Pensioners waiting outside a bank in Thessaloniki to receive their 120 euros weekly allowance. Photo by Alexandros Avramidis

More on the Greek Crisis:

Photos of Young Greeks Protesting the Bailout
What Greece's 'No' Referendum Vote Means for Europe
Greece Has a Long History of Debt and Bankruptcy

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

The phrase "I'm depressed" is a common one amongst Greeks: We use it to complain about our romantic relationships, a fight with a friend, or being too broke to go on vacation.

Over the last few years, however, the phrase has been used more and more in its traditional sense. The state of the Greek people's mental health has been on a steady decline since the first austerity measures were imposed on the country, in 2010. Additionally, several researchers have spent time looking into how austerity affects people's health—not only in Greece but globally. For example, University of Oxford sociologist David Stuckler made headlines a couple of years ago, when he published a book in which he argued that recession affects one's wellbeing but austerity kills. In The Body Economic: Why Austerity Kills Stuckler writes that "in the United States, the suicide rate, which had slowly risen since 2000, jumped during and after the 2007-9 recession."

The Greek Mental Health Research Institute looked into the relation between the Greek financial crisis and depression, too. In 2008, 3.3 percent of the population showed symptoms of clinical depression, which is a state that needs to be treated with medication. In 2008, that percentage was doubled. By 2013, 12.3 percent of the Greek population had shown symptoms of clinical depression. With more than 2.5 million Greeks lacking health insurance, one can only speculate as to how the situation could develop over the next few years.

The University of Thessaly recently published an article, claiming that suicides had increased by 35 percent during the Greek recession, with unemployed men and pensioners being the most affected. According to Professor of Psychology Bettina Davou, images of the crisis—homeless people sifting through trash for food, for instance—make people feel hopeless.

Read: The VICE Guide to Mental Health

These disturbing observations were made during the initial years of the Greek crisis. I couldn't help but wonder how the last couple of weeks—when Greek banks closed, a cap was placed on cash withdrawals, and the very real possibility of a Grexit loomed over the country—affected the nation's mental health. To find out, I contacted the President of the Panhellenic Psychological Association, Dr. Parissia Salemi.

VICE: How stressful have the past few months been for the Greek population?
Dr. Parissia Salemi: Since January 2015, there's been a constant stream of tough negotiations between Greece and the institutions with very brief intervals of peace between them. Nobody knew how any of these would play out. No one was certain whether or not what the media was reporting was the truth, either. Behind the "simple" presentation of information, every media outlet has their own their specific political opinion and interpretation of current events.

This uncertainty fuels insecurity and basically removes one's ability to control their everyday life . Being unable to predict what comes next creates huge problems, especially for people who already suffer from anxiety disorders.

Related: For a deeper look into how austerity kills, watch 'SISA: Cocaine of the Poor'

What sort of problems can occur?
Lately we've seen a lot of people developing anxiety disorders that manifest themselves through various psychosomatic issues—tachycardia, palpitations, chest pains, dizziness, fainting.

Depression is a problem, too. We meet a lot of people who are tired of the situation and show long-term signs of fatigue, pessimism, hopelessness, and a sense of futility. They see no reason to try, no future, no hope.

So, can this rise in depression be attributed to the entire financial crisis, rather than just the last six months?
Yes, people don't suddenly just become depressed. It's always preceded by a series of predicaments.

Have you noticed any particular trends lately?
We've seen a lot of bank employees develop symptoms of anxiety, because they are faced with situations that they aren't familiar with. For example, pensioner clients who are angry because of the circumstances. The workers are forced to have daily confrontations with them and that makes their bodies react in an extreme way. These symptoms include shortness of breath, dizziness, fainting, vomiting, and gastrointestinal disorders.

What do you advise people to do?
I advise people to refrain from watching TV. Greek television isn't exactly dominated by dialogue and information, it's full of people who just scream at each other. We should all keep ourselves informed but we shouldn't take every single person's opinion as a given.

We need to protect ourselves from conflicting information—this also applies to those who haven't experienced any problems (yet). We all need to develop critical thinking. It's also important to remember to take a break and do something that we enjoy—swim, talk with friends, exercise.

How do you expect this situation to develop?
I am not optimistic. First of all, vulnerable groups are being exterminated—financially and psychologically. Europe's way of thinking worries me a lot, it's purely technocratic and economy-centric. It no longer seems to serve the purpose it was intended to serve, which is equality between member states and the defense of human rights.

All images courtesy of Marvel Comics

Recently Marvel Comics unveiled their entire lineup for the fall. These new comics, coming after the current Marvel universe effectively self-destructs, feature some bold new choices. Once relegated to what-if scenarios and alternate-universe storylines, people of color and women are now taking center stage in the upcoming Marvel reboot. With over 55 issues restarting at number one, Marvel's taken a look at the world around it and made some major changes to places like Asgard and the Negative Zone. But are they inspired by an honest drive to make their titles more progressive and representative, or simply following consumer trends?

This time last year, Marvel unveiled their new, female Thor on The View and Marvel's chief creative officer Joe Quesada announced that the new Captain America was black on The Colbert Report. Since then, there's been a steady push for Marvel toward diversity. Of the 45 new covers revealed, 15 directly feature a female protagonist or a person of color. While that number may not seem huge at first blush, the slate of comics is a Benetton ad when you compare it to the medium's history history. Of the more than 35 comics released by Marvel in 1990, only one, Sensational She-Hulk, featured a female protagonist, and only one four-part miniseries, Black Panther: Panther's Prey, featured a protagonist of color. The Marvel universe is changing in newly inclusive ways. Ms. Marvel stars a young Muslim-American from Jersey,City; Hawkeye and Wolverine are both women now, and there's even an all-female Avengers team.

Of all the big changes, people seem to be talking about the introduction of Miles Morales as Spider-Man in the main Marvel universe the most. Morales, who has a black father and a Puerto Rican mother, was previously the Spider-Man in the Ultimate universe, which was where Marvel tried out new ideas and told different stories without committing to making the changes in their big-deal "main" universe. But now they're bringing this Spider-Man of color into the foreground of their franchises. As Marvel writer Brian Michael Bendis explained to the New York Daily News: "Our message has to be it's not Spider-Man with an asterisk, it's the real Spider-Man for kids of color, for adults of color, and everybody else."

This, of course, isn't the first time characters have changed genders or switched ethnicities. In 2003, before there was today's cultural cache in diversity, Marvel put out the limited-run series Truth: Red, White, and Black, which featured a black Captain America. But that's the exception that proves the rule: Women and people of color have never really received a fair shake in comics. (For proof of this, check out a Tumblr called The Hawkeye Initiative, where fans re-illustrate famously problematic comic-book depictions of women by swapping out the heroines with male superheroes.)

Featured or not, gender-swapped or not, the problem until now has been the staying power of diverse heroes. We had a black Captain America for little more than a year before Marvel reverted back to the original blond-haired, blue-eyed Steve Rogers. And even though DC Comics gave us a black Green Lantern back in 1971, he's often overshadowed by the flashy Hal Jordan. With this new batch of diverse superheroes, I have to wonder: Will they stick around?

The impetus for diversity has always been tied to an awareness of the bottom line. In a recent interview with NPR, Dan DiDio, co-publisher of DC Comics, explained that their push for different types of characters came after half a decade of flat sales.

"We realized that our characters were created 40, 50, 60, 70 years ago," he says in the interview. "The world has changed, and we've got to change our characters along with them and diversify our cast, our voice, and really be able to connect with as many of our readers as possible."

And then there's the unavoidable fact that these diverse comics receive much more amounts of press and attention than is usually lavished on comics. When the female Thor was announced, numerous mainstream publications rushed to cover it. Suddenly, inclusion is buzzworthy.

Looking at this big diversity push—and the coverage surrounding it—it's hard not to feel a little wary. After all, if DC could kill off Superman for a year to drive up sales, couldn't Marvel give us a female Wolverine through November for similar reasons?

In conversation with A.V. Club, Ms. Marvel writer G. Willow Wilson took a less cynical view. "I think we are at a point in comic book history where there is unprecedented openness to diversity," she said. "And we have the fans to thank for that. We've talked a lot about top-down inclusivity from the publishing side, but really, this conversation is being driven by fans."

For Marvel, these fans have been coming out in droves. According to the Los Angeles Times, the first issue starring a female Thor sold more than 200,000 copies and Spider-Gwen #1, which took Spidey's old girlfriend and turned her into a superhero in her own right, moved more than 250,000 units. Ms. Marvel #1, which follows the brand-new teenage hero Kamala Khan, was a New York Times bestseller and has been nominated for six prestigious Eisner Awards.

Watch our documentary on China's elite female bodyguards:

So the big question is: Are comic-book makers progressing with the times, or simply adapting to the market? I think the answer, really, is both. Which raises a second, trickier question: Should we applaud a company that makes a push toward inclusion if that push is in pursuit of sales? And how do we reconcile intent versus outcome? Because whether or not Marvel's acting the supervillain, they've now got more comics featuring diverse characters than any other major publisher.

And these comics that include diversity are pretty damn good reads, as far as I'm concerned. The stories are richer, the struggles are more interesting. From Kamala struggling to reconcile her religion with her vigilante lifestyle to our new Thor punching a dude in the mouth for "saying 'feminist' like it's a four-letter word," it appears we're almost done worrying about whether or not the white guy's girlfriend will get kidnapped.

I can't speak to the issues and series that haven't hit shelves yet, but as far as female Thor, Ms. Marvel, and Spider-Gwen go, these comics are some of the best I've read in years. If we want our superhero stories to stay diverse, quality is going to be key. If the books are good, and sell well, we'll keep our female Hawkeye. Is it too much to hope that the lily-white, dude-centric Marvel movies will one day follow suit? If the sales numbers and buzz of these newly inclusive titles are any indicators, we can't be too far off.

Right now, there are big, institutional changes going on at Marvel Comics. They've recently made some mistakes, and they're finally being held accountable for them. The cultural backlash is bigger than we've ever seen in comic book history, because more people are reading comics than ever before, and it feels like everyone's finally "allowed" to read comics. The more we push back as a culture of conscientious readers, the more change we'll see among writers, artists, editors, and publishers at large. Want to keep your diverse cast of Marvel characters? Buy the comics when they get it right, and scream at them when they get it wrong.

Follow Giaco Furnino on Twitter.

Don't try to buy this right now. Photo by Elektra Kotsoni

More on the Greek Crisis:

Photos of Young Greeks Protesting the Bailout
What Greece's "No" Referendum Vote Means for Europe
Do Greeks and Germans Hate Each Other

Greece and the EU have, yet again, managed to negotiate a staggering multibillion-euro loan to ensure that the country can remain in the eurozone. This time, the Greeks have paid an extraordinarily high price for the economic rescue package and many leading commentators and news media outlets have called the agreement a humiliation of the otherwise proud Mediterranean people. For now, it seems as if the Greeks can look forward to even more reform, cuts, and economic bottleneck. In other words, there's even more hardship ahead for the already embattled Greeks.

Whether you think that all of this is the euro's fault or that it's the Greeks that've gone and fucked it, you can't deny just how serious the whole thing is. Neither the EU nor the Greeks are banking on a speedy recovery. For the cynical investor, this could come off as looking like a blessing in disguise—a chance to snap up some choice beachside real estate for next to no money. We wanted to know if that was the case, so we called up Anders Jensen, an investment specialist from private investment company, Danish Investment.

VICE: How risky is speculating on the Greek stock market right now?
Anders Jensen: You'd definitely have to be a gambler. I agree that there's some opportunities there but that doesn't necessarily mean that you should pursue them. Investment is all about risk levels and the risk associated with Greece is extremely high. Why reach and try to catch a falling knife when there is low-hanging fruit elsewhere, so to speak?

OK, but if you were to look it from an opportunistic standpoint, what opportunities are there for people to profit from Greece's economic meltdown?
Right now, it's very limited. The banks and the stock exchange are both closed so direct investment is impossible.

Oh. I thought it was one of those situations where, all of a sudden, a house costs the same as a round of drinks.
Well, the prices are low but when the financial system is completely paralyzed, it's hard to do anything. On top of that, we don't know whether or not the bottom has been reached yet. Prices could fall even lower.

How about Greek bank shares—is there anything there?
If you want to invest in Greek banks, it's safest to do it through a non-Greek bank. That way it's easier to assess what state the bank is actually in.

But it's too early to say. First and foremost, the banks need to open up again. Part of the agreement that's just been put in place is that banks need to increase their cash flow again. People panicked and pulled all their money. Opportunities may arise at some point, but again, it's extremely risky.

Are there people trying to invest?
Yeah. We get customer enquiries as to whether there are attractive opportunities for investment in Greece. But right now, we recommend that people wait for the stock market and banks to reopen so we can assess whether there is something worthwhile down there.

Watch or doc "Teenage Riot: Athens":

Are there people short-selling Greek shares?
It's happened but authorities have long since put an end to short-selling.

What's the stupidest thing one could blow their money on in Greece?
Given that the market isn't functioning, no one really has the opportunity to be stupid. At least not in that way. My conclusion is that there will be investment opportunities arising in Greece. But you might as well just go into a casino and play roulette—you might win but you also stand to lose a lot.

If, for some reason, you were forced to invest all of your assets in Greece, what you would you do?
I'd go to the nearest police station and tell them that I'd been forced to invest in Greece.

Back in 2012, Harlem-based designer Rio Uribe was still just toying with fashion. Up until that point, he'd had fun making prom dresses for the girls at his high school and rocking some of his own unique creations, but he never imagined he'd rise so quickly to become the force behind a nationally recognized brand that wins prestigious industry awards and presents at fashion week.

In those days, Uribe would trek down to shop from the vendors along 125th street to buy traditional African kufis and baseball caps. When he'd get home, he'd create a whole new hat by taking the brim off of the baseball cap and putting it on to the kufi. He started selling these one-of-a-kind hats to hip New Yorkers and his scenester friends, who lit up social media with his hot accessories. It didn't take long before his new design caught the eyes of both DKNY and the costumers behind The Hunger Games series. After successfully creating pieces that were featured in the spring/summer 2013 DKNY runway show and making custom visor hats and accessories for The Hunger Games: Mockingjay films, Uribe had the momentum to finally launch his own brand: Gypsy Sport.

With only five collections under its belt, the brand has managed to garner a lot of acclaim. By mixing sportswear with non-Western influences and utilizing fabrics usually designated for women, the label is helping redefine menswear. Gypsy Sport garments feature soft, luxurious fabrics like silk, tulle, and lace. They also boast unconventional proportions, to challenge the more conservative shapes that are commonly found in menswear. Uribe has even sent guys down the runway in crop tops and shirts so long that they could double as dresses.

At Gypsy Sport's spring/summer 2015 menswear presentation—staged guerrilla-style in Washington Square Park—male models strutted around the park's central fountain in dresses and crop tops they styled themselves. Uribe also had female models walk throughout the park in oversized basketball shorts and jewelry made from plastic MTA subway cards. The show, which was one of the more exciting of last season, helped cement Uribe's genderless design philosophy.

Uribe's hard work and relentless creativity is really starting to pay off. He recently nabbed the CFDA's emerging designer award. And today, he will be presenting his latest ready-to-wear collection at Skylight Clarkson Square in Tribeca at the inaugural New York Fashion Week: Men's. I caught up with Uribe to talk about how he got into fashion, the influences behind his upcoming collection, which is inspired by the Lord of the Flies, and his predictions for the future of men's fashion.

VICE: How did you start designing?
Rio Uribe: I started with baseball hats that I called "evening hats" because they were something you could wear out at night that didn't have a logo or brand name on it. I was inspired by the way traditional cultures have costumes that men wear and a lot of those outfits are finished off with a particular kind of hat. I was living in Harlem at the time and I noticed that every street vendor sold kufis and baseball caps. So I started taking the brims off the baseball hats and putting them on the kufis.

Is your logo, which represents a place called "Haturn," come from your beginnings as a hat designer?
We call this place "Haturn" because it looks like Saturn. It's two hats balancing on each other. Haturn is the world we are creating by balancing urban aesthetics with worldly aesthetics. It's a balance of strong fabrics with light fabrics. It's a mesh up of opposites and everyone is welcome.

What did you want to achieve with Gypsy Sport that you didn't see out there already?
Ultimately, I'm inspired by adversity and diversity. Those are two things I grew up with in every aspect of my life. So I try to reinterpret those themes in the clothing. By mixing things that are equal and opposite. We did a collection that mixed religious references with sacrilegious references. It's that kind of thing.

How did the theme of diversity run through your spring/summer 2015 show that was staged in Washington Square Park?
Diversity came through in the casting and in the clothing. We often take shapes from other regions of the world. We have taken a Sari and figured out how to turn it into basketball shorts. Or we have taken a sarong and tried to pull the neckline so it's a full T-shirt.

Another big thing in fashion is this push to have more diverse models and sometimes that falls flat because brands have their one season of casting all black models and the real issues that a lack of diversity signal aren't ever addressed. But Gypsy Sport seems to have an authentic multicultural family vibe every season. How do you go about casting your shows?
Casting is one of my favorite things to do. What gives us that kind of real vibe is I use actual friends and we do street casting mixed with sports casting and [traditional] model casting. We would advertise on Instagram that we are holding a casting and I have friends who spot people on the street and they would say, "This guy has to be in your show." Also we use some athletes from different sports centers that send their players our way. I like the clothes to be in an active setting because Gypsy Sport at its core is a sports label.

You also let the models pick what they want to wear.
I like to see what they want to wear—what makes them feel comfortable. There isn't a need to really sell the clothes on the model if they are gravitating towards something naturally. We've had guys come into casting and ask to try on dresses, so I think it's something inside people who want to shine and want to stand out that make them—regardless of gender—gravitate toward certain styles.

It seems like you are beyond traditional gender boundaries but the traditional fashion world who have embraced you is somewhat conservative when it comes to menswear. Have there been moments where you gotten push back?
My interest in fashion is as genuine as can be. A few weeks ago I had a meeting at a American fashion magazine based on gender, and I don't think I was who they were expecting to come into the office. I've gone places to drop off samples and I've been sent to the freight elevator or the messengers' entrance because I'm a Latino male and kind of nondescript and people have been surprised that I'm the designer of Gypsy Sport.

Do they ever challenge the aesthetic of Gypsy Sport as a menswear brand?
Editors have had a hard time trying to categorize the brand. One question I get a lot is, "Is Gypsy Sport actually menswear?" I think it's hard for any publication that's based on a gender aesthetic to see what we are doing. I started with making hats because it's a genderless accessory.

For this collection what were your inspirations?
For spring/summer 2016, I was mostly inspired by mixing women's wear and men's wear fabrics. It's a lot of silk that's traditionally used for men's business ties and I work them into tee shirts and Bermuda shorts. I finished everything off with either raw or unbleached denim.

Any particular theme you used throughout the collection?
If there was a theme it would be camping. Lord of the Flies inspired me. It's a movie about the great outdoors, it's kind savage and I brought that into this collection because I used a lot of raffia and all the silk has a raw edge and there are some cowrie shells in the mix.

You don't see a lot of designers who play with feminine motifs especially in American men's fashion. Why did you decide to bring those elements into your line?
I don't see how feminine something is until people point it out to me. I've had friends say this is so masculine for your designs and I didn't notice that until they commented. When I started designing, I only had a women's bust so I used a lot of draping and that is inherently read as a feminine characteristic. So putting draping into menswear pushes Western clothes a little bit, but it's not my intention to make something feminine or masculine.

It seems like a critique of masculinity.
For me, it's about the increasing feminization of the world. People are becoming in-tune with themselves and that is seen as feminine. But with that you get confidence and security and maybe that has made men want to wear dresses. Growing up for me I did always liked women's clothes better than men's clothes. I always thought, God, girls get all the best shit. Now, I get to use some of those elements in what I do.

Do you think that's the future of American menswear?
Guys have been wearing feminine clothes for ages. But in Western society, it's somehow seen as a rebellious. But men in other parts of the world get to wear dresses, or long tunics. I would love to see men wearing liberate body-conscious stuff. Flowing, draping clothes can be menswear, too. But I really want people to appreciate my clothing for the design, and not because it is men's or womenswear.

Follow Antwaun on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

Since Lena Dunham unleashed Girls onto the world back in 2012, officially 2 million think pieces have been written about how "Sex and the City has finally been re-imagined for Generation Y" and, "Jesus Christ, isn't life a sorry state of affairs for the privileged under-25 females of the developed world?"

Four seasons and counting later, the column inches have dwindled (slightly), but it's still largely Dunham's observations of what life is like for young, ambitious women trying to make it in the Big Bad World that dominate popular culture. And while we'll always have a soft spot for Hannah Hogarth's neuroticism and irritating upward inflection, we're ready for something else now. Something more able to tease out the nuances of what it means to be young(ish), broke, rudderless, and hungover in Britain today.

And that's exactly why Channel 4's latest comedy, Not Safe for Work, with its merry cast of dysfunctional characters bandying their drug and alcohol dependencies about, couldn't have come sooner. Granted, this show isn't just about the women, but its central character makes Hannah Hogarth look like Katherine Heigl. And the rest of the female characters all seem fresh and will no doubt speak to the Girls fans who are over watching people eat brunch in New York.

For those who've yet to see it, NSFW (yeah, OK, the title's a bit eye roll-y) stars Zawe Ashton as the perennially fucked off Katherine—a civil servant who, along with several others, has been corralled in a bleak-looking building in Northampton while her boss attempts to "streamline" the workforce.

Ashton's putting a brave face on what is, to be frank, quite a shitty time. Episode one sees her finalizing her divorce before getting shipped out of London to live in a house share in Northampton, and episode two—SPOILER ALERT—sees her celebrating the first birthday of her stillborn child with a stranger.

Best known for playing literature student Vod in student comedy Fresh Meat, it's slightly strange to see Ashton bypass her mid 20s as she's fast-tracked straight into the shoes of an emotionally over-burdened and underpaid adult. But then you realize that, actually, they're essentially the same person, it's just that one wears a blouse now. There's still little ready cash, unresolved emotional issues, unwanted housemates, and a heavy reliance on alcohol to contend with. For Katherine, life appeared to start, and then stalled again. Sound familiar? Thought so.

It's fitting, then, that Channel 4 has chosen the word "jilted" to describe this generation. A generation that—like any other—was promised the happy-ever-after, only to be left at the altar with nothing but a shitload of debt, few job prospects, and little hope of ever being able to afford to live anywhere nice.

Because it's not only Katherine that's having a shocker in this show. She's not an anomaly. There's the unpalatably sweet Jenny, whose twitchy, high-pitched persona is dangerously close to betraying how close she is to a full-blown meltdown—especially if boss Jeffries gives her the boot.

Jeffries isn't exactly having a good time of it, either. She might be older, and thus more "sorted," but she's stuck in that buttock-clenching position of being everyone's financial lifeline, while knowing she's going to have to cut at least one rope. Plus, she just really wants to be liked.

And then there's Angela, whose main job appears to be to stagger round the office pissed, having stayed there all night drinking and getting high. When asked what she brings to the team, her answer is simple: "Class." You get the feeling that she's actually the only one who might be alright.

"Not Safe for Work is really about someone who feels that their life is over before it had a chance to begin," the show's writer, DC Moore, told the Guardian.

"We're constantly told that you should get a partner, have a kid, buy a house, and that defines how you live your life but what if you can't do any of that? People who work in the private sector are completely loaded and on the fast track. They have their kids quicker. They buy houses earlier. Most people I know can't do that."

That's why comparisons to This Life (made mainly by those who can remember watching it), fall a little flat. For one, the characters in This Life got to live in a four-storey town house in south London on next to nothing. They were building careers with prospects (the world will always need lawyers, kids). And it made taking drugs at work look cool. In contrast, the characters in NSfW have to live in Northampton (sorry, but...), they vomit over themselves after all-nighters and are constantly being threatened with unemployment from a job they hate, but desperately need.

They're all lonely as hell, and desperately don't want to be. They're getting a little bit bored of living like it was still ten years ago. In short, like a lot of us, they're terrified.

And it's funny and it's sad and it's all too true. Watch.

On Tuesday, a pro-life group called the Center for Medical Progress released a hidden-camera video (above) that purports to show a high-ranking Planned Parenthood official named Dr. Deborah Nucatola talking about selling parts of dead fetuses for profit in between sips of wine and bites of salad.

Naturally, conservative media sites all posted this video in a frenzy, holding it up as an example of Planned Parenthood's callousness and the horrors of the abortion industry. The outrage reached a fever pitch so quickly that Louisiana governor and 2016 presidential candidate Bobby Jindal has already announced he's launched an investigation of Planned Parenthood in his state. The key quote that many have seized on is when Nucatola says that the price of a body part can range from $30 to $100.

But Planned Parenthood denounced the video as "heavily edited" and said that Nucatola was simply talking about the costs associated with tissue donation—under federal law it's illegal to sell parts of fetuses for a profit, but it's legal to be compensated for the costs of transporting donated tissue. (The CMP also released a longer, supposedly uncut version of the video, which is nearly three hours long. UPDATE 7/15: Many media outlets have reported that the longer video straight-up contradicts the claims made by the anti-abortion activists.)

According to a statement sent to VICE by Planned Parenthood vice president of communications Eric Ferrero, what you see in the video is a "Planned Parenthood staff member talk[ing] about standard reimbursement fees for costs associated with tissue donation programs, which every health care provider has and which the federal law provides for."

Ferrero also emphasized that donation of fetal tissue is strictly voluntary on the part of the mother: "In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases."

Left-leaning publications have since run pieces pointing out numerous problems with the video's claims. "The price per specimen was $30 to $100, which obviously covered no more than shipping and normal handling," wrote Mother Jones's Kevin Drum. "It plainly wasn't enough for this to be an illegal for-profit business."

But what stands out in the video isn't the alleged lawbreaking but the cavalier manner in which Nucatola discusses the gory business of dealing with the organs of aborted fetuses. A moment where Nucatola says, "I'd say a lotta people want liver"—referring to fetus liver—while eating a forkful of salad is almost certain to attain internet immortality among pro-lifers. Then there's the bit where Nucatola talks about the difficulty of preserving tissue while performing abortions: "We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that—so—I'm not gonna crush that part. I'm gonna basically crush below. I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact."

The bioethicist Arthur Caplan told the Washington Post that what Nucatola is describing is ethically iffy, if not illegal. When you manipulate the procedure to ensure a good sample, "other things than women's health are coming into play," he told the paper, and it becomes "morally difficult."

Watch: VICE meets legendary sex educator Sue Johanson.

The CMP and other groups of its ilk have been making an issue of tissue donation for a long time. The "harvesting" and "trafficking" of baby parts is a known anti-abortion talking point—in fact, the video opens with footage of news stories about the selling of fetal tissue from over a decade ago.

Nor are undercover operations unfamiliar to anti-abortion activists. A sting video by Live Action, which is tied to the Center for Medical Progress, was released in 2011: In it, a caller tries to schedule a mammogram and is told repeatedly that various Planned Parenthood facilities don't perform them—supposedly proving that Planned Parenthood was exclusively for abortions.

This video promises to be a much bigger deal, with presidential candidates Rick Perry and Carly Fiornia using it as an opportunity to slam Planned Parenthood. The Washington Post also said it might "reignite a long-standing debate over the use of fetal tissue harvested through abortions."

Follow Mike Pearl on Twitter.

The Salvia divinorum plant, just out there growing, totally unaware of the fuss being made over it. Photo via Flickr user Luis Pérez

In keeping with its promise to ban every fun drug in Canada, the Conservative government is now moving to make it illegal to posses and sell everyone's favourite terrifying hallucinogen.

Salvia divinorum, known to its friends and enemies alike simply as salvia, is a psychoactive plant that has been eaten and inhaled for hundreds of years by Mazatec shamans and now mostly smoked by rich pop stars and kids who can't find weed.

The news, first reported by Global, means that the legal grey zone in which salvia currently exists will soon come to an end. A government source confirmed to VICE that the ban would be introduced within days.

At present, stores can sell salvia over-the-counter and online, and it is generally billed as a natural health product. The government has always objected to that, and noted that no strain of salvia had been approved for sale—a requirement for any natural health product—meaning that anyone selling the plant is doing so illegally. The police shrugged ("nothing we can do about it," the RCMP told CBC). Without making the drug outright illegal, there is little cops can do to enforce Health Canada regulations.

That's what the government plans to do in the near future.

It's a part of a general push by the Harper Government to ensure that if teens use stupid drugs, cops have the ability to arrest them.

In June, Ottawa announced that it would look to make it easier to allow the Health Minister to ban "designer drugs" as soon as they appear, instead of after every media outlet in the country has written a bunch of trend pieces warning that they can turn you into a zombie or make you kill your grandmother.

They've already managed to ban poppers, for some reason.

While the salvia ban might not be surprising, it's worth noting that the plant doesn't actually appear to be dangerous.

When researchers at John Hopkins University conducted a small-scale study on the drug, using four people with prior experience with hallucinogens, they found that salvia "produced no significant changes in heart rate or blood pressure, no tremors and no adverse events."

While that's no clear indication on how salvia could affect, say, someone with undiagnosed mental health issues or someone who decides to get behind the wheel (which "could be disastrous," they note), ingesting the plant doesn't appear to have any obvious health impacts, and doesn't appear to be addictive.

The serious side effect appears to be the desire to jump out windows.

That said, the drug might actually be helpful.

"Animal studies show that [salvia] has unique effects in the brain," the Hopkins study reads. "Some scientists believe that the drug or a modified version of it may lead to medical advances in the treatment of diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, chronic pain and drug addiction."

You're now imagining mice taking salvia and tripping tiny mice balls.

The number of horror stories about salvia are few, but have gotten significant attention.

One American 17-year-old took his own life in 2006, and his parents became convinced that salvia was to blame, although there appears to be no other reported instances where salvia led to depression, let alone suicide.

But while salvia is now generally known as a less-intense, quasi-legal, more-safe version of LSD, that's not what many salvia aficionados want the drug to be known for.

VICE reached an online vendor of salvia to ask about his thoughts on the upcoming ban. He didn't want his name used for this article. We'll call him Jean, after Jean Bassett Johnson, the American anthropologist credited with documenting traditional Mexican practises, which included salvia.

Jean says his business isn't about hawking a potent hallucinogen so that bored teens can make dumb YouTube videos of their trip.

"This plant is not considered to be a drug, it's considered to be a spiritual tool," he says. "It is used as a spiritual tool for people who are meditating."

Jean's website clearly marks the plant as "not for internal consumption" and he says he frequently turns away customers who are under 18, or who seem like they just want to smoke the plant and get weird.

Generally, he says, the plant is burned as incense while you meditate, and can help bring you to the "astral plane," where all sorts of artistic and personal insight is available for the enlightened.

If someone is just going to do bong hits to try and see unicorns, Jean says, "they are going into a realm of a place where they didn't want to visit." He adds that salvia shouldn't be sold by anyone to those idiots.

But, obviously, Jean doesn't think it should be banned outright—he wants it studied and regulated so it can continue to be used for its enlightening purpose. It appears as though the government won't listen.

"It's not good," Jean said after learning the news. "That means I have to shut down."

Which is a shame, as Jean says he has never heard anything bad from his customers.

"Never. I'll be sincere with you. Never, ever. When it's done properly, people are just there to discover," Jean says. Even so, he adds, "whether it's good or bad, it's part of their experience now."

Even if part of that bad experience may involve thinking everyone looks like Miley Cyrus' boyfriend.

Follow Justin Ling on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

I stared into the face of fear and felt its breath on my brow, tasted its scent on my tongue. My left leg pulsed, my veins surged, my ass tightened. A blade danced before me and I locked its wielder with the steeliest gaze I had, not feeling the wound in my thigh from where it'd just recently been protruding. I would not be moved. I couldn't if I wanted to. The horror vanished, an apparition banished, chased away by bullish resistance. And yet it could not be exorcised—a scraping, all around me, sang of malevolence. Dark, clawed hands reached over my skull, not quite stroking the very ends of my eyelashes. A flash to black. Dead silence.

At this year's E3 video games conference, which we covered pretty damn comprehensively over here, a palpable proportion of buzz was reserved for something that wasn't even a game at all. The three-minutes-or-so-long tech demo Kitchen, made by Capcom for Sony's Project Morpheus virtual reality headset for PlayStation 4, was pitched by its maker as a "tense scenario that draws players into a hyper-realistic virtual world like never before." Saying that you play Kitchen is misleading, though—once the tech is wrapped around your eyes, detaching you from the real world, headphones enveloping you further, you're this experience's victim. There's no other way to describe it. You don't "play" Kitchen—it renders you helpless, unable to intervene in the nightmare scene unfolding in front of you, behind you, all around you.

VICE Gaming contributor Julia Hardy clenched her nerves to test Kitchen at E3. "The most intimidating and engaging horror experience I have ever had," was her verdict. Google a little and you'll find reaction videos of people seeing Kitchen for the first time and very nearly literally losing their shit. Here's one. Here's another. One more. Here's man mountain Simon Miller of Videogamer.com trying to act tough and failing, miserably. But what you won't find is any "gameplay" footage of the demo, anywhere. Capcom isn't releasing it, and neither is Sony—not yet, at least. The same is true of screens, hence the complete absence of them here. The only way you're going to see what's making grown adults squirm in their chairs like there are snakes in their guts, and the snakes are trying to bite their way to fresh air, and the snakes are winning, is by actually doing it. So I went and did it.

There are two other people in the room with me—one from Capcom, making sure that I don't completely freak out and utterly ruin her office, the other handling the Morpheus kit, sitting it snugly on my head and ultimately ensuring that, if I really did have a violent reaction, this expensive tech could be whipped clear of my sweat-soaked skull before I forcibly introduced it to some drywall. I'm asked for a safety word—not typical protocol when previewing anyone's new video game. When I played through pre-release builds of The Evil Within and Alien: Isolation, both in the dark for maximum scare potential, nobody warned me that I might have to be physically rescued from the session. "Lollipops," I offer, and it's noted. Lollipops can't hurt anyone, I figure. Unless you choked on one, of course, or the stick got stuck up your nose and you tripped on a stray cat on the way back home to sort yourself out and fell forward onto your stupid face and the tiny tube of white plastic was delivered at speed to your brain and... Oh, shit.

Related: Watch our documentary on the world of eSports

Also check out The Real 'True Blood'?

As its title suggests, Kitchen is set in a kitchen. (D'uh). You are you, basically. You look left and there's that side of your body, rendered pretty bloody well, shoulder and elbow and leg, everything where it should be. Everything's correct on the other side, too. You hold a DualShock 4 pad in the real world, its movements mirrored by "your" in-experience hands, which are as tightly tied together as "you" are to this virtual chair. You look around. It's a bit dilapidated. Could do with a dozen spring-cleans. Nothing the Changing Rooms team couldn't handle with a little assistance from Kim and Aggie. I've seen student digs that aren't much rougher. Those hellhole households very rarely had unconscious bodies on the kitchen floor, though, at least six nights out of seven. This one does. Until it begins to move.

This guy's alright, though. He wants to help you. He frees himself and stumbles toward you. Man, this looks good. It's as close to being photo-real as your already twitchy nerves can take. He sets about finding something to cut your hands loose. His aren't steady, though, and his first attempt is woeful. And it's now that you're very aware that it's not just the two of you in here. There's a figure, directly behind him and oh fuuuck what the fuck was that fucking thing. Lolli...

On Motherboard: The Horror Game That Heals

Hold it together, man. And I do, just, but I can understand why others have, reportedly, torn out of their time with Kitchen screaming and sobbing, or had to be held down for fear that they'd do themselves actual injury in trying to back away from the demonic woman who disposes of your all-too-brief potential salvation and slowly makes her way back for you. She stabs a knife down, hard, into "your" thigh and the instinct is to groan in agony, but the pain never comes. You swing your leg. It's still there. It's just a game, just a game. I'm telling myself that, but if this were a game I'd have broken out of this chair by now and turned whatever weapon I could find on this witch. She's right in my face, so close that my pores begin to shiver. And then she slinks away from view. I strain my neck right—there's a dresser, solid-looking pans on its shelves. A committed blow from one of those ought to do it. She doesn't look like much, this oil-eyed harpy, a sliver of a human. Assuming she is one. Wait, where'd she go, anyway?

Dark, clawed hands reached over my skull, not quite stroking the very ends of my eyelashes. A flash to black. Dead silence. The demo is over and I'm released into the warmth and comfort of buzzing electric lights, smiling faces voicelessly saying: "See?" I'm laughing, almost hysterically—it's a defense mechanism. I could explain the technical side of Kitchen, write a little about its frames per second (a silky smooth 120, running at 1080p) and its DTS surround sound (sensationally suffocating), and how its visuals are hitting new highs of engrossing realism, but all you really need to know is that it's genuinely terrifying. Really. Horrible. I don't know what the plan for it is, whether it'll go on the road in some way, or become an attraction in a museum or gallery of some kind, or a dare-you-I-double-dare-you fixture at a gaming bar, but I do know that its warning of "may contain content inappropriate for children" is one hell of an understatement. And if this is just a taste of what horror can be in the realm of virtual reality, as advancing tech enables deeper and richer interactive experiences, you can count me the fuck out for future adventures. I'll be next door, playing Amnesia. I need the calm.

Follow Mike Diver on Twitter.

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Ever since she was in a car hit by a drunk driver, TDH* has suffered from seizures. And on January 16, at Southside High School, in Gadsden, Alabama, the girl exhibited all the characteristic symptoms of one: She lost consciousness, her muscles tensed up, and a steady hiss of air emerged from her lungs.

Despite that incident, around 8 PM that night the 16-year-old and her friends headed to a Kevin Gates concert in nearby Rainbow City. At the show, the teenager's mother alleges in a federal lawsuit filed last week, police officers Tasered them both in a nauseating case involving a controversial weapon that's under renewed scrutiny across the country after a year defined by spectacular cases of police brutality.

TDH is not named in the lawsuit, and VICE is not identifying her mother, the plaintiff. Defendants include Rainbow City and its police chief, Greg Carroll, as well as two local police officers. The suit also names the venue, called Center Stage; the city of Gadsen; and six more cops—including three from Gadsen—who haven't been identified so far. Gadsden City Attorney Lee Roberts, however, told Alabama Media Group that there were no local cops at the concert.

According to the complaint, a stampede began when the Louisiana rap star exited the stage after his performance, and the "stress and fear" of being trampled cause TDH to have her second seizure of the day. When her sister informed employees at the venue what was going on, one allegedly picked up the writhing young woman and "unceremoniously dumped" her in the lobby.

The girl's mother arrived on the scene just in time to see an employee put her in a chokehold, according to the suit. Seconds later, a Rainbow City cop, who weighed more than 200 pounds, allegedly "body checked" the mother, knocking her onto her knees and subsequently restraining her arms. She watched helplessly as her daughter went through her seizure, but she was about to have problems of her own.

"Get her," the officer restraining her allegedly said, at which point another cop deployed a Taser on the mother, who went into shock and urinated all over the lobby floor, according to the suit.

Just as this was happening, TDH raised her head toward her mother and was allegedly Tasered three times in her sternum by a Rainbow City officer and went into her third seizure of the day.

In 2007, a study by Wake Forest University found Tasers to be relatively safe, with 99.7 of uses at six locations nationwide producing either no injuries or minor ones, like scrapes and bruises. But a contradictory report put out by human rights group Amnesty International found that 290 people died after being struck by police Tasers between 2001 and 2007 in the US and Canada. According to coroners, the weapon was a causal or contributing factor in 20 of those deaths. Two years later, after a cop sent a man into cardiac arrest, Taser International—which manufactures the devices—warned police to aim away from the chest.

When TDH woke up, she was in an ambulance with gauze stuffed in her mouth and bound there with tape, which caused her to experience the "sensation of drowning," the suit claims. At the hospital, cops allegedly joked about the incident, and even threatened to have her committed to a mental institution. Her mother was cited for disorderly conduct and not allowed to check in on her kid, who suffers from nightmares and panic attacks because of what happened that night, the suit alleges.

"A Taser was used three times on a child's chest, during a medical emergency, while she was pinned to the ground by officers," the plaintiff's attorney, Gregory Harp, told Alabama Media Group. "Other officers present at the scene failed to intervene. Her mother was knocked to the ground, handcuffed, and then herself Tasered and arrested."

The plaintiff is suing for violation of her daughter's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as her own. Attempts to reach TDH and her mother via their attorney for this story were unsuccessful. Calls and e-mails to both cities and their police departments went unreturned.

Follow Allie Conti on Twitter.

Photo via Flickr user Kate Haskell

Read: Bill Cosby's Respectability Politics Align Perfectly with Rape Culture

Joseph C. Phillips, former actor on The Cosby Show, published an article on his blog earlier this week titled, simply, "Of Course Bill Cosby Is Guilty." Guess what it's about.

In the piece, Phillips—who joined the cast of The Cosby Show in 1989 and was voted one of 2015's Most Influential African-American Republicans by conservative news site Newsmax—describes how, on set, everyone knew about Bill's infidelity and sexual prowess.

"Bill sleeping around was a 'fact' that, like the air, seemed to just be. You didn't have to see it or hear it to know that it existed," he writes.

Phillips excused his indiscretions at the time, though, saying that with the "parade[s] of pretty young women that streamed through the studio," no man would be able to "have the fortitude to turn so much nookie down every single time."

But when the series of rape and sexual harassment allegations began in 2014, Phillips started to worry that there was truth to the claims. At the peak of the Cosby controversy, Phillips ran into an old friend who had also considered Cosby her mentor. When he asked her about it, she burst into tears and told him about Bill Cosby's "violation of her trust, loyalty, and body."

Phillips ends his piece with a plea. "Bill," he says, "you have a family who loves you, a wife who is devoted to you; you have more money than you can spend. Please, go live a quiet country life. Allow those of us who truly love you to preserve just a bit of our enchantment."

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

The Conservative government seems to be doing everything it can to make life difficult for students. In last week's Budget we learned that it's converting the maintenance grant into an ordinary, recoupable student loan, a move that will hit working-class students the hardest. This week, the Tories turned their misery cannons on foreign students, as they unveiled plans that'll likely make them want to book a flight on the next plane home.

Theresa May was responsible for dealing the blow, announcing her plans to implement rules banning foreign students from working during their studies and forcing them to leave the UK after they finish their courses. The government estimates that the number of international students coming to the UK will rise by more than 6 percent a year up to 2020—they might want to revise those numbers, since the new rules are likely to deter future students from choosing to study here when they're unable to also find a job here either during, or after, their studies.

I paid a visit to City University in London, home to students from over 160 countries, to speak to people who may be affected by the government's plan.

NICOLE CHANG, 23, FROM SINGAPORE. STUDYING INTERACTIVE JOURNALISM.

VICE: What are your views on the Home Office's new rules for foreign students?
Nicole Chang: I think it's absolute bullshit. It's a cleverly contrived political falsification to try and make foreign students a scapegoat and to distract from the cuts to other areas of UK life that they're going to make—like the housing shortage or maintenance grants being cut. I don't think it's a coincidence that so soon after maintenance grants were cut, the foreign student issue is being raised.

Do you feel scapegoated personally?
Yes, I do, because it's already incredibly hard to get a working visa if you're a non-EU national and have studied at higher education level in the UK. I don't think that this will yield any sort of tangible results. I don't think it will result in more illegal immigrants being deported or even having net migration numbers cut. I don't think it's rooted seriously in them genuinely wanting to tackle the problem of illegal immigration or net migration. I think it's a plastic problem.

A plastic problem? OK. Let's talk about you—what's your situation?
I'm finishing up my master's and like everyone else on my course, I am job hunting. So, I've applied to various journalism jobs and I would like to stay in the UK. It is incredibly hard. I was doing freelance shifts at a national newspaper and basically they were confused about the situation regarding paying non-EU nationals. I think because of this confusion a lot of employers, once they hear that you might need a visa, they just say oh no, we can't do that, without maybe necessarily understanding exactly what they have to do if they want to employ you. I felt that because of the visa situation, that was why they chose not to employ me after my trial shifts.

What do you think the perception is of the Tory government among foreign students?
I don't know. I don't think many foreign students associate these restrictions with specifically a Tory government. I think they feel that it's just the British government in general. Even stepping up this anti-foreign student rhetoric, even the Labour party, which you traditionally think of being more open to immigration and foreign students, even they haven't adequately defended or come out against this policy.

What do you think of the UK's future as a destination for global talent?
I'm not sure fewer foreign students will come to the UK. I think the UK, at the moment anyway, is still a big enough draw that you wouldn't see a dramatic decrease, at least in the next couple of years. But I don't know. In the long run, this might change, especially if more and more restrictions are placed. It's a shame that the UK might lose out on foreign talent because of this. A lot of people also feel that, you know, they let a lot of UK students into Singaporean universities for example, and it doesn't seem as fair.

NICHOLAS CHIA WEI NG, 23, FROM MALAYSIA. STUDYING ACTUARIAL SCIENCE.

VICE: What are your views on these plans, Nicholas?
Nicholas Chia Wei Ng: For me, there's no particular direct impact because I have already got a job back home. But for a lot of my friends who are just graduating, for those who haven't got a job, they might have to go back so I think it's quite a shame.

It's the Conservative government that is implementing this policy now. Obviously, you've done a really good degree and it's got you a job back home. What about other people who haven't done science degrees that are more likely to lead straight into a job, such as humanities and arts students? Do you think we'll see fewer foreign students in those subjects?
It depends on what kind of humanities and arts subjects. For some people, it's obviously very difficult for them to find a job, for example if you study history, English literature, or something like that. Back home, employers aren't really that flexible to accept all these different courses. But for courses that are more established, for example law, economics, medicine, then back home there are quite a lot of jobs. For students of those subjects, it shouldn't be difficult for them to find a job back home.

Do the Conservatives hate foreign students?
I don't think so because obviously they have their own agendas and their priorities might not be international students. They may think that there are too many of them, or they just want to reduce numbers and control the diversity of the population.

What do you think about the UK's future as a destination for global talent in light of this policy? What do you think's going to happen to the quality of the workforce here in the UK?
London and the UK has gained a reputation for being a financial hub. There are a lot of talents from other countries who would like to come to the UK as well. The UK might miss out on some of the great talents that come from other countries if they just focus on UK residents.

JUDY ONG, 23, FROM TAIWAN. STUDYING CULTURAL POLICY AND MANAGEMENT.

VICE: What are your initial thoughts on the policy?
Judy Ong: I feel like it's a bit unfair because one of the reasons why I chose to study abroad is because I want to work internationally.

Will it affect friends of yours or family in the future?
It might affect my family, maybe after seven or eight years. I have a younger sister and she's in high school right now, so maybe in the future she might consider studying in London as well. If she comes here and she can't do some internship during her studies, there might be a problem. I noticed that the UK working environment is quite concerned about if you have experience of working in the UK or not.

What's your situation now then? Are you planning on working in the UK now that you're graduating?
I'm in the process of job hunting. I heard this policy and I thought, Wow, it's really unfair because we pay lots of fees!

Have you secured a job? Is this news going to make you step up the job search?
Yeah, I think after I heard this news, I think I might try to speed up and find a job.

Okay, and what are you looking to go into?
Creative and cultural industries.

Cool, so what do you think the perception is of foreign students from the Tory government?
I don't think they hate foreign students. I know that London has lots of foreigners, but maybe the main thing is just the concern about the financial situation.

The reason for this policy is to prevent visa fraud, so foreign people coming here and pretending to be students, signing up for bogus college courses, just coming here to work basically. Do you think this policy is the best way to combat that or are there other ways?
I think there must be other ways to improve the economy, but maybe at the moment the UK government is just trying to control the number of people in London. If I was a citizen here, I might also hope not so many foreigners come to this city.

What do you think about the future of the UK—we've got a high quality workforce, professions, academia. Will this policy affect that in any way?
I think one of the negative outcomes will be fewer talented foreigners coming here. I'm still trying hard to find a job here but if the policies get more strict, I might try to convince some of my friends not to study in the UK.

So you've got friends who are a bit younger and you would advise them against coming to the UK perhaps?
Yeah because if they study here they only get study experience, but they might not be able to work in the UK after that.

VIVEK SIDDALINGAIAH, 27, FROM INDIA. STUDYING LAW.

VICE: Are you about to finish your degree?
Vivek Siddalingaiah: I'll be finishing in October.

Okay, cool. So what are your views on these new Home Office rules affecting foreign students?
I think I'm a bit confused about when it will come, whether it will affect me.

You won't be affected by it, it'll be the ones starting in September I think. Is this going to affect people you know? Like friends or family?
I think yes it will be a great blow for people who want to come here and study because normally the reason why people opt to study abroad is for better job prospects and when you are spending thousands of pounds, you expect to earn something back before you go back home. It's not just about earning money, it's also about the international exposure and the international experience that one could gain. So I think such a loss will actually deter students from coming to the UK.

Yeah, that makes sense. Are you planning on staying in the UK after you finish your course?
Yes, I am planning to.

Okay, and have you secured anything yet?
I have secured a few interviews but nothing concrete as of now. But I hope to find something.

Cool. So, why did you choose the UK to study?
Well, it is always a dream of most lawyers from India to come to London and become a solicitor or a barrister. That's the reason I'm here.

Okay, great. So these new rules, like you've said, they're more likely to deter foreign students from coming here. What do you think the knock ­on effects are going to be on the British workforce and academia?
It won't just be a blow for students but also for the economy and for the business sector. I was reading an article yesterday that had many people from the business sector who have strong contempt for this thing because it affects the economy. I think the UK government is getting more funds from international students than home students because you know, the difference in fees is like two times more. It's exactly double what they are paying. And also we pay for so many things. We pay £350 [$550] just for a visa application. We need to pay £200 or £300 [$315 or $470] for an NHS security thing. So many costs, and it's only going to get worse, right? I think it's also an advantageous situation for other countries like Australia, Canada, the US. Last year, before applying to the UK, I went through all the statistics, and starting in 2010 there has been a reduction of 30 percent of students coming to the UK because there are no job prospects. You finish your course, you spend all your money, you're forced to go back home. Even the post­study work permit is only for four months. If your course is for 12 months, you get a visa for 16 months. So you need to secure a job within four months otherwise you need to go back. It's different in Australia—I think you get one year, in France you get two years.

Okay, so what's the feeling among Indian young people who are thinking about where to study, and what are the feelings towards the UK government?
The Conservatives have always been a bit harsh on the international people. I think students back home used to prefer the UK because of the quality of education, the quality of the institutions, and also job availability. But now people are preferring Canada and Australia because we have a better job security there. If you finish your course, you can almost be certain of finding a job but that is not the case in the UK. It's a gamble for whoever comes to the UK. We don't know what's happening, every few months you have laws being changed. Before the election I think the same parties said they'd cut down on illegal migrants, but now they're targeting the students. All these students are being diverted to other countries that are more liberal with students.

Is there anything else you'd like to add?
One thing I would say is that overall it's not a good way of dealing with people. I know there are issues with immigrants, especially illegal ones, but don't target students. If a student is coming to the UK, the government knows everything about them, my background, my parents, everything. So, if it wasn't sure about me, it wouldn't have allowed me to get into the UK in the first instance. If we are capable, why shouldn't we work here? It's as simple as that.

MOHAMED ZAGHLOUL, 26, FROM KUWAIT (HAS A CYPRIOT PASSPORT). STUDYING REAL ESTATE.

VICE: Could you talk about your initial thoughts on the new rules?
Mohamed Zaghloul: It will affect a lot of students who come to the UK for job experience because the caliber of people in London, and the type of work they'd be doing, would give them good exposure and experience for their future. Not being able to do this would be a disadvantage to them and their career goals.

So, these new rules won't affect you, will they?
No they won't, I have a European passport and I'm eligible to work here in the UK with no authorization from the government. So fortunately, no.

Okay. Are you at least a little bit concerned that new policies might come out in the future that might affect you?
Potentially, absolutely. We all come to the UK, specifically London, because it's a global financial center and opportunities are endless here. We all want that leading exposure with the best companies in the world. So, I wouldn't be discussing this with you right now if it wasn't for me having the opportunity to work here. I feel that international populations contribute to the UK as well.

Will these new rules affect people you know? Are you worried about them? Yes, they might be demotivated to pursue education here because a lot of students who come to the UK assume that an internship or some type of work experience will be packaged with their degree. This might not help the education sector here in the long term, for example it might have an impact on the funding for universities.

We all know the UK has some of the best institutions for education in the world.
Yeah, and foreign students pay much more than home students. So they're kind of subsidizing it for the rest of us, right?

Follow Ben Jackson on Twitter.

In 2002, Germany implemented some of the most liberal prostitution laws in Europe, with the goal of improving the legal and social status of women. But since Germany isn't surrounded by a protective border fence—and given restrictive laws in neighboring countries—the laws have essentially turned Germany into a paradise for johns from Denmark, Luxembourg, and France. The regulations have also led to increases in forced prostitution, pimping, and human trafficking.

VICE Germany spoke to sex workers, brothel owners, police officers, and government officials to see how this well-meaning legislation has lead to the exact opposite of what it aimed to achieve.

This screenshot, and the next, are from 'Civilization V,' released in 2010.

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

For more than 20 years now, and across five different editions and a brace of expansion packs, the Civilization series has been quietly holding a dark mirror to human nature. Sure, the various generations of designers have attempted to throw human triumphs from the Hanging Gardens of Babylon to Leonardo da Vinci into the games, but this veteran franchise has long represented devastating proof of one thing: Despite window-dressings of diplomacy and culture, human beings will raze a city at the drop of a hat.

If you've never played the game (and if so, congratulations—you're automatically 3,000 times more productive than we poor addicts), think of it as a history simulator. With varying degrees of visual sophistication, you're presented with a top-down view of the world, and you're basically roleplaying a partial god, guiding a civilization from initial mud huts to nuclear weapons and Panzers over about 6,000 years.

And this is a partial god in an Old Testament sense. The developers rather sweetly include options to live in harmony with your neighbors and develop in peaceful co-prosperity—there's even a win condition determined by your popularity with your AI competitors—but it doesn't work out quite like that. I have no doubt that I'm in the overwhelming majority in playing the game like some combination of Genghis Khan and Henry Kissinger in one of his more bloodthirsty moods, merrily conquering nearby countries over wars that span centuries, and razing their cities without a second thought. There's even a fun sound effect when you do so, allowing you hear your enemies' lamentations as they're crushed under your virtual jackboot. Seriously, there are few greater satisfactions in life than building an invincible army of Aztec cavalry and sending them to eradicate the spearmen of your American neighbors.

Sometimes it's about some vague sense of avenging a historical wrong—it's satisfying to destroy Spain when playing as the Incas, and sometimes it's about a sense of quasi-reenactment of history, although that can lead down the psychologically dangerous path of playing as Germany and establishing a Reich that lasts a lot longer than a thousand years. But mostly it's about pure idle savoring of destruction, the passing of recreation time with fake conquest. Destruction becomes addictive, too—if you've already sent Napoleon packing in 500 BC, there's little reason to spare Caesar in 1,500 AD.

Watch: The Mystical World of 'Magic: The Gathering'

You might also want to watch our video of VICE meeting Karl Ove Knausgaard

But why is this? There's no real incentive to behave this way. In fact, there's no incentive to behave in any way—like my occasional bouts of cobweb-removing mass murder in the GTA games, this is a consequence-free environment. Like that guy who tried to live as a pacifist in Los Santos, I could be a good virtual helmsman, guiding my people through peaceful and virtuous lives and eventually exploring space in peace. Instead, my teenage years were marked by frequent 2AM fits of virtual genocide. Why is this? Why not be a nice guy?

Well, equally, why not become a virtual Attila? The clue's in the "consequence-free environment." There's no ICC coming for me, there's no court of public opinion, there's not even a supernatural entity who'll hold me in judgement should my people execute me in a drainpipe, Gaddafi-style (let them try). Sure, people have been saying that a good life is its own reward since the Greeks, but the reality is that without the chidings of others, human beings can be pretty despicable. History is littered with cases where might made right, where cynical or exploitative acts led to riches or power, and where the idealistic little guy is crushed by the more pragmatic big guy, less hung up on agonizing over whether something's the right thing to do. It doesn't matter if you're Machiavelli or Stalin or Kissinger, the cynic usually wins out over the idealist.

And this is the reason the Civilization games, for all their gentle nudging toward a constructive building of a harmonious global community, are so goddamn dark. The game doesn't force us to live in a state of Hobbesian chaos, where conflict is permanent and the strong eat the weak—it lets us choose. And given the choice between pacifism and leaving smoking ruins in our wake, the majority of us reach for the touchpaper.

And so, despite the options to micromanage where exactly your cities do their mining, we're left in this way with a series that has wandered into becoming one of the most realistic simulators of the Orwellian forever war that makes up history. But there's another way it's realistic as well.

If we accept that history is a string of wars interrupted with periods of peace spent preparing for the next one, despite how it may sound, there is a positive. If I'm playing Civilization, my reptile brain is telling me to devastate all around me. I can't do that by sending pikemen against tanks, or if I do my efforts will be pretty short-lived. I have to learn and develop new technologies to beat them—I can't do it by hurting their feelings. Conflict and competition spur me on to take my tribe from initial settlement to space, not because progress is in itself good, but because I need that edge.

On Motherboard: What Will World War III Look Like?

This is what happened in history, too—Europe's dominance on the world stage is obviously over, but serious thinkers have argued that it only came about at all because, rather than the monolithic empires of the East, the fractious and argumentative city states, and later actual states, of Europe were forced to compete through innovation. Marginally better armor could make the difference between having a whole shitload of chapels with Caravaggios in them and having to pay tribute like the short kid on the school bus. For all the darkness, for all the pain, this everlasting violence led to some pretty great things as well—but has it been worth it? The most troubling thought is, when I survey my empire after 5,000 years of wise guidance, and launch it into space in search of fresh worlds to dominate, it kind of does.

So, Civilization shows us who we are. It may not be a pretty reflection, and we may not think of it as showing our best selves—but the everlasting conflict it presents us with is an accurate portrait of who, and what, we are. Now, one more turn—my enemies still draw breath.

Follow Andrew Lowry on Twitter.