One of the last decade’s most consequential changes to how the Supreme Court operates is the growth of the so-called shadow docket — a process that allows the justices to decide cases unusually quickly, and often without full briefing or oral argument.

Historically, the Court would typically allow contentious legal issues to percolate in the lower courts for months or even years before the justices agreed to decide one of those issues. Then they’d spend months reading briefs, hearing arguments, and debating the case amongst themselves before they finally issued an opinion. This slow process existed because the Supreme Court is the final word on many legal questions — the Court can even override Congress if it claims a law is unconstitutional — and so it should be cautious before it hands down a decision that cannot easily be displaced.

A new case, which recently arrived on the Court’s shadow docket, embodies all the reasons why America’s highest Court should act carefully and slowly. K.M.K. v. Washington Interscholastic Activities Association involves a highly contentious issue — the plaintiffs in the case effectively want the Supreme Court to bar transgender women from women’s sports teams at high schools and universities, even in states that support trans inclusion in sports.

It also involves an appalling sexual assault allegation. One of the plaintiffs in the case is a high school women’s team wrestler who is identified only by her initials because she is a minor. She claims that one of her wrestling opponents, who is transgender, “forcefully” penetrated the plaintiff’s vagina with her fingers during a match.

As a memo from the local prosecutor’s office points out, if these allegations are true then K.M.K. is the victim of a very serious crime — rape in the third degree. The prosecutor’s office, however, decided not to prosecute because it concluded that it could not prove that a sex crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt. Among other things, prosecutors spoke to the referee who officiated the match, and he said that “nothing stood out to him during the match” and that “after watching the video of the match, he could not say that the suspect’s hand placement was ‘anything out of the ordinary.’”

The school district, meanwhile, says that it has reviewed video of the match, interviewed both competitors, and that its investigation into the allegation is “still ongoing.”

K.M.K., in other words, is exactly the sort of case that the justices should step away from, sending it back down to the lower courts to gather more information and to fully think through the difficult legal issues presented by the case. Setting aside the horrifying allegations against her one-time opponent, K.M.K.’s lawyers — most of whom work for a Christian right law firm, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) — make novel legal arguments that ask the Court to make broad pronouncements that go far beyond its previous precedents. 

One of their arguments, if taken seriously by the justices, could potentially make it impossible for any school athletes, whether cis or trans, to participate in competitive sports of any kind.

There is a very real risk, in other words, that the Supreme Court will, if it moves too quickly in this case, harm millions of school athletes throughout the country. The factual question of whether a particular wrestler committed a crime is separate from the legal question of whether federal law strips states of their authority over trans participation in women’s sports. And this legal question deserves more deliberation than the Court can give it if it decides this case on the shadow docket.

So what are the actual legal issues in K.M.K.?

In West Virginia v. B.P.J. (2026), the Supreme Court warned that judges should not be given the power to decide which athletes may compete on a women’s sports team. “The legislatures and the schools are better equipped — and under the Constitution, are the more appropriate entities,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for his Court, “to assess the competing medical and scientific considerations and draw appropriate lines.”

B.P.J., of course, was a loss for transgender rights. The Court rejected a constitutional challenge to state laws that forbid trans women from playing on school sports teams within that state. But the legal question in B.P.J. was whether laws barring trans women from women’s sports are allowed — a question that the Court’s Republican majority answered in the affirmative. A victory for the plaintiffs in K.M.K., by contrast, would likely establish that no state may permit trans women to compete on women’s sports teams, regardless of what the people of that state want.

This Court is often skeptical of claims by trans rights advocates, and it almost always resolves disputes between cultural liberals and religious conservatives in favor of the religious right. That said, this Court has thus far respected states’ rights on another contentious issue that is a high priority for the religious right: abortion. Although the Court’s Republican majority overruled Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, it has rejected some attempts to restrict abortion in blue states — including by repeatedly ruling against litigants who seek to ban the abortion medication mifepristone.

So it is, at least, possible that this Court will follow a similar path in K.M.K. and conclude that the question of which team trans women should play on should be answered by the states and not the Supreme Court.

Broadly speaking, ADF raises two legal arguments against Washington state’s policy allowing trans women to play on women’s sports teams. It claims that Title IX, a federal law that bars “sex” discrimination by most schools, implicitly requires those schools to have sports teams that only cisgender women may play on. It also claims that the Court’s recent decision in Mirabelli v. Bonta (2026), which requires public schools to out trans students to their parents even if the students wish to keep their gender identity secret, also requires those schools to exclude trans women from women’s sports.

There’s no reason for the Supreme Court to decide either of these questions now, however. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in Lux v. Rodrigues (2010), when a party that lost in the lower courts seeks an injunction from a Supreme Court justice before their case is fully litigated in those lower courts, they must demonstrate that “the legal rights at issue are ‘indisputably clear.’” This rule, like many old rules disfavoring shadow docket decisions, exists to prevent the justices from rushing into a decision that may later prove unwise.

There is no plausible argument that Title IX “indisputably” bars trans women from women’s sports. That’s because, just a few months ago in B.P.J., the Court held that it was not deciding the question of “whether, under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, schools may allow biological males who identify as female to participate on girls’ and women’s sports teams.” So that’s a recent Supreme Court precedent holding that the answer to this legal question remains open.

Mirabelli, meanwhile, is an unusually thinly reasoned decision. The Court’s Republican majority held that schools must out trans students because of a judicially created doctrine saying that parents have “primary authority with respect to ‘the upbringing and education of children.’” But the Court’s analysis of this issue was just a single paragraph long, it relied on the most malleable doctrine in all of US constitutional law, and it had nothing to say about sports. 

Moreover, as the school district points out in its brief, the Court has never held that a parent’s right to direct the upbringing of their child includes a right to dictate which rules will be used by school sports teams. If such a right existed, a parent might insist that a school bar players of a particular race. Or they might demand that their child be allowed to play football without being tackled.

Competitive team sports simply cannot exist if one player’s mother is allowed to demand changes to the rules that neither the league nor the other players support.

In any event, at this stage in the litigation it should be enough for the Court to say that the unique right claimed by K.M.K.’s mother — the right to dictate which rules a multischool competitive sports league will use — is not “indisputably clear” under current law. 

What should happen when the Court eventually decides whether blue states may allow trans women to play on women’s teams?

It is, to borrow from Lux, indisputably clear that the Court should not give the K.M.K. plaintiffs the sweeping policy change that they seek in a shadow docket ruling. But the justices cannot avoid, forever, the question of whether federal law forbids trans women from playing on women’s teams. So how should they resolve this question when it is more properly presented to them?

Let’s dispose of the plaintiffs’ Mirabelli argument first. While the Court has held that parents have some right to direct the education of their children, prior to Mirabelli, this right was construed narrowly. One older case held that states may not forbid parents from sending their children to private schools. Another held that the government may not bar teachers at these schools from teaching the German language.

Prior to the Court’s barely explained decision in Mirabelli, however, the Court had never held that parents may dictate how public schools operate, and the school district’s brief in K.M.K. cites several court decisions warning against giving parents too much authority over public schools. (The Court did hold, in Mahmoud v. Taylor (2025), that parents who object to a school’s curriculum on religious grounds may opt their children out of certain lessons. But the K.M.K. plaintiffs do not raise a religious objection.) As the Supreme Court said in Prince v. Massachusetts (1944), states may “restrict the parent’s control by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child’s labor and in many other ways.” 

It’s clear from Mirabelli that the Court’s Republicans do not share this caution about judicial control over public schools. But, because Mirabelli was so thinly reasoned, it’s also impossible for outside observers to determine why these justices want an unprecedented amount of control over public schooling, or whether they have good reasons for asserting this new power.

I will simply reiterate the school district’s objection that, once the Supreme Court opens the door to parents dictating which rules will be used in school sporting competitions, the lawsuits will not end with parents seeking to kick trans women out of women’s sports. The next parent may object to their child wrestling Black people. Or they may demand that their child be given protective gear that gives them a competitive advantage. Some parents may also demand rules changes that conflict with changes demanded by other parents. And there is no principled way to distinguish these requests from a request to exclude trans women.

There are myriad problems, meanwhile, with the K.M.K. plaintiffs’ Title IX argument. That statute provides that schools that receive “Federal financial assistance” may not exclude individuals from “any education program” on “the basis of sex.” This statute has long been read to require equal treatment of men’s and women’s sports by schools that receive federal funds.

But, as the school district argues in its brief, Washington schools do not discriminate on the basis of “sex” — which the Court has defined to mean sex assigned at birth in this context. Instead, they classify athletes on the basis of gender identity. There is one team for all people who identify as male, whether trans or cis, and another team for all people who identify as female. Social conservatives may object to this arrangement, but it does not classify students based on their sex assigned at birth at all.

The K.M.K. plaintiffs’ argument is also undermined by federal regulations implementing Title IX. Those regulations provide that schools generally should not separate women and men in sports, but that they “may operate or sponsor separate teams for members of each sex where selection for such teams is based upon competitive skill or the activity involved is a contact sport.” It is quite a stretch to read regulations saying that schools “may” have sex-segregated teams to say that schools must ensure that their teams are strictly sex segregated.

Finally, recall that Title IX only applies to schools that accept federal funding — schools have the option of rejecting Title IX’s requirements if they also forego federal grants. This matters because, as the Court recently held in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections (2026), “Congress must clearly and unambiguously alert a grant recipient to any condition on federal funds.”

Thus, if there is any ambiguity about whether Title IX requires schools to exclude trans women from women’s sports, that ambiguity must be resolved against imposing any requirements on public schools. Title IX may only be read to ban trans women from women’s sports if it “clearly and unambiguously” does so.

Again, there’s no reason for the justices to resolve either of these questions because, at this early stage in the litigation, the Supreme Court should simply decline to decide K.M.K. because the plaintiffs’ legal rights are not “indisputably clear.” But this Court is often impatient, especially in cases involving culture war issues. Mirabelli was also a shadow docket case, but that didn’t stop the Court’s Republicans from inventing a new legal rule compelling teachers to out their trans students.

There’s a serious risk, in other words, that this Court will rush to decide K.M.K. before it fully considers the legal arguments on either side, or even learns whether the genuinely shocking allegations raised by the plaintiffs have merit.

This feature is from THE SELF-DESTRUCTION ISSUE of VICE magazine. Find it in a store near you, or get 4 issues each year sent straight to your door, by subscribing.

SHIBARI

What goes through your head when the dirty-fingernailed warehouse dwellers pull your hogtied body up from the floor with a butt load of Japanese kink rope? Obviously we’re sex positive here at VICE, but who else is going to warn you that some things just can’t be enjoyed in a vacuum? First it’s the kink rope, then it’s the property-guardian polycule, and before you know it the most important knot in your life is leashed around a maudlin three-legged staffy named Swampy. Mark our words: it’ll be your neck next.

MIND-ALTERING PSYCHEDELIC EXPERIENCES VIA APP

The tripsitter you found on TikTok. The ayahuasca “shaman” you can only book through Telegram. The DMT amuse-bouche on your neighborhood coke dealer’s WhatsApp menu pdf. Is it good that you can acquire a mind-altering psychedelic experience the same way you’d order Chinese take-out? It’s not an age-old question, is it? And therein lies your answer. Communing with the hidden mechanisms that create our shared reality via gas-station vape pen makes the machine elves sad and angry.

REWILDING YOURSELF

As with most things in life, there’s the question of how far you should take it. Tell your friends you’ve “gone paleo” and they’ll still be there when you admit you dropped it after three agonizing days of total bowel paralysis. They might not be, though, when you return from that meet-up with the prominent “barefooting” influencer having been brutally feral-mogged by the lad who’s spent six months full quadrupedal. He calls it “gorilla mode.” Why the fuck didn’t you think of gorilla mode?

REFERRING TO ANY ASPECT OF YOUR LIFE AS A ‘PROTOCOL’

Wiping your sweaty forehead with a beer-soaked sleeve as you feel your teeth go numb from the bump you just did in the toilets. Smoking cigarette upon cigarette, pulsating with the knowledge that you and the man you just met will go home and fuck. Turning the sand-crusted page of some shit thriller, gazing out at the Aegean, before summoning the tanned waiter for another beer. It all sounds lovely, doesn’t it? It’s called “life,” and you can forget about having one if you refer to any aspect of it as a “protocol.” Bryan Johnson might have the vascular function of a teenager, but is he happy? What does he seem more like, a credible person or a husk? Handing your soul over to “metrics” is the first step on the road to measuring your son’s erections every night. There shouldn’t be any steps on that road.

POLYAMORY

Like communism and movies starring Jacob Elordi, polyamory is a nice idea in theory. A quest to blow clean through the glass ceiling of monogamy by fucking and love-bombing a bunch of people at once with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved? ‘Awesome,’ you might think. ‘Tell me more.’ Well, the catch is that it actually takes quite a lot of admin to tend diligently to one relationship, let alone five. Whether you genuinely believe the cadre of farmers’ market enthusiasts unbuttoning their Lucy & Yak dungarees to finger each other senseless after a crazy night of tabletop board games are your soulmates, or simply see yourself as a conniving Don Draper type on the make, is irrelevant. Ultimately, you will end up in a group chat arranging “radical honesty” sessions whenever someone leaves the toilet seat up and an org chart for everyone’s alternative milk preferences.

BECOMING A MILITANT

Before parasocial relationships, ADHD hyperfixations, and autistic special interests, I had what we used to call an “obsession” with @PissPigGranddad—a Twitter leftist who left America to fight ISIS. I was working a desk job in a government office and passed the time cheering for Brace Belden (aka LeninLover69) as he advanced on Raqqa. At the time, my idea of a struggle was getting the office printer to work—and here was a punk musician from San Francisco battling Islamofascism. I followed with religious devotion as Brace, and the other international volunteers, faced down an army of jihadi chauvinists who had fled lives of comfortable humiliation in Europe and the United States to establish some kind of video-game caliphate in Syria and Iraq. These opposing militias represented two sides in an epic battle of good against evil, which felt more real than the mindless, repetitive activities that made up my days. I looked at photographs of Brace posing with stray puppies and an AK-47 and thought, ‘This is what I would do if I wasn’t too much of a coward to even quit this job I hate.’ We’ve always needed militants to provide us with a little perspective; while you’re agonizing over which electric toothbrush to buy, they’re fighting for a socialist revolution; while you’re hanging out the washing, they’re strapping themselves to C4 and getting ready to do a human-rights violation. And perspective is useful, to everyone who isn’t dead.

SYNTHOL

Synthol is one of those great ideas that appears to have emerged directly from the teenage unconscious (see also: “What if having sex could be my job?”). The dubious muscle-boosting serum is made up of oil (often sesame, walnut, or paraffin), the local anesthetic lidocaine, and benzyl alcohol—ingredients that can be found, variously, in vegan protein bars, head lice shampoo, and industrial paint. Maybe there’s some logic here: in a culture of instant gratification, where petrochemicals are used to make clothes, grow food, and produce the microplastics that have turned your balls into bean bags, it makes a certain amount of sense to simply become oil. But while synthol might be a shortcut to a bulkier appearance, it won’t make you any stronger. This modern pursuit is strictly for those who regard their body as a machine that converts vanity into permanent muscle damage. As well as the health risks that come with introducing Diddy party levels of lubrication to your own bloodstream, Synthol also gives you this weird, unnaturally swollen look. There’s a reason why bodybuilders have historically preferred to risk the shrunken testicles and rage fits that come with steroids.

ADOPTING A FLESH-TEARING WILD ANIMAL FOR SOCIAL MEDIA CLOUT

If you’re gonna learn anything from anyone in this world, learn it from someone who got their face ripped clean off by a chimpanzee. The fate of Charla Nash is not one any of us should be forced to endure, yet all over social media, wannabe Dr Dolittles are forcing creatures programmed only to shit, fuck, and kill into difficult choices. The jaguarundi does not want to sit on the couch watching Schitt’s Creek with you; it wants to be nose-deep in 5000 grams of pulsing armadillo flesh somewhere in the jungles of Surinam. The slow loris is not your friend. Pretending so might snag you followers in the short term, but no one’s sticking around for the face transplant recovery journey photos. 

COVETING A LOFT-STYLE APARTMENT

Catch you on the flip, David Mancuso. In 2026 the only people who think living in a loft is cool are spiders and Australians. 

GOOD OLD-FASHIONED ALCOHOLISM

Ketamine addiction this, can’t stop tugging it to videos of anime girls’ boobs exploding in size until they bust the windows out of an office block that—why not just hit the bottle? Like a real loser? Alcohol is the highly social, highly charismatic person’s poison of choice. Just look at what the abuse of it has given the world—Tennessee Williams, Marguerite Duras, Robert Downey Jr. in his Natural Born Killers era. Yeah, buddy. You could be the last of the big-time drunks. And the best thing about that would be that there are no other big-time drunks left for you to have to listen to and smell.

Follow Amber, Adam, Emma, and Kevin on Instagram: @amberrawlings, @yungtolstoi, @emmaggarland, @kevinleekharas

This feature is from THE SELF-DESTRUCTION ISSUE of VICE magazine. Find it in a store near you, or get 4 issues each year sent straight to your door, by subscribing.

The post 10 Soul-Destroying Modern Pursuits appeared first on VICE.

Ghosting has no winners. The person left on read spends weeks replaying every text, wondering what the hell happened. And according to new research, the person who disappeared might not feel so great about their decision, either.

Researchers from the University of Cambridge and the University of California conducted three studies for a paper. They examined people’s past experiences, hypothetical situations, and live online conversations. Their finding? “People who are ghosted underestimate how bad their conversation partners feel about ghosting them,” the authors wrote.

People who ghosted reported feeling guilty afterward, and previous research has associated ghosting with depressive symptoms. Interestingly, the guilt was worse when the ghosting happened accidentally. Maybe you forgot to respond to someone, and by the time you remembered, too much time had passed to reply without feeling awkward. So you just…never did.

Of course, feeling guilty doesn’t help the person on the receiving end. Psychologist Jennice Vilhauer wrote in Psychology Today that ghosting “creates the ultimate scenario of ambiguity,” leaving people wondering whether to worry about someone or accept the relationship is over.

Ghosting Isn’t Just Painful for the Person Left Behind, Scientists Say

Some people are also more inclined to ghost than others. A study led by psychologist Gili Freedman found that people who believe relationships are either destined to work or doomed from the beginning were 31.8% more likely to have ghosted someone. So I guess believing in soulmates can make ignoring someone’s texts a little easier.

The Cambridge researchers found that even a short message, something as basic as “sorry, can’t talk,” helped reduce the misunderstanding. A few words could spare both people unnecessary anguish.

Personally, I think ghosting is a cop-out. You can call it “protecting your peace,” and sometimes that might be true. But if you’re ghosting someone you once had a solid relationship with, I’m sorry, but it’s selfish. It’s just an excuse to avoid a hard or uncomfortable conversation.

I’ve been ghosted by someone I thought would be in my life forever (a friend, not a romantic partner), and I would have much preferred they tell me to “f*ck off” to my face than disappear without a conversation. At least I’d have known where we stood. To this day, thinking about this person is incredibly painful because I have no idea what really happened. 

Feeling guilty afterward is fine, I guess. Actually having the conversation would be better.

The post Ghosting Someone Might Actually Be Bad for Your Mental Health, According to Science appeared first on VICE.

Being single past 30 comes with a standard set of questions from aunts and coworkers, usually some version of “Are you seeing anyone?” No one ever asks if you’re actually happy.

Researchers at the University of Toronto did. Lead author Elaine Hoan and her team examined 11 years of data on 2,930 never-married Germans for a study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Participants entered the study around ages 18, 26, or 36 and had to report being single at every annual survey to qualify.

Roughly 90% maintained relatively high life satisfaction throughout the study. “Singles’ overall satisfaction with their lives remained remarkably robust,” Hoan told PsyPost. Earlier research using the same data had suggested long-term singles became less satisfied as they aged, partly because it lumped everyone into one average.

Researchers Found That Long-Term Singles Are Happier Than You Might Think

Of course, being happy with your life doesn’t mean you’re thrilled about your dating prospects. About two-thirds of the youngest participants enjoyed being single, while older participants were less enthusiastic. Sexual satisfaction varied, as well. People with higher education levels were more likely to fall into the least sexually satisfied groups. Researchers suggested that demanding academic pursuits could leave less time for sex. So, there’s another thing that isn’t mentioned when you sign up for grad school.

Most participants also expressed moderate to high interest in finding a partner. They could enjoy their lives and still want someone to share them with. The happiest singles generally scored lower in neuroticism and higher in extraversion.

The numbers aren’t much different in the U.S. A 2023 report found that 57% of single adults had no interest in dating or finding a relationship. Single men were more likely to be looking than single women. And when Pew asked singles who weren’t dating why, 72% said they enjoyed being single. That’s a lot of people who are perfectly happy spending their weekends however they damn well please.

Still, people have a hard time believing someone could be happy without a partner. Psychologist Bella DePaulo, author of Single at Heart, has studied this skepticism by asking participants to judge otherwise identical descriptions of single and married people. Even when the single person described a happy life, readers were less inclined to believe it. “If you are already happy, don’t expect marriage to make you even happier,” she wrote in Singled Out, as reported by The Christian Science Monitor.

At the next holiday dinner, “I’m good, thanks” should cover it. Assuming anyone believes you.

The post Most Long-Term Singles Are Actually Happy Being Single, New Study Finds appeared first on VICE.

TikTok has yet another dating theory people treat like gospel: the 3-6-9 dating rule. This concept breaks the first nine months of dating into three stages, with only the strongest couples surviving…

What Is the 3-6-9 Dating Rule? 

According to Susan Trombetti, matchmaker and CEO of Exclusive Matchmaking, the 3-6-9 dating rule is not a new concept, but it is gaining traction for its catchy name. The theory proposes the following three important stages of dating within the first year of a relationship:

0-3 Months: Honeymoon Phase

According to the 3-6-9 dating rule, a couple will remain in the honeymoon phase for the first three months of their relationship. 

“The honeymoon phase is when everything is perfect, you get butterflies when you talk to this person, and nothing seems to be wrong,” Trombetti says.

3-6 Months: Conflict Stage

The 3-6-9 dating rule suggests the honeymoon phase ends after three months, starting the conflict stage. You might start to take your partner off a pedestal and acknowledge their humanness—and vice versa. This can reveal minor annoyances and potential incompatibilities. No relationship is perfect, and you’ll have arguments from time to time. But if you can learn to navigate conflict as a unit, you’ll likely survive this phase.

“The conflict stage is when you most likely will have an actual disagreement on something. Think of this as your first real fight,” Trombetti states. “This will show the other person how you communicate during conflict and how you will resolve it.” 

6-9 Months: Long-Term Decision-Making Phase

By months 6-9, you should be assessing your long-term compatibility with your partner. If you have doubts, you might decide against wasting more time.

“Then the long-term decision-making stage is when you are actually deciding: Is this my person? Do I really see myself with them forever?” Trombetti explains. “This is when you start to really know if they are potentially the ‘one’ and worth pouring your time and heart into.”

Is the 3-6-9 Rule Credible?

According to Trombetti, the timing of the 3-6-9 rule does seem natural. However, she typically recommends waiting for three months before actually committing to someone, which she notes could delay the honeymoon phase.

“I do agree we typically see around 3 months to 6 months of larger conflict, and that really does show you a lot about the person,” she adds. “For 6-9 months, yes, you should know if you want to pursue someone long term, but this could happen earlier potentially if you knew the person prior or are working with someone like a matchmaker/dating coach. Timelines are relative depending on the work you have done on yourself. “

While this dating rule works in many relationships, it shouldn’t be treated as the end-all, be-all of dating advice.

“I would suggest using the timeline to your advantage as more of a check-in point for yourself,” Trombetti recommends. “For instance, I really like the 6-9 months time frame because at that stage you should start to really know if this is something you want to pursue long term. I am not saying get married right there and then, but I am saying it is a good time to recognize: Are there any red flags? Do I want this? And if you are not sure, that might be your answer right there.”

The post The ‘3-6-9 Dating Rule’ Might Explain Why So Many Relationships Fall Apart appeared first on VICE.

Mouth-breathing and constant sniffles don’t exactly scream “sexy time,” but you might want to reconsider. Some researchers think sex could help clear a stuffy nose for about an hour.

The research has been making the rounds again, although it was first published in the Ear, Nose & Throat Journal in 2021. It even won an Ig Nobel Prize, which recognizes scientific research that makes people laugh and then think. Researchers led by German ear, nose and throat doctor Olcay Cem Bulut recruited 18 heterosexual couples to measure their nasal breathing before and after sex. They repeated the experiment the next day using a decongestant nasal spray.

For the first hour after sex, participants experienced about the same relief they’d gotten from the nasal spray. Airflow increased by 214 milliliters per second immediately after sex, compared with 235 from the spray. Three hours later, however, their congestion had returned. The spray lasted longer, and the improvement after sex was limited to participants who were already significantly congested.

Bulut came up with the idea after noticing the effect himself. He told Insider that arousal, physical activity, and “the climax at the end can possibly help to improve nasal breathing.”

A Study Found That Having Sex Can Relieve a Stuffy Nose for Up to an Hour

There are some limitations, though. The study involved only 36 people, and researchers had usable airflow measurements from 16. Everyone also had an orgasm, so there’s no way to know if sex without one would have produced similar results.

Sex can also make a stuffy nose worse, depending on the person. There’s a condition called honeymoon rhinitis that causes people to sneeze or get a runny nose when they’re sexually aroused. Doctors have known about it since at least 1875, when one reported a patient who couldn’t think about sex without sneezing. Imagine having to explain that to someone you’re dating.

Decongestant sprays have their drawbacks, too. Don’t use products containing oxymetazoline for more than three days because they can actually make congestion worse. The researchers also suggested masturbation might produce similar relief, although they didn’t test that theory.

An orgasm and an hour of nasal relief? There are worse ways to deal with a cold.

The post Sex Is Just as Effective as Nasal Spray for a Stuffy Nose, According to Scientists appeared first on VICE.

Other than having a living plesiosaur in front of you, you probably won’t get much closer to the creature than by finding some of its bones, but maybe some of its bodily excretions would help you learn what was going on in its now-missing digestive tract. But how do you even come across the, let’s say, puke of a creature that’s been dead for tens of millions of years?

According to new research published in Geological Magazine by geologist Dirk Knaust, oil crews drilling off the Norwegian coast accidentally hauled up 160-million-year-old plesiosaur puke from deep underwater rock cores dating to the Jurassic period.

Samples range from walnut-sized to mango-sized, just in case you never want to look at those foods in the same way again.

160-Million-Year-Old Vomit Could Reveal How Prehistoric Sea Monsters Ate

Plesiosaurs were long-necked aquatic sea monsters that measured 13 to 26 feet long and looked almost exactly like you’d imagine the Loch Ness monster. When the researchers found the fossilized vomit, I didn’t immediately assume it belonged to a Jurassic creature. It could’ve been fossilized poop or maybe storm debris. Maybe it belonged to a fish or squid? But no, because they can’t cough up chunks this big.

If it was a prehistoric shark or a crocodile, they probably would’ve found some fish in there. With all other possibilities ruled out, Cryptoclididae plesiosaurs were the last possibility remaining.

These massive reptiles moved along the deep seafloor using their long necks like vacuum cleaners to scoop up bottom-dwelling invertebrates. Their teeth weren’t strong enough to grind shells, so their stomachs compacted the indigestible stuff into gross pellets they later vomited up.

But what I find most interesting is that plesiosaurs didn’t just puke wherever they swam. Scientists found the items they barfed up in what used to be shallow ancient river deltas. So, like fur seals or marine crocodiles after a big meal, these ancient aquatic beasts probably swam into safe coastal waters to chill out for a bit, eventually puking their meals into the mud before napping and heading back out to sea.

Now that’s livin’.

The post Scientists Just Found 160-Million-Year-Old Fossilized Vomit From a Jurassic Sea Monster appeared first on VICE.

In 1873, an Argentine sailor named Luis Piedra Buena loaded a crew onto a ship called the Espora and headed toward the Strait of Le Maire, a rough stretch of ocean near Patagonia known for tearing hulls to smithereens. He risked his crew’s lives for the noble quest of murdering a bunch of penguins to harvest their grease for oil.

Somewhere along the way, the ship wrecked near Isla de los Estados. Piedra Buena and his crew suddenly became castaways, struggling to survive on unfamiliar shores. The Penguins, having no idea they came this close to being scooped up and turned into lamp oil or whatever, still don’t care about humanity’s plight.

Eventually, the crew slapped together a makeshift sailboat and made it to Chile. The penguins kept on doing their thing.

Archaeologists May Have Found the Lost Shipwreck of 19th-Century Penguin Hunters

Now, according to a study published in the journal Antiquity and reported by IFLScience, archaeologists searching around Franklin Bay have uncovered the ruined wooden ribs of a 19th-century ship, along with a crude castaway camp on a nearby hillside.

The researchers dug up salvaged ship parts, including whole timbers and a deck prism, and found a smattering of distinctly human clutter—glass bottles, buttons, beads, and tools. While this belongs to Piedra Buena and his crew, the most logical explanation, the researchers aren’t claiming that just yet, just to be safe.

There’s more testing to be done, but it’s hard to deny that the location and all the artifacts combined heavily suggest that there may have been a bunch of stranded penguin hunters who may have ripped their ship to shreds to fashion it into an improvised boat that could possibly, maybe, get them to Chile.

Hypothetically.

The post Archaeologists Uncovered a 150-Year-Old Shipwreck That May Have Belonged to Stranded Penguin Hunters appeared first on VICE.

As any clued-in gamer can tell you, the prospect of actually owning the video games you’ve purchased has never been shakier. Sony recently tried to convince customers that they don’t own any games digitally purchased from the PlayStation Store, gaslighting us into thinking we’ve merely been buying a limited, revocable software license. There’s a simmering sense that greedy corporate suits are trying to strip us of our right to own things so they can siphon money from our wallets in perpetuity with subscription models.

Is game ownership on the verge of death? Maybe not, if a new bill proposed by Representative Ritchie Torres (D-NY) actually makes it through Congress, as reported by Kotaku.

Dubbed the “Power to Players Act” (a nod to the old GameStop slogan), the bill would direct the FTC to enforce real digital ownership. Under the proposal, buying a game would grant full rights to own, play, and transfer it, rather than paying $70 for a glorified Blockbuster rental that disappears when the publisher decides the game no longer needs to exist. And these suits wonder why the piracy scene is thriving.

The ‘Power to Players Act’ Could Give Gamers More Control Over the Games They Buy

Torres is even picked as the poster child for the debate: NBA 2K25. It came out in late 2024, raked in millions by selling 11.5 million units as of August 2025, making it the fifth best-selling game of 2024 in the US and the 18^th best-selling game of 2025, and already its publisher, 2K Games, is delisting it and killing its servers, rendering major modes unplayable. Torres’ bill would force publishers to build offline modes for online-dependent games so players can keep using what they bought for $60-$70.

What we’re seeing here is the US version of a legislative push gaining steam worldwide as part of the broader “Stop Killing Games” movement. The movement reached the European Citizens’ Initiative with over 1.29 million signatures, but the European Commission declined to propose new binding laws in June 2026. Torres’s version will no doubt face some heavy pushback from lobbyists who will claim that offline modes are too expensive to build.

 Another issue is that most bills die before they reach a vote. But considering that just in the past month or so, AI-driven decompilation tools have so rapidly altered the landscape of the gaming industry, threatening to make every game released instantly open source and available to anyone, maybe there’s a chance that it lights a fire under the butt of some publishers to put some effort into preserving their games lest gamers permanently turn to AI decompilation.

The post Everything We Know About the ‘Power to Players Act,’ a New Bill That Could Change Gaming Forever appeared first on VICE.

Dating profiles can be generous with the truth. The guy who’s “always up for an adventure” could be going home to a mattress on the floor and a fridge with nothing in it but mustard and one Coors Light. You can learn a lot about a person once you see where they live, and sometimes you wish you hadn’t.

Matchmaking service Tawkify surveyed 500 single Americans over 40 to find out how much a date’s home affects attraction. Half admitted they’d lost interest after seeing where a potential partner lived. Women were quicker to change their minds, at 55% compared with 42% of men. And 13% said they’d formed an opinion within seconds of walking through the door.

In fact, 57% of respondents said they’d discovered something at a person’s home that turned them off after having missed it during previous dates. Unpacked moving boxes bothered 56%, followed by an empty fridge at 48% and dirty dishes at 42%. Another 36% weren’t thrilled by homes with zero personal touches. By your 40s, it’s probably time to have something on the walls besides the thermostat.

These Household Red Flags Could Make Someone Lose Interest in You

The bathroom was a major deciding factor. A clean one with an actual hand towel was the strongest second-date signal, according to 60% of respondents. One woman told Elite Daily that a filthy bathroom would be enough to put her off spending the night. Which seems completely understandable to me. 

Another woman on Reddit described visiting a man’s house and finding a bathroom that “was visibly dirty and didn’t have any toilet paper, soap, or towels.” She ended up ghosting him and felt bad about it. Although I’m curious what he expected guests to do after using the toilet.

Living arrangements also came under scrutiny. The survey found that 41% considered living with parents a red flag. Having adult children or roommates at home bothered 21% each.

People did start to get a little ridiculous when it came to judging size. Another 41% said a one-bedroom, one-bathroom home was a turnoff for anybody over 40. Considering mortgage interest rates and the cost of rent these days, that seems very unfair. 

Fortunately, the bar for impressing a date doesn’t involve owning a mansion. About 68% of respondents assumed a person with a well-kept home had their life together. Warm, traditional interiors appealed to 71%, with natural and neutral styles close behind at 69%. Industrial decor came in last at 49%. Sorry to anyone who spent a fortune making their apartment look like a new brewery.

Of course, if someone does have money, it doesn’t guarantee a pleasant visit. One woman in an AskReddit discussion recalled visiting a date’s gorgeous apartment in an expensive neighborhood, only to discover it was filthy.

A date-ready home costs about as much as a nice dinner out. Buy a decent hand towel and put something in the fridge besides condiments. Whoever comes over is going to look around, so make sure the bathroom passes inspection—aka, have toilet paper. 

The post Things in Your Home That Could Ruin a Second Date, According to Reddit appeared first on VICE.

Everybody in a long relationship has had the studio-apartment fantasy. Your own little place, where no one leaves wet towels on the bed, and the only person snoring is you. Maybe you’ve even thought about what furniture you’d buy. Having those thoughts doesn’t necessarily mean you’re ready to get divorced.

Researchers surveyed 3,000 married Americans between 25 and 50 and found that a quarter had thought about divorce in the previous six months. Another 28% had at some point considered their marriage was in serious trouble, although those concerns weren’t recent. Researchers also identified a group they called “soft thinkers,” people who considered divorce without making serious plans to leave.

When the researchers checked back a year later, 31% of those who’d initially considered divorce no longer thought about it. Some had even forgotten they’d thought about it at all. During follow-up interviews, several participants looked at their earlier responses and asked, “I put that down?”

Scientists Found That Thinking About Divorce Might Actually Be Good for Your Marriage

Study author Alan Hawkins has said that “thoughts about divorce can be a healthy wake-up call to work on a marriage.” Sometimes it takes seriously imagining a life without your partner to admit just how unhappy you’ve become with certain things.

You can also love somebody and be unhappy living with them. A study of 993 people found that love was the most common reason people wanted to stay, while dissatisfaction was among the leading reasons they thought about leaving. Many participants experienced both feelings at once.

There’s a difference between fantasizing about living alone after a weekend of arguing and wishing your partner would go away even when everything seems fine. If thoughts of the latter keep coming back, there’s probably a reason.

Sometimes you start thinking about leaving because you’ve been asking for the same things for years. More help around the house, more affection, or even a small sign that your partner is listening. If those things finally changed, would you still want out?

Whatever you discover, “I’ve been thinking about divorce” probably shouldn’t be the first thing you say during your next argument. You’re more likely to have a productive conversation going if you talk about what’s making you unhappy when neither of you is furious. If your relationship involves abuse or coercive control, confidential support and a safety plan are more important than confronting your partner.

There’s no need to panic every time the thought of living alone sounds appealing. But if you’ve mentally moved out a hundred times already, there’s probably a conversation you’ve been putting off.

The post Why Thinking About Divorce Is Actually Good for Your Marriage, According to Science appeared first on VICE.

“The other day” is one of those phrases everyone uses and no one’s ever defined. To some people, it means yesterday. To others, it covers most of the Obama years.

And people actually have strong opinions about this. In an r/AskUK discussion, one person insisted a week was the absolute limit, arguing that “two months ago is not the other day; that is just poor calendar management.” Another figured it could mean anything from yesterday to sometime in the last decade.

One commenter said their dad uses it for events that happened “anywhere between last Tuesday and 1994.” Which feels very “dad.”

The Internet Can’t Agree on What ‘The Other Day’ Means

Dr. Luke Jones, who studies how people perceive time at the University of Manchester, told Metro that we’re “not very good at remembering exactly when things happened.” Especially the boring stuff. Most of us can barely remember what we had for lunch a few days ago, let alone when we last went grocery shopping or made a phone call. That’s where “the other day” comes in.

There’s also a psychological explanation for why something from years ago can feel surprisingly recent. It’s called the telescoping effect, and it describes how we misremember when events happened. Older memories can seem much closer than they are, explaining how someone can swear they went to a certain restaurant “the other day” only to discover it closed in 2019.

The opposite can happen with recent memories, too. Human beings are extremely unreliable at remembering dates, which has caused headaches for researchers trying to figure out when people last visited a doctor or bought something.

Age might also have something to do with the increasingly generous definition of “recent.” People commonly report that time seems to pass quicker as they get older, so a few years can feel like a much shorter stretch. Which could explain why your dad still talks about a vacation from 1994 like everyone should remember what happened.

Most of the time, an exact date isn’t necessary anyway. If you’re telling a friend about something weird that happened at the grocery store, “the other day” gets the point across just fine. But when the timing actually matters, therapist Rebecca Mackillop told Metro that asking a follow-up question is a better approach than assuming everyone uses the phrase the same way.

And if someone’s story involves a Blockbuster membership, you have every right to question their view of time.

The post People Are Arguing Over What ‘The Other Day’ Means, and Nobody Can Agree appeared first on VICE.

I often hear this complaint online: Women spend hours prepping for a first date, curling their hair, doing their makeup, and choosing an outfit that’s both cute and casual. We hear conflicting advice: Don’t look like you’re trying too hard, but still look presentable. Don’t show too much skin, but don’t dress overly modest either. You want to appear cool, calm, and collected…but definitely not overly confident.

With all these rules, it’s no wonder so many women dread dating in the first place. As a result, some are going the opposite direction and testing what’s called the “Sweatpants Dating Theory.” This viral social media/TikTok trend removes the pressure to dress up and encourages women to embrace their natural beauty—while staying comfortable in sweatpants. The theory suggests that you’ll attract better matches.

What Is the Sweatpants Dating Theory?

Julie Nguyen, a certified dating coach at Hily Dating App, defines the sweatpants dating theory as “a viral dating trend on TikTok that says dressing comfortably in cozy clothes can actually increase your odds of meeting new people and attracting a higher-quality man because it signals confidence, genuineness, and being low-maintenance, which makes women seem more approachable.”

Is there any validity to this theory? Well, it depends on who you ask.

According to Dr. Dakari Quimby, PhD, MA, Clinical Advisor of Marietta Springs, a modern evidence-based treatment center located in Marietta, Georgia, “Sweatpants cannot attract higher-quality men in any reliable sense, and someone’s character is judged through respect, consistency, and whether words match behavior over time.”

However…

“If you’re looking to make connections with others, you may feel more relaxed and comfortable in casual clothing,” he adds. “In turn, others may perceive you as more relaxed and approachable as well. It will take the pressure off you and, ironically, make you more likable and less socially awkward.”

Why Might Wearing Sweatpants Attract More Genuine Connections

As stated above, wearing sweatpants to a first date can shift an otherwise anxiety-inducing or awkward interaction into a more lighthearted, casual affair.

“You seem more approachable, friendlier, and less intimidating,” Nguyen explains. “They’re seeing you in a more effortless, relaxed state.”

However, this doesn’t mean you should dress like a total slob with unwashed sweatpants and a stained T-shirt.

“It’s important to lean into cozy clothes where you feel more confident, but not too baggy or worn out where it can feel like a complete lack of effort,” Nguyen explains.

Therapists’ Opinions on the Theory

Therapists seem to have mixed opinions on this particular dating theory and its relevance in today’s dating scene.

“I totally agree [with the theory] because this is how I attracted my boyfriend,” says Nguyen. “I met him when I was dressed more casually in baggy jeans and a Yankees cap with no makeup. I brought a book to the coffee shop and felt like I was able to be more relaxed, which was attractive to him.”

On the other hand, Quimby has some notes on the idea.

“I agree with showing up authentically, but I disagree that one outfit improves your dating pool,” says Quimby. “So remind yourself to choose clothes that you feel good in. If you’re still stuck on what to wear, focus on choosing something that makes you feel good. However, it is human nature that we judge on ‘first’ impression.”

What the Sweatpants Theory Reveals About Modern Dating

According to Nguyen, this theory shows that “people are looking for someone they can imagine sitting on the couch with, laid-back, and being themselves.” 

“There’s something incredibly attractive about someone who feels comfortable in their own skin and doesn’t feel the need to impress anyone,” she says.

Relationships aren’t always expensive date nights, luxurious outings, or fancy clothing. Letting someone see your more natural, casual side offers a level of intimacy most first dates lack.

However, this idea extends far beyond our external appearances. It’s all about showing up authentically, which can be done with or without sweatpants.

“The popularity of this idea reflects how much people want dating to feel less performative and more authentic, but clothing alone is not a reliable test of compatibility,” Quimby says.

The post The Internet Thinks Wearing Sweatpants Could Help You Find a Better Boyfriend. Are They Right? appeared first on VICE.

Growing up as a Millennial, I’ve learned (and since unlearned) a ton of old-fashioned dating advice and expectations. One concept that’s always stuck with me is the idea of one partner “wearing the pants” in the relationship. Usually, this person is the more authoritative, dominant, and traditionally “masculine” partner—the “head of the house,” so to speak.

I’ve always thought the statement was silly and outdated. In fact, I remember my high school boyfriend’s friend spewing it at me as an insult. God forbid a woman wants some power in her relationship…I wear my pants with pride.

But I digress.

Though the phrase is a bit antiquated today, its underlying context does shed light on potentially unhealthy or unbalanced dynamics between partners. Here are four signs you “wear the pants” in your relationship—and should maybe delegate a bit of your responsibility and control.

1. You Make Most of the Decisions

Many relationships have one primary decision-maker and one go-with-the-flow partner. While this isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it can lead to imbalance and resentment on both ends.

“I’d look at who makes the plans and [whether] they check in with their partner first,” says April Davis, founder and celebrity matchmaker at LUMA Luxury Matchmaking and an accredited dating coach. “If someone books a vacation or agrees to host Thanksgiving without checking, they probably assume their partner will go along with it. That’s a sign that they wear the pants in the relationship.”

2. You Make and Manage Most of the Money

This is where the idiom gets a bit outdated, as it often refers to the money-maker as the one in control. However, that isn’t always the case.

“Money plays a huge part in relationship dynamics, especially when one person is supporting the other,” says Davis. “Being the higher earner doesn’t automatically mean you wear the pants, but if ‘I’m the one paying for it’ ends the argument, that probably means you wear the pants.”

It also probably means you use money as power, in which case, you should probably do some self-reflection.

3. You Usually Have the Final Say

In a healthy relationship, both individuals should feel they have an equal say on important decisions and compromises.

“Who gets their way after an argument can tell you who really wears the pants,” Davis points out. “Everyone gives in on things they don’t care much about. But if it’s the same person making concessions every time, even on things that matter to them, that’s a pretty good sign.”

4. Your Plans and Goals Come First

Look, I get it: we all want to respect our own plans and life goals. But relationships require (some) sacrifice. Neither partner should feel like the supporting character in the other’s life.

“Maybe you always spend the holidays with their family, or weekend plans depend on what they want to do. As a matchmaker, I’d want to know whether their partner likes that or has just stopped expressing their needs,” says Davis. “Some people are happy to let their partner take the lead. The problem is when one person feels they don’t get a say.”

The post 4 Signs You ‘Wear the Pants’ in Your Relationship, According to a Dating Expert appeared first on VICE.

Another day, another dating theory—and this one is a bit brutal, particularly to men. Coined by relationship counselor and author John Gray in his 1992 bestselling book, Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, the “Rubber Band Theory” in dating suggests that men alternate between seeking closeness with and seeking space from a partner. 

Like a rubber band, this push-and-pull pattern can greatly affect their ability to form a romantic connection. However, for the man, it’s a desire to maintain their independence within the relationship—not a sign of disinterest.

I spoke with a Harvard-trained clinical psychologist and relationship expert to learn more about this seemingly outdated theory. 

What Is the Rubber Band Dating Theory? 

The rubber band dating theory essentially compares men to a “rubber band” when it comes to intimacy.

“More specifically, they get close, then need to pull away, come back, and then feel stronger in their connection,” says Dr. Sabrina Romanoff, PsyD, Harvard-trained clinical psychologist and relationship expert at Hily Dating App.

This back-and-forth dynamic can cause the other partner emotional whiplash while they’re simply trying to build a connection. But for the man, it’s believed to help him regain his sense of self.

Is There Truth to the Rubber Band Dating Theory?

According to Dr. Romanoff, this rubber-band dynamic is common in dating, particularly with men or anxious-avoidant partners.

“From the male perspective, getting close can feel threatening and scary because it may come with a loss of autonomy or independence,” says Dr. Romanoff. “Their partner’s response to their distance and lack of chase or pressure often guarantees that they will come back on their own terms. On the receiving end, this can feel disorienting, like abandonment, especially after experiences of closeness.”

“It’s common with people who are anxious or ambivalent about a new partner, or about the idea of getting back into a relationship,” Dr. Romanoff adds. “They may retreat, and in that space realize their concerns were out of proportion or irrational, which then prompts their return.” 

Why Men Might Experience Intimacy Like a Rubber Band

This dating theory is often applied as a blanket statement to most male daters. However, men aren’t the only ones who can display this behavior or pattern. For example, many anxious or avoidant women engage in this push-and-pull dynamic with intimacy as well.

“Intimacy is scary for everyone. It often comes with vulnerability and the possibility of getting hurt or rejected,” says Dr. Romanoff. “People often need to ease into it to feel safe and secure. Attachment style also plays a role; people with more avoidant attachment tend to need more space and distance as they attach to romantic partners.”

While dating theories like this one can help us avoid pain, rejection, and confusion in the dating scene, they can also dehumanize individuals who are simply trying their best. Sure, someone might struggle with intimacy at the start of a relationship, but that doesn’t always mean they have malicious intent or will break your heart.

“Bank this pattern as information, but don’t act impulsively by writing them off or aggressively chasing them,” Dr. Romanoff states. “Give them time to come back to you, and recognize it as a data point.”

The post The ‘Rubber Band Theory’ Could Explain Why Your Boyfriend Is Being So Distant appeared first on VICE.

Thanks to a team of heroes, a southern ground hornbill, belonging to Amsterdam’s Artis Zoo, is now flourishing with a brand-new prosthetic beak. The bird received two 3D-printed prostheses, as both the upper and lower portions of his natural beak were broken. In a press statement, Artis penned that, while other birds have been the happy recipients of prosthetic beaks, “As far as is known, this is the first time in the world both parts of a bird’s beak have been restored in this way.”

While the young bird of honor valiantly managed to persist adequately enough in his everyday life prior to the surgery, the zoo confirmed that his behavior was restricted, and he couldn’t care for himself all that well. Obviously, the southern ground hornbill relies on its beak for purposes as preening and foraging, thus he had trouble picking up certain pieces of food.

Fortunately, the bird began using his new beak the very same day it was attached. Before continuing with the article, you can see below that the heartwarming medical miracle means that he’s already back to grossing some of us out by preying on mice.

View this post on Instagram

This Bird Got a Brand-New 3D-Printed Beak, and He’s Already Putting It to Work

The life-altering procedure was performed by Artis, Utrecht University, UMC Utrecht, and Amnovis. The artificial beak was developed with the help of a CT scan and preserved sections of the bird’s original beak. Both plastic and titanium elements were incorporated. The NY Post adorably applauded the “im-peck-able performance.”

Of course, Artis is keeping an eye both on the bird and his female partner in order to make sure that all continues to go swimmingly, though they are prepared to step in if any issues occur.

Now, watch the complex procedure for yourself! Warning: Although it’s unbelievable, it just might be a bit disturbing for animal lovers to see the anesthetized bird.

View this post on Instagram

The post WATCH: Scientists Gave an Injured Bird a Second Chance With Two 3D-Printed Beak Prosthetics appeared first on VICE.

Have you noticed that healthy eating doesn’t always leave you feeling full of those vitamins and minerals that translate into energy and glowing skin? According to a report from Deep Science Ventures, many fruits and vegetables available for purchase are half as nutritious as they were 60 years ago.

Thus, consumers often have to eat twice as much to receive the same levels of minerals as magnesium, potassium, and copper. The 20-50% drop in key nutrients and minerals extends to other crops like wheat and foods in general. Your breads won’t have the same iron, zinc, and magnesium that your grandparents’ loaves had in the 1960s. It is no wonder that so many of us suffer from micronutrient deficiencies.

Declining soil quality is a key factor to blame. Also, as global demand has increased, the focus on high-yield crop varieties and farming practices hasn’t always been conducive to health. In addition, you might have noticed during your last trip to (even to a supposedly upscale) grocery store that many of the products felt and looked as though they had been stored for ages. We are all moreover aware of the horrors of genetically modified foods, and now there are all the fears surrounding lab-grown options.

A New Report Suggests Some Foods Have Lost Up to Half Their Nutritional Value

It can be difficult to tell which of our healthy habits need improvement these days. For example, even our berries can seem like little carcinogens: Driscoll’s CEO stepped down at the end of August amid complaints about pesticides. With all the causes for paranoia, even concerning supposedly organic foods, my admiration grows for those among us who rely upon themselves, opting for homesteading.

Obviously, farmers who use ethical practices should be supported. Yet, they often are not… Thus, our French farmer friends, for instance, have demonstrated their grievances by heading into town and spraying government buildings and more with manure — proof of their ingenuity.

The post Fruits and Veggies Are Less Nutritious Than They Were 60 Years Ago (And Scientists Don’t Know Why) appeared first on VICE.

In various respects, Denmark, which is often referred to as one of the happiest countries in the world, has long set a most excellent example for other nations to follow. Again, as of late, Denmark has become a topic of discussion internationally, but we’re not yet sure that it is for the right reasons this time. If all goes according to plan, teachers will be allowed to physically restrain and remove disruptive primary-school students from August 2027 onward. Granted, the final bill won’t be presented until February 2026, and many have already stepped up in protest.

The original proposal was drafted this past autumn by now former Minister for Education and Children Mat­tias Tes­faye (a man who, in blaming the effects of bad parenting for aggravating the environment in classrooms, used foul language himself). Denmark has not allowed the application of physical force in schools since 1967, when corporal punishment in schools was banned nationwide. Within the US, for example, there are still some states that allow corporal punishment in institutions of learning.

Let it be understood, Denmark’s new bill is not a green light to be cruel. On the contrary, it clarifies that force is only to be used only as a last resort. It should be “gentle and short-lived as circumstances allow.” For example, a student may be held in place or guided out of the room. Parents will be notified if force is used against their child. Reasons for physical intervention include instances in which a student harms themselves, others, or poses some sort of threat; damages property; disrupts lessons in a significant way; etc. I find the notion of physically correcting those disruptive students who aren’t causing bodily harm problematic, as it presents a significant gray area.

It could prove a good way to emotionally scar children, whether diagnosed or yet to be diagnosed, with special needs. In addition, sorry if I say so, but it just isn’t natural to make little balls of energy sit still for so long, thus it’s understandable that they are going to be wiggly and obnoxious. (If you ask me, too many children are on ADHD medication simply because authorities don’t always understand the difference between a genuine problem and what is arising from external circumstances that aren’t conducive to a normal child’s health and programming.)

Denmark Wants to Let Teachers Physically Restrain Disruptive Students, Sparking Debate

The general idea behind the proposed law is that teachers must not be left in doubt as to their rights when they can clearly see that a situation is escalating, or before the chair flies through the air, to repeat an example given by the vigilant Danes. It comes as a response to the reported increase in violence in Danish schools — in 2025, physical violence among students was recorded at least once in 55% of classes, according to a survey conducted by the Ministry of Education. One in three teachers refrained from physical contact out of fear of the repercussions. The Danish Working Environment Authority found that in one of five classes, teachers themselves become the targets of violence.

At the end of the day, not having such a bill will inevitably lead to harm, as, again, not all teachers will instinctively do what’s right without its protection out of fear of losing their jobs and more. On the other hand, even if the majority of my elementary-school teachers were angels, I, for one, can attest that I was definitely subjected to a fair number of screwballs as a pupil. In other words, while many teachers are nothing short of heroic, we can all agree that some, like a share of those belonging to any profession, suffer from judgment issues, and this obviously becomes especially dangerous since children are involved.

Another issue I’ll raise is that many primary school students can already be quite strong, so I would hope that, if the proposal goes into effect, Denmark would train their teachers in how to disable someone posing a risk in a minimally harmful manner. Granted, in an ideal world, that shouldn’t ever be a teacher’s concern, but their jobs are becoming increasingly intolerable, as the appreciation they receive seems to be decreasing…

In the US, a recent report by the Walton Family Foundation, Gallup, and the Mattering Institute confirmed that one in four public-school educators said they are likely to quit within the next year. Maybe you’ve seen videos of teachers crying after their little antagonists have left for the day? That said and while acknowledging that sometimes it’s simply impossible, it would be great if teachers could command respect by way of their words and strength of character, rather than by force.

The post Everything We Know About Denmark’s Controversial Plan to Let Teachers Physically Restrain Students appeared first on VICE.

Traveling is so much fun, in large part, thanks to the characters you meet on the road. During a recent trip to Fiji, a Russian travel blogger named Olga Bavykina, whom you may also call Zabotkina, encountered one adorably enthusiastic shop employee, whom I’m sure she won’t forget. She aptly captioned her video of him, «Когда очень гордишься наследием предков», or “When you are really proud of your ancestors”…

The charismatic man indeed embodies healthy pride, as he shows off the kinds of tools his ancestors used for cannibalistic purposes — unique souvenirs to bring back to your loved ones. Our informative friend exclaims, “We eat people for the power.” I want to know more about his people’s current practices, as even without having consumed human flesh himself, he still exudes more charisma than your average protein-shake-clutching, yoga-mat-lugging American health nut.

Fijian Shopkeeper Goes Viral for Showing Tourists His Ancestors’ Cannibalism Tools

Our cultural emissary demonstrates the manner in which a brain might be extracted in order to give to a chief so that he might absorb wisdom, lending new meaning to the term brainiac; warriors become tough from partaking of the muscle, he explains. The taste of victory is sweet, isn’t it? He further clarifies that the ritual of cannibalism was upheld for religious reasons, not to satisfy hunger.

Bavykina roughly penned thus on Telegram:

“He explained that the Fijians didn’t exactly sit around waiting for their enemies to float their way. Instead, about 400 warriors would board each drua and set off to fight the Tongans. The Tongans would meet them in similar vessels. Right there in the sea, they would fight.

The distance between Tonga and Fiji is near 1,000 kilometers.”

Needless to say, it is clear that the man of whom we’ve been speaking is very “metal” and could certainly serve as a conceptual and lyrical advisor to a band or two. Naturally, many of our forebears observed traditions that might not be viewed as acceptable within the rigid moral framework of today, so he causes us all to reflect upon our cultural heritage.

View this post on Instagram

The post WATCH: Man Eagerly Shows Tourist Tools Used for Cannibalism: ‘We Eat People for the Power’ appeared first on VICE.

Researchers in a study published in the journal Diabetes found that feeding mice a little olive oil before a carbohydrate-rich meal reduced blood sugar afterward, showing that the order in which you eat could affect blood sugar levels.

Olive oil and a big bowl of pasta usually cause your blood sugar to spike, but scientists at Kyoto University found that downing a shot of olive oil 15 minutes before eating glucose-rich carbohydrates blunted post-meal blood sugar spikes.

This happens because of a weird quirk of the digestive system. When you chug a tiny pre-meal shot of olive oil, it triggers a series of gut hormones, including the now-famous GLP-1 (the one powering weight-loss drugs like Ozempic), and signals your vagus nerve. This biological chemical combo slows a process called “gastric emptying,” forcing your stomach to release glucose into your intestines at a slow, manageable pace instead of one big burst.

Olive Oil Before Carbs Reduced Blood Sugar Spikes in Mice, New Study Finds

Other fats produce the same result, like flaxseed oil and good old-fashioned delicious lard, but olive oil was the most effective. The researchers even found it worked just as well in diabetic mice with impaired insulin production, suggesting their bodies didn’t even need a fully functioning pancreas to reap the benefits of eating in the right order.

The instinct now for someone managing blood sugar after reading all that is to chug some extra virgin olive oil before chowing down on a baking sheet of lasagna, but remember, this entire article has been explicitly about an observable reaction in laboratory mice. Mice are used as test subjects because we share many genetic and biological similarities, but it’s not a one-to-one comparison. So don’t start taking shots of olive oil before a glucose-heavy meal until researchers run human trials to see if they get similar results.

Yes, it’ll be very nice if something as simple as meal sequencing helps you manage your blood sugar, since it costs relatively little and it’s really more of a habit you have to develop, but pump the brakes for a little while longer, knowing that maybe one day all you have to do to make your life just a little bit easier is knocking back a couple of smooth shots of olive oil.

The post Scientists Just Found a New Life Hack to Deal With Blood Sugar Spikes. But Does It Work? appeared first on VICE.