Latest news with #bodyImage
Times
06-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Times
I watched YouTube for a week with my children. Here's what I learnt
At about 5pm every day, in the small window between after-school activities and dinner, my three and five-year-old daughters veg out in front of a screen. Sometimes they'll watch a cartoon on Netflix; occasionally they'll ask for CBeebies. The majority of the time, though, it's YouTube. The show they chose — or rather, that was algorithmically suggested — to watch one recent afternoon follows the adventures of a real-life brother and sister. They'd watched it before, as have many other children, since it's one of the most popular kids' channels on YouTube. While my daughters love the slapstick humour, to me it's like white noise, the background soundtrack to my multitasking. But the video they watched that day made me pay attention. In it the brother tricks his sister into thinking she has gained weight. Visibly upset, the little girl changes into a skimpy workout outfit to do star jumps, and later turns down a sandwich in favour of a plate of raw carrot sticks, before heading to her bedroom to weigh herself. I was horrified, both at what we were watching and at myself for letting my impressionable daughters access it. How was it, I wondered, that this type of content was being promoted on a platform marketed as family-friendly? And what else had they watched that had flown under my radar? According to Michelle Neumann, a professor of childhood education at the University of Sheffield who has carried out research on children's YouTube content, this is precisely the problem with a lot of what our kids are watching. 'On the surface many of these channels seem OK, so if a parent glances over their shoulder, they might think, that looks fun,' she says. 'But when you dig deeper, you realise there's a lot of problematic content.' So I set myself a challenge: for one week I would dig deeper, intently watching everything that my girls were looking at on YouTube to see what I would learn. I should preface my little experiment with a disclosure: my husband and I used to work for Google, which acquired YouTube in 2006. I joined in 2017, the year it emerged that bad actors were circumnavigating the platform's filters to run creepy, violent and explicit videos on YouTube Kids, the version of the app for under-12s. But the company's response to the scandal had been solid, I thought — introducing new guidelines for creators about what qualified as good children's content, beefing up its moderation and mass deleting inappropriate videos. • YouTube and the rise and rise of trash TV for kids In the years after the scandal, after we became parents, my husband and I found ourselves turning to the platform more and more for educational and entertainment purposes. The depth of content is simply unrivalled. For example, around the age of four, after reading a lift-the-flap history book in our local library, my eldest daughter developed a morbid fascination with the bubonic plague. Her endless curiosity quickly exhausted my limited grasp of 14th-century history, but I knew YouTube would have the answers. Sure enough, I found what seemed like an age-appropriate video that taught her everything she needed to know about the Black Death. She watched it repeatedly for months, until the next obsession took over (Egyptian mummies). This way of using YouTube is what Michael Robb, the head of research at Common Sense Media, the age-rating forum for parents, calls intentional — knowing what you're looking for and being deliberate about identifying it. The problem is, he says, it's just not reflective of how people actually use the platform. 'You could stay within a playlist that perhaps a parent has curated and have really good, high-quality content,' he tells me. 'But it's not how kids use YouTube, and it's not how it was designed.' When a carefully chosen video finishes, algorithmically powered suggestions on what to watch next can take kids down a rabbit hole of low-quality — even harmful — content. This became clear within about ten minutes of my week-long challenge. After watching a video where a monocle-wearing cartoon professor explained evolution (fuelled by another question that had left me stumped), what followed was a flurry of content that, had it appeared on terrestrial television, would have had the Ofcom complaints line ringing off the hook. In one video, which had more than a billion views, two young brothers showed off a homemade vending machine that spat out boxes of sugary cereal, fizzy drinks and chocolate bars. In another, a child played with what the video title described as 'girl' toys: a pretend sewing machine, a nail salon and a pink play kitchen (all things my girls love, I should add — but so, too, do lots of boys). • Apart from these (and other) examples of content that flouted UK broadcasting guidelines or featured dated stereotypes, most of what we watched might generously be called clickbait: content that promised to teach children to learn new words, say, but that ended up being a thinly disguised toy promotion. Many of the videos we watched had titles packed with educational-sounding buzzwords, but turned out to be garbage with no narrative arc, out-of-sync dubbing and, all too often, an undercurrent of consumerism. A spokesperson for YouTube told The Sunday Times: 'On YouTube Kids we provide parents with robust controls to decide what content to make available, whether approving specific content, choosing from age-appropriate categories, or the ability to block specific videos or channels.' They added that, after reviewing the links we shared, it had found no violations of its community guidelines. My experiment stacks up with what other (more rigorous) studies have found: the platform has a few gems, some quite shocking content and a hell of a lot of rubbish. 'We did some research a few years back and found that, while YouTube says it has a lot of educational, high-quality videos, really only a small percentage of the content could be classed that way,' Robb says. 'A lot of the videos that position themselves as being high quality or educational are very shallow.' By the end of the week I realised it was these types of videos that bothered me the most — content that Neumann described as 'wolves in sheep's clothing'. I feel well equipped to have conversations with my children about media content that very obviously challenges our family values. After watching the video that first triggered this article, I spoke to both my daughters about what we had just seen — how no food is inherently good or bad, about how we exercise to feel, not look, good. But knowing how to deal with the other, more innocuous-seeming content has left me as confused as when one of my kids asks me how birds evolved from dinosaurs. Colin Ward, a Bafta-winning former children's TV producer and member of the Children's Media Foundation, agrees that, like me, most parents are struggling to separate the wheat from the chaff. But he questions whether that type of pressure should be put on us in the first place. 'Parents can't be expected to police this — it's just not possible,' he says. Neither should we put our faith in the platforms to self-regulate, given their main concern is their bottom line. 'It's a very competitive market and they are focused on monetisation, so they're not going to change.' YouTube told The Sunday Times: 'We have strict advertising guidelines on YouTube Kids, and don't allow paid promotional content.' If we can't leave it to individuals or the free market to tackle, that leaves just one actor that might make a difference: governments. Ward knows that might not be popular with some people, but makes a point I think most parents will agree with. 'We all accept that there are some things that are important as a public service, whether it's the armed forces or parks, and that those things need taxes to support them and sometimes regulations,' he says. 'When it comes to our children having access to high-quality content and not just utter drivel, that too is surely a social good?' The present government has already indicated it will take action. Late last year the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, wrote to YouTube urging it to make high-quality programming more visible on its platform. She also suggested that, if this doesn't happen voluntarily, regulation might force its hand. YouTube told The Sunday Times that it 'continues to engage regularly with the culture secretary, as part of our ongoing efforts to support the UK's high quality children's content creators'. But while she and others work on that, what are parents to do? Ban our kids from accessing YouTube? Co-watch at all times? Neither seems realistic, at least not in my household. I have promised we will continue to apply a little more of that all-important intentionality. In other words, relying on our gut when deciding what might be an appropriate video for our kids, rather than ceding control to an algorithm.
Times
05-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Times
I watched YouTube Kids for a week with my children. Here's what I learnt
At about 5pm every day, in the small window between after-school activities and dinner, my three and five-year-old daughters veg out in front of a screen. Sometimes they'll watch a cartoon on Netflix; occasionally they'll ask for CBeebies. The majority of the time, though, it's YouTube. The show they chose — or rather, that was algorithmically suggested — to watch one recent afternoon follows the adventures of a real-life brother and sister. They'd watched it before, as have many other children, since it's one of the most popular kids' channels on YouTube. While my daughters love the slapstick humour, to me it's like white noise, the background soundtrack to my multitasking. But the video they watched that day made me pay attention. In it the brother tricks his sister into thinking she has gained weight. Visibly upset, the little girl changes into a skimpy workout outfit to do star jumps, and later turns down a sandwich in favour of a plate of raw carrot sticks, before heading to her bedroom to weigh herself. I was horrified, both at what we were watching and at myself for letting my impressionable daughters access it. How was it, I wondered, that this type of content was being promoted on a platform marketed as family-friendly? And what else had they watched that had flown under my radar? According to Michelle Neumann, a professor of childhood education at the University of Sheffield who has carried out research on children's YouTube content, this is precisely the problem with a lot of what our kids are watching. 'On the surface many of these channels seem OK, so if a parent glances over their shoulder, they might think, that looks fun,' she says. 'But when you dig deeper, you realise there's a lot of problematic content.' So I set myself a challenge: for one week I would dig deeper, intently watching everything that my girls were looking at on YouTube to see what I would learn. I should preface my little experiment with a disclosure: my husband and I used to work for Google, which acquired YouTube in 2006. I joined in 2017, the year it emerged that bad actors were circumnavigating the platform's filters to run creepy, violent and explicit videos on YouTube Kids, the version of the app for under-12s. But the company's response to the scandal had been solid, I thought — introducing new guidelines for creators about what qualified as good children's content, beefing up its moderation and mass deleting inappropriate videos. • YouTube and the rise and rise of trash TV for kids In the years after the scandal, after we became parents, my husband and I found ourselves turning to the platform more and more for educational and entertainment purposes. The depth of content is simply unrivalled. For example, around the age of four, after reading a lift-the-flap history book in our local library, my eldest daughter developed a morbid fascination with the bubonic plague. Her endless curiosity quickly exhausted my limited grasp of 14th-century history, but I knew YouTube would have the answers. Sure enough, I found what seemed like an age-appropriate video that taught her everything she needed to know about the Black Death. She watched it repeatedly for months, until the next obsession took over (Egyptian mummies). This way of using YouTube is what Michael Robb, the head of research at Common Sense Media, the age-rating forum for parents, calls intentional — knowing what you're looking for and being deliberate about identifying it. The problem is, he says, it's just not reflective of how people actually use the platform. 'You could stay within a playlist that perhaps a parent has curated and have really good, high-quality content,' he tells me. 'But it's not how kids use YouTube, and it's not how it was designed.' When a carefully chosen video finishes, algorithmically powered suggestions on what to watch next can take kids down a rabbit hole of low-quality — even harmful — content. This became clear within about ten minutes of my week-long challenge. After watching a video where a monocle-wearing cartoon professor explained evolution (fuelled by another question that had left me stumped), what followed was a flurry of content that, had it appeared on terrestrial television, would have had the Ofcom complaints line ringing off the hook. In one video, which had more than a billion views, two young brothers showed off a homemade vending machine that spat out boxes of sugary cereal, fizzy drinks and chocolate bars. In another, a child played with what the video title described as 'girl' toys: a pretend sewing machine, a nail salon and a pink play kitchen (all things my girls love, I should add — but so, too, do lots of boys). • Peppa Pig accused of turning American children into brats Apart from these (and other) examples of content that flouted UK broadcasting guidelines or featured dated stereotypes, most of what we watched might generously be called clickbait: content that promised to teach children to learn new words, say, but that ended up being a thinly disguised toy promotion. Many of the videos we watched had titles packed with educational-sounding buzzwords, but turned out to be garbage with no narrative arc, out-of-sync dubbing and, all too often, an undercurrent of consumerism. A spokesperson for YouTube told The Sunday Times: 'On YouTube Kids we provide parents with robust controls to decide what content to make available, whether approving specific content, choosing from age-appropriate categories, or the ability to block specific videos or channels.' They added that, after reviewing the links we shared, it had found no violations of its community guidelines. My experiment stacks up with what other (more rigorous) studies have found: the platform has a few gems, some quite shocking content and a hell of a lot of rubbish. 'We did some research a few years back and found that, while YouTube says it has a lot of educational, high-quality videos, really only a small percentage of the content could be classed that way,' Robb says. 'A lot of the videos that position themselves as being high quality or educational are very shallow.' By the end of the week I realised it was these types of videos that bothered me the most — content that Neumann described as 'wolves in sheep's clothing'. I feel well equipped to have conversations with my children about media content that very obviously challenges our family values. After watching the video that first triggered this article, I spoke to both my daughters about what we had just seen — how no food is inherently good or bad, about how we exercise to feel, not look, good. But knowing how to deal with the other, more innocuous-seeming content has left me as confused as when one of my kids asks me how birds evolved from dinosaurs. Colin Ward, a Bafta-winning former children's TV producer and member of the Children's Media Foundation, agrees that, like me, most parents are struggling to separate the wheat from the chaff. But he questions whether that type of pressure should be put on us in the first place. 'Parents can't be expected to police this — it's just not possible,' he says. Neither should we put our faith in the platforms to self-regulate, given their main concern is their bottom line. 'It's a very competitive market and they are focused on monetisation, so they're not going to change.' YouTube told The Sunday Times: 'We have strict advertising guidelines on YouTube Kids, and don't allow paid promotional content.' • Read more parenting advice, interviews, real-life stories and opinions If we can't leave it to individuals or the free market to tackle, that leaves just one actor that might make a difference: governments. Ward knows that might not be popular with some people, but makes a point I think most parents will agree with. 'We all accept that there are some things that are important as a public service, whether it's the armed forces or parks, and that those things need taxes to support them and sometimes regulations,' he says. 'When it comes to our children having access to high-quality content and not just utter drivel, that too is surely a social good?' The present government has already indicated it will take action. Late last year the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, wrote to YouTube urging it to make high-quality programming more visible on its platform. She also suggested that, if this doesn't happen voluntarily, regulation might force its hand. YouTube told The Sunday Times that it 'continues to engage regularly with the culture secretary, as part of our ongoing efforts to support the UK's high quality children's content creators'. But while she and others work on that, what are parents to do? Ban our kids from accessing YouTube? Co-watch at all times? Neither seems realistic, at least not in my household. I have promised we will continue to apply a little more of that all-important intentionality. In other words, relying on our gut when deciding what might be an appropriate video for our kids, rather than ceding control to an algorithm.
Daily Mail
03-07-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Lauren Goodger shows off her surgically-enhanced curves in a tiny black bikini after revealing plans to have her BBL removed because plastic surgery 'ruined her looks'
set pulses racing after sharing a snap of her surgically-enhanced bottom in a new Instagram story on Wednesday. The former TOWIE star, 38, teased some new 'exclusive content' as she posed in front of a lavish pool with Chris Brown 's Under The Influence playing in the background. It comes weeks after Lauren admitted that she thinks she has 'ruined her looks' with plastic surgery. Earlier this year the TOWIE star, who shot to fame on the show when it first aired in 2010, revealed her plans to have her breast and bum implants removed this year. And speaking to The Sun, Lauren admitted the surgery she has undergone has left her thinking her body looks 'abnormal'. Lauren said she thinks her 'massive boobs and bum' have made her look bigger than she actually is and shared her plans to look like her old self again. The reality star expressed regret about getting the work done and insisted she plans to have all of it removed or reversed. Lauren said: 'I've ruined my looks with surgery - I hate my fake boobs and bum now. 'I feel like my body looks abnormal - I don't need these massive boobs and massive bum. She added: 'When I look at myself naked in the mirror, all I see is lumps and bumps everywhere.' In May, Lauren revealed she is having her 'heavy' breast implants removed and can't wait to go back to a 'natural look '. She admitted her breasts were 'perfect' before although now they simply 'make her look big' while opening up about her breast-reduction journey on Instagram. The reality star shared on her Instagram page a snap posing in a sheer dusty pink baby doll, showing off her very ample assets. She wrote in the lengthy caption: '11 years ago I had a breast augmentation, one of the things I regret later in life. 'I had the perfect boobs .. they have been great over the years but since being a mum and breastfeeding for 1 year they have now changed and I've always found they make me look bigger! 'Also they are heavy and I don't like the idea of an implant being in me all these years and I miss my old boobs so much.. so after looking around I've found someone that I feel really keen with having my consultation with @marksolomos. 'This is a HUGE step for me I've wanted to have them removed for so long but suffering with serve anxiety surgery is the last thing I can do ! Lauren finished: 'So it's early stages but I am bringing you a long with me!
The Independent
01-07-2025
- Lifestyle
- The Independent
I've found the best bras for bigger busts, and they don't sacrifice style for support
As a plus-size model and a body image activist, it's safe to say I've seen my fair share of bras for bigger busts. While there are some great styles out there, there are some fuller-bust bras that are uncomfortable and unsupportive. When it comes to choosing the right bra for you, knowing your bra size is crucial. Our bodies change dramatically throughout our lifetime, and many women are wearing the wrong bra size, so before investing in new bras, make sure you know which size you need. Brands such as Elomi offer a free online bra fitting service, so you don't even need to leave the house to double-check your size and fit. But even once your size is sorted, there's no guarantee that all the bras out there will work for you. It helps to know if a bra will have an uncomfortable underwire or annoying straps, so I tested a range of bras for bigger busts to find the very best. How I tested I tested lots of bras by wearing each for a minimum of eight hours. I wore the bras while working from home, walking the dog and travelling into London on the train. I was looking for bras that were super comfortable, supportive, breathable and adjustable for different outfits. I also wanted to try various fashion-forward styles, as having a larger chest shouldn't mean missing out on the latest trends. Why you can trust IndyBest reviews Felicity Hayward is a plus-size model, body-positive activist and writer. She has curated and written fashion edits, including the best plus-size jeans and wedding dresses to buy. She was a curve stylist for Asos and she is the author of Does My Butt Look Big in This: A Body Positivity Manifesto. All the bras in this review have been tried, tested and approved by Felicity, so you can rest assured they're styles worth investing in. The best bras for bigger busts in 2025 are:
Yahoo
17-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
The $200,000 height-enhancing surgery from 'Materialists' is real — and more common than you might think
In Celine Song's new romantic drama, Materialists, Lucy (Dakota Johnson) is perpetually on the hunt for a tall man. Not for herself, however — Lucy is a matchmaker, and her clients have height requirements they refuse to budge on. It's why, early in the film, Lucy says she understands why some men choose to go through with a $200,000 surgery that gives them up to 6 more inches of height: It adds to their value on the dating scene. Without spoiling too much, this surgery comes up for a second time in the film — a twist that reframes what it means to be a catch in today's dating market. But this height surgery isn't just a plot point. It's a real way some people are coping with body image issues around their stature. Dr. Dror Paley, founder of the Paley Orthopedic & Spine Institute's Stature Center in West Palm Beach, Fla., told Yahoo that he's done more than 25,000 limb lengthening surgeries over the course of his 38-year career. Most of these are done in order to correct imbalances in the body — if one leg is shorter than the other, for example. But on average, he said, he performs about 100 surgeries per year on patients who are just hoping to inch up in height. Paley explained that limb lengthening involves gradually pulling apart a broken bone (the tibia or the femur) so that new bone grows in the gap. Traditionally, this was done using external metal frames, but now, it's typical to use implantable devices with motors or magnets that go inside the bone and are controlled remotely and adjusted slowly over weeks. With each adjustment, the devices extend the bone — no more than 1 millimeter per day — and the body naturally generates new bone and soft tissue to fill in the space. Recovery is about five months long, Paley said, and physical therapy is required in order to get back functionality. Depending on the device used, some people may need a walker or crutches to move around initially. As an orthopedic surgeon, Paley corrects 'pain and disability,' not aesthetics, which is why he was initially concerned about being judged by others in his industry for the procedure. 'It's very odd for us to treat patients for cosmetic reasons,' Paley said. 'It took a long time to figure out what the plastic surgeons knew all along: that they were treating body image issues.' The price tag on such a procedure can vary but starts at around $80,000 to lengthen just the tibia, which can give a patient around 3 more inches of height, Paley said. But if a patient wants more height by lengthening the femur as well, that effectively doubles the cost of the surgery. With physical therapy and other recovery costs, Paley said that the $200,000 price quoted in Materialists is more or less accurate. But for many patients, that cost is more than worth it. Paley recalled one patient, a young man fresh out of law school who could barely look him in the eye during their initial appointment. Paley performed the limb lengthening surgery on him, adding 3 inches to his tibia. A decade later, Paley said the patient came back to thank him with a firm handshake. He told the doctor that due to the surgery, he found the confidence to pursue a career in TV writing — something that he said he never would have done had he not had the surgery. 'We're looking to change how patients feel about themselves,' Paley said of the surgery. 'It changes their life.' Alyson Curtis, a New York City-based mental health counselor specializing in body image issues, told Yahoo that she believes many straight men are 'suffering in silence' with body image issues, and that height tends to be a major insecurity for men on the shorter side. 'As a therapist, I fully validate that 'pretty privilege' is real, like no matter who you are,' she said. 'Our clients are swiping on the dating apps, and height is one of those metrics where you might not even be considered if you don't meet a certain requirement. And I think that the movie really accurately portrayed that.' Ultimately, Curtis explained, the society we live in is 'obviously patriarchal' and 'made by men.' 'Their definition of masculinity is to be big and powerful still, and height represents that,' she said, noting that at the same time, many men expect and desire women to be 'very small,' leading to women experiencing body image issues around thinness. (In Materialists, a client tells Lucy that he doesn't want any 'fatties,' while another insists on dating a woman with a BMI no greater than 20.) 'We do live in a world that prefers people in a certain body type, or a taller height, or whatever,' she said. While Curtis said she always validates her clients for feeling bad about the ways in which society judges us, she noted that these standards don't have to define who we are. 'It can be very tormenting to sort of always feel inferior. But is it enough to hate yourself for the rest of your life? Is it enough to undergo a really intense surgery that not everyone has the means to do anyway?' Instead, Curtis said, her work with patients comes from a place of finding acceptance in the things you can't or don't want to change. 'There are people in this world who want to change things about you, who are going to judge you — whether it's a personality attribute or even other features like the color of our skin,' she shared. 'There's so many things about us that people are going to reject that we just can't please everyone.'
