#I don't really consume media aimed at children specifically

[oldtvandcomics]

Honestly, if there is just one advice I can give to people who have children: Look, if you can keep them away from screens as much as possible, that would be ideal, but if you do have to give them their own devices, please consider spending some time looking on the Internet for the actual good children’s content. Mostly older media, which you can easily find and it’s free. You just need to know where to look.

[ultraericthered]

Hmm? Oh yeah, this one blogger gave a big response to both me and some other user who was saying stuff in the notes of her post. Seeing as she was decent and sensible enough to recognize that if we want to live and let live with our differing opinions, she probably should've at least done so behind a different tag and thus away from fans of the thing she was railing against, I in turn will put my rebuttal in this separate post on this blog and I will try to tag it appropriately.

That said, WOW. There is quite a lot of whinging to unpack here.

But, thanks for not bothering to actually listen to my argument, so let me go through your own:

"Not bothering?" It was not due to a lack of trying on my part that I failed to actually listen to this person's argument, I was legitimately confused and trying to make sense of what she was even saying.

No. I’m not saying Disney adults shouldn’t enjoy crap that was clearly made for them. Believe me, I knew some of that was already the case with Wish and I was excited for it being made for us…and I was disappointed by it. I wanted to like Mirrorverse but it just kept feeling wrong to me and the og post is the wording of what and how it was wrong to me.

Pulling out the term "Disney adults", even if applying it to herself as well, is an automatic alarm for me. It's a term that's very cynical and partonizing in origin, conceptualizing the idea that all things "Disney" are things that a person is expected to outgrow once they've reached adulthood, as though Disney produces things only for children. And sure, they make things that are purely for little kids or at most geared more towards them than to an older crowd. But primarily, on the whole, Disney content and the quality they most strive for are what we call "family friendly" rather than "kids stuff", and to assume that such content is kiddy fare that's meant to be outgrown by adults is completely against the spirit and the words of Walt Disney himself.

"I do not make films primarily for children. I make them for the child in all of us, whether we be six or sixty." - Walt Disney

"We believed in our idea - a family park where parents and children could have fun - together." - Walt Disney

"Too many people grow up. That's the real trouble with the world, too many people grow up. They forget. They don't remember what it's like to be 12 years old. They patronize, they treat children as inferiors. Well, I won't do that." - Walt Disney

Yeah, you should get the picture by now.

I’m saying I find your uncritical devotion to the company, not the writer behind the projects, the company, is sad. It’s self-destructive.

Oh sure, I am uncriticially devoted to this mega corporation. So uncritical in my devotion am I that I've tagged posts or reblogs that address erorrs, poor quality content, and even harmful practices of the company as "Anti Disney" and have even likened the corporate side of Disney to their newest movie's villain many times at this point.

I really hate this kind of attitude towards fandom+online criticism as a whole. This 100% unironic “if you’re negative = HATE” attitude...that I can at least get because even the most pissy of us don’t wanna be surrounded by rage all the time. But, your complete lack or willing to consume any media critically? That’s annoying.

Reminder of how OP began their "critical" post: "I hate Disney's Mirrorverse so much." Please forgive me for where, how, and why I might've possibly gotten that "negativity = HATE" idea from here.

That literally was NOT what I was saying at all hon. Official merch is fine and a lot is great. Like, a lot. I don’t consider official merch itself a threat to fanstuff; what I consider a threat is the higher up of Disney wanting to snuff out fantasy-fan made merch.

Where was it confirmed that the higher up of Disney were specifically aiming to snuff out fan-made content with the very creation and release of Mirrorverse? I must've missed that press conference!

ALL I see with that game is creativity of individual people wasted on a corporate IPlords who wants to crush smaller artists inspired by them, and even their own workers. Disney does not care about you. Disney doesn’t even care for it’s own people. Disney wants to own fanworks so that they can profit off you even more than they already do. And, to me, that’s just kind of horrifying.

In other words, King Magnifico. Yeah, I already got that.

Are you saying you don’t have an imagination? Because A: no. You do have one. Obviously. Liking what some people may think is “cringe” =/= no imagination and I SINCERELY hope you didn’t take that away from my post.

Yes, obviously I have an imagination. I am unsure what it was that made this person think I was suggesting I didn't.

And then she starts getting more hyperbolic and a bit conspiratorial.

We are in a late stage capitalism apocalypse. My argument isn’t that Disney DARE'ENT be what it is but that you should use your brains when it’s pandering to you and not just like it because 'poepl worked on it whichm means it’s good.

"Poepl"? "which?" Slurred words sure do look weird in text form.

You are not mandated to like something and your attitude, to me, frankly feels like that’s why you do like Mirrorverse. Disney is telling you to like it and you’re blinded by this delusion that the company itself is on your side simply because it has Disney fans as it’s own writers and artists working on it. I want to be proven wrong on that and believe you’re like my friends who also like mirrorverse and the modern crossover disney stuff - people who like the ideas within because yeah, that can be fun, and whom I just disagree with, but given your attitude. I don’t see it.

.....Huh??? For as inappropriately big and powerful a company as Disney is today, I do not think they have the authority to literally mandate that people must like their products and that they then must consume them because they like them. Disney has put plenty of stuff out on the free market that they no doubt wanted people to like (because otherwise why even make anything at all? People liking thing made by company = people spending money on that thing and company profiting), but I've not cared for or not even touched, no matter how many sincere, well-meaning people might've worked hard on making the stuff. Mirrorverse caught my attention way back when it was first announced and still undergoing development, and when I ended up liking it, it wasn't because "Disney was telling me to like it" or that I was blinded by any delusion of the company being good or "on my side" - I like it because I JUST DO. It appeals to me and my tastes, sensibilities, and ideas of what's good, clean, creative fun, not to mention being another Disney epic crossover property to fill the void left behind by the now garbage tier Kingdom Hearts series. And even then I'm far from uncritical in my liking for it: it existing as just a mobile app game puts some limitations on it, and the combat part of the game looks like ass and doesn't play quite as well as it could've, especially compared to the polish of other app games like Disney Heroes: Battle Mode and Disney; Sorcerer's Arena. (Now, my attitude may well have gone too far beyond disagreeable and came off as too hostile, confrontational, and uncivil in my dissent against your take, so for that I apologize. I'm sorry, that really was my bad. But given all this rambling, your attitude is now worrying me.)

Fan merch is not perfect or even all that good, but it comes from a point of passion. My point was never that fan made = good. My point was I think Disney the company wants control of even that and, when they are hiring the artists who have genuine ideas about crossovers, are exploiting them. It’s *cute* of you to call me entitled when you sound like one of the most entitled people ever through your message.

I fail to see how I come off as "entitled", as though I was saying that Disney the company has every right to control imaginative fan ideas and to hire and exploit artists with similar ideas just for profit. I was not; I was saying that I'm not in agreement with this paranoid belief that this is what prompted the existence of Mirrorverse to start with. Most of the driving ideas behind why the game came to be seems to have come from the creatives who work for both Disney and Kabam, with Disney merely signing off on it becoming an officially lisenced thing because the company is so ceaselessly hungering for profits that they can never have enough app games or console games that bring their beloved IPs together in a single fantastical new canon.

You are assigning shit to me that I did not say/mean.

For that, I apologize. Please stop doing the exact same thing to me. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I’m upset on the part of the writers and artists at Disney (btw can you please maybe list some of them out? The mirrorverse artists could probably really use the revenue you’re so quick to only attribute to Disney as if Disney itself is the writer of these works.) 

But you can find them all right here.

I believe Wish was made/written with love. Every Disney project is made with love and creativity and I think it’s horrible to imply that Wish was AI-generated because it’s writing came up as lackluster, if that’s what you’re trying imply of me.

Dunno why Wish is suddenly getting brought into this. Was it my current icon being King Magnifico that put it into focus?

My issue with Wish, with Mirrorverse, and with a lot of modern Disney projects is at this point the same I am having with Illumination entertainment; and that’s not ever that “capitalist = bad”/“idea I don’t like = bad writer”. For as annoyed I still am at Princess and the Frog, you really go that feeling the the writers were trying and the project as a whole wasn’t geared by executives telling the directors “no. You have to do x, x, x, and x because then it won’t sell.” Mirrorverse had a soul. Wish had soul. Bob Chapek stole both these properties’ souls and you’re using hardworking artists’ work as an excuse to continue promoting the craphole who’s overworking them.

Bob Chapek is long gone from Disney at this point: Bog Iger is still dealing with the aftereffects of the damage Chapek did while making his own mistakes and dealing out his own share of damage to the overworked artists, writers, directors, imagineers, and all creative staff members who give their hearts and souls to Disney productions. I'm not using the artists' work as an excuse to promote or grant any lenience to corporate Disney. It's actually the very opposite: I don't want them and all the effort they put into realizing these properties to go overlooked and unappreciated due to some instinctful (and oftentimes reasonably justified) dislike and dissatisfaction directed at the company whose brand name the properties get released under. That's something akin to "collective punishment", and it reaches toxic levels when it is also applied towards the punishment and shaming of regular people; of fans who engage with the products and express any sort of enjoyment and appreciation for them. Like them doing so is an objectively morally wrong thing to do and is playing into the big bad company's hands.

My issue is that the fans (artists, creators and writers of these works) care. Disney does not. Disney cares about exploiting you even in the smallest ways and even on small matters like bad bootleg merch that’s in no way a threat to them. Because it isn’t.

This is an issue I have with Disney as well. I've said so ad nauseum.

My issue with the two of you is that you hate criticism and see my post as some kind of threat to your special interest. No. It’s not. I never even tagged mirrorverse. This is a rant meant for me and for other likeminded people like me. Speaking as a woman who’s defended and still will defend Frozen all these years - YOU are coming off as the most entitled, zealous people. You are creative. And you love Disney and obviously like Mirrorverse and Wish where I don’t; unlike the artists behind these products, you don’t have room to complain about being disgarded or treated like AI cuz I don’t like your writing or Disney’s handling of your writing- you’re just a butthurt fan.

More hyperbole. There was no "threat" detected in her post. There was only an opinion I read as a bad faith poor take and I responded to it with a rebuttal like this social media platform allows us all to do. By getting so up in arms and defensive about the rebuttal that rather than try to clear the air with a post that only clarifies what she was meaning to convey in the OP and that if I still don't find it agreeable we can hopefully agree to disagree, she goes on a whole whopping tangent? This strikes me as "butthurt fan" behavior. I'm sorry, it does.

Presuming the both of you ever read any of this, I don’t like the insinuation that my own bitching and moaning it hurting the hardworking writers and artists personally just because the fans of these overall products love them and I don’t. I really don’t like my personal criticisms being hurled at or treated like an attack on the people who are real artists. I know that’s not what I’m doing. You could have just blocked my blog or chosen to just not read the post the moment this post opened with “I hate mirrorverse”. You didn’t. You engaged and now I’m engaging to tell you that I disagree.

Yes, let us dispell that insinuation. You are hurting no one by bitching and moaning in a post put out on a public social media venue on the internet, not the writers and artists, not the company. I'd not meant to insinuate as much, and anyone who would make that insinuation would be a fool to do so. Thank you for acknowleding that you led with "I hate Mirrorverse", which made the negativitiy and criticism easier to mistake for hatefulness. I make it a rule to typically not block blogs as my first response to seeing something I disagree with, which is sadly more than I can say of other users who've disagreed with me in the past. I decided to engage you, then you engaged back, and now this is me engaging back in my own space to save your's the trouble of being too cluttered up with this dispute. If you happen to come across this and read it through, I hope you can try to take time for contemplation and understanding of where I'm coming from here, and I'd so the same in turn for you should you give a civil response. But given how I'm tagging this, chances lean unlikely.

[the-ghost-king]

One thing that always bugs me is how much leeway straight ships are given while if a lgbt ship isn't perfectly unproblematic then it's devilspawn and shouldn't exist. I think that relationships shouldn't always have to be unproblematic or perfect and fiction is all about exploring different dynamics and stories even if they are unhealthy. Historically cis/het/able bodied romances have been given so much room to be as creative as they like, Romeo and Juliet, Dracula, not to mention so many popular tropes that would be toxic in real life. Recently though there has also been more pushback against straight ships.

It's sad because while yeah, be critical of the things you consume, fiction is about exploring concepts without real life consequences (as long as its aimed at the appropriate demographic and not children), but a lgbt ship needs to be infallable or else it's bad representation and you end up really limiting the amount of stories you can tell. People are often complex and messy and relationships can sometimes turn toxic or a partner can overstep a boundary, but not letting that happen because it's bad rep ultimately just ends up with people getting less interesting and diverse stories and let development in their relationship.

One thing that always bugs me is how much leeway straight ships are given while if a lgbt ship isn't perfectly unproblematic then it's devilspawn and shouldn't exist.

Yes absolutely anon! I’m very upset at seeing caricatures instead of characters so often, often times they’re very one dimensional since they’re not allowed to be a “bad” character or bad person in any way since the character has to exist as “representation”, which makes them about their sexuality/gender, rather than making their sexuality/gender a part of them. Which is kind of the whole thing that were supposed to be against, marketing a character for their sexuality/gender, rather than marketing a book who happens to have a character of a certain gender/sexuality or just be in a certain relationship.

A book I’ve seen a lot of criticism with this issue is “We are Totally Normal” in which there’s a story about the main character, Nandan, who is struggling with popularity, internalized homophobia, and a variety of other issues. He is not always the best person because of this, sometimes using people to his own wants or advantages, or rejecting then accepting then rejecting his queer identity so on and on. That’s led to a lot of criticism of the book, because not only does it paint a queer character with toxic personality traits, but also a character who doesn’t have an easy journey (if you can even call it a journey?) accepting his sexuality. 

Historically cis/het/able bodied romances have been given so much room to be as creative as they like, Romeo and Juliet, Dracula, not to mention so many popular tropes that would be toxic in real life.

Personally I think it's important to be conscious of stereotypes/issues affecting marginalized groups, however I don't believe that you should never follow through or create something on the basis of not portraying a certain individual in a bad light- that bad light is not supposed to be a reflection of the whole community that character is from. I think if someone sometimes falls into a negative stereotype with their media it's more important to consider how they execute that rather than the fact that they did it.

I seen a post recently talking about how characters can fall into clichés or “bad tropes” so long as it is a part of active choice on their end and is self-fulfilled. The post (which I can’t find) specifically talked about how never killing off any marginalized characters was also bad, and served as a deficit to those characters; in my example I’ll use the bury your gays trope. If the gay character isn’t being killed in a way that’s framed as a punishment for their sexuality, you’re probably doing okay. The issue is that in certain storylines where the possibility of dying is really high provides stakes the character has to beat, which causes the audience to empathize more with their choices, and care more fully about the character. If this character dies in an act of saving the world or something similar, like saving the life of a sibling, etc, as an active choice on the part of the character- you’ve subverted the stereotype by giving the character the power of their own narrative back. In order to make a more complex 3D character sometimes you do have to play into “negative” stereotypes of commonalities, not only does this do more for the message of the story (See how “Love, Simon” portrayed a stereotypical cis able bodied white male as “just like anyone else”, which plays into a 2D personality for the characters, but also only allows Simon such a high level of comfort in his sexuality because he checks so many of the boxes for an acceptable member of society he’s ‘allowed’ to be gay... (X)),  not only does this do more for the message of the story, but it also has the potential to increase empathy in an audience for people they might otherwise write off as “weird” or similar. 

Recently though there has also been more pushback against straight ships.

As for the rising instances of this with straight couples, in which they have to be depicted holding a healthy and stable relationship- it becomes toxic as well. There’s a modern problem online with toxic positivity, and also in the idea that a relationship has to be healthy or else it’s “wrong” has a lot to do with current purity policing issues in fandom specific spaces. Just because someone ships something that doesn’t mean they want that same thing in real life, and just because someone ships something “bad” they don’t constantly have to renounce what they ship by discussing their knowledge of how harmful it is. It’s good to be aware of whether or not a relationship being shipped is healthy or harmful if enacted in real life, but it’s not necessary to constantly discuss that, to discuss that in equal measure as shipping the ship, or even to discuss it at all if the person shipping doesn’t want to. 

People are often complex and messy and relationships can sometimes turn toxic or a partner can overstep a boundary, but not letting that happen because it's bad rep ultimately just ends up with people getting less interesting and diverse stories and let development in their relationship.

Yes! And the issue that happens here is also that by depicting a “perfect” relationship, you end up once again removing characterization from the people in the relationship. This leads to certain relationships/characters being put on a pedestal, and if being done to a marginalized character becomes tokenizing. 

There’s also something to be said about some criticisms of media that I’ve seen going around, and some communities focused on criticism, which pass the BITE model testing for “is it a cult?” - which is extremely, extremely concerning. 

[lemondzest]

Understanding Obesity (Part 2): Whose responsibility for obesity?

Now that we know obesity is a public health crisis requiring urgent action, we may wonder - what causes it? After all, effective solutions require tackling the root causes of the problem. This part therefore aims to shed light on five of the many contributing factors to obesity. 

1. Choices

Nothing much to elaborate here; choosing to eat more and moving less will result in weight gain. More calories in, less calories out - basic law of thermodynamics. Boring. However, many people are quick to go down the reductionist route by placing ALL the blame on the individual’s personal choices. If it’s just a matter of people needing to make the right choices, if it’s really that simple, we would have tackled obesity long ago. Blaming obesity solely on individual choices does not answer WHY we are increasingly eating more and moving less. Take a look at this timeline of adult obesity in the U.S below by the CDC, similarly reported in other countries across the globe. 

The rate of obesity has tripled worldwide since the late 1970s. If obesity is simply caused by a lack of personal responsibility, what happened in the late 1970s? Did everyone collectively lose their rationale - maybe everyone got together, decided to YOLO and go buffet in life? Definitely possible (cue the entrance of conspiracy theorists), but highly unlikely. Did some form of transcendent power strike the DNA of humans collectively that made us evolve into a bunch of lazier and much more ravenous creatures? Scientists have studied evolutionary changes during this period and concluded that nope, our gene pool has remained constant; any changes in the gene pool would take hundreds of years to produce an obvious effect across a global population anyway. This means that:

the global rise in obesity is not because of any significant genetic changes,

people did not willingly choose to eat more and move less, 

there are other external factors that mainly drives the obesity epidemic.

Consider a class of 10 pupils. When only one pupil gets very low grades in an exam and the other nine got full marks, the one pupil is considered mainly at fault. Perhaps they need to study more and work harder to get a good mark. But when six out of ten got very low grades, is it still the pupils’ fault? Would we then tell the children to study more, while everyone else (i.e the teacher, parents, education system) just remain in inertia, or goyang kaki? 

Similarly, when 63% of the people in Brunei are living with overweight and obesity -- is it still entirely their fault? 

2. Environment

(Please bear with me, I’m trying my best not to turn this section into a whole thesis).

The environment is one of the largest contributors of the rise in the obesity epidemic. This is based on rigorous academic evidence and decades of research. Essentially, the environment has generally promoted the increased consumption of unhealthier food through a rapid increase in its:

availability : since the 1970s, the food environment underwent a shift from predominantly fresh produce to a more ultra processed diet. Food are being processed to the point where they look nothing like what they originally look like, stuffing them with cheap ingredients such as sugar, salt, trans-fats and flavourings to enable mass production to be sold at cheap prices and for easy consumption. These products are called ultra processed food, and examples include soda, sausages, nuggets, sugary cereals, instant noodles, crisps, chocolates and so on.  Because of its poor nutritional profile, ultra processed food has confidently been associated with higher risks of obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, depression, asthma, etc. And we, especially young people, are consuming more of this than ever. 

exposure : we're talking about the aggressive marketing strategies that has been employed especially by the fast food industry and beyond. I remember going back home from the airport after my 14-day COVID quarantine being bombarded by roughly 10 billboard ads, majority of which are advertising for fast food. As I went out and about for the next few months, I realised that we are exposed to food companies constantly fighting for our attention through their advertisements, whether in the form of billboard ads, physical outlets, leaflets, newspaper ads, TV ads, social media ads, social media influencers, event sponsorships, - the list just goes on! In fact, 46% of the annual advertising budget in the UK goes to soda, confectionery and snacks, while only 2.5% goes to fruits and vegetables. Imagine if it was the other way around.. One can only dream... The point is, we as humans are constantly being tempted with unhealthier food rather than healthier food, which in turn, drives up our purchase and consumption of unhealthier food products. I also particularly like this photo taken in the UK that just showcases the pedestal unhealthier food ads are being placed on, i.e. same level as public health ads. Oh, the irony! (Good news for Bruneians - a code of conduct on responsible food marketing has been implemented recently to shield our children from these ads! Just what we need, priority on children’s health > anything else.)

portion sizes : certain food such as pizza and soft drinks underwent a significant increase in portion sizes from the 1970s to 2000s. Just a few days ago I went to to a fast food outlet and noticed that, as usual, the default drink choice is soda, but the default size is now the large one as compared to the smaller one that I remember seeing 3 years ago before I left the country. I was also informed that some other outlets have been asking customers to upsize their drinks by default. Just how necessary is this? We may think this is not a problem because people supposedly eat according to their physiological needs and can simply stop when they’re full, and so they wouldn’t need to finish the whole portion. But research leading to the discovery of what is known as the portion size effect (PSE) has suggested otherwise; the more energy-dense food people are served, the more they tend to eat. 

The 21st century environment is also promoting physical inactivity and a sedentary lifestyle compared to the past centuries. Opportunities for physical activity especially in high-income countries have declined possibly due to the rapid urbanisation, rise in 9-5 jobs and more people relying on motorised transportation methods. Although research has shown that physical activity (PA) among adults done during free time have increased in the past ~30 years, a simultaneous decrease was found in physical activity done while working in the past ~50 years. Young people are also observed to be more physical inactive levels throughout the years, though locally... I like to think that our younger people are getting more physical-activity-conscious nowadays since applaudable efforts to widen opportunities for PA such as the launch of Bandarku Ceria and the opening of numerous hiking sites and gyms booming in 2019-2020. But this could just be my skewed perception looking at a small and specific demographic of the population - more formal research needs to be done.

So, we know that the environment is the main factor that drives up the obesity pandemic. But if we are all living in an environment which predisposes us to develop obesity, why don't we ALL have obesity? This tells us that there are other factors that makes an individual more likely to act on the environment's impulses - such as their socioeconomic status (income, education) and especially their genes.

3. Income

Research among developed countries such as the UK, Australia, Germany and Singapore has shown that people who are from lower income level are significantly associated with a higher risk of obesity. This graph below just shows how stark the inequality is between the most and least deprived areas of the UK. Note also how rapidly-widening the gap is over the years!

Why are poorer families in developed countries more likely to live with obesity? 

Food that are more nutritious are often less affordable than nutritious food. I particularly love this infographic showing how in order to meet the general recommendation of a healthy diet in the UK, the poorer families would have to spend 39% of their income on food alone, while this percentage steadily decreases as your income increases, to as low as 8% for the richer families. The same pattern is reflected in many other countries including the USA, Australia and

This inequality is not just seen within countries, but also across countries. One study across 18 countries identified that in order to meet the recommended guideline of 5 servings of fruits and vegetables per day, families in lower income countries would need to spend 52% of their income on them, those in middle income countries would need to spend 17% while those in higher income countries would need to spend a mere 2% of their income.

The price gap between healthier and unhealthier food can then affect people's purchasing behaviour, where families from lower income are forced to prioritise quantity of food over quality. For some of us, we are privileged enough to be able to choose food that are delicious, nutritious, and of different variety each time. But for some others, especially among families with poorer background battling food insecurity, they can only afford to eat in order to feel full and get through the day. Research has shown how poorer families always have to 1) balance out their choices of food with the utilisation of scarce resources, and 2) make judgment of food prices relative to other food prices. Combining this with the known fact discussed above that unhealthier food are FAR more aggressively marketed (almost 20 times more) than healthier food - we are left with a group of the population who are predisposed to choosing food that are mainly satiating, and less nutritious than the recommended guideline.

In fact, we know that even more factors than those discussed above can contribute to people from poorer families having an unhealthier diet. One of them is, on top of the price gap of groceries, we have the price gap of fast food. Parents who are busy and don't have much time to cook nutritious and homemade food often resort to fast food to sustain their family. Sure, we have a plethora of fast food options to choose from (and they just keep increasing - don't get me started). But what kind of fast food is both affordable and nutritious? Nasi katok costs $1 while a balanced meal costs $5 (minimum), and this disparity is seen all around the world.

Given all this, we still have the audacity to say that obesity is simply caused by a lack of willpower?

Gimme a break. It is clear that people who are not as financially privileged requires additional support in order to maintain a healthy weight. If not through finance, through education (further explained in Cause 4), or even better - both!

Side note: Despite the overwhelming evidence that having low income is associated with higher risk of obesity, there is also emerging evidence showing the possibility of the opposite (reverse causality); living with obesity is ALSO associated with having low income due to stigmatisation and discrimination. So basically... living with low income may cause people to live with obesity, and likewise living with obesity may cause people to live with low income. This syndemic is similar to the that of obesity and mental health issues discussed in Part 1.

4. Education

Health is not formally taught in most schools. Health starts at home. Because of this varying education level and awareness about health across the population, each family has very different approaches of ensuring how their family can grow up adopting healthy behaviours.

Generally, the likelihood of having obesity increases with decreasing level of education. This was observed in many countries including Taiwan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. The trend is similarly reported in OECD countries such as Australia, Canada, England and Korea as shown below.

This may be because more educated families tend to have healthier lifestyles and are more aware of what the causes and consequences are of obesity. If a family is lacking awareness and knowledge on certain aspects of health, such as in nutrition - eg: what the importance of consuming enough fibre is, what exactly constitutes a balanced diet, how to cook nutritious meals under time constraint etc - then their family will be less likely to adopt healthy (protective) behaviours.

Awareness on the causes and consequences of obesity indeed remain low within many communities. In one study, 76% of young people surveyed believe that "obesity has a genetic cause and that there is nothing much one can do to prevent obesity". Almost 30% of them also believe that even when substantial changes were made to one's lifestyle, obesity cannot be prevented. In the UK, around 3 in 4 people didn't know that obesity can cause cancer - the leading cause of death worldwide.

Not only are people unaware of the causes and consequences of obesity, many people even show a general lack of understanding of obesity itself. It was found that among 401 Malaysians surveyed, 92% of those with obesity underperceive their weight, thinking that their weight is at a normal range or lower than it actually is. This is particularly concerning, because any intervention efforts to reduce obesity rate within a community will just bounce back by the majority of the target group who think the messages are 'not for them because they don't have obesity' when they actually do.

All in all, if you come from an educated family background - good for you. If you have the opportunity to study more about health, or human/medical sciences - good for you. But what about those who do not have all these privileges?

Side note: There is also evidence showing how having lower education level is not just associated with higher level of obesity in a direct manner, but also indirectly where having a low education level may contribute to households having a lower income, and as discussed above in No.3 -> may result in a stacked effect on obesity. This is called the mediation effect and more explanation can be found here (pg 133).

5. Genetics

Over 200 genes influence our body shape and size. This include genes that affects how frequently we feel hungry, the rate that we burn calories, our metabolism rate, and many more! Some of these individual genes can increase our likelihood of becoming heavier while some other genes tend to make us lighter depending on whether it is 'switched on or off'. And this mix of 'on and offs' for EACH gene is always going to be different between individuals (polymorphism).

Because of our own 'mixed bag' of ~200 obesity-related genes interacting with each other, some people will find it much harder to resist that bar of Kinder Bueno sitting on the cashier till, while some others wouldn't even bat an eye. Some people naturally feels full after a bowl of rice, while some others would need three bowls. Some people can store a large amount of fats while some others can store only half of that amount before those fats (lipids) seep into other tissues instead such as muscles and potentially cause diseases (lipotoxicity).

Our genetic differences within the population explains why some people respond differently to the obesogenic environment we live in. It is not as simple as our genes determining whether we develop obesity or not. We simply can't be saying "Oh it's in my genes, got it from my parents~" to justify our lack of effort to address obesity. There's no single gene that makes people develop obesity. But rather, our mixed bag of genes determine our susceptibility to obesity. For people with many of those genes that makes it likely for them to gain weight easily 'switched on' -> they will be more susceptible to obesity because their own biology makes it much harder for them to fight back the temptations of the obesogenic environment.

Because this concept is so difficult to be understood by people who have always had a healthy weight all their life, privileged with not having the genes raising the likelihood of obesity 'switched on' -> they tend to blame obesity solely on the individual's personal choice. Because their own biology makes it easier for them to resist the temptations of the obesogenic environment.

As Joslin - an American doctor - described almost a century ago which pretty much summarises the role of genetics in obesity:

Genetics probably loads the gun, while lifestyle in our obesogenic environment pulls the trigger for the spreading of the obesity epidemic.

Does this mean that people who have genes that makes it more susceptible to develop obesity can simply blame their genes for their weight?

No! Not entirely. They can and should apply the same general concept of weight loss to counteract the risk of obesity, i.e. - eating balanced meals, doing plenty of physical activity (going back to the boring law of thermodynamics: more calories out than in = weight loss). However, it will be especially harder for these people to achieve it due to their obesity-encouraging genes. They have to put in more effort to lose 1kg than someone with less of the obesity-encouraging genes.

What this means for those with obesity: Your own genes and biology is one of the factors why your BMI is considered high at the moment and why it feels so difficult to lose weight. It is important for you to understand this, so that you don't beat yourself up too often! It is not entirely your fault. It will be hard, and in fact it will be harder than many people, but what matters is for you stay focused in putting in the work to get there!

What this means for those with healthy weight: It's about time for you to stop blaming everything on the individual's personal choice when you don't even know how difficult they have it and how much they have been trying to fight their own biology. Don't act like you know their struggles just to shame and stigmatise them because you don't and neither do I. Leave it to their close family and personal doctor to consult them.

What this means for policymakers: We have a duty in making sure that 1) the environment is as conducive as possible to live a healthy lifestyle to avoid 'triggering the gun', and 2) people are aware that genes play a big factor too (of around 40-70%) in determining someone's weight and its not just entirely down to the individual.

Side note: The genetic explanation above which acknowledges the role of hundreds of different genes in the development of obesity is applicable to the majority of people living with obesity (polygenic obesity). However, there are also the minority of people who develop obesity due to mutation in single genes (monogenic obesity / syndromic obesity) which warrants a separate and more technical explanation.

Bottom Line

To summarise the cause of obesity:

As mentioned in Cause 1, how we develop obesity is always down to the individual eating more and moving less. But as explained in Cause 2, 3, 4 & 5, the complex interaction between the environment, the individual's socioeconomic conditions, and their own biology explains why it is so difficult for some people to eat less and move more.

To summarise the cause of the obesity pandemic:

Personal choice explains why one individual may develop obesity, but the environment explains why more people across the whole world is developing obesity. Our socioeconomic conditions and especially our genetics then explains why not ALL people develop obesity as a response to the change in environment.

So what should I do with all these information?

That's entirely up to you and how much you understood! But the reason why I brought this topic up is because I'm personally sick and tired of hearing people living with obesity being blamed for their "poor choices in life", "lack of self-control", for "being gluttonous", "lazy", etc.

As I have hopefully explained, obesity is undoubtedly very complex and a result of so many factors. These five things I mentioned above? There's. So. Much. More.

Click here for a clearer view.

So the next time we blame it all on people with obesity - check your privileges. You're rich? You're naturally slim? You're educated? You don't have as much obesity-encouraging genes? Good for you. Perhaps that tends to make you feel entitled to say that people who are living with obesity just needs to make "better choices".

But understand that you have it easier in maintaining your healthy weight, while people with obesity most likely have it harder. The least you could do is really be sympathetic and understanding, acknowledge their struggles, and certainly avoid shaming and stigmatising them. Make it easier for them by providing healthier choices and support them physically and emotionally in their goals of achieving a healthy weight!

Aren't you just giving an excuse for people to live with obesity?

Disclaimer: My BMI sits quite well on the healthy range at 23 kg/m^2. I am nowhere close to having obesity, nor do I have any family members, partners or close friends living with obesity. I literally gain NOTHING to be making up an excuse for people to live with obesity. Quite on the contrary, I understand its dire consequences as I have outlined in Part 1, and I have even mentioned personal choice as one of the causes above. It's not about giving excuses, but simply an effort to give voice and justice to those who has been silenced.

I hope I have gotten my point across through this post and the previous one in my Obesity Series! Let's all be more-informed members of the society and support each other in achieving our health goals :)

*Note: For simplicity purposes, ‘unhealthier food’ in this post refers generally to food lower in nutritional profile, and food high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS). In reality, we should understand that food does not exist in a binary manner.

Unlinked References:

Gene Eating by Giles Yeo (Book)

CMO Independent Report: Time to Solve Childhood Obesity by Professor Dame Sally Davies

[kiddshopp]

Why do you make packs of things that aren't kid friendly? Like oruan high school host club or assians creed? That should probably not he on a kid friendly blog? Not tying to be mean I really don't understand

Two reasons (kind of more like three):

1. (the shorter reason to explain) The age-regressor community contains a lot of people who, in additions to being age-regressors, are also fictionkin or fictives (someone who identifies as a fictional character or an alter in a system who originated as a fictional character, respectively), with their source material not being child-friendly things. Being that they may well be associated with media that is Not Child Friendly (e.g. Assassin’s Creed or Dragon Age, two games whose characters I can remember making posts for), the goal in those posts is to take something that would be associated with those characters that is child-friendly (IIRC the Assassin’s Creed character also cited that they liked pirate/nautical things because that fit in with the character’s theme in the game, and there’s plenty of kid-friendly stuff around those themes. For the Dragon Age one, I also believe I included a bunch of things that I thought would have appealed to the character when they were a child - like, things they would have used in their context in their childhood. The vast most of characters that exist and that someone can thus be kin/fictive with/of were once children, after all.) If you’re not familiar with the concept of fictionkin then I can attempt to explain that or link to explanatory posts or something, but I wanted to keep this portion of the answer fairly brief. And of course not everyone who asks for things relating to media like that is doing so because they���re one of the characters for it, but there are requesters who make requests that explicitly state they are, or they phrase the message in ways that, because of my personal way of running this blog, get translated to things FOR that character as opposed to necessarily OF them.

2a. Lots of people associate different things with their regression. Given that age-regressors are not physically children, they can be (safely) exposed to things that are Not Child Friendly and be aware of those things when they regress. That means that technically they can have things associated with their regression that an Actual Child wouldn’t be able to associate with their current state of childhood. (I’m of course making the assumption that said child wasn’t significantly exposed to anything Not Child Friendly during their childhood; I’ve known strangely large numbers of people who associate movies like Eraserhead and Pink Floyd: The Wall with their childhood and nostalgia because they were shown them as children. For those people, those Not Child Friendly things would be legitimately associated with childhood, even if they aren’t suitable for kids.) But anyway, some people associate Not Child Friendly things with their experience of child regression, either because the thing makes them happy and happiness makes them regress, the world a fantasy story takes place in is more appealing than the setting the person lives/lived in so they have childlike fantasies about it, there might be a child or child-friendly character in the thing in question so they associate that child character with childhood, the medium reminds them of child-y things (e.g. cartoons or anime that aren’t child-friendly being associated with age-regression bc of their medium, OHSHC is an example due to its medium), etc. 

(Weird personal example that you can completely skip but that I wrote because it gives an actual example of something Not Child Friendly that hits most of the above points and because I can analyze it in depth due to it being my thing: I more-than-a-little-bit associate the Hellraiser movies with age-regression despite them not being remotely suitable for children. In my case, it’s because I like that series a lot so it makes me feel extremely happy, which tends to make me age-regress; a lot of people report age-regression brought on by specific emotions, such as happiness. I don’t feel happiness a lot which is why more things don’t make me regress like that. I also have some really extensive headcanons/semi-confirmed-by-canon things about the movie that basically state that even though the demon-like characters who used to be humans now literally live in a Hell Dimension, that dimension is preferable to the lives they’d previously been living so even though it’s a pretty messed-up thing, there’s something really child-ly satisfying about thinking of a fantasy where people can run away to another world that, while also being bad, doesn’t have the specific bad things that made their own world miserable. Yeah, I consume very little media that has actual desirable settings. Also, one of the characters - the one called Chatterer, if you were curious and knew about the movies and wanted to know who from the movies I’m talking about - is a child, or at least can be argued to be one, because spoiler warning they went to the Hell world when they were a child and in one of the movies where the demon-like characters are turned back into humans, Chatterer turns into a human child despite having been played by an adult until then, so I see them and go “yay fellow child”. Again, kinda messed-up but that’s what my brain does. I turned this tangent into its own paragraph because I realized that’s how long it had gotten and it’s completely skippable.)

2b. There’s a surprisingly large number of child-friendly items and merch available for some Not Child Friendly media. With some things, you can get official action figures or plushes or other toys of the characters, even if those toys weren’t made for children (it’s still a type of thing that Actual Children use). Mainstream example: a lot of people think Star Wars isn’t suitable for children (or younger children anyway), but loads of Star Wars merchandise aimed at Actual Children exists. Some of the things that exist for Not Child Friendly media, while not aimed for kids directly, are still cute and therefore something a child might like (example: any time someone requests something relating to an anime, I usually find cute keychains and stuff depicting the characters, because those are a thing apparently. You can get cute anime characters on practically anything, it seems, even if the anime is Not Child Friendly but the type of item is.) And a lot of people (on Etsy or Redbubble or stuff, two sites I use a lot) create things relating to Not Child Friendly media that are still appealing to children (e.g. cute or cool posters/stickers/plushes/clay models/etc. of characters from things that aren’t considered child-friendly media). So that’s basically how it’s possible to make posts about media that isn’t suitable for kids but that contains items that would be suitable for Actual Kids.

I didn’t read your message as at all mean, it was honestly a good question that I imagine at least some other people were wondering as well. It’s less that this blog is 100% child-friendly for Actual Children PER SE but more that it’s geared towards those who are physically teenagers or adults but experience childhood nonetheless in some way, whatever that looks like for them.

Also I rly hope you ddn’t take the length of the responses to mean that I was upset and lecturing you or aything, because I wasn’t. I just get Really Really Really Wordy whenever I try to explain something that has more than a few sentences’ worth of a short answer and that I can give some examples to explain. Hope this explains it all!