Did you know that watching too much porn can make you swing both ways?

A study released by the pornographic website xHamster revealed in their "Report on Digital Sexuality" that a survey of 11,000 users found that the more porn they consumed, the likelier they were to be bisexual.

While the study did reveal that 22.36% of U.S. porn viewers are bisexual, the overwhelming majority of the consumers (67.77%) are heterosexual. 4.05% identified themselves as gay or lesbian.

It turns out porn is so influential that it can alter our preferences. We're not surprised, though. We have an article on "kinks" like sexual abuse and how pornography has the tendency to influence people's sexual behaviors.

The researchers found that 13.09% of people who watched porn once a week are bisexual. Those who consumed it a few times a week had a 19.73% chance of being bisexual. Once a day would place you among the 23.01%, while addictively watching several times a day puts you among the 27.46% of the website's frequent viewers who are bisexual.

The website's Vice President Alex Hawkins speculates that overconsumption of porn may point to the alteration in sexuality. “We can only provide correlation, not prove causation, but it would seem that watching porn more frequently helps show users what sexuality can be,” he said. “The more porn you watch, the more you may think, ‘Hey, that’s actually somewhat of a turn-on. Maybe I’m not as totally straight, or gay, as I thought.’”

Watching Porn Isn't Worth It

Besides that, chronic porn usage has the potential to motivate people to do things they'd never do: Like paying for sex or porn and engaging in risky, anti-social behaviors. Neuroscientist Dr. Andrew Huberman has also raised concerns about masturbation and pornography, and how it negatively affects healthy sexual interactions and communication. "Masturbation and pornography are potently tapping into the dopamine system and can undermine the very processes of – which I consider healthy processes – of finding a mate, you know, dating, communication, eventually, if it's appropriate, sexual interaction, etc.," he explained.

"It also sounds like it's undermining pair bonding," Dr. Jordan Peterson responded. He asks, "Okay, so here's a question: If you're seeking sexual release through pornography and you go through the whole cycle and you get a prolactin release, do you bond with yourself?"

"The biology explains it as what's left there is a kind of an open loop, a kind of an emptiness, right? Because bonding with the self is a complicated notion," Dr. Huberman responds. "There's a healthy version of that, of course – loving oneself and self-referencing. But in the absence of a real partner there, of a real sexual partner, there's an open loop of neurochemicals, including oxytocin and prolactin. The dopamine goes up during pursuit –anticipation – then peaks and then crashes below baseline after orgasm and ejaculation. So this kind of low that people fear is putting them into an amotivated state."

So, sure, masturbation may give you a quick and easy dopamine release, but is it really worth your mental and physiological state? As they say, "Porn is free because you pay with your soul."

If you're a woman under 30 (or a nostalgic millennial like me), chances are Tell Me Lies has either been on your watchlist or aggressively recommended to you. The Hulu drama about toxic college friendships, relationships, and "professor-situationships" has become the show everyone's dissecting online. It never pretends to be anything other than what it is: messy and wildly unhinged.

Fans waited over a year and a half for Season 3 to drop. They expected the plot to stay on brand, but did that brand take it too far?

A Quick Recap

Lucy and her toxic on-and-off-again love interest, Stephen, spend the first two seasons in the wake of Stephen's narcissistic, sociopathic behaviors he inherited from his dear old mommy. Diana, Stephen's "good girl" girlfriend, spends the first couple of seasons trying to win him back and ultimately does.

In Season 3, Diana finds out she's pregnant with Stephen's baby. The show takes a dark and unexpected turn when Diana decides to get an abortion. She's seen making a phone call to Planned Parenthood in between classes, making it sound and look like finding out she's pregnant is a mild hiccup in her college law plans, instead of showing how hard, real, and emotional this can be for most women.

When asked why she chose to depict Diana experiencing abortion "more casually, like it's more of an inconvenience," creator Meaghan Oppenheimer said that was the whole point.

"I wanted to show abortion as something that could be casual, that could even be a victory moment, as weird as that might sound."

"I wanted to show abortion as something that could be casual, that could even be a victory moment, as weird as that might sound."

"I am so excited to abort your baby. It's gonna be the highlight of my year and I cannot f*cking wait." Diana, Tell Me Lies

The internet wasted no time making this line go viral, celebrating and cheering Diana on, painting her as a "shero" for her brave decision to stand up to Stephen.

While watching this scene, I immediately paused the show and did what any sane person does. I headed to the internet to see just how divided people must be over this scene. Because... they have to be, right?

Boy, was I wrong.

And the comments section wasn’t much better.

It wasn't enough for Oppenheimer to stop here, though. She painted the nice and fun-loving guy, Wrigley, as the hero when he said, "Maybe we don't have a say in this at all," followed by the sociopath Stephen in outrage (and rightfully so) for Diana choosing to make the abortion decision on her own.

So what message does this signal to the generation devouring this show? That aborting a baby carries no emotion? That the father involved has no say, and if he does try to speak up, he's as crazy and sociopathic as Stephen?

Much of the praise for the scene has focused on Diana’s storyline as one of empowerment and escape from Stephen’s long-running emotional manipulation. Viewers watch Diana methodically disentangle herself from Stephen, pursue her future in law school, and assert independence from a toxic friend group. When Stephen confronts her in her dorm room demanding to be “consulted” about the abortion, Diana shuts him down immediately: “No, I don’t.” She follows with, “There’s no decision. It’s decided,” and delivers what many critics have called the episode’s triumphant moment: “You can’t control me anymore. Try with someone else.” In framing the confrontation this way, the show treats any father who wants to be involved in the decision as inherently controlling or dangerous, collapsing moral complexity into a single villain narrative.

In framing the confrontation this way, the show treats any father who wants to be involved in the decision as inherently controlling or dangerous.

In interviews, both the show’s creators and actress Alicia Crowder have framed this choice as true to Diana’s character. They argue that hesitation or emotional struggle would have felt out of step with a woman singularly focused on her education and future. The abortion is presented not as a defining trauma, but as a practical step toward freedom from an abusive past. Supportive coverage has likened the scene to other pop culture portrayals in which abortion is shown as a straightforward, private decision, one that does not permanently mark or limit a woman’s life.

This framing helps explain why so many viewers celebrated the moment as a clear victory. But it also underscores the concern at the heart of this storyline: that empowerment is being equated with emotional detachment, and complexity is replaced with certainty. In making abortion look obvious, clean, and even triumphant, the show leaves little room for the many women whose experiences are conflicted, painful, or enduring.

"It's Just a Clump of Cells"

When Stephen insists he has a right to weigh in on his unborn kid, Wrigley shuts him down: "Kid? It's just a clump of cells at this point.... What would she consult you about? I don't think she needs your permission. It's kinda up to her.... Maybe we're not supposed to have an opinion about this."

The show's villain is the one who wants to be involved. The "good guy" is the one calling it meaningless cells.

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, she says:

"Sometimes [abortion] is just a relief and something you have to do, and I personally think it is something that can sometimes be a gift to people in certain situations."

Millions of women watch this show. And the message they're getting is that abortion should feel casual, that mocking the father is empowering, and that the "right" response is to feel nothing at all.

But most women who've had abortions feel regret and carry that decision with them forever. Tell Me Lies doesn't leave room for any of that.

This might “just” be a scene in a show, but there’s a real generation of young women being told there's only one way to feel about this topic.

Oppenheimer wanted to make a statement. She did. But was it at the cost of every woman whose experience isn’t a TV punchline?

Greta Thunberg. AOC. Fill in the name of every Hollywood female celebrity who posted “Free Palestine” and expressed outrage over the killing of women and children on their social media accounts. Golden Globes. United Nations. Doctors Without Borders. Leftist activists. All virtually silent. But the voices of the Iranian men and women in the streets throughout Iran, fighting for justice, equality, freedom from oppression, and against a religious zealot regime silencing their every move? Their voices echo.

From the women setting fire to images of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei while lighting their cigarettes, their faces on clear display, to the bloodied elderly woman shouting, “I’m not afraid, I’ve been dead for 47 years,” the bravery of these Iranian women is a direct confrontation with the emptiness and fecklessness of the many international organizations that claim to fight for women, yet remain silent when women’s suffering goes against their political agendas.

While the women of Iran fight against the regime, the greatest failure of the international community is not ignorance of Iranian women’s suffering, but the deliberate decision to look away when condemning it is politically inconvenient.

I’m writing this from an apartment complex in New York City, with direct sightlines to the United Nations (UN), and it strikes me as odd that only a few months ago, world leaders convened here, all echoing the same message: “We have been ineffective in our mission.” But I purport that they are beyond ineffective and have reached utter failure. The UN was established to prevent further world wars, to protect the vulnerable, to stand up against slavery, and to protect human rights, yet China and Russia, two of the most notable violators of those rights, still retain permanent seats on the Security Council.

The latest unrest in Iran has led to reports of between 12,000 and 20,000 deaths.

Iran sat for years on the Human Rights Council while obliterating the rights of humans. Who chaired the 2025 Commission on the Status of Women (UNCSW)? Saudi Arabia. Not exactly the stalwart nation for the freedom of women. So, are we surprised that when given the edict to stand up for women in nations where true oppression occurs, like Iran, the UN provides only empty statements and the removal of Iran’s seat on the UNCSW, a seat no serious body would have ever given them in the first place? What wars have been stopped? What vulnerable populations have been protected?

To those who dismiss the UN’s selective moral outrage, the latest unrest in Iran has led to reports of between 12,000 and 20,000 deaths. To put this into context, this is a daily genocide rate that, if true, surpasses the daily death rate of the Holocaust. Getting confirmation on the death toll has been difficult since the regime decided to cut off communications with the outside world. Yet whether the deaths are 2,000 or 20,000, the scale and speed of the killings should have triggered emergency global action. Instead, it triggered silence, or pushback from major media outlets calling for us to wait until we have the facts, a far cry from the way these establishments have reacted to other conflicts around the world.

Two weeks after the massacre of Iranians began, the UNCSW had not posted a single statement in solidarity with the women of Iran, likely because calling out radical Islam is politically incorrect. Responding to the UN’s repeated failures, in a move that was widely criticized by those on the Left, President Trump directed his staff to withdraw from the UN Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women, along with 31 others, citing them as organizations that “advance globalist agendas over U.S. priorities, or that address important issues inefficiently or ineffectively such that U.S. taxpayer dollars are best allocated in other ways to support the relevant missions.”

For the women of Iran, unjust treatment has been a foot on their chest since the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Former Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini promised that by overthrowing the Shah, an Islamic government would ensure national independence and freedom for all citizens, which was appealing to the women of Iran. Thus, Iranian women played a crucial role during the 1979 Revolution against the monarchy. They were fighting for women’s rights under the auspices of the Communist Party and aligned themselves with Khomeini. However, the clerical leaders of the Islamic revolution manipulated the plights of the women and Communists against the monarchy to overthrow the Shah and erase the very rights supported by the monarchy in the first place.

In the last 47 years under the rule of Ruhollah Khomeini and subsequently Ali Khamenei, women have experienced a complete degradation of their place in society.

After Khomeini’s victory, women in Iran were subjected to subhuman status: compulsory hijab covering, even for non-Muslim women; limitations on the jobs they could hold; the loss of divorce rights and of their children; and a complete silencing of their voices in government. The end result of Khomeini’s victory, and the ousting of the Shah, was mass executions and imprisonment of the same people Khomeini used to secure his victory, including moderate clerics who believed in his message but detested his practices. Since 1979, the Ayatollah and the Islamic regime have failed the people of Iran, especially its women, at every turn.

Once in power, Khomeini made it clear that women were of no value to him or the religious zealots he led. In photos of Iran before the revolution in 1979, while under the leadership of the Shah, Iranian society was not perfect, but it did look much like modern America. The Islamic regime has since reversed all progress. Having grown up in the Middle East, I can tell you firsthand that Iranians are brilliant, hard-working, modern people. Iran is a society built on the blending of many cultures, communities, ethnicities, and religions.

Pre-revolution, women were free to wear modern clothing and were taught in school, and women served in the Senate and as female judges. A completely equitable society certainly didn’t exist, but in the last 47 years under the rule of Ruhollah Khomeini and subsequently Ali Khamenei, women have experienced a complete degradation of their place in society. Yet the world stands silent for fear of upsetting and offending Muslims around the world, many of whom also detest what the regime is doing to the women of Iran. If Islam is a religion of peace, and Khamenei’s thugs are not practicing the version of Islam that represents how many Muslims around the world feel, then international bodies should have no issue calling out the horrors of the regime, because this isn’t representative of Islam, right?

There are hundreds of quotes from both Khomeini and Khamenei that underscore the way women are considered tools for the men of the regime. Do a few Google searches and your face will burn in humiliation. Quotes like those, coupled with brutality, have pushed the women of Iran to a breaking point, as in the case of 22-year-old Mahsa Amini, who was murdered by the Iranian “morality police” in 2022 for the simple crime of not covering her head properly. Following Amini’s murder, the women of Iran were rife with anger, sparking protests from the Iranian “Women, Life, Freedom” movement in which hundreds of protesters were killed. But again, where was the outcry from the rest of the world?

The Islamic Iran Participation Front women’s branch issued a statement on the 36th anniversary of the revolution, stating, “We were not supposed to have conditions in which our daughters and women worry about acid thrown on their faces in the alleys and streets.” Islam purports to value women above all. Many argue the validity of that statement and how it’s applied throughout societies, but what is not debatable is that if women were not heavily involved in these protests, this momentum for freedom would be absent. The reality is, no one in the IRGC wants to shoot their wife, daughter, or niece, but thanks to Khamenei and his theocrats, that is unfortunately where we are.

When there is a society in the East fighting for the same values we hold in the West, we fail to live out our own values by ignoring their plight.

Having grown up in the Middle East, what bothers me the most is thinking of the girls I went to school with who now live in Iran. Not only have they and their families been subjected to the tortures of this regime, they are now also subjected to the silence of the “feminists” who scream from the rooftops about the injustices that occur in the West against women, yet offer no words about the plight of the women in Iran. In discussing this with a friend, after years of seeing posts about Palestine on her profile, she stated, “We have domestic problems to deal with; the rest of the world can wait.”

The plight of the women in Iran is enough for me to state that we can’t wait. But my response to that is this: when the values of the regime that abuses the women in Iran also threaten our sovereignty in the West, can it really wait? Wait for what? Until the regime develops a weapon? Strengthens its alliances with China and Russia? Until the regime destroys our allies in the Middle East who do not agree with their principles or tactics?

The revolution in Iran is a complex topic, but the hope for a bright future is in the hands of the lions and lionesses of Iran. As an Iranian fellow for the Hamilton Society, I have studied at length the plights of the Iranian people. As an American, it's easy for me to state, “That issue 7,000 miles away? Not my issue.” But when there is a society in the East fighting for the same values we hold in the West, we fail to live out our own values by ignoring their plight. Women in the West have the influence, power, and resources to keep a light shining on the women of Iran. This is about revolution, freedom from oppression, and keeping radical Islam from destroying the freedoms that women in the West are so quick to take for granted. In the meantime, yet again, all eyes are on the United States and the role that we will, or will not, play in keeping the Islamic regime at bay amid the failures of the international bodies who claim to exist for this very reason.

Taylor Hathorn is a visiting fellow with the Independent Women’s Center for American Safety and Security.

 Many believe that the idea of governments or global institutions altering the atmosphere to “manage” climate conditions is a conspiracy theory. The language itself became radioactive, and we're at the point where the term “chemtrails” is enough to end a conversation before it even begins. Yet footage captured at the World Economic Forum by James O’Keefe revealed that the topic is discussed openly among the elites.

O’Keefe, the founder of O’Keefe Media Group, attended the World Economic Forum while undercover. Posing as an employee of a fictional climate engineering firm, he attended late-night events and hotel gatherings where he held conversations with climate finance executives, engineers, and consultants. Shockingly, they all spoke candidly about geoengineering, carbon markets, and weather intervention.

In one exchange, O’Keefe described the technology under discussion as a way to counter warming through atmospheric intervention. “So we invest in these technologies to assist with the warming climate,” he said, explaining that “the effect of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere will help block some of the warming and the particles stay in the air for one year.” He added that conversations were already happening with aircraft manufacturers “to see if they can emit some of our technology into the atmosphere to help with the global warming.”

“We don’t like to use the term climate engineering, it scares people,” O’Keefe said during the exchange. “We call it aerosol injection, aerosol. It’s kind of like little droplets and the droplets form in the air and they stay there for a year. It’s modeled in kind of a mini volcanic eruption actually.”

If O'Keefe's statements about climate engineering were fake, you would think his listeners would be confused. Andreas Swahn, identified by O’Keefe as a serial entrepreneur, did not push back on the premise, and neither did others. That’s right: while people argue over whether climate intervention, atmospheric aerosol injection, or weather manipulation is even real, those inside these rooms are openly discussing how it works and how it could be carried out.

Another conversation featured Kennedy Ricci, President and CEO of 4Air, a company that says it aims to “decarbonize the aviation industry.” Ricci acknowledged that sulfur compounds already play a role in aviation. “Aviation fields have some sulfur in them, so it creates some sulfur dioxide in the air naturally and that does have a cooling effect,” he said.

Ricci also addressed where some of these ideas originated. “A lot of them actually came out of the military,” he said. When asked whether he had worked directly with military entities, Ricci replied, “No, because they’re a little more closed door about their opportunity here.”

Pressed on feasibility of sulfur dioxide, Ricci added, “It’s actually pretty cheap to do it.” He continued, “If you put sulfur dioxide there’s actually a pretty cheap way to cool down the air,” noting that “the opportunity for one or two people to do it is impressive.” He later raised concerns about what could happen if governments began engaging in weather intervention across borders.

Elsewhere in the footage, O’Keefe spoke with Emil C. Lüth, who has ties to defense and research agencies. When asked directly about artificial rain, Lüth did not deny the concept. “There might be people around me that would have an inclination to do that,” he said. Asked what organization he was with, Lüth replied, “Some with letters, some without.”

Climate finance surfaced repeatedly throughout the conversations. Sara Lemniei, identified as the CEO of SLK Capital, described her work designing carbon taxes and climate credits for governments and corporations. “We work with companies to give them new revenue streams,” she said, referring to carbon taxes. In another exchange, Lemniei explained, “We can help companies in Africa and India decarbonize their operations so they can remain competitive and continue exporting to Europe.”

Taken together, the conversations do not amount to a single declaration of an active global program. They do, however, show how freely these ideas are discussed away from public view. What is the reason for this? If decisions like this affect everyone, when are people meant to be informed — and how are they supposed to know whether what’s being discussed is actually safe?

 Subscribe today to get unlimited access to all of Evie’s premium content.

A flicker, almost ethereal, danced from the front entry door of a charming building. “Mom, look at that flame,” I said, squinting. “Is that a lantern or something?” But in mere seconds, that innocent glow erupted into a ferocious blaze.

Panic set in as a man on the street began shouting at the top of his lungs: “Your building is on fire! Get out of the building! Get out now!” His voice cut through the city noise, a raw, urgent plea to warn the unsuspecting souls inside, families mid-dinner, artists lost in their work, perhaps a woman like me, scrolling through her phone, oblivious to the danger. My heart pounded as we watched the smoke and flames billow out, turning the picturesque block into a scene from a nightmare.

Then, like guardians summoned from the ether, the FDNY trucks roared in, sirens wailing in the chaos. Two dozen firefighters, strong, confident men, leaped from their vehicles without a moment's hesitation. As terrified residents fled the inferno, clutching whatever belongings they could grab, these heroes charged straight into the flames. They hoisted ladders against the building, coaxing people from upper windows with calm assurances. Hoses unleashed water, battling the blaze that threatened to consume everything in its path. Ambulances arrived, paramedics tending to the shaken evacuees, but it was those firefighters who were the front line of courage.

In that moment, I witnessed masculinity in its purest, most awe-inspiring form. These men weren't just doing a job; they were protectors, embodiments of strength laced with compassion. They risked their lives for strangers, driven by an innate drive to shield and save. And here's a staggering truth: men make up 95% of firefighters across the nation. In a world where danger lurks, whether in burning buildings, on battlefields, or in everyday hazards, it's men who overwhelmingly step up to protect us.

In a world where danger lurks, whether in burning buildings, on battlefields, or in everyday hazards, it's men who overwhelmingly step up to protect us.

Yet, too often, the word “masculinity” triggers a knee-jerk negative reaction. We've been conditioned by endless media narratives and cultural critiques to associate it with toxicity, aggression, or outdated patriarchy. “Toxic masculinity” has become a buzzword, flung around to explain everything from workplace dynamics to relationship woes. Don't get me wrong, there are behaviors, both in men and in women, that deserve scrutiny, but in our rush to dismantle the bad, we've overlooked the beautiful. For me, masculinity evokes images like the father who teaches his daughter to ride a bike, scraped knees and all; the husband who holds you through a storm; the firefighter who runs toward the fire when every instinct screams to run away.

The skewed perception isn't just unfair to men; it's damaging to all of us. When we vilify masculinity, we erode the very qualities that have built and sustained societies for millennia. Men are wired, biologically and culturally, to protect and provide, and denying that doesn't empower women; it isolates everyone. Think about it: in a culture that shames traditional male strengths, boys are growing up confused, suppressing their natural inclinations toward bravery and leadership. Girls, in turn, view men as adversaries rather than allies, widening the divide between the sexes. Relationships suffer, families fracture, and society loses its balance. We've seen the fallout: rising rates of male depression, loneliness epidemics, and a generation questioning if there's space for authentic manhood.

Men are wired, biologically and culturally, to protect and provide, and denying that doesn't empower women; it isolates everyone.

But change is possible, and it starts with reframing. Let's celebrate masculinity as awesome, first and foremost. Imagine a world where “manly” means not domineering or toxic, but dependable; not rigid, but resilient. Evie readers know this intuitively. We embrace femininity's grace and intuition, so why not honor femininity’s counterpart? By highlighting stories like the West Village fire, we can shift the narrative. Share them in conversations, on social media, in schools. Encourage men to lean into their heroic potential without apology, and watch as women respond with admiration rather than suspicion.

Healing the rift between men and women requires this mutual appreciation. When we see masculinity as a gift, not a threat, we encourage deeper connections, romantic partnerships built on respect, communities fortified by shared purpose. My hope? That one day, the word “masculinity” inspires thoughts of protectors and heroes above all else. It won't happen overnight, but every anecdote, every acknowledgment, chips away at the negativity.

As my mother and I watched the firefighters wrap up, the building saved and lives preserved, I felt a rush of gratitude. Those men didn't just extinguish a fire; they bolstered my faith in the profound goodness of masculinity. Ladies, let's champion it, not despite our femininity, but because of it. After all, in the dance of life, we need both the grace and the strength to thrive.