Won’t anybody think of those poor families having to spend that dirty drug money?

They aren’t white., they are blue. Blue privilege most certainly does exist.

They were usually pretty kind to each other, but they were funny with their “overall experience” ratings which was all you would really see them give. “I’m giving her wedding a 4/10. She looked so beautiful, the food was awesome, and I had the most fun ever. However, it was hot during the ceremony.”

Gotcha. I like this show, but it’s actually a little boring as far as reality show wedding drama goes.

I was told as a college student on my first field school that we had to tell our (male) professor when we got our periods, so the people in charge could know to take extra precautions and keep us near camp. This was considered a standard safety measure.

If you ask Stephen Herrero the author of “Bear Attacks, Their Causes and Avoidance” which is the bible of place like Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS), Brooks Camp (NPS), the USFS on the ABC islands, and other well inhabited (by bears) locations, he could have shown you chapter and verse in multiple studies and…

I do fieldwork in the Canadian Arctic and Subarctic, where bears (black/brown/grizzly/polar, depending on where you are) are something you have to think about.

I also wonder how they were able to determine that she was “about” to menstruate. Did they have such advanced medical ability in 1967? Or did she happen to have packed some pads or tampons? Maybe the woman just liked to be prepared? But yes - I would love for these same people who pushed that hypothesis to elaborate…

Are you really complaining about someone posting a crapload of comments? pot, meet kettle

How in the hell is “kreigerismyspiritanimal”, a reference to a cartoon character, a racist username?

Their username isn’t racist; it may be referencing a racist but the name it’s self isn’t racist. Boy, for being so snarky and calling out other commenters you sure dropped the ball on that one.

Unfortunately, nearly all PT covers use a woman’s face to somehow illustrate the subject matter of their cover story. It is often off putting, at a minimum.

I hate to agree with the MRA/Alt-Right people crowding the comments, but this article is a mistake. There is definitely a sexism/racism thing going on with Psychology Today, but it doesn’t have to do with this specific cover. If you did even a modicum of work to see this cover in context with the other covers or…

Exactly. This cover is consistent with the esthetic of the majority of their covers. They seem to be under the impression that sex sells. Weird, right?! :)

I have also noticed this. I think this article could’ve been significantly strengthened by doing a quick google search to see that most of their covers feature “sexy” images of young white women. As it is now, the article seems like it’s reaching (to be generous). Would’ve been much more interesting to question why a…

This is the cover of every issue of Psychology Today. It’s sexist, sure, but it’s also hacky and lazy.

So I pulled up PT’s rate card. 62.8% of their readership is female. Maybe, just MAYBE since about 2/3rds of their readership is female, they use females on the cover?

I don’t really have any opinion on this photo, but I have noticed that Psychology Today very very often just uses close-ups of the faces of young white women for their covers. Rarely men, rarely anyone older, rarely POC. Just anonymous young white models. As a brown woman who likes the magazine rack and who also likes…

I think your grasping at straws here

Have you reached out for comment?