In late September of last year I wrote an aggressive article that articulated my strong distaste for the cultural practice many of us know as marriage. Due to boldness and high controversy of my arguments, the piece understandably warranted backlash and dissatisfactory feelings from fellow colleagues, readers and people within my social group.

However, I reserve the right to two things: 1) I reserve the right to be wrong and 2) I reserve the right to change my mind.

           It isn’t news that roughly half of American marriages end in divorce, and for a long time, I allowed that statistic to cloud my judgment of what healthy marriages looked like (and, quite frankly, if they even existed). Upon writing my initial article, I concluded that the high numbers of divorce stemmed from people entering marriages with “wrong” intentions I believed were rooted in selfishness. However, upon enrolling in a course titled Close Relationships taught by the University Psychology Department’s Eddie Clark, Ph.D, I was quickly stripped of my title as “relationship expert,” humbled and put in my place. For those interested in taking the course, Close Relationships is a 4000-level psychology elective offered every Spring. 

     Today, I am here with a new perspective as I present this idea with full confidence: through my time in this class I have come to accept that any and all relationships, regardless of their natures or what intentions they were entered for, have the potential to last forever. The steps to obtaining and maintaining a healthy relationship are surprisingly not as complicated as one would think. However, it all depends on one key factor: the individual and their attitudes towards the partnership. With that being said, my one and only intention of writing this article is that it restores one’s faith in love, even if it is just one person. 

   Aside from learning many meaningful lessons on having healthy arguments, communication and attachment styles, the Close Relationships unit that stood out the most was the one on love. A common theme throughout this segment was that in order for an intimate relationship to last, a friendship needed to be present, with its fundamentals being rooted in trust, care, loyalty, respect and commitment. Surprisingly, “movie-like” love that manifests itself into nervousness, euphoria and butterflies in our stomachs wears out the fastest, often going away entirely after a couple gets married. It was companionate love, however, that was identified to be the most effective and longest lasting form of intimate relationships. Its stability and increase in intimacy through the years guaranteed the most satisfactory attitudes in couples, despite being slow to warm up at first. As further emphasized in a study by Drs. Laura Stafford and Daniel Canary, the five most necessary relationship maintenance techniques were sustaining a positive attitude towards one’s partner, expressing the willingness to be open, assuring their partner in times of need, having stable social networks and sharing tasks together. They also recommended incorporating mediated communication and humor, especially during times of conflict. 

   However, the real game-changer of relationship science is showcased through the work of Dr. John Gottman, also known as the “Godfather” of relationship psychology. Before the foundation of his well-renowned therapy workshop the Gottman Institute, Gottman and his best friend Bob Levenson found themselves in repetitive unhealthy relationships. In an attempt to find answers as to why they kept experiencing these dynamics, the two started a “Love Lab” in 1974, later joined by Gottman’s wife Dr. Julie Schwartz-Gottman in 1992. The lab implemented questionnaires that focused on areas of strength and dissatisfaction in intimate relationships, as well as interviewing couples and measuring their vitals when they interacted with one another. Over the next 45 years, the trio interviewed over 40,000 couples, and through these numbers, they were able to predict divorce or stability and happiness in relationships with an accuracy of 90 percent. The effects of the initial study were replicated by Gottman six different times. 

         So what predicts these factors? What separates a couple that is at a high risk of dissolution versus low-risk? Gottman emphasized that those who were unhappy in their relationships were at a 0.8:1 positive-to-negative emotion ratio during conflict, while couples who were satisfied with one another were at a 5:1 ratio. With the index established, Gottman wondered how he could make a difference and authenticate a system for people in dysfunctional relationships to reconcile and achieve peace. This realization allowed him to develop a theory, which was that people who were in happy and fulfilled relationships all had three things in common: trust, maintaining a physiologically calm attitude towards their partner, and commitment. 

“When people are calm,” Gottman emphasized, “they can take in information. They can listen. They can be empathetic. They have access to their sense of humor…But when they’re flooded, when there’s a diffuse of activation of various parts of the autonomic nervous system, they are much more likely to be in attack-or-defend mode, making it harder for couples to relate to one another.” 

       Gottman added that higher trust in romantic relationships leads to better intimacy and sex, while low trust leads to loneliness, emphasizing that loneliness is the number one cause of infidelity. Building trust comes from always having both parties’ best interests in mind, and doing small things one knows will bring joy and happiness to their partner. Lastly, commitment comes from what Gottman calls a “turning point”, a period during which when things aren’t going well and one’s partner may be irritable, hostile, and emotionally distant. However, if at this time an individual is cherishing their partner, loving them, and being grateful for their presence in their life, it establishes a firm and profound sense of loyalty that will significantly strengthen the relationship. Betrayal, however, happens during these scenarios during which one begins resenting their partner and creates comparisons between real or imagined alternatives. 

      “There is magic in love that lasts forever…” Gottman says with a smile, “and that magic is achieved through three things: calm, trust, and commitment.”

In recent years casual sexual encounters, also known as hookup culture, has gained vast popularity in the United States. With the sudden emergence of this new cultural trend, one demographic appeared to be implementing it most: college students. 

   Recent data shows that between 60 percent and 80 percent of North American college students have experienced a “hook-up” in some capacity. An article written by Justin Garcia and colleagues aimed to explain why college students were the most accepting of this phenomenon. The results concluded that the reason young adults resort to hookup culture is because the average ages of marriage and reproduction have been dramatically pushed back, while the age of puberty dropped. This creates an awkward gap in which young adults are physiologically able to reproduce, but are not mature enough to “settle down” and start a family. Subsequently, this presents an opportunity for people to engage in sexual acts for their sole benefit, often without a desire or expectation of a romantic relationship. Additionally, the easy accessibility of dating apps plays a significant role in the popularization of hookup culture; platforms such as Tinder or Bumble grant almost instant access to potential sexual partners by being free of charge and readily available to users. 

   One may start to wonder what the moral implications of this new cultural shift are. Does the societal acceptance of hook-up culture represent an era of destigmatizing uncommitted sex, or does it normalize taking advantage of others in the pursuit of sexual intimacy? Moreover, is it even possible for one to set healthy boundaries during an encounter that is meant to be ‘no strings attached? 

   Tulane University’s Lisa Wade, Ph.D, argues that hookup culture is destroying people’s ideas and perceptions of emotionally fulfilling sex, healthy expectations, and boundary setting. Upon conducting multiple surveys and writing a novel on the topic, Wade found that approximately one third of the students she surveyed reported their casual sexual relationships being traumatic or very difficult to handle. Most participants reported their encounters to be very disappointing, while one in ten reported that they have been sexually coerced or assaulted by their sexual partner in the past year. Her study concluded that only about a quarter of students thrive in hookup culture, at least at first.

   “Notably, my research suggests that hookup culture is a problem not because it promotes casual sex, but because it makes a destructive form of casual sexual engagement feel compulsory. Students who don’t hook up can end up being socially isolated, while students who do engage in this way are forced to operate by a dysfunctional set of rules. Hookup culture encourages a punishing emotional landscape, where caring for others or even simple courtesy seem inappropriate, while carelessness and even cruelty are allowed,” she quotes. 

Aside from emphasizing that hookup culture is unnatural to our primal instinct of caring for others, Wade shines light on the fact that today’s young people are more permissive, disclosing, and more willing to accept new and diverse principles than any generation before. This, she highlights, is reflected in the rather abrupt normalization of this phenomenon, especially within the demographic. 

   Her proposed solution is for institutions to take action by offering substantial resources in creating a narrative shift which will promote casual sexual encounters being built on the ethic of care and boundaries, and not on benefiting at the expense of others.

    “Colleges also need to change the institutional arrangements that give too much power to subsets of students who are most enthusiastic about hookup culture and who benefit from it at the expense of their peers…”, explaining that in a historical and modern context, the organizations responsible for this have been fraternities and sororities. “Doing this may mean disbanding them [fraternities and sororities]…” 

   Regardless of its nature, an essential component to any healthy dynamic is emotional maturity and willingness to have open and honest conversations. While sex means different things to different people, many find that their sexuality represents a raw and vulnerable aspect of their lives. Despite its fluidity, years of research on sex and hookups have taught us the necessity of being respectful towards others and enforcing boundaries, because the moment the dynamic shifts into something that is a power trip, or using another person for what they are offering, the situation can quickly turn into a slippery slope of cruelty and abuse. 

   The bottom line is not to engage in situations one feels hold the potential to be a toxic or disappointing experience for themselves or another person. If one chooses to pursue casual sex, it is important to be mindful of the intentions leading up to the decision and not engaging in the act with ulterior motives. Because sexual intimacy holds the potential to be the most empowering or destructive experience one can engage in, it is critical that we remain aware of how our actions impact ourselves and others, internalizing the importance of always treating others with respect and enforcing boundaries. With these positive qualities prioritized, casual sex can very well prove to be an emotionally fulfilling, safe and positive experience for those involved. 

James McTeigue’s 2006 action thriller V for Vendetta remains a cult classic. Known for its critical acclaim from viewers and critics alike, the film’s niche lies in its timelessness, understanding the danger of authoritarianism, character arcs, and subtle religious themes in the message of the movie. 

V for Vendetta showcases a dystopian future of England after being ravaged by pandemic, famine and war. Seeing an opportunity in the chaos and devastation, powerful and oppressive leaders take over the country, paralyzing people with fear that lay within their anti-human agendas. After briefly getting a glimpse at the film’s setting, viewers are introduced to its two main characters: antihero “V” (Hugo Weaving), and his accomplice Evey (Natalie Portman). 

V’s character is a mystery. Throughout the film there is little background information revealed about him; viewers never even see his real face which is hidden by a smirking Guy Fawkes mask. In spite of this, his demeanor is very intellectual and eccentric; V is portrayed as a charmer who has an aptitude for symbols, art and poeticism. Within the first fifteen minutes of the film, V expresses his devotion to being the one to end the persecution of the innocent in England. His proposed solution is to single-handedly eliminate everyone in power. Despite being a destructive character and cold-blooded killer, V is seen as morally virtuous as he appears to have an evident and justifiable reason for every murder he commits. Despite knowing that his end goal of achieving total anarchy is a deadly journey to embark on, his endeavors persevere on the basis of a core belief: some ideas are worth sacrificing one’s life for. 

Once falling victim to the government’s torture and oppression, V’s fundamentals lie in the integrity of his famous saying: “People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.” With him strategically plotting out a yearlong series of hijacking, and eventually, destroying the government, his ultimate goal lies in provoking anger in the public to encourage them to rebel by his side.  On the evening of his first plot to demolish the Old Bailey, V coincidentally bumps into Evey, a young woman who was getting arrested for violating curfew. Upon slaying the police and freeing her, V invites Evey to watch the explosion of the Old Bailey. 

The day following the demolition, V hacks the broadcasting network that runs to every television and plays a pre-recorded tape explaining who he is and why blew up the Old Bailey. In his speech, he discusses how words will always retain their power, and for those who are willing to listen, they offer the enunciation of truth. He highlights how many things are terribly wrong with the country, and while people once had the freedom to object, think, and speak as they saw appropriate, there were now sensors and systems of surveillance soliciting their submission. He encouraged the people who shared his anger to join him in one year outside of the gates of Parliament to “give them a fifth of November they will never, ever forget.”  Upon delivering his speech, V finds Evey and asks her to join him in his mission of starting a revolution and freeing England. Evey accepts, but shortly begins to feel uneasy with V’s destructive nature. After being asked to aid him on a murder quest, Evey breaks away and flees V. Seeing Evey’s fear, V understands what he needs to do: he must put her through the same pain and horror he once endured so that just like him, she will become unbreakable. Upon kidnapping Evey and convincing her she was taken by the government, V imprisons her in a simulated concentration camp he created in his home. For the next several months, Evey is kept in solitary confinement and brutally tortured to test her loyalty to V. After several weeks of encountering endless dehumanization, Evey is told that she will be executed if she doesn’t disclose V’s whereabouts. Upon answering that she’d rather die than betray V, the guard congratulates her and sets her free. Shocked and confused at the encounter, she opens the prison doors only to find herself inside V’s home. Furious and in disbelief, she rages at V for putting her through the hell that he did. Despite feeling guilty for his actions, V still stands behind his word that everything he did was to eliminate her fear and make her stronger. Still furious at V, but eventually understanding his point of view, Evey asks him to take her outside. The scene ends with her joyously crying in the rain, symbolizing her freedom and rebirth. 

One year from the start of the film, V fulfills his promise of bringing justice to England as he successfully starts a revolution and eliminates everyone in power. His final wish before dying from fatal injuries was to demolish the Parliament building, which he left Evey to do on the eve of November 5th. Marking the end of the tyrant and oppressive rule, hundreds of thousands of people wearing V’s Guy Fawkes masks gather to watch the explosion. As Evey overlooks the destruction from a distance with a former federal agent by her side, he asks her who V was. To his question she responds: “He was my father. He was my mother. He was my brother. My friend. He was you. And me. He was all of us.”

After years of rewatching V for Vendetta, its real meaning finally caught up to me, which, surprisingly, is not about anarchy or violence. It instead portrays this profound concept that all it takes for the world to change is an idea. It doesn’t matter who puts this idea out there or what they are like as a person: it’s their beliefs that will shape and revolutionize the world. The person is symbolic, but their idea is eternal. A powerful quote from the movie that pinpoints this phenomenon: “We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught, killed, and forgotten, but 400 years later, his idea can change the world… Ideas are bulletproof.” The portrayal of V’s character flawlessly highlights this as he never had a character identity; he had no backstory, no family, no friends, no name, no age. He did not even have a real face to be remembered by. Yet, he generated an idea powerful enough to eliminate England from its oppressors. Evey’s final quote “he was all of us” further demonstrates that all it takes to change the world is an idea. 

But alas, a high price one usually pays with producing a groundbreaking idea is self-sacrifice, which is where the film’s spiritual meaning sneakily lies. The concept of sacrifice is heavily emphasized through Christianity’s perception of Jesus. Despite being a non-Christian,  I still recognize a vivid parallel between V and Jesus Christ. Similarly to V’s character, nobody knows anything about the first thirty years of Christ’s life. The Bible doesn’t disclose what Jesus’ personality was like or what he did in his spare time when he wasn’t preaching. Nobody knows if he was funny or eccentric or had an aptitude for poetry. But what humanity knows and remembers are his ideas. As a matter of fact, we remember those ideas so profoundly that thousands of years after Jesus suffered and died the most humiliating death imaginable, we celebrate a holiday on December 25 that commemorates his message of love and generosity by exchanging gifts with one another. Just like Christ, V pays the price for his ideas and meets his fate at the end of the film. But this was something he had been waiting for from the beginning. He knew that his sacrificial death was inevitable; his body must die in order for his ideas to live on. Despite not being pious or virtuous or godly, V still represents a Christ-figure for his sacrifice. V understood that the flourishment and greater good of humanity was worth dying for. The virtue of the human condition lies within those who selflessly gave their lives to allow those around them to have a brighter tomorrow. Or to reiterate: the best us were those who understood that their ideas were worth more than their priceless lives.

On Monday November 9, two students vandalized a memorial for aborted fetuses placed by SLU’s Students for Life organization. The phenomenon went viral, catching the attention of politician Ted Cruz  and conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, both of whom voiced their anger and dismay towards the action. The next day, SLU’s Students for Life announced via Instagram that in spite of the backlash, the flags will be brought back in continuation of honoring the lives of the unborn. 

The topic of abortion is an incredibly difficult conversation for many. With 50.8 percent of America’s population being female, the issue of reproductive healthcare is no longer a debate for politicians, but one that is personal. Additionally, factors such as race and class add complexity to the abortion debate, underscoring the necessity and importance of holding these conversations and being willing to listen. As many individuals take divided and sometimes extreme stances on the issue, civility and willingness to understand both sides of the argument can become difficult.

I was determined to walk out of the fuming crowds with an answer regarding why there is so much tension and debate surrounding the issue. Putting all anger and personal feelings aside, I pulled out my phone, started a voice memo, and began interviewing people from both sides as I asked four questions.

1. What is your stance on abortion? 
2. What is the basis for your beliefs?
3. If you were in charge, what steps would you take to reduce abortions?
4. Is the abortion debate the byproduct of differing morals, or one of a public health crisis?

My first interview was with Kennedy McTeague, a junior studying Human Resource Management. Kennedy identified as pro-choice, saying that she believed that it was every woman’s right to decide what was right for her, and that this decision boiled down to an account of respect. “It’s a privilege thing, if you never had to experience it, if you never had to respect anybody for it, then you simply won’t know how to reciprocate it.” As she noted that it was critical to respect everyone’s decisions, she emphasized that at the end of the day, it truly wasn’t anyone’s business what people choose to do with their lives. Her steps to helping reduce abortions were to make sure that every person who is pregnant receives adequate care, support as well as mental health resources. “You are a hypocrite if you say you’re pro-life if you don’t advocate for the lives who are already born and have a heartbeat… this especially affects students of color on SLU’s campus because we are already so underrepresented. There is just no safety, we do not feel comfortable seeking out all of these resources. And once we do, let’s say for pregnancy or other reproductive care concerns, we’re judged and told we’re hellbound.”

I then interviewed junior Kellin Jeffires who is studying English and Art History. Being pro-choice as well, her emphasis circulated around the role abortion plays in social justice in Amerian society. Kellin criticised the pro-life movement for their performative activism. “To say you’re pro-life and not to advocate for Black people, to not advocate for immigrants, to not advocate for poor women, to not advocate for families who are caught in the cycle of poverty while acknowledging their disenfranchisement and how at risk these people are for developing mental health problems does not make you pro-life. It makes you pro-taking-away-women’s-choice and hypocritical.” Like Kennedy, Kellin emphasized the importance of resources, conversations, and education on the matter.

After Kellin came Alex, who didn’t disclose his last name or his year, but is a SLU student studying International Business. Alex was adamantly pro-life, with his basis being that there is a dependent baby growing inside of a pregnant woman. “That baby is a person, it’s a human being.” His proposed solution for helping reduce abortion cases was similar to Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s heartbeat law. “If there is a heartbeat detected, that means that the child is alive. If the child is alive, you don’t just get to kill it.

Alex’s friend asked to remain anonymous. Being pro-life as well, his basis for believing that abortion was wrong was out of his Catholic faith and belief that life starts at conception. “Ideally I would love for there to be no abortion, but that is not going to happen anytime soon. With that in mind, I would like the pro-life movement to take gradual steps in order to guarantee that as many lives are saved as possible.” Upon asking him what his proposed solution to minimize abortion would be, he said that a lot of factors need to be taken into consideration. “I’m Catholic, and the Catholic church preaches against contraception. But I am not necessarily against it. Sex education might also help as well. Those are definitely two very important resources, as well as family planning.”

Upon getting their quotes, I asked the two if they considered abortion to be a moral issue, or an issue of a healthcare crisis due to inadequate resources for pregnant people to turn to as alternatives.

The anonymous student said that the problem stemmed from abortion being both a moral and a social issue. “If women need resources to bring a child into this world or start a family, I certainly agree that we should have funding for that. I am definitely open to those types of solutions. However, abortion is also a moral issue for me. I believe there’s a human growing inside of these women, so it’s really no different than murder. But the bottom line is that I believe it’s both a healthcare and a moral issue.” 

Alex shared a different perspective: in his eyes, abortion was decidedly a moral issue. “It’s a matter of literally life and death. It lies in the determination of what we consider life to be. That’s not to say that there are other logistical issues surrounding it, such as inadequate support, but I think the issue of abortion in and of itself presents this core moral problem.” 

Next came junior Cameron Tucker, an Economics major who helped organize the counter-protest which took place in the afternoon hours of Tuesday, November 9. Tucker, who is pro-choice, said that her basis for supporting the stance was one out of bodily autonomy. “The state does not control my body. There could be a case in which there is a person who desperately needs a kidney transplant, and I have that perfect kidney for them. But unless I consent to giving up my kidney, nobody can tell me what to do with it. The same goes for pregnancy. The state cannot force me to carry out a pregnancy against my will. That’s not how it works.” Upon asking her what her perceived solution for reducing abortion was, Cameron said she didn’t necessarily believe that abortion is an “issue” to begin with, but her proposed factors that would help reduce the quantity of abortions were access to affordable healthcare, contraception, sex education and other reproductive resources. To my question of whether abortion is an issue of morality or inadequate support, Tucker said that both play a large role in the abortion debate, but that at the end of the day, it was of utmost importance to guide women towards the resources that they needed while giving them adequate support during their pregnancies, regardless of what their decision is. 

My final interview was with Nicholas Baker, a junior studying Business. Baker, who holds a position on SLU’s Students for Life board, said his beliefs on abortion stem from his Catholic faith. Upon asking him what can be done to lessen abortion cases, he explained that the club meets regularly to plan fundraisers and do volunteer work for pregnancy crisis centers in the St. Louis area. “In the crisis centers, we help guide women in need towards any desired resources they may need, and in some cases we even give them funding.” Upon asking Baker his stance on abortion being an issue of morality or society not giving women better alternatives, Nick agreed that both play a significant role in the abortion conversation.

Upon interviewing the six students, I privately interviewed Lucy Gonzalez, the Regional Coordinator for Students for Life in the states of Missouri and Arkansas. I expressed my concern for the nature of the presentation of the protest. I highlighted how many perceived the flags as a guilt trip rather than being educational or constructive, hence the hostile and angry attitudes towards the pro-life demonstrators. Gonzalez was understanding towards my dismay, saying she would take steps to be more mindful of future presentations of the organization’s mission, while emphasizing that it was never anyone’s intention to hurt or offend anyone. To our surprise, the remainder of our conversation circulated around points of agreement rather than disagreement. We ended our conversation with the shared notion that the United States is failing women and childbearing individuals left and right due to inadequate resources, funding and care going into the physical, mental and financial well-being of those expecting. Because of the lack of basic pre-natal support, many are left thinking that abortion is the only option. We agreed that the best solution was approaching the issue from an educational stance while making sure that all parents are having their mental, physical and financial needs secured. 

As I walked home that evening, I acquired a newfound sense of humility as the reality of how difficult it is to talk about abortion weighed on me. Everybody has their own perspectives regarding why they are for or against abortion, but because this issue directly affects so many of us, it can be immensely difficult to stay civil in these conversations and not let personal feelings take over. Because the line is so blurred between people believing abortion being an issue of morality or one of society failing childbearing individuals, it is nearly impossible to come up with a unanimous agreement regarding how to go about solving the crisis. I understood that it takes much more than “understanding” everyone and where they’re coming from: it takes empathy. No matter how extreme one’s arguments are, there is still validity behind them because these arguments are deeply personal. I understood that there is no true “solution” for abortion debate as everybody has their own standard of what the “appropriate” course of action is. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

Fundamental disagreements regarding abortion were never the problem. The real problem lies in our desire for the moral high ground and control. If one truly had the best intentions for others, they would take an open-minded and tolerant approach towards the issue. They would understand that it is improbable to convince an entire generation of human beings with different moral, religious and personal backgrounds that abortion is inherently right or wrong. Because not one human experience is the same, the standards for viewing abortion and whether or not it is acceptable will vary drastically. A point that I brought up to Gonzalez was had the pro-life organization put up signs saying that America needed policy change regarding paid parental leave, improved sex education, and better access to birth control– things that arguably help reduce abortion rates–the reactions of bystanders would have been much different. If the majority of people I interviewed said that they support legislation which would encourage these agendas, regardless of their stance on the issue, one could imagine the productivity and constructivism of the conversations that would’ve taken place. Nobody would see half the anger and rage that took place Tuesday night. As the age-old saying goes: it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. 

 But perhaps the biggest lesson that I learned that night was that coexistence is essential. Controlling others and trying to change their minds won’t create anything but hatred and hostility towards others. But through accepting the beauty of heterogeneity, we can create peace, tolerance and harmony within one another. Coexisting won’t solve our disagreements on abortion. But it will make us more loving, empathetic and understanding of one another. It is extremely easy to get caught up in opinions and feelings, ultimately dehumanizing the issue of unplanned pregnancies, abortion and who it affects. But the reality is that this issue deals with real-life human beings. Regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, it is our moral obligation to do what we can to protect and support expecting people during the most raw and vulnerable moments of their lives, and we must put our personal feelings aside to do so.

5 percent of men and 42 percent of women have experienced verbal, mental or emotional abuse from their intimate partners in the United States. Another 29 percent of women and 10 percent of men experienced physical violence. With these staggeringly high statistics, one wonders if there are any early relationship red flags that might indicate potential future abuse. Unfortunately, because of how ambiguously toxic behaviors are often presented, it can be difficult to tell what is ‘okay’ and what is crossing a line, especially when someone is getting to know a romantic partner for the first time. With this in mind, I spent months trying to come up with criteria that will allow people to not only look out for these signs in their own romantic relationships, but in the relationships of the ones close to them. No one ever deserves to go through the hell, pain and suffering of being tortured and belittled by a person who’s meant to have your back no matter what. 

The first red flag is love-bombing. Love-bombing is one of the most common forms of emotional abuse and is most prominent in the “honeymoon phase” of romantic relationships. Love-bombing is when in the early stages a victim is bombarded with love, attention and validation that never seems to end. This is done with an ulterior motive: the abuser needs to manipulate the victim into growing extremely emotionally dependent on them. During this time they will tell the victim everything that they want to hear, as they boost their confidence and validate their life’s nuances. The victim will also be complimented on their looks and achievements while the abuser gushes about how they have never been this happy. The abuser will often drop plans with friends, family and other important priorities to spend time with the victim, tricking them into thinking that they are at the center of the abuser’s universe. Right before things start to go downhill, victims will often gush about how the relationship is “too good to be true.” The unfortunate reality is that yes, it is. As the victim grows visibly more dependent on the abuser, the abuser will take that as a sign that it’s time to pull away. At this point they know that they have successfully lured the victim exactly where they want them to be. The mask can now come off and the abuse can begin. The ‘raw’ and ‘intense’ love demonstrated at the beginning stages of the relationship was never real– it was put in place to make the victim obsessed with the attention that the abuser gave them. This codependency is what will make it nearly impossible for the victim to leave when things start to get bad. 

 The second red flag is if the relationship feels like it is moving too quickly. There are healthy plans that can be made in the early stages of a relationship– planning a fancy date, going away for a weekend or meeting close friends and family. These plans celebrate a reciprocated effort as a couple slowly begins to introduce each other into their personal lives. In a healthy relationship things like meeting each other’s extended family, conversations about moving in together and eventually marriage often take anywhere from several months to a year to unfold. In toxic relationships, however, these conversations are often had within weeks of a couple being together. During this time, people may have already said their “I love yous” as discussions about getting married, starting a family or moving in together are already being held. It is important to pay attention to these patterns and consider that the only factor that will tell you if your partner is “the one” is time. There is absolutely no reason for things to move this quickly in the early stages of a relationship other than an abuser trying to manipulate their partner into thinking that they care enough about them to include them in their lives forever. What makes this especially vile is that the abuser has no real intention of actually committing to any of the things they say. The abuser may gush about how badly they want to marry the victim, or how many children they want to have with them, but once again, this is all just the abuser taking full advantage of the victim’s desire for a loving, long-term relationship by saying whatever it takes to keep them tight in their grip. 

 An important thing to consider is that it isn’t uncommon for victims to feel uncomfortable with the intensity of how quickly toxic relationships move in the beginning stages. Unfortunately, they will often not voice their concerns as they will excuse these behaviors to be the abuser’s personality or love language. My best advice is to always–and I can’t emphasize this enough– always trust your gut. If this constant bombardment feels like it’s too much too soon, this is your time to address these concerns to your partner. Your partner’s reaction to the confrontation will tell you everything that you need to know about them. If they genuinely seem embarrassed and sorry for their behavior and work on fixing the problem, that shows your partner respects your feelings and boundaries. If they instead try to manipulate or guilt you by telling you that you are ungrateful or overreacting, that is a sign that they do not respect you. This lack of accountability and refusal to own up to wrongdoings will turn into a pattern that will continue throughout the relationship. 

The third and final red flag is if a romantic partner constantly talks about their ex in a negative light. There is a time and place to talk about former partners in relationships in a healthy and productive manner, but somebody who continuously and voluntarily brings up their ex-partner shows the blatant obvious that there is unresolved baggage, and in some cases secrets. Abusive partners will spend a lot of time raving about their ex-partners, often using the words “insane” and “crazy” to describe them. This is often not true and is done with the intention of leaching out a pitiful response from the victim. An important point to consider is that if someone’s ex was genuinely terrible, the topic of conversation would be the abuse, not the person. This highlights that abusers often bring up how “crazy” their exes were, yet never have any evidence of what exactly this “craziness” was. If they do, the evidence is often presented out-of-context. They will talk about how clingy and controlling their ex partner was, yet conveniently leave out details in which the abuser consistently cheated or withheld affection from their ex. Twisting the narrative allows abusers to have power over their partner. It also gives them the rush of feeling like they’re getting away with something, which feeds their desperate need for constant attention and appraisal. This is done to intentionally blur the victim’s ability to see the bigger picture and piece together the fact that their current partner may actually be the toxic one. 

 I once held a naive belief that there was good in everyone, and that all it took for bad people to change was meeting a kind-hearted person which would show them that there is beauty and happiness in everything. We pity toxic people because we have always been told that they are “lost” or “hurting,” but the truth is that these are lies that society made up so that we don’t hold abusers accountable. The sad reality is they are perfectly satisfied with being the way they are because abusers love the fact that they can take any seemingly confident, loving and determined person and turn them into an insecure, jealous and overbearing mess who begs and pleads for every drop of affection that they can get. In the words of Alysa Mounce: “There’s a misconception that if you try to empathize with a toxic person and try to understand them, you’ll somehow play a role in healing the injured parts of them. It’s a really beautiful and compassionate thought, but there’s one problem with it: it won’t change them, but it will destroy you.” 

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the free and open discussion of all ideas regarding religion, politics, as well as the right to protest and bring petitions for grievances. Additionally, the First Amendment deliberately prohibits Congress from restricting the free expression of people’s thoughts in the media or press. Recently, however, controversies surrounding free speech have emerged, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic as news and social media platforms have taken extra lengths to eliminate the expression of any viewpoints deemed as “false” or “misinformed.” This phenomenon brings light to questions that have left many scratching heads: how far can free speech go? Is free speech really “free speech” if censorship exists? And lastly, have we gone too far with censorship?

While the First Amendment protects Americans’ rights to talk, voice, articulate, protest or rant their opinions without the fear that they will be imprisoned for what they say, there is a limit on what one can say without facing legal repercussions: free speech does not always mean “free from consequences.” For example, the First Amendment does not protect people from posting threats, child pornography, blackmail or expressing the incitement of crime. Additionally, the First Amendment does not guarantee that the public responses following people’s expressions of opinions will be positive. One is free to say what they please, but there is no promise that their opinions will not cause disapproval or outrage from others. Because people use their moral judgment to perceive which opinions they deem acceptable and which they don’t, this gives them the right to not associate with beliefs they deem unacceptable. People are welcome to voice their misinformed or discriminatory beliefs, but by doing so they need to acknowledge that they are taking a calculated risk of losing jobs, friends or even family. 

All things considered, one might wonder where social media plays into censorship: one could argue that social media platforms should not be the “moral judges” of what is okay to post, and what is not. Just several weeks ago, YouTube took steps to ban anti-vaccine activists and all anti-vaccine content. Several days later, Twitter faced criticism for censoring an obituary of a Seattle mother who died from COVID vaccine complications. Facebook and Instagram are also known for mowing through accounts and groups who violate COVID policies regarding misinformation. Perhaps both sides can be seen here; despite people’s YouTube videos and Twitter posts about the pandemic being misleading, one could argue that the rights of the First Amendment give people the authority to freely express whatever they please on their platforms. 

The catch is that once it gets to private businesses and corporations, there is very little the federal government can do. Social media falls under the “private corporation” category as most of their platforms are run independently from the government. This separation is what allows private businesses and legislatures to make their own decisions regarding rules and regulations. For example, businesses run independently from the government such as grocery stores, bars and restaurants often have signs that say “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.” This statement comes with its limits: for example businesses cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex or gender in accordance to federal Title VI and IX laws. However, if one shows up to a private business inappropriately dressed, using offensive language or being intoxicated, owners have every right to refuse service to this person or simply blacklist them from their establishment. This is usually done with the intention of preserving the safety and well-being of customers.

  Social media platforms follow a similar approach in which users are required to read over and consent to a “terms of service” agreement before creating an account. Deactivation, or in some cases, permanent banishment usually follows the refusal to comply with social media guidelines. These rules often come in the form of not being allowed to post violent content, sexual images, false information, harassment, or threats of any means. Social media networks recognize that with information being spread at a fast and steady pace on their platforms, there is a level of responsibility that must be taken to ensure people are not falling for false narratives so that it doesn’t go mainstream. While some may have personal concerns regarding ethical implications of this matter, the bottom line is that Instagram censoring anti-vaccine content is protected under the same laws as a bar having a sign saying “no shoes, no shirt, no service.” The reality is that under current circumstances, there is nothing the US government can do to prevent censorship on private platforms. 

Because of current circumstances, censorship is the only choice we have to combat the outbreak of misinformation. The stakes are too high to have it otherwise: the COVID pandemic has claimed the lives of over 700,000 Americans. The bottom line is that innocent people are dying. Americans are ready for the pandemic to be over and for their lives to return to their “normal” courses. The only way to diminish COVID cases and return to our pre-pandemic state is by vaccinating the majority of the public. People taking advantage of this to spread conspiracy theories and misinformation about the origin of COVID and vaccines will not achieve the end goal. In this day and age, misinformation is dangerous because if the majority of this country begins falling for false narratives, progress will not be seen and the pandemic will never end. Additionally, false rhetoric will create mass panic, and with panic comes its spouse: chaos. It may be wrong to silence those who are simply trying to voice their version of the truth, but it is even more unethical to have that “truth” be the reason for unnecessary illness or death of the innocent. As an editorial posted by St. Louis Post Dispatch says: “YouTube’s ban of anti-vax lies isn’t censorship, it’s responsible behavior.”

There are several universal laws. The sun rises in the East and sets in the West, a falling object will accelerate at approximately 9.81 meters per second and far-left liberals love Bernie Sanders. 

 I spent two years of my life on the far-left end of the political spectrum. Being a self-proclaimed activist, I devoted hours of my day researching the heinousness of capitalism and how badly American society needed to change. I firmly advocated for unyielding laws which would aid in the climate crisis, increasing the minimum wage, while doing what I could to advocate for the voices of marginalized communities. I remember my first time seeing a Bernie campaign on television and being swept away by how eloquently he spoke. Being eighteen years old with zero political knowledge or experience, I suddenly felt like the mechanics of this country were no longer a heap of nonsense. Admittedly, one of Sander’s greatest strengths is presenting his arguments articulately enough for them to make sense to everyone, regardless of their political awareness. Through Bernie’s movement, I felt as if I finally got the answer of how our country could collectively improve, which was presented through his agenda of “democratic socialism.” Bernie flaunted this revolutionary idea and emphasized that contrary to what American society has been taught about socialism, there are many cases in which socialism has “worked” in developed countries. He underlined that Scandinavia as his biggest example while arguing that China and Venezuela are not actually “socialist”, rather dictatorships and tyrannies. He gave examples of Scandinavia’s free healthcare and education, strict environmental laws and high wages, emphasizing that if America adopts similar principles, we too can see the same results in our country.

 Except there’s one small problem. Scandinavia is not socialist. 

For those trying to find an example of “functional socialism,” Scandinavian economies are the poster child. After all, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark all share the common denominator of having generous governments who have the best interests of their people at heart, traits one would attribute with the fundamentals of socialism. However, the truth stands clear. Scandinavia is not socialist. One of the fundamentals of a socialist economy is that production and distribution decisions are made by the government, not private businesses. As a result, individuals living in socialist countries heavily depend on the state for food, employment, healthcare and other means for survival. 

Scandinavia, however, runs on free-market capitalism, just like the United States. The main difference between the two countries is in their stable state of welfare and social security benefits. Contrary to what our progressive candidates are pushing, everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status, pays high taxes in Scandinavia. In Denmark, for example, people’s average income tax can go up to 52 percent, much higher than America’s 14.9 percent. However, these high levels of taxation create ample funding for public services such as hospitals, schools and public transportation. This additionally creates a large safety net and public pension system, which aids in Scandinavia’s low levels of unemployment and high life satisfaction. One of the cores of Scandinavian economics is the practice of bidirectional trust between the people and the government. The government trusts the people’s individual judgement, and the people trust the government to do what’s right on a national level. This explains why minimum wage does not exist in Scandinavia, since corporations are given the authority to create their own wages based on the worth of their jobs. Employers creating their own wages allow for higher hourly pay in Scandinavia, which tend to be significantly higher than countries who have set federal minimum wages. Scandinavians, however, hold their corporations accountable, which reflect in their high percentages of unions: Norway is currently the highest at 51 percent in comparison to the United State’s 11 percent. Scandinavia’s economic approach creates lots of space for balance as everyone paying high taxes benefits from their investment in the form of good wages, better social services and overall life satisfaction. 

All facts considered, Bernie Sander’s campaign tells a different story. Despite emphasizing its effectiveness in Scandinavia, Bernie’s proposed plan of taxing only the wealthy and setting a fifteen-dollar minimum wage is not a reality in these countries. This misleading information is what fed the public a false narrative that Scandinavia is socialist. Unfortunately, this mistake is not exclusive to Bernie as many politicians only give the rhetoric that benefits their agendas. But imagine the national outrage if governments of foreign countries were attempting to promote feudalism while using the United States and Canada as examples. This scenario is no different.

There is a lesson to be learned from this: it is incredibly easy to be misled by well-respected authority figures. After all, there is a sense of trust and respect for those in high positions, especially if they share similar values to us. All they need to do is tell a story that sounds convincing. Then the first domino piece will collapse, and before anyone knows it, millions of young people like myself will fall for the narrative without thinking twice. A harsh reality of life is not all that glitters is gold. Always listen to the other side of the story– no matter how crazy or irrational it may be. Doing this will allow you to draw your own conclusions as you may learn more than you anticipated. 

In a hypothetical sense, we could rely on our government officials to fix all of the problems that they created. After all, the United States government is run by the same people who legalized fracking, set the unlivable federal minimum wage at what it is, and made Jim Crow laws socially acceptable. We could hope that maybe someday our country will be run by morally virtuous people whose means don’t justify the ends. Or, we could take it on ourselves to be good and altruistic human beings and make sure to treat everyone and everything with the same respect and kindness we would expect others to treat us with. One person can’t change everything, but the 33 million of us sharing this country? 

I leave such judgments to you.

Everyone is born with a pair of rose colored glasses called “innocence,” but an unfortunate reality of this “gift” is that it is inevitably outgrown. With every passing year the lenses will start to feel snugger and snugger, until one day you will find that they no longer fit. Throughout my childhood and my teenage years the glasses covered most of my field of vision. But at twenty it’s almost as if they never existed. Shortly after I outgrew my glasses, I bid a farewell to a part of my life I was looking forward to since I was a little girl: I no longer wished to get married.

Upon entering college I began noticing patterns in mine and my friends’ familial lives that marked the start of my doubting of what marriage was and what it stood for. Parents of friends who seemed otherwise happy and loving were suddenly caught in messy lies, infidelity and eventually divorce. Everything positive I was ever taught about marriage began to feel insincere and fabricated. As I desperately scrambled for answers, I found that the story is all too familiar: a young couple weds, everything is perfect for some time, but then these inevitable problems begin to come up. Suddenly the couple starts to fight constantly, shower each other in insults and before they know it they’re sleeping in separate beds. Both parties have a lingering feeling that the other person is not who they agreed to marry and that they probably made a mistake. One of two things will happen in the next ten years of the relationship: the couple either separates or “selflessly ” stays together, in most cases for their children.

 It is appropriate to wonder how these relationships manage to regress this badly. How does one go from feeling pure bliss and euphoria around their spouse to feeling like they are a complete stranger in a matter of years, sometimes even months? Moreover, why do almost fifty percent of marriages in the United States end in divorce? After careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that people enter marriages with the wrong intentions. These intentions are often selfish: people feel like the whole point of getting married is for someone to “fix” or complete them. The truth is that until one learns how to love and accept themselves for what they are, they cannot expect to be in a lasting and fulfilling partnership. Another common trend is that people tend to enter serious relationships with this expectation that their partner will eventually mold themselves into the person of their dreams. More often than not, there is not even a basis for these hopes: the couple shares nothing in common. Otherwise they wouldn’t be expecting that big of a change in their partner. People forget that the whole point of marrying a person is loving them for what they are and working through life’s ups and downs together, not loving the idea of what they want them to be. If one can’t love someone exactly for who they are without listing their personal list of “terms and conditions,” they should probably reconsider why they are even pursuing a relationship with this person to begin with. 

Then you have deeply religious couples that rush into marriage only because they want to have sex. Others choose to get married only because it’s socially pressured and not because they have any real desire to do so. There are also people who simply want to start a family and are willing to do it with the first person who crosses their path. During these moments, one’s “special person” may seem like “the one”, but nothing will ever constitute the health of a relationship except for time and circumstances. People change and life messes us up. Obstacles will be thrown in our paths that will bring out the worst in ourselves and our partners. But these lows exist so that couples can get through them together. It’s to look in one’s special person’s eyes and think, “yes, this is exactly why I chose you.” Alas, the hardships happen later when the marriage papers have been signed, the honeymoon phase is over and when life suddenly has you hunched over gasping for breath. And more often than not, that initial realization typically comes along the lines of “who the hell did I marry?”

 I firmly believe that only time will tell if a person is right for someone. People in the United States wed anywhere fresh out of high school to their early thirties. However, these years indicate a time during which most people are still on a path of self-discovery. In their twenties, people make a huge transition from being a young adult with little sense of maturity or independence to fully functioning on their own. During this period, it is normal to change one’s perceptions of romantic relationships or what they are looking for in a partner. This shift in values is critical because it represents necessary growth. How are we supposed to know that a person that someone meets in their young adulthood is exactly what they need forever, especially when we are in a state of perpetual change? It is very bold to think that a person someone meets in their twenties is exactly what they need for the rest of their lives; we are not going to be the same person at fifty as we were at twenty. Human beings are constantly evolving; we are not even the same person we were yesterday. People do not understand the permanence of marriage because forever means “till death do us part.” It is incredibly hard to internalize our mortality when we are this young.  

Because of my young age I acknowledge that there’s a reasonable chance of me changing my mind in the years to come. But as of right now, I really do not see the appeal behind marriage. I pride myself on being a risk taker. Nothing scares me. But one thing does scare me. It is coming home to the one I love most, telling them about my day and feeling that gut-wrenching sensation of knowing that they do not care. It is looking back on old wedding photos and feeling like the person next to the smiling woman in the white dress is a stranger. Some risks are worth taking, but there’s a fifty percent chance that my marriage might fall under the “failed relationship” statistic. I’m good.

“Being the Cool Girl means I am a hot, brilliant, funny woman who adores football, poker, dirty jokes, and burping, who plays video games, drinks cheap beer, loves threesomes and anal sex, and jams hot dogs and hamburgers into her mouth like she’s hosting the world’s biggest culinary gangbang while somehow maintaining a size 2… Cool Girls are above all hot. Hot and understanding. Cool Girls never get angry… and let their men do whatever they want… Shit on me, I don’t mind, I’m the Cool Girl.”  -Gillian Flynn, Gone Girl

Society needs a new definition of ‘cool girl’, one that is as far as possible from what author Gillian Flynn portrayed in her bestseller Gone Girl. Flynn’s term ‘cool girl’ describes women who do everything they can to not appear like the typical female, with the intention of molding themselves into whatever men want them to be. “Cool girls” often look down on women who show the slightest bit of emotion, calling them “unstable” and “crazy.” They hate all things “feminine” and pride themselves on being one of the “boys.” At the end of the day, cool girls are an immature man’s fantasy. These girls are young, badass and sexy. They agree with everything their man says and only open their mouths in the bedroom. These girls don’t bat an eye at their partner’s unfaithfulness and proudly boast about how mature he is for staying best friends with his ex. They enjoy cars and beer and sports and all things “manly.” She laughs along with her man’s friends when they make degrading jokes and doesn’t care that she is the target of them. She never gets mad or shows any negative emotion. When she fights with her man, she is the one to apologize for getting upset at something that he did wrong. There’s no doubt that the “cool girl” persona is the worst form of internalized misogyny. Anyone can tell you that living like this is dangerous because when you pretend to be someone you’re not for long enough, the horrific consequences of suppressing your identity will catch up to you.

Don’t lie. We all tried to be the “cool girl” (whether you identify as a girl or not) at least once in our lives. We all tried to pretend to be someone we were not so that we could appear to be more nonchalant or easygoing. We did so not because we were inherently insincere or fake, but simply because we wanted to portray this image that we are not like the rest and that we have qualities that most don’t possess. There’s nothing wrong with wanting to express individuality, but it shouldn’t come at the cost of destroying yourself to please others. Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that there is a way to be a “cool girl” that is not rooted in deep misogyny or the subconscious desire for validation from the ones around you.  This reclaimed meaning of “cool girl” comes from the genuine place of wanting to be a better person and accepting life for what it is. 

The founding father of the original “cool girls” was Zeno of Citium, the founder of the philosophical tradition known as Stoicism. When we think of a stoic person, we think of someone who remains calm under pressure and avoids showing extreme emotions. However, there is more to stoicism than just appearing calm. Philosophically, it is understanding that the world around us works in a sequence of cause and effect based on the thoughts and actions of ourselves and others. The whole point is to internalize that you can’t control anything except yourself. This mindset allows people to peacefully navigate through their lives without displaying much negative emotion or complaint. One might argue that just like “cool girls,” stoics suppress their emotions in order to appear more calm and nonchalant to the world. However, the stoic response might be that, as human beings, we are not exempt from feeling negative emotions such as anger, sadness, disappointment or frustration. The whole point, however, is to learn how to stabilize and control our emotions. Because once someone masters emotional control, they will not only learn to calmly deal with unpleasant situations, but most importantly let go of their ego. In relationships, we sometimes find ourselves with the wrong person or perhaps notice a pattern of toxic and immature partners. The blunt reality is that we cannot control these people or why they are the way they are. However, we have control over the most important thing: ourselves. This allows us to make the decision of leaving behind what is not right for us. Sometimes the best choice to make out of love is to not fight back, but to walk away. You are not this person’s parent or therapist. It’s not your job to stick around and “save” them. You can’t fix everyone, nor can you fit into everyone’s mold of what they expect you to be. The whole point is to let go and accept life with an “it is what it is” mindset because the more you try to control and micromanage the outcome of a certain situation, the less happy you will be. 

The reborn stoic “ cool girl” is an umbrella term for all sexes and gender identities. They live their life with one purpose: being a good human being. But most importantly, they have an incredibly high degree of self-respect. They don’t owe anything to anyone but also hold others to the same standard. These “cool girls” put themselves and their happiness first and are not afraid to leave behind the people who are not good for them. They don’t know of any immature or toxic men because their self-worth is too high to associate with people like that. They are confident, radiant and they don’t need others to validate that. Cool girl doesn’t care about the thoughts, feelings or opinions of others because they acknowledge that these things are out of their control. Cool girl is their own best friend. They don’t base their lives off pleasing others because they don’t need a relationship to complete them. They jam hot dogs, hamburgers, pizza and beer into their mouths not to impress the ones around them but because they feel like it. They are loving, peaceful and understanding because they know that there is more to this life than its anomalies. They are non-judgemental and the choices of others do not concern them because they are aware of the fact that we cannot control anything in our lives except ourselves. Most importantly, they are aware that they aren’t perfect and that they’ll never be. But they sure as hell try to wake up every single morning and be the best version of themselves. After all, they are what they are: A cool. Freaking. Girl.