Quantcast
Channel: VICE CA
Viewing all 38002 articles
Browse latest View live

We Made a Raw Beef Heart 'Big Mac' For Valentine's Day

0
0
VICE's Sarah Hagi got romantic with Beast Restaurant's Scott Vivian in Toronto and celebrated Valentine's Day the old fashioned way: by eating a 'Big Mac' made with raw beef heart tartare.

'The F Word' Screenwriter on His Debut Novel and Why the Powerful Mess Up Our Utopian Dreams

0
0
Elan Mastai is the award-winning screenwriter behind 'The F Word,' starring Daniel Radcliffe. We met Mastai to talk about his debut novel 'All Our Wrong Todays' which mixes time travel, dystopia and the current state of the world.

The Submissives Are the All-Female Band Who Perform as Docile, 1950s Housewives

0
0
The Submissives are an art-pop band from Montreal who play the characters of 1950s, compliant women who submit to men. We met them at a bowling alley near their jam space to talk about love on Valentine's Day.

Becoming Comfortably Single Takes a Year

0
0

Getting used to being single is like moving to Denmark. It's a weird fucking place and acclimatisation takes time. You'll spend the first month wondering where am I? Who are these people I keep drinking with? And constantly at night, I just want to go home. That first month will be drenched in tears and weird cocktails and you'll hate it, but also kind of love it. That first month will deliver tragedy and self-indulgence on a cinematic scale, and you'll feel entitled to whatever meltdowns you get a taste for.

But time moves on. Months trickle past and eventually you'll be less entitled to boring your friends with sad stories. Eventually you'll finish saying something about your ex that you thought was funny— meant as funny—and someone will lean over and whisper in your ear, "Hey I know it's been hard, but it's also been like… a year."

And your friend is right. A year is the limit to your pining, but it's also about the length of time it takes to get used to being single. A year is what it takes to totally recalibrate and get comfortable, with maybe a few stepping-stones along the way.

Here are what those stones look like.

The First Month: the Breakup

These things aren't usually a surprise. They make total sense when you analyse how your paths shifted months earlier, like train tracks switching in the fog, and how neither of you addressed that fact. You spent all your time fighting about who last bought the groceries, or pretending you were fine when you'd spent the night crying. Neither of you said what you'd truly feared, and so you blew the boilers because you were both too proud and lazy.

So you move to your friend's couch, and wake up every morning with a taste in your mouth like socks and roses. You don't regret much, you just wonder who you are now. If you're a guy you'll try answering that question with a beard. If you're a girl the answer might be a fringe. Or bleaching your hair peroxide blonde. And regardless of gender you'll get constantly drunk until one night, maybe a fortnight later, you'll have unprotected sex with someone you dislike and their body will feel weird: What is that ? And why's this bit so squishy? And what the fuck is up with the back of your neck?

The first month is explosive and surreal, but in the end you don't learn anything. Only that Tinder sucks and that you're bad at it.

The Second Month: Breakup Sex

Grown-up life contains only four true and genuine pleasures. They are, in no particular order: grilled cheese on toast, napping on Christmas, rain on a tin roof at night, and breakup sex. Now some people are of the opinion that breakup sex leads to nothing but trouble, and they're right. But also those people haven't lived. And breakup sex is delicious.

It usually starts two months after the actual breakup. You catch up for a coffee to you know, catch up, and then someone gets a bit teary (it'll be you) and you'll admit that you're finding it quite hard. "I really miss you," you'll say. There will be a pause while your ex weighs up their options. To admit they feel the same shows weakness, but now your eyes have now taken on a blubbery sheen like jellyfish so they know there's nothing to lose. "Come on back home," they'll say. "You need to get your DVDs."

So you go and ravage each other. Maybe there's kissing, maybe there's not, but it'll be like stepping into your old teenage bedroom, and then fucking the shit out of it. All the decorations will be just as you left them. All the things that were yours and you loved. The memories. The familiarity. The overwhelming meld of sadness and forbidden fruit. You thrust and yell stuff at the ceiling fan because your heart hurts, but your genitals sing. And for the first time in a month everything will be great. No, better than great—things will be better than they ever were.

Illustration by Ashley Goodall


The Third Month: The Second Breakup

The problem with breakup sex is that it ends in one of two ways. Either you get back together, or it destroys you. And while the second option can manifest itself in a number of ways, it basically comes down to one thing. That is: one person always moves on first.

Maybe it'll be you who moves on first. If so, congratulations! You can opt out of this thing and go read my follow up article: "How Good Is Falling in Love!!!!" But if it's not you, then stick around pal. Because someday you'll get told, or receive a text, or find out via Instagram that your ex has found someone else, and you'll realise that they're driving away from you to someplace nice in a very fast car, and not watching as you shrink to a dot in the rear-vision mirror.

The Sixth Month: You'll Swear You're Doing Great But… Are You?

Your hair has grown back after your haircut, and you've been on a few really fun dates. You tell people you're doing fine, but you stare at them unblinking and they get the sense that maybe you're not. But you are fine. And then one Friday night you have three champagnes and spend the next four hours stalking your ex on social media. This is an itch that you've wanted to scratch. You get scratching and it feels goooooood, but then the skin starts to come off and you keep scratching. There's photos of your ex and the new partner smiling, swimming, playing with a dog—THEY GOT A FUCKING DOG?—and your scratching gets frantic. The Facebook posts are saccharine and grotesque. Friends—good people that you knew and trusted—are liking this garbage and writing "CUTE!!" under the photos and the scratching turns to a frenzy. There's blood all over your hands now and you really should stop but you can't. It's been six months now. You really should be over this but you're not. You're not over this at all.

Illustration by Ben Thomson

The Ninth Month: Actually, Maybe You Are Over This

By now you'll now have a favourite date shirt and lots of opinions about Tinder. If you're into guys you'll have learned to hate photos of guys holding fish. If you're into girls you'll have learned to hate photos of girls pushing fake Harry Potter baggage through a wall at some sort of platform 9 and 3/4 installation thing. You won't know where that installation is, but every single girl on Tinder has been there. It's weird.

Life will have now taken on a comfortable rhythm. No longer will you invent hypothetical conversations in which you gather up all the truth in the universe and condense it to a single diamond point to hurl at your ex. You'll have moved on from that and you'll be happy.

Except on Sundays. You're never happy on Sundays and that's because single life is life with the volume turned up: the highs are high; the lows are bottomless. And after a big Saturday night, there is no time lonelier and more hug-less than a Sunday afternoon.

The 12th Month: Now What?

So now you really are over it. You've been this new single person for so long that you can't remember what it was like to be in a relationship. You call your friend Steve: "Hey Steve, want to get a beer Friday?" And Steve is all like "Yeah cool! I'll check with Brenda." And you're like, "Check with… What? Hold on… Brenda… Brenda isn't invited."

And you get off the phone thinking Steve's gone wrong. Because as a single person, relationships look completely insane. Shit, you're so single that sometimes you wonder if it's even possible to fall in love again. Has Tinder and cynicism ruined your ability to be impressed enough by another human to ever want to smoosh lives? To live life like Steve and Brenda? To post Instagram photos of your partner eating creamy pasta? Who would want to do that?

But you want to do that, and one day you will. You'll fall in love again and eat 12 serves of creamy pasta with garlic bread while thinking you're looking at the most beautiful person in the world. And then you'll lay back with that person on a couch and feel sick, but complete—and so very happy.

Follow Julian on Twitter or Instagram and read some more dating themed stuff from the same guy:

I Tried Living Like Dan Bilzerian and Realised What His Problem Is

I Asked a Psychopath How to Stop Caring About Rejection

Meet the Woman Who Logged Every Detail of Every Date She Went on for Two Years

Some Photos of People Kissing

0
0


Coen
and Jodie

VICE: What do you love most about each other?
Coen: Jodie's wit.
Jodie: The way Coen animates his hands when he's enthusiastic about something.

Tell us the story of your first kiss.
Jodie: Well, after spending a week together in Hong Kong where nothing happened, we were at a pub one night and Coen kissed me. Even though I really liked him, I tried to play it cool by saying "Mmmm, I'm not sure." It was so stupid but here we are!


Mateja
and Sammy

What do you love most about each other?
Mateja:The fact that if it came down to it, Sammy would kill for me. Plus the sex is on point.
Sammy: I love cake and Mateja has plenty of it.

Tell us the story of your first kiss.
Mateja:It was a rainy Good Friday four years ago. Sammy took me to his friends indoor pool, which is ironically the same apartment we now live in together, and because it was a public holiday there were a few families using the pool facilities. Anyway, Sammy kind of just confidently swam over to me and started pashing me in front of all the kids and parents. It was magical.


Millie
and Georgia

What do you love most about each other?
Millie: She's the best damn woman in my life, second to my mum. We are two peas in a sparkly pod.
Georgia: Each day is brighter with her around, we never stop laughing and she's irreplaceable. She constantly empowers and inspires me to grow.

Tell us the story of your first kiss.
Millie and Georgia: It involved sweat and techno.


Nahaal
and Joanna

What do you love most about each other?
Nahaal: I love how vocal Joanna is about the issues she's passionate about and the way she articulates her thoughts so fluidly through the limitations of language. Her vernacular is so fucking sexy. This warrior woman is going to pave the way for so much positive change.
Joanna: I love how through Nahaal I'm reminded of our driving force of unconditional love; whether it be embodied through head pats when I'm feeling blue, binge eating our way through the day or dropping it low to booty bangers on the dancefloor. I'm constantly inspired to be the best version of myself thanks to having this person in my corner.

Tell us the story of your first kiss.
Joanna: In this hippie harem, kisses are so abundant but today marks the first occasion that I get to pash two tongues simultaneously [Nahaal has a split tongue] and I'd be lying if I pretended to be opposed to that.


Kitty
and Jamie

What do you love most about each other?
Kitty: His dad jokes and his ability to store endless useful (and useless) facts.
Jamie: I love Kitty's taste in almost everything. And the pony kicks when she's falling asleep.

Tell us the story of your first kiss.
Kitty: After hanging out a few times Jamie was convinced that I didn't like him. Until I jumped him when we got back to his place ;)


Cain
and Charmaine

What do you love most about each other?
Cain: I love Charmaine's everlasting effect on people, her solid direction in terms of knowing how to dress and her resilience in the way she puts up with my bullshit.
Charmaine: Firstly, his masculine hands and then his ambition. In all seriousness though, Cain drives me to become a better person and his ambition is so sexy.

Tell us the story of your first kiss.
Cain and Charmaine: Our first kiss was actually the first time we met. There was so much anticipation, we were exchanging messages and Skype conversations a month prior to meeting each other. We were nervous as hell.


Sean
and Billy

What do you love most about each other?
Sean: I love Billy's openness and how he makes everyone feel special.
Billy: What I love most about Sean is his ass.

Tell us the story of your first kiss.
Sean and Billy: Drunk on level three at Stonewall, after meeting on Tinder!


Ella and Dion

What do you love most about each other?
Ella: Dion is the kindest and friendliest person I've ever met. He always looks out for everyone and even when he's grumpy he has a smile on his face.
Dion: She has the most beautiful eyes and smile and laughs at my terrible jokes! On top of that she's smart and extremely caring.

Tell us the story of your first kiss.
Ella and Dion: We vaguely knew each other through friends and happened to be at the same event one night, both very drunk and we kissed. Not super romantic, but here we are haha.


Taylah
and Lola

What do you love most about each other?
Taylah: I love how much compassion Lola has, she feels everything so wholeheartedly and I adore that. I also feel so protected when I'm with her like nothing bad can touch me.
Lola: I love how honest Taylah is and obviously her fucking amazing face. She's stubborn but she's got a strength in her I'm obsessed with.

Tell us the story of your first kiss.
Taylah: It was super cheeky, something we shouldn't have been doing but it felt so right. I was bleaching Lola's eyebrows and didn't realise it had left bleach on my face... with a few giggles and hearts racing we sat there and pretended nothing had happened. That was the beginning.

Follow Chloë on Instagram.

Elizabeth Warren Wants Congress to Investigate the Administration's 'Disturbing Ties to Russia'

0
0

On Tuesday, Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren joined the growing list of DC Democrats calling for a large-scale investigation into the Trump administration's ties to Russia following national security advisor Michael Flynn's recent scandal, Politico reports.

"His removal is a win for American values," Elizabeth Warren wrote in a series of tweets Tuesday, "but American national security demands that we not allow Michael Flynn to become a scapegoat for this Admin's disturbing ties to Russia."

Flynn resigned from his position Monday evening after it was revealed that he lied about his conversations with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Flynn reportedly discussed Russian sanctions with the ambassador during calls back in December, and then "inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador," according to his resignation letter.

From the cyberattacks said to be perpetrated by Russia to skew the election in Trump's favor, to secretary of state Rex Tillerson's "close ties to Putin," Warren was clear that the government needs to launch a congressional inquiry to find the truth behind Russia's connections with the new administration.

"Congress must pull its head out of the sand and launch a real, bipartisan, transparent inquiry into Russia," she continued. "Our natl security is at stake."

A broad investigation would fall to the intelligence community, but Rep. Devin Nunes, a Republican from California and chair of the House Intelligence Committee, said Tuesday he was only interested in investigating how details of Flynn's call with Kislyak were leaked. His statements follow Trump's response to the whole scandal, saying the "real story" was actually about "illegal" White House leaks.

Eight Questions That Remain After Michael Flynn's Resignation

0
0

Just over three weeks into the Trump administration, one of the many potential scandals floating around the White House came to fruition on Monday night as retired General Michael Flynn stepped down as national security advisor. This was a consequence of Flynn 1. speaking to Russian Ambassador Sergey I. Kislyak in December, after Donald Trump's victory but before his inauguration and reportedly discussing sanctions imposed by the Obama administration in response to Russian meddling in the election; 2. telling the press that he did not talk about sanctions; and 3. reportedly telling Vice President Mike Pence that sanctions weren't mentioned, putting Pence in the position of backing up Flynn's story in public without knowing the details.

All of this came out in an embarrassing trickle, with Flynn admitting through a spokesperson a few days ago that, OK, maybe he talked about sanctions but couldn't remember before coming out and saying, in his resignation letter, that he "inadvertently briefed the Vice President Elect and others with incomplete information regarding my phone calls with the Russian Ambassador." That inadvertent briefing was especially foolish because the government routinely wiretaps calls made by ambassadors from US rivals—and in fact the Justice Department, according to the Washington Post, told the White House last month that Flynn was publicly misrepresenting his talk with Kislyak.

According to the New York Times, White House advisor Steve Bannon was among those pushing for Flynn's resignation, and the key was not the call to the Russian ambassador but the way he misled Pence, suggesting that the real offense, in the Trump team's eyes, was not being straight with others in the administration.

Flynn's fall was practically inevitable for at least a few days, but his departure doesn't mark the end of this story. Here are some questions that remain, some of which will be answered in the coming days and some of which we'll probably never know:

What Did Flynn Actually Say to the Russian Ambassador?

This is one of the questions that's likely to go unanswered, unless a transcript of the wiretapped conversation ever gets leaked. The Kremlin has insisted that Flynn never talked about lifting the sanctions imposed by Obama, but given what's been reported Flynn did talk out of turn somehow. According to the Post, Sally Yates, then deputy attorney general, told the White House in January that Flynn may have broken the law and at the very least was vulnerable to Russian blackmail because he was denying the contents of the conversation in public. Flynn has indicated he's friendly to Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, even doing a paid appearance at an event for Kremlin-funded news outlet RT, but it's hard to believe that he would make overt promises to a foreign official on a phone call that would obviously be recorded. Right?

Who Knew About Flynn's Conversation with the Ambassador, and When?

Had Flynn been upfront about that phone call from the beginning, it's possible that he could have kept his job. But if the Post's reporting (based on multiple accounts) is correct, the White House knew that Flynn was being duplicitous for weeks—yet administration spokesperson and cable news punching bag Kellyanne Conway was going on MSNBC to say Trump had "full confidence" in Flynn hours before he resigned. In a sharp Tuesday-morning interview with The Today Show's Matt Lauer, Conway suggested that Flynn would have kept his job if he hadn't resigned, despite Trump presumably knowing, thanks to the Justice Department's briefing, that Flynn hadn't been telling the truth about the phone call. "Kellyanne, that makes no sense," Lauer told her, a phrase that should probably be on a T-shirt.

When Did the Trump Administration Make the Call to Cut Flynn Loose?

"Misleading the vice president was the key here," Conway told Lauer, which, as Lauer noted, makes no sense. It's inconsistent with the idea that Flynn quit of his own volition, but also impossible to reconcile with what actually happened. Again, the White House knew that Flynn misled Pence since the Justice Department made its report in January, though Trump said on Friday that he wasn't up to speed on the affair. (This might not have been a lie; Trump could have simply not read internal reports on Flynn or not have been personally briefed, which is its own problem.) The sequence of events suggests that it's not the crime or the cover-up, but the public humiliation of having a (rather clumsy) cover-up discovered by the press.

What's the Deal with Trump and Russia, Anyway?

Hovering over all of this is the specter of Trump's ties to Russia. A lot of conversations about alleged connections Trump's businesses and administration have to Russia and Putin are pure speculation that border on conspiracy theories. A widely circulated dossier compiled by a former British intelligence officer at the behest of anti-Trump groups in the US contained some ridiculous tidbits, like the idea that Trump was filmed in a golden showers situation with Russian prostitutes, but less controversial elements of that dossier have since been confirmed by other investigators. And Carter Page, who Trump said advised him during the campaign but no longer works for him, has ties to Russia that the FBI has scrutinized.

Though Trump has not lifted any sanctions against Russia, the president has publicly said that he would be open to working with Russia to fight ISIS, and has surrounded himself with people—including Flynn, Page, and former campaign manager Paul Manafort—who have links to Russia. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that if Flynn were being friendly to the Russian ambassador it would have been endorsed, implicitly or explicitly, by others in the administration. (The Kremlin has indicated that it's sorry to see Flynn go and regards it as a step backward in relations with the US.)

On Tuesday, some Republican senators reiterated calls to investigate ties between Trump and Russia, and said they wanted Flynn to testify. Meanwhile, Russia has reportedly deployed a cruise missile that violates an arms treaty.

Will This Help Things at the National Security Council?

Though it was Flynn's clumsy handling of the call that got him fired, a lot of people, including former secretary of state Colin Powell, thought he had shifted over to right-wing extremism in recent years and had been a poor manager at the Defense Intelligence Agency. Those concerns were born out by a humdinger of a New York Times story published over the weekend about turmoil and mismanagement at the NSC, for which Flynn is presumably at least partly responsible. The silver lining for the Trump administration is that they'll be able to get someone in the national security advisor role who won't be as disruptive.

Who Will Replace Flynn?

The only question we're likely to know the answer to shortly is who Flynn's replacement will be. For now, Keith Kellogg, a retired Army general turned contractor who was formerly the NSC chief of staff, will take over for him. (He's mostly known for helping oversee the disastrous early occupation of Iraq during the George W. Bush years as part of the Coalition Provisional Authority.) If Kellogg doesn't get the job permanently, the top candidates are reportedly Vice Admiral Robert Harward, a former Navy Seal who was part of the George W. Bush administration, and David Petraeus. The latter, of course, was a highly respected general who led counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq before becoming director of the CIA under Obama, then having to resign in disgrace for sharing classified information with his biographer, who he was also having an affair with. If Trump picks Petraeus, the former general will have to notify his probation officer, since he's under state supervision until April for mishandling classified documents.

Who Will Be the Next Victim of Leaks?

Donald Trump, of all people, made an interesting point on Twitter Tuesday morning:

The leaks are hardly the only "real story" here, but it's worth noting that what started Flynn's downfall appears to have been an article last week in the Washington Post contradicting his original account of the call. That article and subsequent pieces describing the Justice Department's briefing of the White House, among other tidbits, were based on leaks. For whatever reason, Trump aides have been continuously feeding the press information about the inner workings of the administration, often in ways that make the Trump team look incompetent, poorly prepared, or (as in Flynn's case) flat-out dishonest. There are over 1,400 days left in Trump's term—it doesn't seem likely that Flynn will be the only figure felled by loose lips.

Follow Harry Cheadle on Twitter.

LIVE: Watch the First White House Press Briefing After Flynn's Bombshell Resignation

0
0

Tuesday has already proven to be a complete tornado of political news. Former Apprentice nemesis-turned-White House communications official Omarosa Manigault allegedly threatened a reporter, Donald Trump conducted sensitive national security work at his crowded golf club over the weekend, and probably the biggest news of today is that former national security advisor Michael Flynn stepped down just three weeks into his job with the new administration—setting a new record.

Flynn's resignation has already raised a lot of questions regarding the administration's ties to Russia, what exactly the president knew, who's going to replace Flynn, if the scandal had any bearing on acting attorney general Sally Yates's firing, and who else on Team Trump might be susceptible to Russian blackmail.

After taking only two softball questions at his joint press conference with Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau on Monday, reporters will likely have a lot of questions for press secretary Sean Spicer Tuesday. He's set to address the media at 1 PM in the White House Briefing Room.

Watch all the action via the livestream below starting at 1 PM EST.


Young Couples Talk About the Moment They Knew They Were Meant to Be Together Forever

0
0

Love is a wonderful thing. Sharing it with someone means you can ask that person to do weird stuff for you that you can't really ask anyone else to do, like look deep into your nose, or split the rent on a studio apartment that should legally only house one small adult, or spend the rest of your lives together, until you both start to lose control of your bodily functions, without that mattering to either of you even one tiny bit.

As today is the designated day to celebrate love, photographer Chris Bethell met with six young couples who recently got engaged or married, to talk about all that.

Natasha Wynarczyk, 28 & Peter Ellender, 32

VICE: How long have you guys been together?
Peter: Basically seven years.
Natasha: Yeah, basically seven years this month.

Maybe you didn't have a definitive start point.
Peter: Vodka does that to you.

Are you engaged now or married?
Peter: Engaged.

How far into the relationship was it that you started to talk about marriage?
Natasha: We probably started talking about it about three years in. But not seriously – that came more at about four years.
Peter: We talked about it in the kind of way where you go to a friend's wedding and you say, "Oh, we wouldn't have done that bit like that." There was one wedding where Tash caught the bouquet and my reaction was not ideal. I remember head-butting a table.
Natasha: The Saturday before he proposed we were all at our friend Zing's party and basically with all of our friends that knew. Every time Pete saw me talking to a really drunk person he would come and position himself near them just in case something slipped out.
Peter: I genuinely don't remember that.
Natasha: All I really remember about the proposal is you going, "Do you know what day it is?" and I knew it was [the anniversary of] the day we first kissed each other.

What was your immediate reaction?
Natasha: I was really happy, but of course thought he was joking. I always thought I'd cry because I get soppy over shit rom-coms.
Peter: It offends me that you would cry at The Holiday, and when I propose you just grin.
Natasha: My mum was in Iran at the time, visiting family. Pete had called her to let her know before then, so that was good, but I couldn't get hold of her for about a week to tell her I said yes. We just came back here after and finished a bottle of Prosecco.

Sadhbh O'Sullivan and Ida Louise Maarbjerg

How long have you guys been together?
Sadhbh: Three-and-a-half years. We've been engaged since September, so half a year engaged.

Who proposed to who?
Sadhbh: I did.
Ida: We got engaged in August.
Sadhbh: We did.
Ida: You said September.
Sadhbh: Fuck! No, it's because I always associate it with our anniversary, which is in September.

So what was the moment, if there was one, you knew you wanted to propose?
Sadhbh: I mean, the gross answer is probably like six months in, when we knew that we loved each other. And the other answer is there's a stereotype among gay and queer women that you'll just shack up after three months and stay together forever. We both fought that, but also we knew that was going to happen, so we joked about who was going to propose first.
Ida: I was threatening to do it as well. I was thinking about it for a little bit.

How did it happen?
Sadhbh: It's really gross. We were in Denmark visiting Ida's parents, and I'd bought the ring. Do you know Claddagh rings? They're an Irish ring that symbolises friendship and loyalty. We went for a walk on the beach, and I waited until we were far enough away from the few people who were down by the beach, because Ida never wanted a scene – she was completely against that sort of thing.
Ida: I just don't like people.
Sadhbh: I said to Ida that I'd brought her something from London, so told her to put her hands out and close her eyes. I started to shake uncontrollably and turned over Ida's left hand – very presumptuously – and began to put the ring on her finger. She opened her eyes and was like "Noooo!" As in a shocked no, not no-no.
Ida: Don't forget that there was a sunset. On the beach, with a sunset.
Sadhbh: One thing is that, before I came out, marriage didn't seem like that big of a deal. But now because it's still so exciting that we can even do it, it's suddenly so much more important that I'll be able to say that Ida is my wife. It's novel in the world. It's not novel in our experience, but it is in the world. I think gay and queer marriage has that extra enjoyment, which is fair because we didn't have it for so long.

Dan Evans, 30 & Ashleigh Ashley, 30

How long have you guys been together for?
Dan: Coming up to five years now.
Ashleigh: We've been engaged for just a bit over a year now.

Who proposed?
Dan: I proposed.

At what point did you begin to realise that marriage was on the cards?
Dan: It was probably about six months before proposing. I mean, we'd talked about it and ironically we had talked about having kids before I'd decided that I was going to ask her to marry me.
Ashleigh: I'd always been quite anti-marriage. I'd always said to Dan if he proposed I wasn't going to say yes.
Dan: This made me think I'd have to do something quite special. But yeah, we were talking about having kids. I'd always said that I needed to have kids in a family. I didn't care whether marriage or kids came first – either way, I wanted both to happen at some point down the line.

Ashleigh, how come you were against marriage?
Ashleigh: I think fundamentally it's because I've grown up around a lot of broken homes and broken families. My parents were never really together – they both remarried and both divorced again. If I love you, I'll stay with you forever, and if I don't love you, a ring isn't going to change that.

Did the engagement change anything in your relationship?
Dan: We were actually pregnant before we got engaged, coming up to three months. It turned out to be the best start to the year imaginable, but last year was an absolute shocker for us. When we got back and they did the scan, we found out that our baby wasn't very well.
Ashleigh: Our baby had Patau's Syndrome, which is trisomy 13, the most extreme trisomy – it's not compatible with life.
Dan: So we had that news to deal with when we got back, and then for the weeks and months that followed that was about us losing the baby.
Ashleigh: I have a necklace with some of her ashes in. Literally, it went from us having this euphoric feeling...
Dan: ...it felt like nothing could go wrong.
Ashleigh: So when you say did it change our relationship, maybe it did? Maybe that moment of pure bliss and connection and love was very much needed in order to cope with what was coming. Not to say that we wouldn't have got through it if we weren't engaged, but there's something really strange about having so much euphoria followed by so much despair. It probably took us up until falling pregnant with this little one seven months later that we really came to terms with the loss of our first baby. But those months – as someone who was anti-marriage – were a true testament as to why I love this man. It was the hardest thing I've ever been through as a woman, and as a couple it put a massive strain on us. But we fucking did it. We overcame it, we cried and we went through all of the throes of what it is to be a grieving parent.
Dan: It made us realise how much we wanted a child, though. That's one of the most important things to us, to complete our unit.

Tom Sabokbar and Zahra Noble

How long have you guys been together?
Zahra: Almost three years. Engaged for a year and four months.
Tom: We got engaged after being together a year-and-a-half.

Who proposed to who?
Tom: I proposed to her.

How did you do it?
Tom: This is going to sound so bougie. We booked a holiday to the south of France, to somewhere we'd been before. There was this beautiful beach that you have to climb over rocks to access, but then you have your own private beach. I was like, 'Okay, I'm gonna do this there and it'll be great.' So we woke up and drove to this beach. I found out a few months later that I got a speeding ticket on the way. It's the only speeding ticket I've ever had abroad, but I felt it was justified when I saw it. I also decided to buy loads of inflatable toys at the shop on the way to the beach. I don't know what I was preparing for.
Zahra: He bought himself a John Cena bodyboard – the WWF wrestler.
Tom: And a blow-up boat. Anyway, we got there and the tide was really high, so it was extremely difficult to get onto the rocks to get to this beach. I was carrying all of these items, and as I was walking I slipped and cut open my foot really deep. I was bleeding loads.
Zahra: He was screaming to himself: "Come on! Come on! We can do this!" He'd stormed ahead, but I started seeing the blood on the stones. He got to this one point where it kind of levelled out, and then he just shouted: "No! It's not pretty enough for her!"
Tom: I was in fucking war mode. I was bleeding, I had a ring in my pocket, a boat on my shoulder. John Cena staring at me on the right. Then I basically walked around the corner, sat on a rock, feeling really faint, and was like, "Oh... will you marry me?"
Zahra: He didn't even kneel down.
Tom: I was bleeding loads! Then she just asked me if I was joking over and over, and then she said yes. We then just called all of our family.

Did it change anything in your relationship?
Zahra: Yeah, it's more secure. It's nice. You don't feel like any big fight you have will lead to a break-up. You just get on with it.
Tom: I wouldn't say you're more insecure before being engaged. But you no longer think about other people affecting your relationship. I don't know – maybe that sounds really archaic.
Zahra: There's a reason why you've said yes and there's a reason why you've asked.

Ismail Jeilani, 23 and Iman Jeilani, 23

How long have you been together?
Ismail: Married seven months. I'd say the bit before that – about a month, two months, five months... It's complicated, I don't know.
Iman: Six months in January, but who's keeping count?

Okay, so walk me through the beginnings of your relationship. How did it lead up to marriage?
Iman: We met at university as a group of friends, and he was a mutual friend. There was a trip to Palestine that he'd already gone on. I really wanted to go Palestine at the time, and there was another trip, so I went on that and he was already there as leader of the group. People [on the trip] were passionate about the cause and wanted to help others. That was something I was looking for as well, and those are the kind of people I keep close to me – people who are interested in human rights causes and things like that. So we had that in common, and we shared it in a way we wouldn't have thought we could share it. It was literally there on the grounds of Palestine – it was a great bonding experience.

So you knew quite quickly into the trip that you wanted to spend the rest of your lives together?
Iman: Well, he did!

Did you propose when you were there?
Ismail: We had a discussion, while we were there.

How long was the trip?
Iman: Twelve weeks. When you know, you know!
Ismail: I think this is where the cultural and religious differences come into play. Because within the Islamic culture, marriage isn't supposed to be seen as this huge, long distant, have to be together for five or six years before you can even think about it kind of thing. And there's a lot of emphasis around the concept of families getting together and having those kinds of discussions, so I think on both of our sides we knew that just out of sheer respect for the people who brought us up it would be wrong to even contemplate going forward without having had conversations with them first. So after that, the very next discussion was "we should probably be speaking to our parents very soon" – myself with my parents, her with her parents, because we're from two completely different cultures, not just in a sense that she was raised in Canada and I was raised in this country; you've also got a bunch of mixed up-ness
Iman: Yeah, I was born to Tunisian parents. I actually didn't know where he was from – it was always something very ambiguous.
Ismail: It still is very ambiguous – it's an unknown ethnicity called Bravanese, an ethnic group that moved to Somalia and then Kenya and now everywhere. Now they live in Tottenham, over there, and its got its own language and so on. Anyway, after we had that discussion we both agreed to speak to our parents.

Did you find marriage changed your relationship at all?
Ismail: I think you learn a lot about living with another human being, especially because they were raised in a completely different way to you, and what that means is you have different values. Not necessarily worse values in any way, but different values and different things that you may have prioritised before, and you didn't understand why the other person didn't get that, and vice versa. That took a lot of learning and adjusting to, to really understand that she thinks the way she thinks because she was raised in this way, and I think the way I think because I was raised in a different way, and it's kind of a mutual grounding to that
Iman: And the expectations, like, "Why didn't he do that?" Or, "Why should I do that?" But you should do that! It was the whole expectations versus reality and cultures.

Justine Richards, 26 and Sam Munnings, 28

How long have you guys been together?
Sam: Five years exactly, pretty much.

And how long have you been engaged?
Sam: The last six months?
Justine: No, longer! Since July of last year, 2016. So actually, yeah, six months.

And who proposed to who?
Sam: I proposed.

When did you realised you wanted to propose? Was there a specific moment?
Sam: There wasn't necessarily a moment that I felt it needed to be done, but I felt I was at a point where I wanted that to happen. At a point where I was happy and I felt that she was happy and – I don't know... if it can continue like this, then it'll be brilliant, really.

Talk me through the day – what happened?
Sam: We've always had this ongoing joke that we don't really have any photos of the two of us, because we both pull pretty funny faces. So either she hates the photo or I hate the photo, so I bought a Polaroid camera and said, "Right, we're going to have a day where we go around London and just take photos of the two of us in nice places, so we have a load of photos of us."
Justine: And we struggle with London sometimes – we're both from Devon. But it was sunny and it was like a tourist day, trying it out for the day.
Sam: Yeah, it was good to feel like a tourist, enjoy London and see some landmarks, despite the fact that we've been living here ages. Anyway, the plan was to get loads of photos of us together, so cover the original mission, but then on the last one I told the guy – this random guy – that I was going to propose, so can you wait until I'm on one knee – and yeah!
Justine: It was terrifying! It was at the Pagoda, Hampstead Heath. There was a Stanley Kubrick exhibition on in there.

What was your reaction?
Justine: I cried. It was the one point where, because he doesn't like talking to strangers, but then he did it himself – which was odd – and then when you were running back I thought I could see something in your hand, but I didn't think anything of it then. Even that morning, because it was a Sunday and I just didn't want to wash that day, but he convinced me to wash my hair – "You'll feel so much better about the day if you do." I am very pleased I washed my hair. It was a sweaty, emotional experience.
Sam: It was such a hot day as well!
Justine: It was so hot. It makes me all nervous talking about it now!

What did you do in the moments after?
Justine: The guy who took the photo – his girlfriend burst into tears, and he was saying it was really great. He took another photo and then walked off, so we had a little moment, and then he came back, like, "So, you know I'm a photographer? Well, I could photograph your wedding."
Sam: Yeah, it was a bit weird, wasn't it? We were just caught in this moment and were like, "OK!" So I was mid-embrace and he was asking if I wanted to take his number.

Are you thinking about having him?
Together: No!

Thanks, both.

@CBethell_photo

The ‘All Lives Matter’ Tenor Spent Valentine’s Day Arguing With Me on Facebook

0
0

Who could forget rogue Tenor Remigio Pereira, who became a national embarrassment when he altered the lyrics of "O Canada" to include "all lives matter" during a live performance at the MLB all-star game last July.

Actually, I had forgotten all about Pereira until he accepted my Facebook friend request yesterday, which I'd sent just after his controversial performance in the hopes of getting comment.

To recap: Pereira, who was part of the opera group The Canadian Tenors, was doing a solo bit of the national anthem, when he sang, "We're all brothers and sisters. All lives matter to the great" instead of "With glowing hearts we see thee rise. The True North strong and free."

He also held up an "all lives matter" sign. The other three Tenors denounced Pereira's stunt and said he went rogue, later kicking him out of the group.

The man loves his inspirational quotes. Photo via Facebook

Anyway, since I now had a direct way of communicating with Pereira, who appears to be a flat-earther and enjoys posting memes of himself on Facebook, I decided to ask him how life has been after his MLB disaster and if he's had a change of heart about using the phrase "all lives matter." It unravelled real quick and he doubled down on his misguided stance, but here's our conversation pretty much verbatim:

VICE: Hey Remigio. How's it going? I'm a journalist at VICE.
Remigio Pereira: I'm well, thank you.

I wanted to potentially catch up with you and do an interview of life after The Tenors.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/lone-wolf-tenors-apologies-to-the-black-community-are-actually-worse-than-his-anthem-stunt
Canadian Tenor's Apologies to the Black Community Are Actually Worse Than His Anthem Stunt - VICE  [He posted this] 
Was this your doing? Will it be a one sided interview? Will you give actual factual evidence, or will it be your opinion of someone you know nothing about to hang to dry like all other media who got it wrong, printed lies, and misquotes?

No, it won't be one-sided. You'll have an opportunity to tell your side.
Your record doesn't prove that with me…

Yes, but last time I couldn't get in touch with you—now we have a direct line of communication.
So you made up a story to suit your narrative.

No, I didn't make up anything. What do you think is factually incorrect?
You made up your mind without talking to me.

Does this mean you still think saying "all lives matter" is OK?
Yes, because your life matters to me...and my message was to the system that marginalizes us all by dividing the one race...human. Had you done your research properly you would have known that.

Yes, but after what happened did people explain to you why saying "all lives matters" is offensive because it's taking away from the cause Black Lives Matter? 
What does we are all brothers and sisters mean to you? United we stand? Stand on guard for peace?

What does any of that have to do with Black Lives Matter?
Exactly. It has to do with us all. And how we treat each other.

Do you understand what Black Lives Matter stands for?
Do you understand that nobody is better than anyone else in the eyes of God? But yet we live in world that thinks where some elitists think themselves better than others...subjugate people to violence...my message for everyone all inclusive that is marginalized... it was to the system demeaning human and animals lives for profit.. people like (George) Soros who funds both sides of the coin, to make money off guns and civil war…

Read more: Everything We Learned From The Tenors 'Lone Wolf' Canadian Anthem Fuck Up

You're not answering my question, which makes me think you still don't understand why appropriating Black Lives Matter is wrong.
So call [sic] philanthropist Soros donates money to Black Lives Matter while at the same time holding positions in Freemason extension of KKK?

If you want to protest against Soros why don't you come up with your own slogan that has nothing to do with Black Lives Matter?
All lives matter have nothing to do with only black lives, it has to do with our existence as brothers and sisters here and the oppression of the people by elitists. If you had done your research on me you would have known this.

So are you opposed to Black Lives Matter?
No excuse... you are a journalist do you research ... no wonder people don't respect the media anymore full of lies controversy for ratings at the expense of civilization. No I'm not opposed to anyone who is being marginalized by the system to speak up, in a non-violent way...the problem is in this politically correct world that elitist have created specifically to pit people against each other....we are on the same team...we should not be fighting each other... that is ridiculous and exactly what the elitist wants us to be doing because that's how George Soros makes his money on guns… Do you think George Soros cares about black lives?

What happened after the baseball game—what did the other Tenors say to you? 
We'll do our interview properly on camera live… When the time is right...Until then I would suggest you do some research on me.

Well, we just had an interview and I think it makes sense to publish it as is. You've made your views very clear.
What are my views?

Everything you just wrote.
So you don't want to know more??

What more do you want to say? We are talking right now.
What is the purpose for you talking to me today, is it to spread love and peace? Or is it to sell magazines? [Editor's note: VICE Magazine is free!]

Well, you accepted my friend request from months ago and I thought it would be interesting to ask how things have been since the controversy broke.
Are you about love and peace? Agape love?

What's agape love?
You need to do your research (Martin Luther King) knew what it was.... He stood by it… What do you stand for?

Do you regret the performance?
What do you stand for? Did you look up the word?

I'm giving you the opportunity to tell your side of the story and all you're doing is asking me questions about my personal beliefs that having nothing to do with this interview or your offensive performance. So I'm not sure if there is a point continuing.
So, it's okay for you to attack my belief in agape love while portraying me to be a racist in your magazine ...and you don't even know what agape means? And I am the offensive one? You need to look deep, are you doing this for greed or for peace? What do you stand for? You can't answer a simple question?

I'm not attacking your belief in agape love.
You did.

I'm asking you about a specific incident that offended a lot of people.
Because (agape love) is what I am all about.

Do you realize that a lot of Canadians were embarrassed by you changing the anthem? Does that bother you at all? Does it bother you that you offended people in the black community?
Is this about the anthem now? Don't change the subject.

Pereira before he got kicked out of The Canadian Tenors. Photo via Facebook

This was always the subject — why else would I want to interview you? 
You are offending the black community by posting a false narrative against my character someone who speaking up for all people...you chastised and persecute in your magazine for profit. You made money off of ostracizing someone who is speaking for the very people who are being oppressed. And you don't know the meaning of agape love speaks volumes of what you stand for…I took a stand for all life... against the system....humanity and all animals...  your magazine is owned by the system... and will print what the system wants the public to know... tailor made to suit the profiteers…

This article went online—it wasn't used to sell 'magazines.' What are your plans for Valentine's Day?
Ads on your page same thing… Follow the money trail… So far I've spent it trying to explain to someone what agape love is.

Yes, that sounds almost as frustrating as trying to explain why saying "all lives matter" is racist.
Look I don't want to come down on you and make you feel bad, just do the right thing...care for people, think about what you write, is it for love? For peace? What do you stand for? Injustice? Let your heart do the thinking for you. Not enough heart in this world... which leads to our own demise. Sending you peace and love...plz keep my words intact as written here.  And I will post the same interview. Just in case…

Just when I thought it was over, Pereira sent me another message saying he had altered the French lyrics to the national anthem as well because the line "Car ton bras sait porter l'epee il sait porter la Croix" meaning "your arm knows how to carry a sword" promotes violence.

Follow Manisha Krishnan on Twitter.

The Teen Who Livestreamed Her Friend's Rape Got Nine Months in Prison

0
0

On Monday, an Ohio teen who broadcast her 17-year-old friend's rape on the livestream app Periscope was sentenced to nine months in prison, the Columbus Dispatch reports.

Marina Lonina, 19, was initially arrested last year on charges of rape, sexual battery, kidnapping, and pandering sexually oriented matter involving a minor after 29-year-old Raymond Gates sexually assaulted the other teenager. The bizarre case begged the question of whether or not Lonina was responsible for the same sex crimes as the older, male assailant despite apparently playing no direct role in the assault herself.

In a deal with prosecutors, Lonina ended up pleading guilty to one count of obstructing justice, admitting she didn't report the rape or submit evidence from the incident. Gates, however, was sentenced to nine years behind bars after pleading guilty to one count of rape back in October.

When the victim read a statement in court, she insisted Lonina had not only manipulated her, but that she had coerced Gates into committing the attack in the first place—a charge Lonina's lawyer called "nonsense."

"I was too gullible to see how manipulative she truly is," the victim, now 18, said.

Why Trump Likely Won't Save This All-American Town from Decline

0
0

In 1947, when Forbes magazine published its 30th anniversary issue, it selected Lancaster, Ohio, as the quintessential representation of the all-American town. It had the perfect balance of large companies—Anchor Hocking Glass Company was huge—small businesses like shops, and farms just outside of town. To hear Forbes tell it, it was a beautiful, cohesive, nice small town, one of many all across the United States.

Today towns like Lancaster are struggling to stay alive. Industries have fled the Midwest, opportunities have dried up, income inequality has risen, and many places around America are shells of their former selves, even as the national economy hums along. In his new book, Glass House: The 1% Economy and the Shattering of the All-American Town, out on Tuesday, longtime magazine writer Brian Alexander explores this trend, using Lancaster as a microcosm for what is happening all across the nation.

Alexander moved back to Lancaster, his hometown, and spent almost all of 2015 there. He bought a car, found a place to live, and started hanging out, talking to people and researching. He kept tabs on townsfolk who were struggling with low-paying jobs, opiate addiction, and institutional bankruptcy. I chatted with him by phone to find out more about what he learned, how economic forces destroyed towns like Lancaster, what Donald Trump can do about it, and what the future holds for companies like Anchor Hocking that have sustained small towns for generations.

VICE: What is the 1 percent economy?
Brian Alexander: The 1 percent economy, as it's conceptualized for Glass House, really comprises a lot of people, including super high-end law firms, investment companies, and business consultants. People who make an enormous amount of money by deal-making or providing advice or representing companies or executives in the legal realm. A lot of that money flows up to them and does not flow down to the 99 percent of people who are working in places like glass factories. It's a system that doesn't [compensate] people who are doing the lion's share of the labor in this country, and I don't think it's fully appreciated exactly how this system operates.

Is the US rotting from the inside like the Roman Empire or other powerful countries throughout history?
I think we're still a great country and always have been a great country, because America is a country that's based on an idea—so whether the economy is up or down or people are happy or unhappy, the idea lives on. The idea itself is great. The question is whether or not we can live up to the idea, and in that respect I don't think we are, not because we are rotting from the inside, but because we have managed to break what I call the social contract.

The social contract is basically fair dealing. You work hard and certain things come to you. If you don't work hard, you don't get them.

"Starting with the Reagan administration in the 1980s, it became the ultimate goal of business to create more and more shareholder value to the exclusion of every other responsibility."

Why is it so common these days for towns like Lancaster to be drying up and dying?
I don't think Lancaster is going to die. There are a number of reasons why I focus this book on the decisions and activities of financiers, investment people, and deal makers—Wall Street for a lack of a better word—and how those decisions effect a town. It's also true that things like imports and trade affect it. The decline of unions affects it. There are a number of things. One of the biggest things really is a different outlook about what our economy is supposed to be about.

There was a new philosophy that came into the fore in the early 1980s that said that the only responsibility of business is to create maximum value for shareholders. It essentially owes nothing to anybody else. In the past if you were a big company in a smaller town you considered yourself a part of that community. Your kids went to the local school. You were sort of woven into the fabric of the community. But starting with the Reagan administration in the 1980s, it became the ultimate goal of business to create more and more shareholder value to the exclusion of every other responsibility.

Did Lancaster support Trump?
The town did support Trump. Fairfield Country, where Lancaster is located is a Republican stronghold and always has been for my whole life. They were going to vote Republican not matter who ran. Sixty percent or so in Fairfield Country voted for Trump. I was a little surprised at the strength of the dedication to Trump that some people displayed. I wasn't surprised that they voted Republican because it's a conservative area, but once Trump was a nominee I was surprised. It was partly because of what I consider a pathological hatred of Hillary Clinton. And partly because they really decided to buy into the idea that Donald Trump could turn back the clock and make America great again, as he says. People think that he's going to make places like Lancaster the way they used to be. I'm skeptical he can do that, but I think people have been beaten up a lot and they wanted to believe in somebody.

What could Trump do to improve the fortunes of the town?
Personally I don't think he'll do anything to improve the fortunes of the town. Partly because some of his key advisors are some of the people who had a hand in doing damage in the town. He says, for example, that he's going to have new sort of trade deals that are going to force companies to bring business back to the United States. Well, I think that's going to be a little tough on some places like Lancaster, where the only export is glass and some agricultural products. If he wants to create a trade deal he's going to have to deal with an industrial product and also an agricultural product. If he starts creating a trade war what happens to the farmers who depend on exports for their products?

Things like this are very complicated and Trump acts like it's not. I don't think that people fully appreciate that you just can't go in and say we're going to slap a 35 percent tariff on something and suddenly all these jobs are going to start appearing again. You can't make anybody build a factory in your town. You can't force them to do that and there are a lot of towns like Lancaster who would love to have a new factory, a new business, a new computer server farm, or a new fulfillment center. There are a lot of towns, because we spent 35 years hollowing out these towns. There's so much demand out there for new kinds of employment that I don't think there's going to be enough supply to fulfill those demands even if some of Trump's plans do work, and I don't think they will.

"As one guy in the book says, why isn't anybody asking why a 16-year-old girl is sticking a needle in her arm?"

Is it drugs and addiction or a lack of industry that is leading to the failure of the American dream as we know it?
I think it's a lack of faith and I don't necessarily mean faith in religion. I mean the lack of faith in institutions, the lack of faith in government, and the lack of faith in anything. I think that incredible disaffection is really what's behind the opiate epidemic. Now, obviously when you have cheap availability of lots of dope, which you've got now—dope's really cheap in central Ohio—that's going to be fuel to the fire, but I don't think that's the ultimate cause.

As one guy in the book says, why isn't anybody asking why a 16-year-old girl is sticking a needle in her arm? That's the important question—not that she's doing it, but why she is doing it. I think it's because younger people are disaffected. The way it was supposed to be is not the way it is and in that gap of faith, belief, and social cohesiveness they're filling it with drugs.

Does the Anchor Hocking Glass company still exist?
The Anchor Hocking Glass Company still exists. The short story, and the book is mostly about this, is that they were once a Fortune 500 company. They became the target of corporate raiders and financial maneuvering. The end result was a severe erosion and damage to the company over a period of years, including two bankruptcies. They have come out of bankruptcy and are trying to get back on their feet. But these were conscious decisions, starting in the 1980s and continuing until actually 2015, that created a lot of this damage, both to the company and to the town where the company is.

What surprised you most about the people in Lancaster?
During my stay back in Lancaster I was touched by how many people still love their town. They really have this deep affection for the place where they live and I think that's fantastic. If Lancaster is going to have a successful future I think it will be built on that. There are a lot of strong people in that town who are willing still to give their time and energy to try and make a town a better place, but it's a struggle. It's hard to do. They're kind of up against it, but I'm rooting for them and I'm rooting for them because they feel so passionately about where they live.

Follow Seth Ferranti on Twitter.

After a 40 Year Battle, Is Male Birth Control Finally Coming?

0
0

Professor Sujoy K. Guha is undeniably stylish. A short, slender man, he is among the select few who can pull off a pair of sneakers with formal shirts and trousers. At 76, he is deceptively brisk, guiding me around the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Kharagpur campus to show off his new projects: an artificial heart modeled on the 13-chamber heart of the cockroach; a road transport system to lower vehicular pollution. Guha is cheerful and poised with a birdlike quaver in his voice, not at all how I expected a man who has waited 37 years for his work to be introduced to the world.

In 1979, Guha published a paper in the scientific journal Contraception laying out the idea for his original drug molecule Risug, a non-hormonal, reversible male contraceptive. His idea is simple: All particles carry an electric charge and can be defused by the opposing charge. Sperm are negatively charged and can be defused by the positive ions of the Risug drug polymer. This polymer is inserted with a single injection to the scrotum, which forms an indissoluble film inside the vas deferens—the duct connecting the testes to the penis. The drug formulation for this injection is styrene maleic acid anhydride with dimethyl sulfoxide (SMA+DMSO).

Read more on Motherboard

I Went to A Breakup Party And It Was Actually Kind of Awesome

0
0

It's not every day you get invited to celebrate the end of someone's relationship.

Particularly not if both people are going to be in the room, everyone's still breathing, and nobody will let you place bets. So when the Facebook event invite popped up ("Let's Celebrate the End of 6 Years!"), I hit "attending" immediately. Having gone through a particularly messy breakup myself a few months earlier, the idea of going gave me a weird sort of masochistic thrill. Admittedly, the whole thing came as a bit of surprise. The couple hosting it had the sort of relationship it was hard not to admire. They communicated well. They made each other laugh. They were engaged. They had plenty of shared interests. And apparently now they had one more thing in common: a desire to be single.

When I pulled up on Saturday afternoon, I was skeptical. At first look, it seemed like the kind of thing that would be really easy to hate. It was kitschy. It was self-involved and a bit smug. Of course, it was hard to know if that judgement was borne of simple cynicism, or because my last breakup had been such a messy affair. Or if it was just because I had no idea what to expect. Punches being thrown? An Airing of Grievances? Putting a line down the middle of the living room, Hook-style, and asking friends to take sides? Would there be booze provided, or did we have to bring our own? Even the internet couldn't help; a Google search for the term "Breakup Party" returned only an Urban Dictionary result, and a link to the desi hip hop song-stylings of this guy. For generations, romance has been pervaded by this strange sort of secular dogma; the notion of soulmates, for example, or that "everything happens for a reason," or the idea of "finding The One," as if building a relationship with another human being was the equivalent of some giant cosmic Easter Egg hunt. And a 'Breakup Party' doesn't gel with those conventional notions of romance. A breakup is a failure. A betrayal. An admission of defeat. Something to be endured. Not celebrated.

The atmosphere was jovial when I arrived. For starters, the place was decked out like it was an actual fucking party. Balloons. Streamers. They had snacks. By the front door were a few packs of Post-It notes, a pile of sharpies, and a sign which read: "WRITE YOUR FAVOURITE MEMORY OF US AND STICK IT TO THE WALL!" There were between 20 and 25 people shoehorned into this tiny one bedroom apartment—some on chairs, some on couches, some on cushions tossed onto the floor for the occasion. Someone had set up a screen and a projector.

People ate, drank, and laughed. Understandably, there was also some tension in the room, although it's hard to know if that was a shared feeling, or something I projected onto the crowd.

Because as it turns out, our hosts had also invited my ex.

She sat against the opposite wall, on the floor, nursing a glass of red wine, and studiously avoiding any glance toward my end of the room. I probably should have expected it; we had plenty of mutual friends, and had so far made a pretty good show of switching off on social engagements, entering and exiting as quickly and gracefully as possible to minimize everyone's discomfort. I busied myself with opening a beer, and a few minutes later, our hosts stood up at the front of the room, and announced they'd like to "get started." Everyone applauded, and I prepared for things to get awkward. There was no way this wasn't going to be a huge disaster. Was there?

"Thank you guys so much for coming," he said, while she gave an awkward wave and sipped from her wine glass.

They started by reading out some of the post-it notes.

"Houseboating on the Shuswap!"

"Our kayak trip"

"Dance parties!"

People chimed in with anecdotes—some funny, some touching. One was illegible and had to be explained. At least one other was awkward for reasons that totally went over my head. But it was real. So many parties are just collections of people humblebragging about their achievements, trying to avoid subjects of any real substance. This was grabbing substance by the scrotum.

Then came the slideshow.

They sat together near the front, while he spoke eloquently about how they'd met (on a sailboat; she was a tourist, he was giving tours around the Gulf Islands, and they'd somehow managed to hook up on the boat without anyone else noticing). He talked about the early months, how it had transitioned from lust to love, how they had defied relationship "science" by moving from hooking up to dating in a relatively smooth arc. The transition into living together looked similarly smooth (at least, from the outside), and featured the sorts of things you'd expect: getting a dog, going halfsies on some art. They showed photos of them on trips, them at parties, them being general goofballs somewhere. He seemed pleasantly surprised as he recalled what had attracted him to her in the first place. She spoke only briefly, a bit overwhelmed. She thanked everyone for coming, for being their friends on their "journey," and that she looked forward to new journeys ahead.

Of course, there was plenty left unsaid; how, a year after they'd started dating, they took a sudden right turn into an open relationship, how they had explored threesomes and foursomes together, how they had started seeing other people, how they had both learned to constructively manage whatever jealousy came from that arrangement without creating drama or annoying their friends by steering every conversation toward a discussion of non-monogamy. How they'd managed to keep it up even after moving into their one-bedroom apartment (enough of their friends knew the arrangement, so nobody even had to ask about the second bed tucked into one corner of the living room for emergencies). How there had been minor betrayals. Boundary-pushing. Conflict. Resolution.

The presentation ended without any drama. No Airing of Grievances. No line in the sand. The only punch I saw sat by the door in a glass bowl. As he explained it, it was a practical decision, the end result of a six-year transition into what was now a strong friendship—deep, abiding, and platonic. And rather than fight the truth, they decided to acknowledge it with balloons and streamers.

Afterward, there was relief in the room. It was as if the party had provided a strange catharsis—not just for the hosts, but for all of us who had ever been in the same position. Human relationships are hard, even when they look easy. Especially when they look easy.

Popular culture has led us to believe that, if we meet the right person, that relationship will stay in the honeymoon phase forever, providing an endless supply of poignant, earth-shattering moments. But the reality of human relationships is that habituation is inevitable, the way that gradual exposure to dogs can make you less afraid of dogs, or listening to "Hotline Bling" over and over will eventually take the thrill out of it. It's as predictable and physiological as it is emotional. Because of that, relationships change and evolve. And most of the time, they end.

Some people hold on long after they should have let go. Some people go home with someone they'd repeatedly warned you not to worry about. Some people throw a party. Which begs the question: should we be focused less on when we break up and more concerned with how?

Or better yet, how well?

As it happened, my ex-girlfriend said exactly what I'd been thinking.

"This is the breakup I wish I'd had," she said.

She wasn't talking to me, but she'd ended up sitting next to me when she said it.

"Yeah," I said. "Me too."

I left after that.

Jesse Donaldson is a Vancouver-based author.

The 10 Worst Political Valentines

0
0

Let's be honest here, Valentine's Day is the worst—the only thing that comes remotely close to the utter shittiness that is this "holiday" are politicians. (Yes, I am available rn.)

So, when you mix the twosome, well, some magical shittiness happens: it's pretty much like cutting some ipecac with diet Mountain Dew.

So, with that in mind, we here at VICE thought we would count down the worst 2017 Valentine days greetings from Canadian politicians. First off, we will be starting with this doozy posted to the Alberta NDP's Facebook Page:

1) The 'Pandering for Votes' Valentine


2) The artsy 'I'm Better Than You' Valentine


3) The 'OH MY GOD, THE WORLD IS ALL TOPSY TURVY' Valentine


4) The valentine that goes into the envelope the wrong way


5) The 'Thank You For Being a Friend' Valentine


6) The 'This Doesn't Seem Right, Does It?' Valentine


7) The 'After I Build A Pipeline to Your Heart I'm Going to Seize the Means of Production' Valentine


8) This… uh… this… one


9) The obligatory Harambe Valentine


10) The 'Lamest Valentine You've Ever Seen' Valentine


Follow Mack Lamoureux on Twitter.


Sean Spicer Just Called Canada’s Prime Minister ‘Joe Trudeau’

0
0

Real talk: the only people who really cared about Justin Trudeau's White House meeting with Donald Trump yesterday are Canadians.

We wondered if JT would stand up to Trump's xenophobic immigration ban (he didn't); we mused at great length about the inevitably awkward handshake between the two; we made a shitload of memes.

Read more: The Definitive Analysis of 'The Handshake' Between Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau

Like most of these diplomatic exchanges between Canada and the US, the event was uneventful. Both leaders rattled off the usual platitudes about being great neighbours and allies and then sat down for a roundtable discussion about women in the workforce, which I'm sure made no mention of the fact that Trump is an accused serial sexual predator.

But at least it gave us Canadians something to talk about; a chance to feel like we were a part of the big story for a few hours. (The American news cycle has moved onto yet another major scandal.) That sense of importance came crashing down today, though, when White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer referred to our PM as "Joe Trudeau."

"Yesterday the president had an incredibly productive set of meetings and discussions with Prime Minister Joe Trudeau of Canada focusing on our shared commitment to close cooperation in addressing both the challenges facing our two countries and the problems throughout the world," he said.

Spicer was recently dissed on Saturday Night Live when Melissa McCarthy, doing an impression of him, told a group of reporters, "I don't talk so good."

We may never know if the gaffe was a slip of the tongue or brazen ignorance (but it is kinda nice to think there's someone out there who is immune to JT's charms.)

Then again, this is the same administration that made up a massacre, so it's entirely possible they prepped for the meeting by watching this Molson commercial on repeat. 

Follow Manisha Krishnan on Twitter.

Tattooing a Dead Friend’s Ashes on Your Body Is the Ultimate Tribute

0
0

Just a regular old tattoo is pretty ho-hum at this point, its edginess sanded and shellacked by mainstream assimilation. It takes getting one on your face or eyeballs to get anyone to notice. So when news surfaced a few years back that folks were getting the ashes of their loved ones and relatives mixed into tattoo ink, it wasn't too shocking to find out that people want tangible traces of their lost loved ones inked into their skin until they themselves passed—at least, that's what they think they're doing.

"You use the tiniest amount of ink for a tattoo," says Stenvik Mostrom, a tattoo artist at Atlanta, Georgia's Liberty Tattoo. He's administered three ash-and-ink tattoos so far, and most of the former element settles to the bottom of the ink well. "It doesn't float on the top, and it doesn't really mix homogeneously with the ink, anyway." You might be getting small bits of ash—"on a molecular level"—into your tattoo, but "it's more the ritual of it, like the belief that they're in you now."

Taylor Oviedo was down for that ritual: When she went for her seventh tattoo, she wanted to add "something special" to commemorate her grandmother who died in December 2015. "I'd heard from a friend that she had ashes in her tattoo, so I knew what I wanted done with a part of my grandmother's ashes," she tells me over email.

Oviedo brought a zippy bag of her grandma's ashes to the shop, where her artist mixed it with black ink to outline a purple gladiola flower—her grandmother's favorite. "She wanted to be remembered as beautiful, and for me, this was the way I wanted to remember her," says Oviedo, whose tribute now takes up permanent residence on her bicep.

Adding people parts to one's tat sounds like a helluva health-code violation. But Dr. Sandra Whitehead, the director of Program and Partnership Development at the National Environmental Health Association, says it's no more dangerous or gross than non-human ink ingredients.

Caution and using a reputable body artist are always the best bet.

"There are health risks inherent in tattooing itself, regardless of the kind of ink used or other material injected under the skin," says Dr. Whitehead, who has 10 years of experience dealing with body art regulation, health policy, and evaluation. "A very small amount of cremains in the ink does not, in general, present a risk, even if the deceased loved one was very sick."

Still, there have been relatively few studies on other substances such as cremains in ink, says Dr. Whitehead. And the studies that do exist are inconclusive. "Caution and using a reputable body artist are always the best bet," she says. "Check with the local health department to see if the establishment has complaints or has been cited for unsanitary practices."

Some are commemorating a favorite pet friend with these tattoos. Human or not, Mostrom says such details don't really matter. "Ash is ash," he explains. "It's all pretty uniform." He says the most important thing is to make sure the remains brought into the shop have experienced minimal handling in order to keep everything as sanitary as possible.

Ashes aren't even the most wild request Mostrom has had in his decade-plus career. He says while working at a shop in San Francisco's Castro neighborhood, he sidestepped a handful of requests to incorporate blood and semen into tattoos. "Most inks are just like a pure powder pigment mixed with a wetting agent—like propylene glycol or something like that—that the body can break down and leaves the ink behind," Mostrom says. He draws the line at ash when it comes to adding foreign materials into ink.

If mixing your dead friend's ashes with tattoo ink isn't the your thing, no worries. There are other options for tributes using cremains. One company compresses them into diamonds, another into bullets. One will even put them in an hourglass for you, just in case you want a constant reminder that inescapable death looms.

But it doesn't get much more profound than a permanent reminder etched in your skin, according to Oviedo, who says her last ink experience "was definitely a different feeling than any other tattoo I had gotten before."

"I mean, I have a dead person's bones inside me," she says. "I believe having her ashes inside my tattoo only brings my grandmother that much closer to me."

Follow Beca Grimm on Twitter.

Butt Bouquets and Other Valentine's Day Still Lifes

0
0

Valentine's Day can feel like a slap in the face for those of us who find ourselves untethered and alone. So for the people who won't be eating any heart-shaped chocolates today or watching smug co-workers receive Hallmark Cards and Precious Moments Dolls from their uncreative partners, we hope to ease the pain by offering up a gallery of alternative gifts and floral arrangements courtesy of visual artist Jessica Pettway. We may not be able to give you expensive candy or eternal love, but we can give you butt plugs in jello molds, dick-shaped balloons, and a ghostly strip tease.

You are not alone. Happy Valentine's Day.




George Saunders Thinks Empathy Can Still Save Us

0
0

"I think we're in the shit, for sure," George Saunders tells me over the phone. "You always want to qualify that and say, 'however…' But I think for now: We're in the shit."

It's a February afternoon in our current America, which at times seems to be tilting toward the panicked, everything-up-to-11 hyperrealism Saunders's fiction is famous for. Even though the occasion for our talk is the acclaimed author's Big-Deal Debut Novel, Lincoln in the Bardo—an inventive, antic, and poignant book destined for awards ceremonies and end-of-the-year lists—our conversation, like so many conversations, has turned to politics.

"I actually have the goal of cataloguing these Kellyanne-isms," he says, referring to chronically misspeaking Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway. "Someone says, 'Your fly is open,' and she says, 'So is yours,' or, 'Why are you always sexualizing everything?' or, you know, 'The people just want jobs.'

Saunders continues: "There are all these moves that are really incredible, and they're not exactly new, but they're kind of novel. They are degradation of language. I haven't been able to really work through this, but it seems to me that's not unrelated to our cultural mild rejection of art, especially literary art."

And yet, if there's any American writer working today who has been able to successfully bridge the high literary with the highly popular, the artful with the accessible, it's Saunders. Over the course of four story collections, an essay collection, and a children's book, his work has been as consistently energetic and entertaining as it's been hilarious and heartfelt. Now, with the breathlessly awaited Lincoln in the Bardo, Saunders has presented readers with a formally adventurous, supernatural historical novel that centers on the 16th president's grief over the untimely death of his favorite son, the 11-year-old Willie.

The majority of the novel is narrated, oral-history style, by a rotating chorus of ghosts—reverend, soldier, "washerlady," large-membered printing-press operator, and numerous others—who, along with Willie, are stuck in a purgatory-like realm called the bardo. (In Tibetan Buddhist tradition, the bardo is an intermediate state after death, before rebirth.) As with nearly everything Saunders writes, there's a joy in the language wholly separate from whatever absurdist plot. To this cause, Lincoln in the Bardo employs two alternating modes: archaic dialogue from the ghosts (words like "tarry" find ample occasion) and possibly fictionalized snippets from historians that are often comedic in their juxtaposition of old-timiness, inconsistency, and occasionally blunt candor:

The Presdt is an idiot. —General George McClellan, "The Civil War Papers of George B. McClellan," edited by Stephen Sears.

Over the past several years, Saunders has become increasingly beloved, even though—oddly for a writer in this day and age—he hasn't published any novels. Lincoln in the Bardo is not unlike the debut album for a band wildly popular for its singles and EPs, and has been greeted with the kind of fanfare rarely lavished on a bunch of words on paper. The book has already received a glowing New York Times review from National Book Award–winner Colson Whitehead and an unprecedented multimedia rollout in the form of a VR adaptation (also in the Times) and a celebrity-heavy audiobook that includes the likes of Julianne Moore, Ben Stiller, Keegan-Michael Key, Nick Offerman, and Miranda July.

Not that the 58-year-old former geophysicist and Texas native is getting a big head about it. After all, here is a man who, after fielding eight phone interviews, has to "go chainsaw" a tree.

"I've been a writer a long time, and I love it and I honor it," he says from his house near Santa Cruz, California, where he lives with his wife. (During the fall, he teaches creative writing at Syracuse University in New York, where he's taught for nearly 30 years.) "But I can even see in myself that at some point I said, 'Well, it's not the main form of the culture anymore,' and I think that's widespread. And so, somehow, values like being articulate, being precise, being specific get sidelined a little bit, and get overpowered by this strange hyperbolic dogma that we're in the middle of now."

This is something Saunders witnessed firsthand while reporting from Trump Tour 2016 for the New Yorker, and attending rallies for the future president in California, Arizona, and Wisconsin, where he spoke to supporters and generally tried to understand what makes them tick and why they're so damn angry. I ask, in light of the election and everything about it, whether such a thing still matters in the age of Trump—does empathy still matter like it did?

"Yeah, I've given that a lot of thought," he replies. "I'm just trying to deepen understanding of what empathy actually is. Because, in my lazy version of it, it means being groovy with everything, and liking everybody. I don't think that's quite it. For me, it seems urgent to me that we resist this crap. How do we best do that?"

Saunders says that while covering the rallies, he noticed that whenever people on either side got "strident and emotional," the conversation shut down. "So, my thing is, if we really wanted to restore our country to what it was, or even better, to get it to what it should be, empathy is a really great tool," he explains. "It doesn't mean you're gonna agree, and I think we liberals have a tendency to think that empathy equals enabling. And I think that's actually false. That's not at all what compassion and empathy means. It's much more akin to a kind of wide-open awareness, which to me is always a powerful thing."

"The heroism in this moment is going to be to be humorous, really firm, and really articulate, and, I think, really empathetic, to really reach out to those Trump people that are willing to be reached out to—which, in my experience, is a lot of 'em."

At the end of the New Yorker piece, Saunders observes: "I've never before imagined America as fragile, as an experiment that could, within my very lifetime, fail. But I imagine it that way now." I ask how he feels now, six months later.

"More so," he says. "Now I think it's happening. I had a friend who used to say, 'When the fascists come, this time they won't be wearing jackboots.' There's a degradation of the basic value system that's being done with all kinds of crazy verbal shenanigans, and with the complicity of a lot of people who I think are basically good-hearted, but aren't seeing it for what it is."

These are the basically good-hearted folks Saunders aims to engage through fictions like Lincoln in the Bardo, which he describes as "everything I wanted to say about Trump," a kind of preemptive strike, as the book was finished before Trump announced his candidacy.

I ask whether Trump's victory has, as with other artists, caused in him any doubts or soul-searching. "I felt that way after 9/11," he admits, "but I haven't felt that way after this. I've actually had the opposite feeling, that I really feel like doubling down. When you're engaged in a work of art, whether you're reading it or writing it, a certain part of your brain gets engaged that isn't normally engaged, and I would say that part of your brain is the better part, more sympathetic—all that. I think we got ourselves in this mess from neglecting what we might call the artistic part of ourselves, by allowing art to be treated as a sort of minor arts-and-crafts thing some freaky people do over here while wearing berets."

I laugh—Saunders's manner of speaking is, like his fiction, affable and entertaining, full of intuitive rhetorical devices and surprises to draw you in—and he continues. "The progressive thing right now—we gotta fucking person up. We have to be not neurotic. The heroism in this moment is going to be to be humorous, really firm, and really articulate, and, I think, really empathetic, to really reach out to those Trump people that are willing to be reached out to—which, in my experience, is a lot of 'em. You can do two levels of activity: You can be absolutely fierce in resisting (and you can be peaceful in resisting), and you can also do real, one-on-one human stuff. It made me sad, when I was contemplating cutting out all that empathy shit. So I think you can do both. You can do sympathy, and you can do resistance. And actually, if you think of it, those are the same thing."

"When we imagine a character, we're basically having a conversation with somebody other than ourselves."

Here, the signature Saundersian empathy kicks in. "Because one way or the other," he cautions, "however this turns out, there's still, whatever it is, 43 percent of people who would find this conversation very insulting. They would feel excluded by and condescended to. And those are our countrymen. You can't condescend to that or pretend it doesn't exist. You wouldn't want to.

"And one more thing," he adds, energized. "The tools that we develop through writing, those are great tools to enable us to [empathize]. When we imagine a character, we're basically having a conversation with somebody other than ourselves. So we're trained in it, if we're fiction writers. That's what we do."

I ask whether Saunders ever sees his fiction as explicitly political, to which he pauses, and answers, "Yeah. In the highest sense." He relates the Anton Chekov story, "Grief," about a horse-drawn carriage driver whose son has just died that morning and now he has to go to work. He wants to talk to someone about what he's feeling, but nobody wants to talk to him—one guy hits him on the head—until finally, at the end of the day, he goes into the stable, drops his head against his horse's head, and lets it pour out about his son.

"Now, is that political?" Saunders asks. "Yeah, in a sense, because the Russian Revolution is coming. But, on the other hand, it certainly isn't overtly political. I try to have zero ideas about my stories at the beginning, and just trust that whatever comes in will come in honestly. If it's political, God bless it. But for me, having an agenda at the beginning almost guarantees that the thing won't work."

Follow James Yeh on Twitter.

Lincoln in the Bardo by George Saunders is now available in bookstores and online from Random House.

Check Out the First Episode of the VICE Magazine Podcast

0
0

The VICE Magazine Podcast is your definitive monthly guide to enlightening information. Each episode brings in-depth interviews, sonically rich cultural insights, and a rare glimpse into how we make the magazine.

The first episode is all about our Future of Technology Issue: Elizabeth Renstrom, our photo editor, explains how we made the cover image; author and investigative journalist Emily Witt helps us explore the world of virtual reality porn; guest editors from Motherboard, Waypoint, and the Creators Project host a roundtable discussion; and, of course, we have much more.

You can listen to the podcast through the embedded player below, or you can subscribe on iTunes.

But if you're using a different platform, then this RSS link should let you add the podcast to whatever platform you'd like. And if you like what you hear, please take a moment and review the podcast, especially on iTunes.

Come back in March for the next episode. And did you know you can get 100-plus glossy pages delivered to your doorstep each month by clicking here to subscribe to the print issue of VICE magazine?

Viewing all 38002 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images