Music Review: Sia - This is Acting

I don't get Sia. I admire her voice greatly, but she lacks any special qualities that make a music star. I also don't get this facade of not revealing her face. It's not edgy or original and actually has to be one of the crappiest gimmicks in musical history. Her albums are repetitively swooned over by critics and so I thought I'd give her another try, obviously being sensible and not participating in any internet defamation, writing a good honest review that won't to pander to a demographic.

The standout selling point for 'This is Acting' is that the material was written for other artists by Sia herself. Sounds intriguing doesn't it? Well no actually, because who wants to pay full price for an album that's essentially sloppy seconds rejected by other artists. Sia would have had to tailor these songs to other artists, so why the fuck would she then rehash them under her own banner only to collate the results into a cut and stick job for wholesale? If other artists have rejected the material then that takes balls to then try and rework them with your own neck on the line, because I would have thought that alarm bells would be ringing in Sia's head when she realises she's recording material that names such as Rihanna and Katy Perry have rejected. I mean have you seen the low quality material that Rihanna and Katy Perry actually choose to release? I'm not sure I would want to be performing the scrapings from the bottom of the barrel.

The big standout single is 'Alive', which is just awful, and feeling alive after a listen would probably be mankind's greatest achievement. It wasn't a million miles away from making my 'worst songs of 2015' list, as it's not exciting, it's not original, the pacing is terrible, and as for the crescendo, well why anyone thought repeatedly screaming I'm still breathing whilst noticeably gasping for air would sound good on a pop song is a mystery to me. The whole thing was just so unpleasant to listen to that it made by ears virtually bleed. If that's an iconic feature then this album should be heading to the bin instead of retail stores. Where emotions come into the equation is a mystery to me, as apart from wanting to put Sia out of her misery there wasn't any positive thoughts to be found here. It was actually a lot like listening to a live band at a crappy pub, not one of the most highly renowned artists of the decade. 'Alive' was such a terrible way to kick things off that the rest of the album becomes a bit like expecting a horse to win the Grand National after being shot in the head as a result of falling at the first hurdle. In short you can't build a house without foundations, and Sia's foundations were full of shit.

'Alive' isn't the worst song on the album though. Oh no, the worst song by far was 'Sweet Design', which isn't sweet and wasn't well designed. 'Sweet Design' samples the equally terrible 'Thong Song'. The thought of 'why?' ended up repeating itself in my head constantly, and at no point did it ever occur to me that something as poorly composed as this should ever be released to people with functioning ears. No album given five stars by anyone should ever contain anything as unpleasant as this. If this really does signify emotional completeness of the album then this is the part containing all the scorn and hate that dominate my emotional sphere; but just by giving 'Sweet Design' a listen you can understand why.

This album isn't remotely captivating or enticing. Instead 'This is Acting' is just uninspired and pretentious drivel that has a surprisingly samey formula that's overall really bland. I get that Sia has a great voice, and I love when she shows it off without becoming pretentious, but aside from the odd change in pace it's the same bread and butter formula as previous albums without adding anything interesting. Why the hell would anyone buy this? It's like rejecting a brand new lawnmower for an old used one that's the same price. I've seen reviews were the songs that in my opinion are pointless time-wasters, which by the way never create any kind of ulterior picture, are actually defended with the argument that they provided what is essentially comic relief; something I'm sure everyone buys a musical album for. If this is an emotionally charged album then what the fuck is this light hearted shit doing in there? Furthermore I've seen more reviews that claim this album is some sort of self help journey that gains confidence with each song. Sounds marvelous in theory, however any claim that any vulnerability has dissipated throughout the course of the album is quickly shot down by the final song 'Space Between' in which we find the line 'Oh, we don't bend, we're breaking'. Some fucking transformation here. You can't insert any argument you want as to how you think the album progresses, but it's instantly clear to me that there just simply isn't any, and this album was thrown together without a thought.

There are some plus point around; The lyrics are thankfully not generic drivel, and the production is absolutely stellar in places, but you would have to be a clinical moron to give this anywhere near a five star mark. I'm sure Sia herself wouldn't even class the results as one of the best albums recorded in recent years; and even she wouldn't resort to a pointless philosophical analysis in order to defend a work that never felt special. There's no journey here; just an age old formula that has stayed with Sia throughout her whole career. None of the content is remarkable in any way, and this is just another album from just another average performer. If this is how music should be done I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Final Score: 3/10

Top 10 Skyscrapers

A nice change in attitude for this article, which is all part of my newly positive approach to blogging after I was threatened with a court case. Here we will objectively take a look at skyscrapers in an adult fashion that reflects my interest in architecture rather than an emphasis on sarcastic and cheap jokes that will at no stage lead me to call anyone a vile human being.

#10 Ryugyong Hotel (Pyongyang, Incomplete)

Despite not being completed the Ryugyong hotel is the second tallest hotel in the world and the tallest incomplete building in the world. It's taken those not so industrious little Koreans since 1987 to top out the building at 330m, which is only just shy of its estimated 1989 completion date. The original plan is that this would bring in Western investors into North Korea, but mainly it was a middle finger to the investors of Singapore who had previously built the world's tallest hotel. That ship has long sailed though, and the most recent reports still suggest that this project is far from completion. Construction originally stopped in 1992 and didn't start again until 2008, leaving a huge concrete block in Pyongyang, which accompanies the existing skyline just brilliantly.

The project is now being run by Egyptians, which is always a byword for quality in engineering, and not surprisingly their shoddy job once again missed the revised estimated completion date of 2012. However this building makes the list because it is proof that North Korea does actually have some economic might when they're not in a time of crisis, which isn't often, and this menacing building is an ambitious project that actually looks well designed. Unsurprisingly the Ryugyong Hotel has been given the nickname 'The Hotel of Doom', but then it does look like something a Bond villain would build. Still, credit where credit's due, North Korea has designed and almost finished a fine looking building. Although when I look at North Korea the one thing the country really doesn't need is a hotel to support its always bustling tourist industry. I doubt the 3,700 hotel rooms will ever be at full capacity.


#9 Heron Tower (London, 2011)

The Heron Tower is one of the newest skyscrapers to grace London's skyline, and in my opinion looks damn fine. As someone who travels through London regularly it's not surprising that I have a biased view of this relatively minor creation on the global scale, but to me it's aesthetically pleasing enough to warrant a mention. The Heron Tower is the tallest skyscraper in the CITY of London, standing at 230m tall, and yes I know that doesn't make it the tallest building in the metropolitan area of London, just the inner city.

It may never win awards for being the tallest building in the world, but I think it looks great. The facade in particular makes it look like something you would find in the IKEA catalogue, and that's because the individual areas in the design are referred to as 'villages', of which there are ten, each having their own unique environment and contributing to make the building look like flat pack furniture. The star of the show is the huge aquarium that complements the modern looks and sleek design perfectly. The huge fish tank is the largest privately owned aquarium in Europe.and houses over 1200 fish. The building just like the tank is self sustaining and epitomises the economic growth of London, adding something to the London skyline with its practical design.


#8 Taipei 101 (Taipei, 2004)

At 509.2 m this building was the tallest in the world from its opening in 2004 until 2010, becoming the first building in history to break the 500m barrier. Even today this is still the tallest building considered 'green' on the planet and seen as a big milestone in engineering. The way this whole project was engineered is the reason why this building makes the list. It sort of needed to be; Taipei 101 is located just meters from a fault line and also in an area where the chances of a typhoon occurring are very high. I know it's Chinese and so is bound to have boundless resources poured into it, but this is a building that can withstand winds of 134mph and the strongest Earthquakes recorded by man. There's even a 660 tonne counterweight that suspends from the top that effectively sways to counterbalance a building under huge stress.

Even looking past the features that make this an engineers wet dream you still have a building that's still as sustainable as you can possibly get. It has an LEED platinum rating for energy efficiency, making it the only supertall skyscraper with that distinction. The building even acts as a huge sundial to Taiwan, and is even listed as the largest in the world. This is such a revolutionary construction that it's even considered by some publications to be one of the seven modern wonders of the world, and it's easy to see why when you consider the detail that's gone into it. Even minor features such as the elevators are engineered to perfection. To climb 84 floors just takes 37 seconds, making the lifts in this building the fastest in the world. But the thing I love about it the most is just how much it fits into the Taiwanese skyline. It's sort of like a big Chinese pagoda and incorporated just about every rule of Feng shui there is to follow, creating a masterpiece with a staggering amount of detail.


#7 The Shard (London, 2012)

Named because it quite literally looks like a shard of glass, this is in my opinion the nicest building by far in the London Skyline, and one easily recognisable to any Londoner. It also has the distinction of being the tallest building in the EU, although that's because Russia isn't a part of the European Union, which is a bit of luck considering they're quite good at this skyscraper business. However what hey haven't done is made one as aesthetically pleasing as this British beauty that for me is one of the most attractive ways to kick off the regeneration scheme on the London Southbank. This building is the perfect cornerstone for London based developments, although it's actually jointed owned by Qatar for whatever reason. But fair play to them, this conglomeration of oil money and architecture helped create what I think is a mildly arousing iconic landmark for London that in time will become synonymous with the city.


#6 Bank of China Tower (Hong Kong, 1990)

Look at that. I know very little about architecture, but even I can tell that this building is something special. It's record setting as well, and was actually the first of many buildings outside the USA to break the 305m mark, standing at an impressive 367.4m. That iconic triangular structure that gives this building such a breathtaking and unique look is meant to resemble the growing of bamboo shoots, which although sounding symbolic is actually ignoring feng shui principles that govern the majority of oriental buildings. And I for one am glad they told the feng shui guys to fuck off, because this building looks fucking brilliant. The disorder in the design is perfect, with sharp and angular edges that give it that character that a sleeker look wouldn't have given it. This building will undoubtedly have that lasting impression on the Hong Kong skyline that the designers were aiming for and it's a great symbol of complex architecture and engineering, being both striking to look at and practical on an everyday basis. At least it is if you haven't watched Battleship. In that film it was obliterated into an attractive pile of rubble.


#5 Shanghai World Financial Center (Shanghai, 2008)

That monumental construction in the foreground of the picture above is the eighth tallest building in the world. It's 492m tall, contains 101 floors, and cost 1.2 billion dollars in total. That 164 foot wide gap in the top by the way not only looks nice but serves as an observation deck and a nifty way to stop the immense wind pressure at that high altitude. Yeah, you read that correctly, an observation deck 474m off of ground level. The design does look a bit like a bottle opener, but a fucking attractive one at that. In theory this is almost the ultimate skyscraper. It looks brilliant, it cost a tonne to build and finance, and it has just about every single purpose known to man. It even contains the world's highest hotel.You have to give it to the Chinese, when they want to make a statement they do a damn fine job of it.


#4 Willis Tower (Chicago, 1973)

Most famously known as the Sears Tower before 2009, this skyscraper upon completion broke just about every single record possible for a building. At 442m it held the record for the world's tallest building for 25 years, although if you count the antenna this building retained that claim until 2008. To this day the Willis Tower is still the fourteenth tallest building in the world, and as such is till one of the most famous landmarks worldwide. It's well designed too, and despite looking a bit blocky is actually very economical in terms of cost. This gargantuan construction totals 416,000 square meters of floor space, which only cost the developers 800 million dollars in today's money, which for a skyscraper of this size is a bargain. In fact this building is sort of genesis for the styling and engineering of supertall structures that are now cropping up everywhere with this now universally used technique of minimising costs.

The Willis Tower has become an iconic landmark of Chicago, mainly because of how awesome it looks in black. That wasn't always the case as during the first decade half of the space was left vacant inside this revolutionary building. Now however over 1 million people a year visit the observation deck which actually sways due to the high winds of Chicago, and contains glass boxes that give uninterrupted views on the pavement 412m below. From the top of the building you can see four US states in the distance, although whether you would want to is another matter considering the glass actually cracked on one occasion, which is the stuff of nightmares.

#3 Burj Khalifa (Dubai, 2009)

The rule book on skyscraper design was thrown out of the window after this jaw-dropping construction was completed in 2009. It's barely believable that this creation even exists after reading the stats about this surreal building, but it's such a positive symbol for what can be achieved in engineering that you have to praise everyone involved with this outstanding project. This isn't just the tallest building in the world, it's the tallest structure in the world by a good 200m, and the nearest building in terms of height isn't even designed to be functional to humans. This however is, and it's a staggering 828m tall, has a world record 163 floors, has an elevator that travels 504m, has the world's highest observation deck at 545m in which you can see the shores of Iran, and that's without getting into the records set by all the technical details.

Somehow despite all these records this building only contains half the amount of steel used to build the Empire State Building despite being twice the size. The clever engineering means that the Y shaped configuration saves raw materials and also allows a maximum amount of potential sunlight to be harvested by the windows, although the 120,000m squared of windows require 4500kg of water to wash, and takes four months to complete. The spiralling pattern too means that wind is not so much a factor, which is very important to consider when you're over 800m in height. The weight of the concrete alone is 110,000 tonnes, so to minimise wind resistance is key to this building's design. It's no surprise then that this cost 1.5 billion dollars to complete, but then you really do get what you pay for. The Burj Khalifa is a building that shifted the boundaries of what is possible with architecture; a symbol of what humanity can achieve if you get Koreans to do the building for you, working with rubbish pay and conditions.


#2 One World Trade Center (New York, 2013)

I'll give you one thing America, you certainly know how to pull off a skyscraper. What's even more intriguing about this building is that it was built next to the site of the 9/11 attacks, which is presumably why this was given the symbolic name of the Freedom Tower during construction. It's an impressive statement in the face of terrorism, and in my opinion far more attractive than the previous Twin Towers that this new construction exists in the very large shadow of. Those towers never had a beautiful glass reflection or striking appearance, and so in some way their destruction could be seen as a blessing in disguise. When you look at the statistics it becomes even more impressive when compared to the original. The building is 541.3m, or 1776 feet, and I bet you can't guess why the freedom centre is that exact height? Fair play to America though, that's one way to stick it to the British. Maybe the next British Skyscraper should encompass a quarter of the Earth, because that's a respectable achievement to brag about.

Jokes aside this is the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere. Although that title comes with controversy as many believe the spire is actually an antenna and therefore excluded from the total height. No, seriously this is a huge ongoing argument. Really is one of life's biggest issues. What isn't up for debate is that this building has a grand total of 104 floors despite actually only having 94, which makes no sense, but I doubt many Americans can count that high anyway so it doesn't really matter. Officially this is the world's most expensive skyscraper at an estimated cost of 3.9 billion dollars. But you know what? It looks like a 4 billion dollar building. In the same way that the Empire State Building once became the iconic landmark of New York, I feel this new building over time will become the same, putting not just New York, but America at the forefront of engineering greatness.


#1 2 International Finance Center (Hong Kong, 2003)

Oh yeah, in my opinion this is the greatest skyscraper in the world. For me it's the one that gets it just right. It's not to sleek, not to pretentious, just a huge and practical block of concrete that naturally accompanies the skyline without dominating it or just showing off, yet still leaving a large impression. Okay it's not built to break records, just operate like a normal building, but it fits into the surroundings perfectly and looks absolutely epic. As well as being an impressive structure and looking a bit like a dildo, the 2IFC doubles up as a multi-story underground mall as well as containing thousands of offices and public amenities. Currently the 2IFC is the eighth largest office building in the world, measuring 412m exactly, which is an impressive statistic, although the building is now probably most famous for being one which Batman jumped off in the Dark Knight. Probably wanted a better look at that gorgeous structure.

Christoforge vs Creationism: Answers in Genesis

Next up on out tour of creationist crap is the website 'Answers in Genesis' who have attempted to collate all the stupid arguments that evolutionists use. Let the irony commence.
_____________________________________________________________________________
https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/12-arguments-evolutionists-should-avoid/
_____________________________________________________________________________

No, I'll admit that these first two points are actually fair points. Proclaiming something as a fact and only understood by the intelligent does make it true, and I find it increasingly noticeable that people use science as almost another religion, discrediting arguments in the same way that 'Answers in Genesis' is doing here. This ignorance fails to look at the larger picture, jumping to conclusions. This is hopefully what I'm going to be debunking today by actually providing some evidence instead of making the vague assumptions that 'Answers in Genesis' love to do, and I expect the same attitude from the source being as they've already voiced their displeasure at blind ignorance. I don't agree with their point that the unobservable past cannot be explained through human understanding, as then how can you explain anything? They seem to be pretty confident that the inverse argument is true even when by their own admission it's impossible to know for a fact since the unobservable past cannot be determined. Stating that a higher power was responsible is simply based on belief, and of course we know how much 'Answers in Genesis' hate it when people blindly determine facts. The sources used are even worse and just there to cut and stick bible verses in between scientific theories and quotes by people who are barely qualified to even be called scientists, but then what did we expect from an article that quotes directly from The Bible.

To actually respond to any of the arguments on this list you have to concede that any scientific theory is based on assumptions, so by simply dismissing a theory on that basis is simply rejecting scientific methods full stop. The theory of evolution is an example of this, and despite what you claim is a study that has no observational proof, there are many cases both in the lab and in nature that show the process is visible over a period of time. As a biology student I have actually undertaken that lab experiment sourced above, and in just a short four hour period I was able to evolve E.Coli into a resistant strain. As far as I'm concerned that's damn more direct, first hand, and observational proof than creationism has ever provided. The second argument is even worse and revolves around calling famous scientists of the past uneducated. Famous scientists I may add who are no longer living. Intelligence and scientific perspective are both relative and so change over time, meaning your comparison of scientific attitudes in different periods is both inaccurate and hypothetical. We're not living in the 19th century anymore and therefore the point that Isaac Newton wouldn't have believed in evolution today is hypothetical nonsense that you have no way of knowing. That's a bit like calling Archimedes an idiot for not knowing the now commonly accepted fact that there's a planet in our solar system called Uranus. Education is a pretty good indicator of the validity of a person's knowledge of a subject, hence why you source qualified scientists. And let me tell you, evolution is one of the most commonly accepted scientific theories out there.

The article continues with this denial of scientific progress. In this particular scenario 'On the Origin of Species' and The Bible are simply two sides of the same coin. Before The Bible was published creationism wasn't a big deal, so it's actually quite ironic to bring up a point about how attitudes change in accordance with revolutionary works. Scientists at the time of Darwin had no way to prove evolution that modern technology now allows us to, but does that suddenly mean evolution couldn't have happened? I still don't understand why evolutionists can't use this argument. The only point being made in this argument is that evolutionists can't be right because the author has a differing opinion. Bit of a hypocritical stance really isn't it?

The next argument is even more stupid. I wasn't aware that studies in physics and biology were instantly comparable, and in my funny little world I always thought that the scientific methods used were the only comparable part. Gravity for example is a constant and therefore isn't a random process, which explains why it can be proven instantaneously. In reality that experiment you explain with the pencil would not prove gravity exists, rather that a force is exerting itself on the pencil, attracting it towards the centre of the Earth. To then make the childish comparison of that experiment to an amoeba instantly turning into a goat is idiotic. Not only are the chances of that amoeba turning into a goat minute, because as explained previously evolution is a random process, but even if all criteria were met that process would take hundreds of millions of years with many transitional species in between. This stupid argument forgets that evolution is not a forward thinking process and instead falsifies a whole theory based on a singular piece of evidence, taking an entire process out of context. You may as well have jumped to conclusions by falsifying the theory of gravity because pencils float in space, therefore proving that gravity can't exist.

Firstly you can easily observe that the Earth is round by using a sundial or observing the path of a ship on the horizon, so that point about The Bible proving that fact is just nonsense. The quotations used from The Bible are also just so vague. It's clear that quoting from a work of literature shouldn't be taken literally, especially when it's used as a source for scientific evidence. But, yeah right it's the evolutionists who are the ones with the assumption based beliefs. The second explanation is even more bizarre. Basic numeracy has nothing to do with the validity of scientific theories, which for the record cannot be found in any sort of framework from The Bible no matter how many quotes you try and desperately squeeze for alternative meanings. We get no explanation of the relatedness of species or how 'lines of descent' are explained between fossils from any holy book. I wouldn't expect that explanation from a source such as The Bible, because as previously stated it's not something that should be taken literally, and the points made are allegorical instead of primary evidence.

I hope evolutionists don't claim that natural selection and evolution are the same thing, as natural selection is a component leading to the change in allele frequency over a period of time. However the explanation from 'Answers in Genesis' is just as bad as those that mix up two scientific principles. It is correct in claiming that natural selection, which by the way isn't necessarily observable, cannot cause speciation, since that is determined by reproductive barriers, but then it fails to actually explain what natural selection is in the first place, or what the consequences are. This article jumps to the conclusion that evolutionists believe that natural selection causes an instantaneous change in morphology of organisms over a single generation, when in reality this is caused by mutations that are then subsequently selected for. This line of argument sure as hell doesn't disprove the process of evolution, and the claim that The Bible is supporting of natural selection is encroaching on the controversial world of eugenics.

Argument eight is again banging on about assumptions. The Bible and creationism are of course not assumptions if you were to believe this source, and so entirely more valid arguments in every single way despite any reasoning. This argument is also atypical of all the points I've previously raised on here as it continues with vague waffle that isn't backed up by any evidence. Do they have any right to even claim that a common designer fits in with the evidence of common descent better without providing any counter evidence? I'm sure 'Puff the Magic Dragon' fits the evidence that he is the creator instead of evolution occurring, but that doesn't make his existence any more valid. Is intelligent design really the more logical conclusion when taking into consideration the diversity of life on the planet? Take the penis for example; the morphology of a penis is different in just about every single organism, but why would something with the same function be made differently every single time if it served the same function? It's just entirely illogical.

Oh not these fucking assumption again. IF YOU TRY AND DISPROVE EVERY ARGUMENT BASED ON THE FACT IT'S CONSIDERED AN ASSUMPTION THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE ANY SCIENTIFIC THEORIES FULL STOP. As for the second point, well that's just idiocy. It is correct in saying there are trade-offs between the rate of mutations and the rate of evolution, with the majority of mutations being deleterious, but that is exactly the purpose of natural selection. Earlier this article banged on about about how natural selection being part of the biblical worldview, yet here you simply dismiss its very conventions. Stop contradicting yourself, and stop making vague assumptions with zero evidence.

The final two points suffer from exactly the same flaws as every other one on this list, yet it's us evolutionists that should apparently stop using the same arguments all the time. None of the points on here have been disproved with any evidence, with the only source being The Bible; a work of literature. Leave science for scientists to determine, and not for spiritual individuals to just aimlessly guess.

Morons of the Internet: The Tab

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we have one of those male feminists who thinks judging other good minded feminists is the route to gender equality. I bet you never thought you would see me writing an article defending feminists, but I can sure you the main aim of this article is to defend pornography.
___________________________________________________________________________
https://thetab.com/uk/durham/2016/02/27/porn-27270?utm_source=localxpost&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=pages
___________________________________________________________________________

Wow, what a solid introduction to the argument from our resident expert in sleaze. For some reason he thinks he's an expert on pornographic themes and tropes; which is a bit creepy when you've considered he's gone to all the effort of analysing the individual roles of porn stars. According to him all the signs point to a male dominated art form, and of course when you jump to conclusions like that the only result is to instantly screams sexism when you disapprove of something. We never get any solid evidence as to why you shouldn't watch pornography, just some vague observations from a singular source. My main issue with this argument is that the author evidently forgets that porn is a fictitious work. He doesn't seem to understand that I can have an ideology in real life despite also having viewing habits of fictional material. I love 'The Godfather' as a film, yet I would never agree with someone being murdered in cold blood. It's the same principle with this pornography argument. You have no evidence apart from your personal feelings to suggest that the business in question is sexist, with your only point being that the content you've seen is largely derogatory towards women.

Fine, I accept your point as a serious one, but tell me this: If the pornographic industry really is this bad towards women then why is there not a shortage of female porn stars? Maybe you should actually get the picture from the perspective of a porn star rather than just your own uninformed opinion, and then maybe that might change your outlook. Also I find your point about just female performers being objectified strange. Are you honestly telling me that the male porn stars are held in high regard by the material? If you were to believe this author you would think male porn stars were effectively celebrated. Speaking of male performers, if your hypothesis of having one active and one passive role is true for all pornography then surely this argument would also apply to gay porn as well. In that scenario who's the one being mistreated? Either you have to admit that men experience sexism in the porn industry or you have to cede that the attitudes towards gender are not inherently sexist. Either way your allegations of sexism are made redundant.

Careful with your language here mate; does porn 'only' cater for men? You disprove that point in the very next paragraph when referring to the singular female based category. So in actual fact porn does cater for women, with the reason that there is significantly less content aimed at the female demographic is because significantly more men watch pornography. Only 24% of the total 'Pornhub' viewers are female, so why should they be equally catered for? What I can't work out with your nonsensical logic is if these pornography watching women could be called 'feminists'? How could they try and promote their gender rights when they watch something as inherently sexist as porn? 

This argument is ignoring the basic principles of supply and demand economics. In reality the viewing habits of people who watch porn has nothing to do with sexism, and you have no evidence to prove that it does in any way. The only conclusion you lead to here is the quite comical admission that feminism has done fuck all to desexualise the breast. I just love the use of the word 'fighting'. I could be fighting a brick wall with my bare fists, but I'm never going to win am I. I also love how you just assume that all feminists will rally to this quite pathetic cause. Fuck their individual free will, if someone wants to identify themselves as a feminist then how dare they get sexually turned on by porn. The message here is that the author agrees women should be liberated as a gender, unless of course they view breasts and pornography sexually, as then they're just funding the patriarchy. Great logic.

Yeah how dare pornstars try and act like they're enjoying sex when that's what their payed to do. Surely they must know what this author does about the business. If I was them I too would take fictitious events literally and act like the sexual violence is real. Who honestly cares if this isn't realistic or reflects common beauty standards? I think you might be mistaking the common audience who watch porn, as they're ulterior motive isn't to be intellectually stimulated by a gripping narrative. What person would actually want to watch porn friendly for feminists, or whatever the hell ideology this imbecile has? Porn is a consumer product, and it appears the author hasn't grasped that fact. The actual content of porn has nothing to do with gender equality, and try as he might this author can't unfortunately prove that with his feelings. You could make the argument that the porn business itself is sexist by bringing up the fact that female performers are payed far more than their male counterparts, but I forgot that's not how the mind of this biased piece of shit works.

Is it any wonder why a growing number of people are being alienated by feminism when crap like this is spewed across the internet. This is another example of how these minority of feminists treat their followers like a cult. If feminism really is about the liberation of gender inequality then why shouldn't individuals be allowed to watch porn? Instead of actually providing a balanced argument looking into the world of porn this is just slander that caters to an individual's feelings. It's pretty fucking ignorant to then demand a change from the industry when you yourself have proven you have no idea on even the basics of the porn industry. Maybe instead of passing the blame you should look at your own actions, and by shunning the habits of others with terribly written articles you aren't going to be rallying many to the feminist cause.

Top 10 Sitcoms

#10 South Park (1997-)

A bloody modern sitcom for a bloody modern audience. I'll happily admit that 'South Park' is not everyone's cup of tea, including mine actually, but I love the way this animated cartoon doesn't give a shit about anything, and as a result produces some of the most insane and memorable scenes possible for the boundaries of comedy. This is a sitcom aimed primarily at adults, but actually for a younger audience this is one of the more relatable comedies in recent memory, and perfectly optimised for a modern day audience. A show about students cocking around is perfect for adolescents, and the often puerile and immature jokes support this younger target market, even if the content is often very mature. Unlike many modern sitcoms this is a fantastic work of satire that focuses on dark and surreal humour to get laughs, often offending just about everybody it can in the process. This humour changes with the times as well, with often well publicised events being quickly scrutinised by the writing team in the most shocking way possible, leading to some unforgettable scenes that are perfect for that point in time.

What sets apart 'South Park' from the rest of the animated competition is just how fresh and intuitive the content is. It's a well known fact that each individual script is written the week before the episode is scheduled to air, allowing the content to be both topical and relevant in its own unique way. However shock value is the key to this show's long running success, and I can't think of another sitcom that comes close to this level of dark humour. I love how this show doesn't give a fuck about political correctness, and it's no surprise that many others feel the same way. It's just a shame a certain minority don't understand the context of the satire on show, subsequently blasting the style of humour with little thought. 'South Park' was such a successful sitcom that it's seen as solely responsible for the rise of Comedy Central as a cable channel, and although the quality may have gone downhill in recent seasons, the topical subjects still deliver their weight in comedy even if the premise becomes more politically motivated as time goes on.


#9 Seinfeld (1989-1998)

It's hard to see how a show like 'Seinfeld' ever became such a hit sitcom. The premise is essentially about absolutely nothing, and it doesn't have any recurring or interesting plot points that would leave viewers wanting more. But what a huge ratings hit this turned out to be, and actually ended up becoming a staple part of 90's culture, containing jokes that have become part of comedy legend over the years. However for me what makes 'Seinfeld' so special is how it uses that now famous humour. This unique style has to be accredited to creators Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld who could both write a great sketch with ease, and their know how is evident with each episode. Their style is a great mix of observational and black humour that was just perfect for the time period, creating a style that was never stupid or serious despite being based on the fundamentally flawed topic of absolutely nothing.

'Seinfeld' is probably the greatest example of how a sitcom should work. The show contains characters that are both believable and play off each other nicely, and there is a consistent use of quality comedy that never feels like it's designed to get a cheap laugh. It feels like a real life production, and that's because the very idea is to base the narrative off of real life events. The show never becomes bigger than reality itself and so many episodes are usually just a simple problem from daily life, but that's all part of the rustic charm that blurs the lines between comedic conventions and everyday life. It's a very ingenuous idea, and one that was achieved with just four simple, yet open ended characters. In a way it was a blessing that the cast were open ended personalities as this led to a huge diversity of styles with each episode. The results of this were hugely impressive. 78 million people tuned into the unfortunately disappointing, but very fitting finale; proving just how popular the show was over its lengthy tenure.


#8 M*A*S*H (1972-1983)

'M*A*S*H', or Mobile Army Surgical Hospital, is probably the greatest satire in American television history. You know you're doing something right when the finale is still one of the most watched in all of TV history, with 125 million people tuning in; a 77% share of the total American audience. When you consider that the original series struggled in ratings this is an incredible achievement from what would later be considered a great piece of television. The high ratings reflected the superior quality of episodes, and you could tell that this was a TV series based off of a film because it felt like an epic production and played out like a sophisticated Hollywood drama. The genius of 'M*A*S*H' is that it was aired during the Vietnam war, yet took place during the similarly fought Korean War, and so actually became a very intelligent satirical production on the controversial topic of war. At it's heart this was a lighthearted show, but in between the comedy was some serious themes. In fact the narratives were often based on real life stories, so there was always that sense of realism that drove home the message of conflict over just plain jokes.
 
'M*A*S*H' was a comedy that could contain such an emotional range throughout each episode. In just a few moments the viewer could be happily laughing away, and just a dew minutes later feel a genuine sense of remorse after a characters' plane is shot down all of a sudden. Not only is that proof of how well the characters have been written into the sophisticated storyline, but also how well each role is acted out, allowing you to actually care about their cast in their comedic pursuits. This isn't a comedy that's aged particularly well, but there are a few jokes that you can still appreciate the intelligence and messaged conveyed. Even if the jokes don't do it for you then surely you must appreciate the way that strong messages are combined with the lighthearted elements to produce a comedy series that's never been replicated in message or scale.


#7 Dad's Army (1968-1977)

'Dad's Army' is the result of what happens when the British decide to satirise warfare. The result is a lot more quirky and charming than American counterparts, and at its heart unmistakably British in its execution. The real star of this show is the characterisation of some of the most defining personalities in British comedy history. Everyone just lives their roles to perfection, and despite being an eccentric bunch of personalities, all the cast pull off that level of realism to make some absurd situations seem like they were a vital part of war. The characters are such a highlight, and are actually bigger than the show themselves. They're aided by some damn fine writing, but their unique personalities will live on as legendary figures in comedy despite their physical limitations and their desire to never be taken seriously. There's even a film being released soon, which has got no chance of being even half as good as the original, but still showing that this long lived favourite still has an appeal to a drastically different audience.


#6 The Office (2001-2003)

Yes, this is the original British version of the now famous sitcom. The equally successful American version must be praised for being able to stand on its own two feet, but it's never managed to trump the original in terms of quality or comedy. The British version may have only lasted for two seasons, but in that short time it's become one of the most notable comedies of the modern age, appealing to audiences on a global scale and catapulting talent such as Ricky Gervais into the public eye. The ultra realistic setting and characters in this satire make this such a down to earth production, but the content is so relatable to an audience tired of their everyday lives that the formula is nothing short of genius.

The British version is the one with some great comedic characters, and some such as David Brent would become iconic over time. This popularity stems mainly from the realism, but also because Gervais as a comedian just fits into that office role perfectly. In fact all the characters are both larger than life and yet frighteningly realistic at the same time, and this style is what drives the writing, which is something I think the US version fails with. The US version is more eccentric and in no way reflects the mundane and subtlety of working life like the British version did. You don't get the sense the US version would actually happen, where as in the British version you actually start to see the characters as people in a similar way you would in a serious high budget drama. And for me, the ability to relate and care for the whole cast was the standout feature of this overall polished production.


#5 Only Fools and Horses (1981-1991)

A British classic that's still fondly remembered today by people of all ages. It's a sitcom centred around the pursuit of riches, which at the time of airing was a perfect allegory for many lives in the British population. It's lighthearted take on the human condition was unsurprisingly a huge hit, regularly scoring huge ratings and breaking records for British comedy. Even today many episodes are seen as a significant moment in British comedy, regularly being repeated to the still large fanbase. From 1985 onward this show was churning out comedy gold on a weekly basis, constantly providing fresh material and strong narratives to accompany the various characters. They eventually overdid everything with a stupid number of Christmas specials, but even those episodes are worth a watch for their content alone.

Aside from the later special episodes, this was a series that never managed to lose the original charm and wit that everybody fell in love with. Each episode has the quality to be re-watched multiple times whilst still enjoying the spectacle. 'Only Fools and Horses' is something so quintessentially British yet actually well performed and executed, which really is a rarity in sitcoms. The writing is absolutely sublime, and the jokes are so well executed that it's no surprise that many have become legendary TV moments over the years. The 'bar flap scene' in particular is one of comedies all time greatest moments, and in reality there are hundreds of beautifully executed gags throughout this show's long history.


#4 Family Guy (1999-)

A personal favourite of mine, although in terms of a sitcom the quality has declined significantly in previous years. Originally however this was one of the best and forward thinking comedies on the market, with a style that used to make intelligent and witty jokes with the odd reference to pop culture. There were also a wide range of characters with unique personalities that they hadn't yet ruined, with an amazing cast of minor characters included that all had individual characteristics that could accompany any comedic narrative. This foundation has now all but disappeared, taking the show away from episodes that would draw you in to sequences where you feel forcibly drawn in by attention seeking material. Running gags and tenuous references are now at the fore, with a noticeable lack of intelligent material that used to really surprise me in older episodes that you would expect to be littered by the flaws of such a crude production. Even worse is the prominence more recently of some really damn serious episodes, including one where they killed off one of the main characters for absolutely no reason; and that's just no fitting in with the style that made me hold this franchise in such a high regard.

Having said that 'Family Guy' is still one of the funniest shows on TV. I do love the emphasis on cutaway gags no matter how irrelevant they are to the scenario, and the storylines that branch from the cast's relationship with each other are mostly top notch. Some of the episodes may not be the good fun I expect from, but this always was and still is the first sitcom since 'The Simpsons' to really push the boundaries for a mass market. I love shows that are deliberately dark, and so the satire in this is right up my street. This show takes the piss out of everything, even itself, and it does this in such a spiteful manner that you can't help but take every message with a pinch of salt. Of course that strategy isn't going to be a hit with everyone, and not surprisingly this is a very controversial success story, but when has any radical idea not been met with resistance? Although 'Family Guy' does almost emulate 'The Simpsons' with its premise, it is in my opinion a totally different show that draws in viewers with its unique and lovable style. The show is starting to revert to that classic style, so it looks like there's still a future for this series with many more watchable seasons to come.


#3 Fawlty Towers (1975-1979)

In only twelve episodes this sitcom managed to gain a legendary status as not just one of the greatest sitcoms of all time, but also one of the greatest TV shows. This is the role that famous comedian John Cleese was waiting for, and he owns his central role as Basil Fawlty. In this role he shows off his eccentric personality and is so good that he almost engulfs the rest of the cast with his immense screen presence, owning every scene with his larger than life personality. When that charisma is paired with the various and stereotypical hotel guests and supporting cast it creates for some iconic moments in comedy history. All these classic moments comes from the sheer ineptitude of each character, and because of this this is my opinion this show is one of the few sitcoms where the humour never feels forced and always naturally flows from scene to scene.

The quality and content of each episode is just unbelievable. It was said that each episode took sometimes four months to write, and that level of detail is evident. This sitcom told a far greater story in just twelve episodes than others do in decades, and that has to be because of the storylines that are so well written and implemented. This was a groundbreaking format for British comedy, turning out fresh comic genius in every episode, and that's a rarity for a sitcom. This maybe the only television programme I can think of that hasn't declined in quality and public perception over the years, and doesn't look like it ever will.


#2 The Simpsons (1989-)

Who would have predicted that when this animated sitcom first aired that it would become such a hugely influential hit on the whole genre? Now almost six hundred episodes on and the title of 'America's longest running sitcom' and I doubt there isn't a family in the Western World that hasn't had this comedy institution beamed into their living rooms at some point. 'The Simpsons' was a show that actually changed pop culture forever. For the first time an animated sitcom was given its true potential, and instead of relying on realistic scenarios to pass as relevant a comedy could now create a whole universe in which to set up an endless possibility of gags. That's not to say 'The Simpsons' isn't realistic, and actually the realism is all part of the appeal, becoming vital in how this franchise broke down barriers for animated television.

'The Simpsons' got satire in a way that was so much better than any contemporary sitcom before it, somehow pulling off the trick of making global audiences care about animated characters that were in no way serious or mature. Some of the characters presented here are so well thought out and written that they almost do pass as real human beings. All the cast are so well depicted and voice acted that you really do start to care about some yellow figures that couldn't possibly exist. The first few seasons of 'The Simpsons' were the highlights. During this time you had such complex plots that jokes would naturally accompany. Some of the episodes and gags are so well written that you have to pause the video just to see them, and it's this incredible detail and artistic integrity that made the series, so it pains me to say the quality has declined significantly over the last decade. 'The Simpsons' is still a great watch that pumps out new material on a regular basis, but it's this high on the list purely for its groundbreaking origins.


#1 The Inbetweeners (2008-2010)

For me personally this is sitcom perfection. When 'The Inbetweeners' first arrived on the scene I was exactly the right age to get every single gag, and the series is so well written that I could have sworn it was written by someone my age who actually understood what makes me howl with laughter. No sitcom in history has ever managed to hit its target market quite like this one, and as I'm still at that age I can happily watch every episode again, and find the material so brilliantly funny. Every line is quotable and every scene is memorable. The antics are such a departure from the depressing and mediocre view of teenage life that this show has, but it fucking nails the storylines in every respect.

I'll admit that this isn't for everyone. The style is centred around the British lad culture, and as such the characters are just absolutely perfect for their roles. They're not larger than life, yet in their own average way all incredibly special with their own hilarious personalities. Trust me, this may be juvenile for a sitcom, but I think this has some of the most intelligent uses of comedy I've ever seen on a television. Some of the situational comedy is just so good it's side splittingly funny; and that's coming from a man who doesn't laugh for the hell of it. The films are also just brilliant, and I' even rated the first a ten out of ten, which is the only comedy film to get a perfect score from me. The television series is even better though, and it was such a shame that a comedy this good only lasted for three seasons.