Records Information Act so that the more than 5,000 members of the group could parse it all in as close to real time as possible.

“It's two audio files of five hours total, two images of Chris Watts, one CBR report, and a letter from the Department of Public Safety is being released,” she told Refinery29. “So, we're going to stream the audio files live in the group. Once I download it, we are going to all listen to it at the same time. So, that way it cuts out the time of me having to upload it to a server.”

But it wasn't just the burden of dealing with the logistics of how to disseminate the information dump that had her on edge. Cristina was also concerned about what Watts might reveal and how it would affect her understanding of a case she'd been following and dissecting for months.

“When the confession comes out tomorrow, some questions will be answered but there will still be a question of this man, the father that we see — because everyone says how great he was and you can't find one person to say anything bad about him ever, ” says Cristina, pausing for a moment. “My [current] husband's an amazing father and he reminds me of [Watts]. So, it's like, you want him to be innocent. You kind of need him to be innocent because if he isn't, it's like my husband could just one day snap and kill me and my kids.”

The amateur sleuth is a ubiquitous trope in our true crime-obsessed society. Empowered by the unprecedented access to information granted by the internet and our current state of constant connectivity, today’s web sleuth has plenty of material to obsess over: surveillance footage from any number of private and public cameras, Facebook posts and Instagram stories, online access to court records, and cell phone pings. Sometimes these groups prove useful to law enforcement, exploring cold cases that overwhelmed police departments don’t have time to devote resources. Sometimes they take on an insidious life of their own, one that focuses on the grisly with cruel scrutiny.

And then there are groups that function as a kind of clearing house for information — a place where true-crime obsessives can come together and talk amateur psychology and forensics in an effort to make sense of senseless crimes. The Chris Watts Facebook group that Cristina runs has splintered into different pages as more details of the case have emerged. Her focus has little to do with solving the crime or empathising with the victims, but rather understanding the granular specifics of the motives behind it. They aim for absolute objectivity.

Cristina, a mother and seasonal worker in Maine, had been spending over eight hours a day on the Chris Watts Facebook group for months. Her friends don’t really get her fascination with the case, and her husband stopped talking to her about the crime when Watts pled guilty and was sentenced in January. He couldn’t understand why she’d devote so much of her time to understanding the motivations of a confessed killer — especially considering her history.

We all want to believe we have some control over our lives, especially when it comes to crimes such as murder, rape, and assault.

Silvia M. Dutchevici, MA, LCSW

Cristina, who says she’s been obsessed with true crime her whole life, has firsthand knowledge of a mysterious death in a way most other members of the Facebook group don’t: In 2006, her then-husband smothered their infant daughter to death. It was ruled an accident, but Cristina has her doubts about what really happened that night.

Shortly before the little girl’s death, Cristina had woken in the middle of the night and realised her husband and baby were not in the room with her. She ran into the darkened living room where she found them both on the couch — the baby was swaddled, face down, and he was using her as a pillow. In a panic, Cristina grabbed the little girl, who was breathing and seemed fine. She told her husband that under no circumstances was he to touch the child again at night.

Two weeks later, she once again woke in the middle of the night, this time to the sounds of her older daughter crying. Once again, she found her husband on the couch with the baby. This time, she wasn’t breathing. First responders came, but it was too late.

“He said that he was sleeping with her but I knew he wasn’t sleeping. He was awake. His voice was awake. Everything about the house was awake,” says Cristina. “But he told the police that he had just fallen asleep with her. He was snuggling with her and then he woke up that way. It was my word against his. So they really just chalked it up to accidental co-sleeping.”

Cristina argues that the situation with her daughter has enabled her to discuss crime with true objectivity. In the Facebook group, she’s found a group of like-minded people. She’s careful to note that her board is not a “fan site” — she’s not one of those women sending Chris Watts love letters and nude photos. Rather, her goal is to weigh all the evidence at hand (the Watts family were prolific users of social media and left behind a huge digital footprint) and try to determine why and how a man could snap and kill his pregnant wife and young daughters.

Silvia M. Dutchevici, MA, LCSW, psychotherapist and president and founder of the Critical Therapy Center, explained to Refinery29 that many of the amateur Facebook sleuths are likely trying to find a sense of control in a world where there is none. “We all want to believe we have some control over our lives, especially when it comes to crimes such as murder, rape, and assault,” she says via email. “We want to believe that we can protect ourselves from such atrocities and that the world is a safe place. Subconsciously, if we have been attacked at some point in our lives, we might align ourselves with the aggressor because it feels safer. It is a way to disavow or ward off our own vulnerability and fragility.”

I’m always aware. I’m aware that this is possible. I’m aware that people are capable of this. If I understood the ‘how,’ that protects my family.

Cristina F.

Is that why, in the case of Chris Watts, the prevailing theories on so many of the Facebook pages implicate a woman — either his mistress, Nichol Kessinger, or his wife Shanann herself? Did Nichol’s openness to sexuality awaken something dark in him? Did Shanann’s “domineering” personality somehow cause her husband to snap? Could it be true, as Watts had told investigators in his first confession, that he'd killed his wife only after discovering she'd murdered the girls in a jealous rage over his extramarital affair?

If a commenter on the page takes offence at the notion that the victim might be responsible in some way for her own death, they are quickly put in their place by other members who remind them to be “objective.” In this space, the notion of the internalized societal misogyny that might lead a man to lash out at his wife for being “domineering” isn’t a matter of debate. It’s just a fact of life. It’s a motive, pure and simple.

“Victim-blaming puts the responsibility of the crime or assault (as this happens a lot in rape cases) on the woman and takes on the perspective of the perpetrator,” explains Dutchevici. “For women, victim-blaming is a way to psychologically deny vulnerability in oneself.”

Cristina, who has found herself the target of heated criticism for her attempts to remain “neutral” while discussing Watts, is not averse to psychoanalysing her relationship to the Chris Watts case. “I'm always aware. I'm aware that this is possible. I'm aware that people are capable of this. If I understood the ‘how,’ that protects my family,” she says.

When the audio of Chris Watts’ second confession was made public, it revealed a largely unrepentant man who detailed for investigators how he had sex with his wife Shanann when she returned from a business trip before strangling her to death just a few hours later in the same bed.

But most troubling to Cristina and many of the other members of the Chris Watts Facebook group was Watts’ admission that he — not his wife, as he had previously suggested — had killed his daughters, Bella, 4, and Celeste, 3.

In the audio posted to the Facebook group, Watts described how after strangling Shanann, he'd wrapped her body in a sheet and dragged her down the stairs. His daughter Bella walked in on the scene. “What are you doing with momma?” the 4-year-old asked. Watts then loaded his two daughters and the body into his pickup truck and drove for 45 minutes to the oil field where he worked. He described the girls in the backseat holding each other. When they arrived, he smothered Celeste with her blanket.

When he returned to his truck, Bella asked him, “Is the same thing gonna happen to me as Cece?” Watts then disposed of his daughters' bodies in two separate oil tanks. He buried Shanann in a shallow grave.

The confession was damning enough to test Cristina's theory that there had to be reason for what had happened, some kind of logical explanation. “He had a 40-minute calm-down time, so I don't care where your brain's at,” she says, referring to the brutal slaughter of the girls.

Still, the confession hasn’t provided a definitive answer for all of the members of the Facebook page. Some still insist that Watts was covering for his girlfriend. Others find it unlikely that a woman as wilful as Shanann hadn’t fought for her life.

A few days after the confession was released, things were different for Cristina. Still grappling with the new information, she wrote in the group, “Let’s face the facts y’all. I’ve noticed that as I listen to ‘The Confession’ I constantly have lightbulb moments because of all the smaller details. Some are truly irrelevant to the case in general, but have had their legitimacy challenged for over half a year, repeatedly. If you’re here because of your fascination of criminology, [the] confession serves as an answer sheet for all of those educated guesses we have formed along the way.”

The Chris Watts Facebook page was Cristina’s first experience as an administrator and highly engaged member of a true-crime group. She’s always followed crime closely — she actually got involved with the group after following the Mollie Tibbetts murder online — but it was the Chris Watts group where she found a voice among like-minded people who wanted to examine things clinically, even if it meant pursuing a troubling opinion (like that a victim might have had a role in her own death) and, most importantly, even if it meant reevaluating things like “gut instinct.”

Cristina is now a moderator on a different Facebook group she began with some of the people she met while discussing Chris Watts, which focuses on the murder of Kelsey Bereth. It’s another case from Colorado — Patrick Frazee has been charged with killing Kelsey Bereth, his fiancee and the mother of his one-year-old daughter, with the help of an ex-girlfriend.

It seems telling, in a way, that Cristina’s next mystery isn’t really a mystery either. Frazee’s ex-girlfriend, Krystal Lee Kenney, gave a detailed confession to law enforcement in which she admitted that her ex had asked her to kill Bereth on more than one occasion and that she herself had cleaned up the crime scene, disposing of grisly evidence like one of Bereth’s molars knocked out of the young mother’s mouth when Frazee beat her to death with a baseball bat. So what is there to discuss? Some in the group allege that Kenney is the actual killer — motivated by jealousy to get rid of the romantic competition for Frazee’s heart. The catch: These assertions must be backed up with forensic or circumstantial evidence available from public records.

The “truth” that Cristina and other Facebook sleuths are searching for is slippery at best, even with so much information available. But the notion that all murder cases can be shaped into a mystery – and the belief that a mystery can always be solved – is not much different from how society consumes true crime as a whole for entertainment purposes (see our renewed fascination with Ted Bundy and Adnan Syed of Serial – cases that have both evolved within the legal system and the court of public opinion over time). The different mediums — from online sleuths to prestige television — all strive for some kind of objective truth or definitive answer behind unspeakable crimes. But sometimes that answer, that “truth,” will live forever just out of reach, an unknowable thing locked away in the heart of a bad man.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

This Speedy In-Shower Trick Will Revive Dry Hair

2019's Best Low-Maintenance Hair Colour Trends

These Products Transform Dry Hair Overnight

No wonder Ivanka Trump recently “joked” that being President Donald Trump's daughter is “the hardest job in the world.” According to Kushner Inc., a book by HuffPo editor-at-large Vicky Ward set to be released on 19th March, the president allegedly wanted Ivanka and Jared Kushner to resign because they were giving him bad press. Which is confusing, because he's pretty capable of giving himself bad press.

“Get rid of my kids; get them back to New York,” Trump told his former White House chief of staff John Kelly in 2017, according to a copy of the book obtained by the New York Times on Tuesday.

Trump apparently complained that Ivanka and Jared “didn’t know how to play the game,” which goes against the widely perpetuated idea, at least at the beginning of his presidency, that his daughter and son-in-law act as moderating forces on the president.

“I wrote Kushner Inc. in part to pierce the narrative that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner have been moderating influences on the president,” Ward tweeted on Monday. “They are far from stabilizing forces. They are, in fact, his chief enablers. I show that in example after example in my book.”

She continued, “There is a reason why anti-nepotism laws exist. Not only are Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump inexperienced and unqualified to hold such power within the White House, but they are, as John Kelly says, 'difficult to fire.' That invincibility is dangerous.”

In the book, Ivanka defends her father's comments that “there is blame on both sides” for the deadly violence in Charlottesville, VA, in August 2017. “My dad’s not a racist; he didn’t mean any of it. That’s not what he said,” she reportedly said.

Unsurprisingly, a spokesperson for Ivanka called Kushner Inc. “a book of fiction.”

“The 220 people I interviewed for the book might beg to disagree,” Ward fired back on Twitter.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

If you're like me, you spent most of the day poring over the documents that outline one of the wildest cases of college admission fraud that we'll likely ever hear about (and yes, that is a challenge). Actresses Felicity Huffman and Lori Loughlin are two of 33 parents who have been charged with allegedly paying bribes to get their children acceptance into colleges like USC. The full indictment also names nine coaches and three college exam proctors who were allegedly responsible for helping students fake involvement in sports for recruitment and doctoring exam scores, respectively.

Sometimes, though, it's the little details that are the most unbelievable. It's weirdly easy to digest that rich parents were bribing their children's ways into college — didn't all of us kind of assume this was already happening? — but when you hear exactly how they did it, it becomes that much more worthy of the HBO mini-series treatment that we're crossing our fingers it receives.

Here are some of the wildest details:

The FBI was tipped off to this scandal during an unrelated case.

A person was literally like, “by the way, this college bribery thing is happening” when speaking to the FBI about something totally different. Following that lead allowed them to uncover this giant case.

The bribes were filtered through a charity that claimed to help underserved students.

In the cruelest irony, the large sums of money being given as bribes were disguised as donations to charity — a charity that claimed to help underprivileged kids attend college, when in fact, it was doing the exact opposite.

This is my new favorite novel. pic.twitter.com/MGx5x8Fyfj

— James Poniewozik (@poniewozik) March 12, 2019

Parents had their children's faces Photoshopped onto stock photos of athletes.

For parents that took the route of faking sports involvement and then bribing coaches to recruit their child, they paid for someone to just put their child's face on an athlete's body, and sometimes had them pose in positions that would be Photoshopped to appear as if they were playing a sport.

Man I am dying at the detail in this college admissions cheating scandal that they photoshopped the kids’ faces onto actual athletes’ bodies to submit pics to schools pic.twitter.com/gNEIjpsUA2

— Molly Hensley-Clancy (@mollyhc) March 12, 2019

Indictment against wealthy parents buying their kids into selective college is stunning. Some kids didn’t know about their parents efforts. But Lori Loughlin’s kids did. They pretended to row crew – even posed on ERG machines – to get into USC. They are both Instagram stars. pic.twitter.com/vR2rnxOvyf

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) March 12, 2019

A student submitted their handwriting so it could be copied.

For those who had proctors take tests instead of the students or doctor their answers, one had their child submit a handwriting sample. This handwriting was then presumably copied by the person who allegedly doctored the test.

the court documents are WILD reading; here is an image of a handwriting sample submitted so a proctor could match a signature and fix a wealthy kid’s test scores pic.twitter.com/GHOpoPJ4XA

— Kathryn VanArendonk (@kvanaren) March 12, 2019

Olivia Jade, daughter or Lori Loughlin, once faced backlash after dismissing college.

“I don’t know how much of school I’m gonna attend, but I’m gonna go in and talk to my deans and everyone and hope that I can try and balance it all,” Olivia said in an August 2018 YouTube video. “I do want the experience of like game days, partying. I don’t really care about school, as you guys all know.”

Felicity Huffman used the phrase “ruh roh” in relation to committing fraud.

And perhaps the most shocking detail: Huffman's response to her daughter's school wanting to use their own proctor rather than the compromised proctor that would go on to allegedly doctor or falsify test scores was…”ruh ro!” Like Scooby Doo.

Felicity Huffman literally typed the words “Ruh Ro!” while planning to commit mail fraud pic.twitter.com/iYsFNtL7qT

— Kathryn VanArendonk (@kvanaren) March 12, 2019

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Money Diary: A Nurse In Nottingham On 23k

Money Diary: A 23-Year-Old On 38k

Money Diary: A 29-Year-Old IT Manager On 60k

Brexit, Trump and the spread of populism across Europe have made many of us reconsider the political diversity of our social groups, both online and off. We often hear, particularly as 'millennials', about the dangers of living in 'filter bubbles' or 'echo chambers' in which we're exposed purely to like-minded people, through a combination of online algorithms and our squeamishness regarding views different from our own.

While the impact of these echo chambers may have been overstated, according to various studies, I admit I shield myself from Trump's Twitter account and inflammatory content produced by the Daily Express, The Sun and the Daily Mail. I know I should be more receptive to engaging with alternative narratives, if only to challenge my own confirmation bias.

So I reached out to Dominique Samuels, the spokeswoman for Turning Point UK (TPUK) and asked her if she would take part in a weeklong email back and forth with me. Would discussing politics with a card-carrying member of the political right expand my outlook? And what effect would the conversation have on our strongly held opinions?

As well as being a figurehead of the UK's newest political student movement, 20-year-old Samuels, from Manchester, is a politics and international relations student at the University of York. TPUK is an offshoot of Turning Point USA, a controversial pro-Trump pressure group targeted at millennials, which espouses the virtues of capitalism, free speech and limited government. (In the US it's also become associated with racism and the far right, and has been accused of encouraging the harassment of professors on US campuses and interfering in student government elections.) Its UK launch in February triggered a wave of parody accounts and outrage, while the health and social care charity Turning Point wasn't best pleased, to say the least.

Samuels was 17 when she first identified as right-wing, she says, and while she wasn't old enough to vote in the EU referendum, she supported the Leave campaign and “feel[s] even more passionate about it now”. This makes her statistically unusual, according to research last year suggesting that young women are the most left-wing demographic.

With only days to go until 'Brexit day' (29th March) and a no-deal scenario still on the table, Leavers and Remainers are still no closer to understanding one another.

For me – a “self-confessed lefty liberal” – I wanted to know what Dominique made of the situation, about TPUK's stance on hot-topic issues, and what can be done to heal political divisions going forward. Click through to read our (at times heated) email exchange…

6 March 2019, 3:45 PM

Hi Dominique,

I'm struggling to remember a period during my lifetime when politics felt as divided as it does now – between young and old, rich and poor, left and right, those with a higher education and those without, between north and south, I could go on – and Brexit seems to have only exacerbated matters. Research I've seen, such as a report by Hope Not Hate last year (based on six years of polling, answers from 43,000 people and data analysis), supports this. People's worries are many: Young women fear the risk of violence on the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland; they worry about what might happen to their earnings and rights at work; as well as what it means for the NHS and abortion access. A YouGov/Hope Not Hate poll last July found that, two years after the EU referendum, 71% of Remainers felt pessimistic for the future compared with 35% of Leavers. Something's gravely wrong with the state of the UK right now – and Brexit is just around the corner (if it goes ahead on time, that is).

What's your take on this? Do you also sense these divisions? Or are you happy with the way Brexit is going and the form it's taking? I'm keen to hear your view.

Best wishes,
Natalie

6 March 2019, 5:27 PM

Hi Natalie,

I also sense these divisions where Brexit is concerned. From a Brexiteer's perspective, I feel as though these divisions have been exacerbated particularly by our political class, specifically when it comes to questioning the motivations of those that voted to leave the European Union. Leavers are often described as racist, bigoted and not informed enough to know what they were voting for; the list goes on. But at the end of the day, 17.4 million people made a decision on 23rd June 2016.

Our politicians, particularly the likes of Anna Soubry and Chuka Umunna, have done nothing but voice contempt for the biggest and one of the most important democratic outcomes this country has seen for some time. Anna Soubry's own constituency voted to leave the European Union, yet she seems more concerned with overturning that outcome and throwing it back in the faces of those millions of people that voted, including her own constituents. But this isn't just reserved to those outside of government. The government itself has done little to alleviate the fears of Remainers and Leavers alike and I feel as though this whole process has been treated as a problem that needs to be managed, rather than an opportunity the UK can capitalise on.

We hear little about how our products from the EU are 20% more expensive for consumers, or the fact that the World Trade Organization confirmed the UK will have continued access to a procurement market worth £1.3 trillion, or the fact that only around 7% of businesses actually rely on such close alignment with the EU, many of them big businesses that rely on EU protectionism to keep competition outside of the EU. This in itself is creating heavy divisions in our society, particularly among those that believed in democracy and that politicians actually listen to the people. Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that this really isn't the case.

Young women are completely entitled to be worried about the issues surrounding Northern Ireland and access to abortion, but we must also remember and perhaps consider for a second that the Northern Irish issue is being used as negotiating leverage against the UK. Neither Northern Ireland nor the EU wants a hard border with Ireland, and in fact, other means of retaining a smooth passage of goods across the border were being looked at positively in the political declaration outlining our next steps with the EU.

I, of course, do not want a hard border with Northern Ireland, but stopping that from happening does not automatically require the UK to be locked into a permanent customs union. To me, that is just absurd, yet something our government seems to be charging towards, despite the fact that it would restrict our economic and trading freedom and make us continued subject to EU rules and regulations. This isn't what people voted for. I would prefer no deal, using Article 24 of the World Trade Organization's General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which would facilitate smooth passage of goods without being locked in a customs union. But unfortunately, there is no majority in parliament for no deal, and this is not something I believe our government is going to look towards, as seen with [Theresa May] allowing MPs to vote down no deal and vote for extending Article 50 if her deal does not pass.

If Brexit is delayed, those divisions will only be entrenched further, especially if there is a second referendum, which again, is something some of our politicians seem to be charging towards. It really is disappointing.

Dominique

8 March 2019, 6:16 PM

Hi Dominique,

I hear everything you're saying about the potential (but by no means inevitable) positive economic impact of Brexit on the free market. But I suppose it comes down to priorities and whether you think it's worth risking people's fundamental human rights in exchange for greater trade freedom.

Your group, Turning Point UK, advocates 'personal responsibility', along with the likes of free markets, free speech and limited government. You also claim to be fighting against 'identity politics', socialism and collectivism, all of which many young people identify with in 2019 – as the boom in support for figures like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders over the last few years highlights. (This might also partly explain the parody social media accounts that exploded in the wake of the group’s launch.)

I’m wondering two things: First, why do you think so many young people are offended by Turning Point having sprung up in the UK? Secondly, I’m keen to hear your thoughts about 'personal responsibility' as it pertains to women, people of colour and the socioeconomically disadvantaged. Do you believe that the gender and ethnicity pay gaps, or the UK’s social mobility crisis, for instance, are the fault of women, ethnic minorities and the working class? And what about violence against women and people of colour – is that their fault? There are so many similar points I could bring up here, but I’ll hand you back the mic, as it were.

I look forward to hearing more,

Natalie

10 March 2019, 1:12 PM

Natalie,

I think young people on the left are so 'offended' by Turning Point because it challenges their skewed ideas. You quite frankly cannot run a country on emotion more than you do logic and facts, which is something that is absent from leftist political discourse in the modern age. As such, we are going to be called Nazis, alt-right, and fascist, despite the fact that we are none of the above, because labels are the only tool the left can use to try and silence those that challenge their ideas. These silly accounts are just a reflection of desperation, and the setting up of them is actually coordinated, from what I’ve read about it, by people who largely aren’t 'young' and quite clearly have nothing better to do with their time. On a positive note, we have received a large amount of support from young people like myself, of all colours and backgrounds, because that is what our movement aims to do, and we’ve only just begun, so I am very excited.

Firstly, I reject the term 'people of colour'. It’s a patronising, French spin on 'coloured' and assumes white is the default and anybody else is 'other' ('coloured person' in French is literally 'personne de couleur' and we've taken that and now say 'person of colour' as if that makes it any different, when it isn't). Not only that, but it’s factually inaccurate. Being 'of colour' does not automatically mean you are part of a minority group, so the sooner that term is dispelled, the better.

By personal responsibility, I mean the power of the individual to know what is best for their life more than the government does. That does not mean those at a disadvantage do not deserve a safety net – my mum has severe narcolepsy and cataplexy, which means she relies on the highest rate of disability benefits to live a normal life – it simply means we should not look to our government to solve all of our problems, which is a pretty common-sense concept, in my opinion.

The gender and minority pay gaps are not as straightforward as they initially appear, and they suggest that gender and ethnicity is the main determinant of success in 2019 when that quite simply is not the case. For example, The Guardian (surprise, surprise) published an article about white doctors being paid more than black doctors. That seems pretty terrible, right? That our health system is purposefully discriminatory towards black doctors? Well, when looking closely into this, this is because black doctors are more likely to be younger, with less experience, which means therefore they are paid less. This is a generational issue reminiscent of the structural barriers faced by black people in Britain, but this is not a direct cause of active discrimination itself. In reality, in 2019, working-class white boys are at a greater disadvantage in education than women or ethnic minorities, women are more likely to be in higher education than men and ethnic minorities are the group most likely to go to university. British Indians in our country now earn, if not the same, a higher income per week than white people in our country. All of these examples demonstrate that when we empower the individual, the individual pulls through and becomes successful. My being black and a woman isn’t in spite of my success in Britain.

Linking personal responsibility to violence against women and minorities is a misunderstanding of the term. Of course violence against women and minorities is not their fault, which is why it is illegal. In fact, legal barriers to discrimination and gender-based violence are ever present in 2019 and protect people like me from discrimination. If we want to look statistically, however, women make up more of the population than men. Despite that, men are more likely to commit suicide, more likely to be the victim and perpetrator of crime, more likely to be homeless and have a higher mortality rate than women. These facts demonstrate that in our generation, both genders and all ethnicities are successful and less successful in different areas.

Dominique

11 March 2019, 12:53 PM

Hi Dominique,

As a passionate Remainer, I agree it can be reckless for anyone to be motivated disproportionately by emotions over logic in politics. I also understand why it must be frustrating for you to be tarred as a Nazi, fascist, or as a member of the alt-right, if you don't identify as such. I'm interested to hear what you make of Turning Point USA's associations with xenophobia and the hard-right, though – does this public image of the organisation bother you at all? How would you describe Turning Point's position within the political right in the UK?

It's also insightful to hear your criticism of the term 'people of colour'. As a white woman, I hadn't considered this. I, like many others, use it in the absence of (as far as I can see) a better alternative in a country where the vast majority of people are white, but I can see why some believe it's too simplistic and why some black women, for example, argue it minimises their blackness. What's your preferred term?

On your point about personal responsibility; in my experience, I'm not sure anyone expects the government to 'solve all [their] problems'. That's a lazy argument that those on the right have deployed throughout history to justify cutbacks to basic social security provisions and promote the virtues of small, 'nimble' government – not to mention as a way to justify life-ruining austerity policies. (It has worrying echoes of the old 'culture of poverty' argument made in the late 1950s, in which social theorists argued that people in poverty perpetuated their own disadvantage across generations with their own fecklessness and lack of 'hard work', paying little attention to the structural and economic factors trapping them.)

Like most feminists, I imagine, I also completely dispute that it's simply a case of men and women being 'successful and less successful in different areas' in the UK. While gender equality isn't just a women's issue (your point about male suicide, mortality and homelessness is really important), we're still living in a patriarchal society where women are disproportionately penalised: for daring to continue the human race while holding down a job; women are more likely to be murdered by men than vice versa; and men still hold the UK's most influential positions. (Women make up just a third of MPs and hold only a quarter of FTSE 350 board positions. I could go on. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this.)

I'd like to end on a productive note. With Brexit just over two weeks away, in theory (!) and no sign of the country's generational divide healing any time soon, what do you think the solution is for uniting the UK and regaining a sense of optimism – particularly among the young people who feel so ignored by the political class? Big question, but how can we move forward and improve everyone's lives in a post-Brexit world?

Thanks Dominique and I look forward to reading your response.

Natalie

11 March 2019, 5:52 PM

Hey,

The public image of Turning Point USA is largely a positive one. It has over 300 chapters on college campuses across the US, and a presence on over 1,300, making it an extremely successful youth movement which is what we’re excited about emulating here. Look, on issues such as xenophobia and the 'hard-right', I take these terms with a pinch of salt; much too often, believing that a country should have strong border control, for example, is tarred with these simplistic terms aimed at silencing debate.

I prefer the term 'black/mixed race' to 'person of colour'. I am okay with the use of the terms 'ethnic minority/BAME' as they are more accurate. It is often said, I’m not sure where this rule has sprouted from, that referring to someone as what they are, which in your case would be a white woman, is deemed offensive. I remember referring to one of my classmates as a black girl to my French teacher in college and she seemed shocked that I had used it. Why would anyone be offended by being referred to as what they are if it wasn’t intended to insult, but rather to illustrate factual reality? It baffles me.

From my personal experience, I’ve found expecting the government to be able to solve all of our problems is sadly the case, when in a lot of scenarios, actually empowering the individual is the solution to most of our problems rather than expecting the government to do it for us. That can manifest itself in many ways. For example, where welfare is concerned, I believe everybody is entitled to a safety net. However, I would put more focus on the government empowering charities and religious groups to carry out the fantastic work that they do, as it is often targeted, varied, and way more effective than any bureaucratic government programme. Sadly, our current government doesn’t quite seem to understand this.

While I am happy about the government’s recent efforts to fully end austerity, things like taxes being at a 50-year high, corporation tax being so high, while putting too much focus onto silly projects like HS2 instead of using that money to give the north better rail services, really do frustrate me.

I think Brexit will always be a contentious topic, but the best thing for the government to do is get us out of the EU, deal or no deal. The deal put forward is laughable, so therefore the only sensible thing to do is leave the European Union on WTO terms and begin focussing massively on the domestic agenda, using the opportunities leaving the EU provides by focussing on housing, on investment, on the proposed CANZUK project. Whether or not you voted to leave the EU, the people want to see the government acting on what was promised. The sooner it’s done and not delayed, the better!

Dominique

12 March 2019, 10:49 AM

Hi Dominique,

Thanks for this. It's been really eye-opening talking to you over the last week. While I still disagree with you on most of the issues we've covered – Brexit, the persistence of the oppression of women, and the responsibility of government in providing a social safety net – I'll certainly be reevaluating the way I use the term 'person of colour' without thinking about its connotations.

Tell me, how has our discussion been for you? We've disagreed a fair amount but I've found it an enriching discussion. Thanks so much for taking the time to talk about these issues.

All the best,
Natalie

12 March 2019, 10:59 AM

Natalie,

On the whole, I’ve really enjoyed this discussion. If I can change somebody’s mind or perhaps make them more open to different ideas, even the slightest amount, I’m happy, so I’m really glad you see my point of view on the 'POC' topic. Although we disagree on stuff, I think discussion is crucial, so I’m glad we’ve done this.

It was lovely talking with you,
Dominique x

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Why We Should Care About Brexit & The Irish Border

All The Ways Brexit Will Affect UK Women

What Young Women Worldwide Think About Brexit

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Rouje's Latest Drop Has Us Dreaming Of Spring

The Cult Gaia Pieces We're Lusting After

Take A Look At Staud's First Shoe Collection

When it comes to a planet-friendly beauty routine, haircare is the biggest offender. Research suggests it produces the largest carbon footprint in comparison to other daily rituals, such as skincare and makeup.

The negative environmental impact is threefold. Firstly, the washing process uses significant amounts of both water and energy. Calculations by Eco Hair & Beauty suggest that washing your hair daily uses about 14,222 litres of water and 1,252 kWh of energy annually. This works out at a carbon footprint of 500 kg of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂e). That’s before you take into account the energy used by blow-drying or styling tools such as straighteners and curling tongs.

Your hair products themselves may also be harming the planet. “Daily products could be hiding plastic, petroleum or crude oil derivative-based ingredients that are often sourced using methods with a high carbon footprint,” Olivia Crighton, founder of the sustainable salon Glasshouse, explained. This is something Anita Rice, cofounder of sustainable salons Ralph & Rice and Buller & Rice, elaborates on. “These also end up washed into our waterways and can be potentially harmful to marine life. Some hair products also contain palm oil which is known to cause widespread deforestation and the endangerment and extinction of many animal species.”

In the last year, the world's plastic problem has become a topic that can no longer be ignored. The beauty industry is a major culprit, with Zero Waste Week reporting that 120 billion units of packaging are produced every year by the global cosmetics industry, the majority of which are not recyclable. Plus, beauty products that are recyclable often don’t end up in the right bin. Statistics from the Recycle Now campaign highlight that while 90% of kitchen waste is recycled, only 50% of bathroom waste is.

Hair product packaging is one of the trickiest to recycle efficiently. “Often intricate designs come with various different types of plastic in one single bottle which makes them more challenging to recycle correctly,” Crighton explained. Aerosols, which are used throughout hair styling ranges, carry their own issues beyond the difficulties with waste. “Even though ozone-depleting chemicals are currently being phased out, aerosols still contain hydrocarbons and compressed gases which contribute to global warming,” Rice emphasised. In salon these problems are intensified, with hairdressing businesses using large quantities of hot water and energy for the washing and styling process. Other, often forgotten factors, such as use of washing machines for towels and single-use plastic for highlighting foils or protective capes, further increase their impact.

It’s not all doom and gloom, though, and there are some steps you can take to limit the impact of your hair routine. After chatting to the experts I tried seven of them. Here’s how I got on.

Switch to sustainable products

Changing your product is a good first step and luckily the array of green hair brands is broadening. Brands such as Davines, Maria Nila, Briogeo, Rahua and Biolage RAW operate sustainably in some way. While these brands all eschew single-use plastic, buying extra large sizes or opting into refill systems can help cut your waste further.

I tried a new brand called We Are Paradoxx which has sustainability at its core. They are 90% plastic-free, with products packaged in stainless steel and aluminium. They chose this material as it produces fewer CO2 emissions than plastic or glass when transported, and can be recycled on an infinite loop without degrading in quality. I use the Super Natural Shampoo, £18, and the Secret Weapon Conditioner, £20. Packed with nourishing natural ingredients, I find a little goes a long way and I love the botanical scent. Once dry my hair feels soft, smooth and most importantly, frizz-free.

Skip the conditioner

Reducing time spent in the shower will decrease your hot water and energy use, and skipping the conditioner cuts this in half. Of course, this is easier said than done for some hair types but luckily my short hair rarely gets tangled or matted. However, due to my lifelong love affair with blonde hair dye, it gets dry and brittle. I opt for a nourishing shampoo designed for coloured hair, such as Davines NOUNOU, £16.10, and a leave-in conditioning serum, Davines MOMO Hair Potion, £19.70. I use the shampoo as normal in the shower and apply a pea-sized amount of the serum in the ends of my hair while wet. Once dry, it feels particularly silky – more so than my usual shampoo and conditioner routine.

Brave a cold(er) shower

Okay, an entire cold shower isn’t feasible in winter, but a blast of cold water at the end can cut your energy use. Plucking up the courage to twist the tap is a weird mental battle but once I manage it, it’s certainly energising, albeit rather unpleasant. Cold shower fans are evangelical about its benefits for your wellbeing and, supposedly, your hair. But I’m not a convert yet and don’t notice any major difference in my hair.

Use planet-friendly tools

Unfortunately, the majority of combs and brushes are made from single-use plastic. While there’s no point replacing a tool that’s still in good nick, if you are in need of a new one, it’s worth investing in something that will eventually be recyclable. I tried the Wooden Cushion Brush, £23, from Glasshouse’s new eco hair tools range. These brushes are made using natural materials and FSC certified wood in a factory where the leftover shavings are used to heat the manufacturing premises, so nothing goes to waste. It was excellent at detangling wet hair and smoothing frizz on dry hair. I’m sold.

Try an express blow-dry

All the experts I spoke to preached forgoing the hairdryer and embracing natural texture. I’m lucky that my short hair doesn't need much styling and dries pretty quickly, but in the depths of winter it’s not ideal to leave the house with it wet. To speed up this process and cut down on hairdryer time, I used an accelerating spray. This raised an eco dilemma, as sprays like these tend to come in aerosol cans. I spritz the Maria Nila Quick Dry Heat Spray, £17.99, into wet hair before blasting dry. The brand has green credentials such as recyclable packaging and manufacturing in a sustainable factory. This isn’t a rigorous scientific study but my hair seems to dry quicker. Maybe in about a third of the time it would normally take. I’m impressed.

Eke out washes

The easiest way to minimise your environmental impact is by washing your hair less often. While I’ve never washed my hair daily (I’m far too lazy), shorter hair can get greasy quicker, and I normally wash it about three times a week. For this experiment I stretched it to twice a week, which meant going three days without a wash. (The hygiene conscious among you will be pleased to know I did shower in this time.) To combat the grease that appeared by day three, I used the ultimate lazy hair solution: dry shampoo.

However, in order to commit fully to an eco-approved routine, this meant using an aerosol-free solution. Luckily Rahua, a 100% organic and sustainable Brazilian brand, delivered with their Voluminous Dry Shampoo, £30. The product comes with a recyclable eco-squeeze dispenser that you shake and squeeze to apply the fine powder onto your hair. It’s not as effective to apply and takes a little getting used to, but once I brush my hair through and give it a little shake it works a treat. It smells great and disappears quickly, leaving my hair feeling soft and lifted at the roots without any annoying grey residue. I whack on a hairband and I’m good to go. The only downside? It’s 10 times the price of your standard can. If it's a little out of your budget, try Klorane Eco-friendly Dry Shampoo with Oat Milk, £9.

Book an eco-friendly cut

Shorter hair equals less maintenance and less impact, so I schedule in a chop. With hairdressers often having a large environmental impact, choosing one with stringent credentials is key when implementing a green routine. I visited Buller & Rice, whose salon is designed with the latest energy-efficient building materials, uses entirely eco products and offers a refill bar for customers. I have my hair cut into a bob and it’s shorter than ever before. It’s freeing in more ways than one but it makes my fortnight of trialling sustainable hair hacks much easier.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

This Speedy In-Shower Trick Will Revive Dry Hair

Why I Shaved My Head After Years Of Wearing A Wig

The Curly Hair Mistakes You Need To Stop Making

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

<em>Game Of Thrones</em> Is Facing An Unexpected Scandal

<em>Game Of Thrones</em> Season 8 Trailer Is Finally Here

HBO Just Dropped 14 New <em>GOT</em> Photos

Only a handful of movie sex scenes feel like they were written specifically for women, but the library scene from Atonement is undeniably one of them. The mere mention of it elicits gasps of recognition by women of all ages, followed by a rundown of the distinguishing elements: The green dress! The crackling chemistry! Forbidden love! The tender way James McAvoy asks Keira Knightley why she’s crying!

It’s a moment that’s become so enmeshed in recent cinematic history that any callback to it is instantly recognisable. Which is why I found my eyes popping out of their sockets midway through The Aftermath, when Alexander Skarsgard’s German widower pushes Keira Knightley’s sad British wife onto a dining room table in a way that very obviously evokes that scene.

The two films have much in common. Based on literary source, both are period pieces set in and around World War II, start with “A,” and feature Knightley in a slinky silk evening gown — although Aftermath’s is chartreuse to Atonement’s emerald green. Fans of one will certainly enjoy the other, and indeed the nods to the library scene and Knightley’s iconic dress indicate that director James Kent is counting on the audience to make those connections. But, however thrillingly familiar, such been-there, done-that moments have the downside of reminding us that this is reheated material lacking the emotional impact of the original.

Based on Rhidian Brook’s novel by the same name, the action takes place in post-war Germany, circa 1945. The Allies have won the war, and the country has been parcelled out, with France, the Soviet Union and Britain each occupying certain zones. When Rachael Morgan (Knightley) arrives in Hamburg to join her husband, Lewis (Jason Clarke), it’s with a sense of martyrdom. Having lost a son during the London Blitz, she has born the brunt of suffering as a victim of German aggression. And yet, it soon becomes clear that things aren’t so simple. Hamburg is a hollowed out shell after a firestorm set off by Allied bombs destroyed a large part of the city, and its residents are being forced to give up what’s left of their homes to make room for British officers and their families. They’ve suffered too. The question here is: do they deserve it?

Unfortunately, the film isn’t interested in answering that. Instead, we’re introduced to Stefan Lubert (Alexander Skarsgard), a soft-spoken and polite widower and former architect who ends up playing host to the Morgans. You can probably predict the rest: Rachael starts off cold and distant (Knightley practically spits out the word “modern” to describe the furniture), but soon falls for Stefan’s cat-and-mouse game; as as Lewis remains obliviously kind and emotionally unavailable, the other two embark on an illicit love affair.

Knightley and Skarsgard’s scenes together are hot and all, and Kent makes lovely use of natural light and white sheets to tease out the sweetness of two lovers forcing one another to reconnect with parts of themselves they’d thought lost.

Still, the film lacks the moral ambiguity that would make such a romance compelling. Stefan’s status as a “good German” who never bought into Hitler’s agenda (and in fact is quite outraged when it’s suggested he might have) is never really in question. Lewis sides with him from the start, and we’re never given any reason to doubt his story. What’s more, Stefan’s daughter Freda’s (Flora Thiemann) subplot romance with a Nazi extremist teenager is given all the complexity of a thimble, neutering any possible nuance. The idea of showcasing German civilians’ suffering during the post-war years, and the resentment of an entire generation whose lives were stolen by conflict, is a refreshing and important one, but it requires depth and subtlety, and The Aftermath doesn’t fully commit to the task.

Knightley gives an assured performance — this kind of stuff is her bread and butter, after all. I could watch her wear lovely clothes and brood in front of a fire for many hours. (Actually, I have.) She deftly conveys the turmoil of a woman who is desperately trying to find her way back from a dark place, but is also reluctant to let go of her last connection to her son. She used to be fun; she used to laugh — is it a betrayal if she does so now?

The romance with Stefan, steamy though it is, is unnecessary baggage, a sexy distraction from a quietly devastating story about a marriage gutted by loss and estrangement. Most of Clarke and Knightley’s scenes together are viscerally uncomfortable, and thus the most interesting to watch. Like post-war Germany itself, the two must grapple how and if they want to move forward from a difficult past and into an uncertain future. It’s the most interesting part of the story, and the least explored.

The Aftermath is in UK cinemas now

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Why Keira Knightley Chooses Period Roles

Saoirse Ronan On Playing A Queen

What It's Really Like To Film A Sex Scene For TV