Connect with us

Entertainment

Man slams religious people who criticize women who do plastic surgery

A man has taken to Twitter to attack religious people who criticize women for doing plastic surgery just to make themselves happy.

In a series of tweets he shared, the man stated that there’s no difference between plastic surgery and what people do at the gym.

He wrote,

What’s the difference between a lady who does cosmetic/plastic surgery to take out some belle fat and tuck it into her hips, and another lady who works out 6 times a week for 2 years to burn the same belle fat and build her hips by squating regularly?

What’s the difference between one who does a one time facial cosmetic surgery to erase dark spots, acne, wrinkles so she could look 10 years younger and another who applies deep layers of cosmetic make-up everyday to have the same look?

I have heard several religious people say that plastic surgery is a “sin” because she’s altering what God created, but what does the gym do? Isn’t that also a form of alteration? Why do we even have to judge other people using our stereotypical cultural or religious standards?

When we apply cosmetic make-up and look totally glammed up, build our chest and muscles, dye our hairs, wear beautiful tattoos or even put on artificial hairs, aren’t we altering our “natural looks”? Or are these lesser “sins”?

You might say the gym is safer, but who’re we to define what’s safer if a surgeon certifies a procedure to be safe. I’ve seen people break bones, dislocate joints & die from accidents or heart attack in the gym. So a bad procedure could happen in the gym or on the surgical bed.

I’ve also seen women who give birth to their child through Cesarean Section being shamed and condemned because the same people who judge others say CS is an “unnatural” process and she’s less of a women.

While the lady at the gym has $1000 to spend for 6 days a week over 2 years to get her result, the other lady is happy to pay the same $1000 for only 6 hours to get the same job done & it doesn’t mean she wouldn’t keep exercising.
Same goal, same result but different strategies.

There are also numerous types of plastic surgeries to correct deformities, scars from accidents, reduction or removal of a threatening body part. So not all plastic surgeries are purely cosmetic but who are we to decide what is functional for one person and aesthetic for another.

When we say people are not confident in their bodies, who’re we to say they aren’t and why don’t we judge those who wear braces to improve their dentition to have a better smile, those who wear expensive artificial hairs or wear expensive cosmetic make-up to look more beautiful?

Many years ago, women who wore artificial hairs were said to be attracting evil spirits and considered sinners but today things are progressive. Years ago women weren’t even allowed to wear eye lashes or skirts above the knee. The society always tries to control and condemn.

If you don’t like your job, fix it. If you don’t like your relationship, you should fix it & if you don’t like a part of your body do fix it.
Not everyone does things for external validation, some people just want to feel happy internally & beautiful in their body & that’s fine.

What works for Oprah is different from Beyonce or Kylie. There isn’t a single perfect formula to find true happiness, so let’s respect the choices of people if it makes them truly happy. Let’s advocate for best practices so far as people can afford it and it doesn’t hurt others.

What’s the difference between a lady who does cosmetic/plastic surgery to take out some belle fat and tuck it into her hips, and another lady who works out 6 times a week for 2 years to burn the same belle fat and build her hips by squating regularly?

What’s the difference between one who does a one time facial cosmetic surgery to erase dark spots, acne, wrinkles so she could look 10 years younger and another who applies deep layers of cosmetic make-up everyday to have the same look?

I have heard several religious people say that plastic surgery is a “sin” because she’s altering what God created, but what does the gym do? Isn’t that also a form of alteration? Why do we even have to judge other people using our stereotypical cultural or religious standards?

When we apply cosmetic make-up and look totally glammed up, build our chest and muscles, dye our hairs, wear beautiful tattoos or even put on artificial hairs, aren’t we altering our “natural looks”? Or are these lesser “sins”?

You might say the gym is safer, but who’re we to define what’s safer if a surgeon certifies a procedure to be safe. I’ve seen people break bones, dislocate joints & die from accidents or heart attack in the gym. So a bad procedure could happen in the gym or on the surgical bed.

I’ve also seen women who give birth to their child through Cesarean Section being shamed and condemned because the same people who judge others say CS is an “unnatural” process and she’s less of a women.

While the lady at the gym has $1000 to spend for 6 days a week over 2 years to get her result, the other lady is happy to pay the same $1000 for only 6 hours to get the same job done & it doesn’t mean she wouldn’t keep exercising.
Same goal, same result but different strategies.

There are also numerous types of plastic surgeries to correct deformities, scars from accidents, reduction or removal of a threatening body part. So not all plastic surgeries are purely cosmetic but who are we to decide what is functional for one person and aesthetic for another.

When we say people are not confident in their bodies, who’re we to say they aren’t and why don’t we judge those who wear braces to improve their dentition to have a better smile, those who wear expensive artificial hairs or wear expensive cosmetic make-up to look more beautiful?

Many years ago, women who wore artificial hairs were said to be attracting evil spirits and considered sinners but today things are progressive. Years ago women weren’t even allowed to wear eye lashes or skirts above the knee. The society always tries to control and condemn.

If you don’t like your job, fix it. If you don’t like your relationship, you should fix it & if you don’t like a part of your body do fix it.
Not everyone does things for external validation, some people just want to feel happy internally & beautiful in their body & that’s fine.

What works for Oprah is different from Beyonce or Kylie. There isn’t a single perfect formula to find true happiness, so let’s respect the choices of people if it makes them truly happy. Let’s advocate for best practices so far as people can afford it and it doesn’t hurt others.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Entertainment

BBNaija2019: Khafi Threatens To Sue The Sun Over “Damaging” Publication

Khafi Kareem in her London Metropolitan Police uniform

The management of Khafi Kareem, an enormous Brother Naija constant, has vulnerable to sue The Sun, a British tabloid, over what it considers “repulsive and damaging publication” regarding her.

This was contained in an exceedingly statement free via Khafi’s Instagram page.

Khafi, presently within the massive Brother reality programme, became fashionable viewers for her relationship and sexual activities with another housemate, Gedoni.

The Sun had on weekday according that Khafi, United Nations agency could be a laptop with the Metropolitan Police, had been denied permission by the organisation to participate within the reality show.

However, reacting to the report, Khafi’s management aforesaid it’s considering a legal choice against country tabloid except it publically apologises and retract the now-viral report.

The statement read: “The attention of Khafi’s management has been drawn to a publication by The Sun Britain on weekday, August 13, 2019, titled ‘LOIN OF DUTY Met Police ‘poster girl’ faces sack for ‘having sex’ on Nigerian massive Brother when being told to not take part’.

“The brazen sensational and denigrating outburst by The Sun Britain is written in poor style while not considering the ethics of journalism that seeks balance and sound judgement.

“At no time did The Sun Britain send a mail of inquiry to Khafi’s official email that is blasted across her social media platforms beneath active management to substantiate or refute the claims within the publication.

“Khafi’s aspect of the story is deliberately and handily omitted to sell a pre-conceived narrative whereas responses from “outraged colleagues” and “other papers” riddle the publication.

“This comes from a repressing culture of shaming and characterising girls for his or her sexual choices and life decisions.

“We realize The Sun UK’s publication repulsive and damaging to the image and bread and butter of our consumer.

“We demand an on the spot retraction of the publication by The Sun Britain and a public apology to our consumer Khafilat Kareem inside succeeding forty eight hours.

“Legal choices also are being thought of at now.”

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Fast & Furious 9: Hobbs and Shaw movie reviews

Fast and furious 9

The those that created “Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw” apprehend that Dwayne Johnson (Luke Hobbs) and Jason Statham (Deckard Shaw) have a simple adversarial chemistry. They build the film around their put-downs and pranks. Statham stays targeted on however Johnson’s size makes him appear reasonably dumb and clear. And Johnson picks on what Associate in Nursing indecipherably British imaginary creature Statham is. At some purpose, Hobbs gets a load of Shaw’s stable of sports cars and asks if he’s, uh, overcompensating.

 

 

Seems right for 2 individuals Associate in Nursing yankee agent Associate in Nursingd Associate in Nursing English mercenary United Nations agency spent an exciting sequence at the highest of the seventh “Fast & Furious” film throwing one another through glass windows and designer piece of furniture. This spinoff is additional of a similar. But, written by Chris Morgan, who’s handled most of the “Fast & Furious” movies, and role player Pearce, it weighs less and appears to understand that, too. David Leitch directed it, and also the fights and chases succeed a form of swish brutality that produces sense for the maker of “Atomic Blonde” and also the second “Deadpool” and United Nations agency had a hand within the 1st “John Wick.” it’s a decent hip-hop audio recording and also the style of coherent writing that you just want for one thing with this abundant close bone-breaking. The weight, however, extends to a plot that produces no sense, Associate in Nursingd involves an extinction-level virus that Shaw’s intelligence-agent sister, Hattie (Vanessa Kirby), has heroically injected into herself which doesn’t the least bit diminish her legerity, wit or capability for flirt.

The filmmakers thus wish to take care of the joshing between Johnson and Statham that the movie’s ostensible action label and also the lust Shaw fears Hobbs has for his sister want pretexts for the romantic comedy “Hobbs & Shaw” nearly is. Idris Elba plays the movie’s biomechanically increased supervillain, and not that way into things, he wonders aloud who’s about to stop him. So, for a solution, there’s a move a split screen of Johnson and Statham in their various beds. every goes concerning his day — wakening, eating, exercising, taking phone calls at the same time with the precise same response. “Jinx!” i believed to myself.

None of that produces “Hobbs & Shaw” higher. It doesn’t save the film from a saggy setup for the face-off, in Samoa, between Elba’s anonymous paramilitary goons and Hobbs’s largely anonymous Samoan family.

Estrangement is that the movie’s huge theme — Shaw hasn’t seen his sister in ages, and Hobbs swore he’d ne’er return to it island (meaning his good 9-year-old female offspring has ne’er met her formidable grandmother). The film doesn’t care concerning the strains in these relationships, thus why strain them? Nothing changes if Hobbs and his brother (Cliff Curtis) ar on smart speaking terms. They’d still assemble dozens of their siblings and cousins for the finale’s different phases. They’d still fathom the way to affix a bunch of trucks to a flying chopper. It’s simply additional pretext.

The whole factor simply makes Maine miss however attractive and violent movies wont to be. Here, all the violence is sex. Only, it’s not. It’s simply winking. That chastity could be a quiet lament within the sidekick film possible to be taking part in across the hall from this one, Quentin Tarantino’s

That film incorporates a heap to mourn, as well as the concept that sex has gone out of the flicks. At some purpose, Tarantino shows North American nation a motion picture for Joe Namath and Ann-Margret in “C.C. and Company,” a loud, dumb, fun bike romp from 1970 within which all Namath will is tussle, drive and, with her, fool around. A film like that portended twenty years of action-thrillers that additionally had a sexual desire. the ladies didn’t forever fare well, however no one feared sex. That was as present as smoking and guns.

We don’t believe the sex any longer. All we’ve got now could be the guns. once “Hobbs & Shaw” whisks everyone to a Moscow mansion stocked attractive thieves and Shaw walks in and plants one right the inciter (Eiza González), Hobbs and also the sister look on in horror. We’re grossed out, too. he’s overcompensating.

Continue Reading

Trending