Be honest: Does your heart skip a beat when you see a medicine cabinet full of the very best skin care? Skin has always been in, but the days of slapping on any old moisturizer are long gone—now having a curated routine is completely normal, and you’d be hard-pressed to find a Sephora shopper who doesn’t know the difference between essences and toners. Critics might call such a devotion vapid or useless, among other things, but we firmly believe putting time and energy into a skin care regimen isn’t an empty pastime.
So whether it’s a vital part of your self-care, you’re looking for something specific to add to your top shelf, or you’re just curious about what the latest and greatest exfoliator is, take a look at the luxury skin care products that live up to their name—and price tag. Our editors and beauty pros share why.
Denim has been a tried-and-true favorite of concert-goers for ages, from Woodstock all the way to Coachella. Though, in the thick of summer, the last thing you’ll probably think to wear is a pair of jeans (hence why cutoffs reign supreme this time of year). Even if, at first glance, 501s and the desert heat don’t exactly seem like an ideal pairing, Levi’s presence on the festival circuit proves that the brand’s bread and butter lends itself to a range of scenarios—and climates.
Year after year, Coachella after Coachella, some of the best festival style from Indio, California comes out of the annual Levi’s poolside brunch, where celebrities like Hailey Bieber, Candice Huffine, Joan Smalls, and more come together to show off their best, most inventive denim styling.
“I remember how amazing the fit was on my first pair—they’ve been my favorite ever since,” said Bieber, the recently-appointed first-ever face of the Levi’s 501 jean, at the event. She herself was wearing the high-waisted style, cooly cuffed at the hem with a lingerie-inspired top. For fellow model Smalls, the key to making denim work for the summertime lies in juxtaposition: “of something oversized with something super-girly,” she told Glamour.
As temperatures start heating up, we’re taking cues from these denim-clad, always-well-dressed celebrities we caught up with in Palm Springs for tips on how to style your jeans in the summer. Check out five formulas to copy from now until Labor Day, ahead.
With lingerie up top…
Balance out the coverage of a full-length jean with something a little bit more revealing up top. Take notes from Bieber and her lingerie-inspired styling from the first weekend of Coachella: a lacy bustier top is breathable, while also making your casual denim feel more sophisticated.
With a super cropped top…
When thinking of ways to style your jeans in the summer, your first instinct might be to go for a shirt that’s way lighter—which will probably have you grabbing the nearest crop top. Instead of a frayed-hem vintage tee, consider going for a more polished, long-sleeved style. Emily Ratajowski, for instance, styled her white jeans with a leopard-print, front-tie blouse, an outfit that can definitely be replicated for a happy hour in July.
With your favorite throwback trend…
Let’s face it, The Parent Trap served some truly iconic fashion looks in 1998 that still hold up today. And, with the themes of camp and nostalgia back in a *very* big way, tie-dye is truly hotter than ever. Model Candice Huffine took this to the max at the festival, with her cropped T-shirt and denim cutoffs—she even added a scrunchie for good measure.
With opposite fits…
This is pretty much the same idea as mixing denim with lingerie, but only with shapes: Pair a baggy, wide-leg bottom with something more fitted as a top—or, if you prefer skinny-fit jeans, go for a loose blouse. Amandla Stenberg’s double-denim look, of a corset with oversized flare, is a great example of how to make it work. “Looking effortless is actually the hardest thing — it requires the most effort,” the actor tells us.
With major pops of color…
Another way to distinguish your fall denim #OOTD from your summer denim #OOTD? With the color story. For autumn, you might prefer to style your jeans with berry and navy hues. In the summer, though, you should go for a neon palette, like Smalls did at Coachella.
When I first watched Gentlemen Jack, now available on HBO, I was gobsmacked by its leading lady Anne Lister. Played by Doctor Foster star Suranne Jones, the character is based on the real-life Lister, a lesbian landowner in 19th-century England endowed with the gift of gab who kept meticulous diaries about her life. On screen, Lister translates as both intense and persuasive. At first I found that maddening; but eventually, my attraction to her crept up like a schoolgirl crush. She’s intoxicating and sexy in ways that are totally unconventional for a TV lead. And that was Gentleman Jack creator Sally Wainwright’s master plan.
Wainwright has been working on adapting Anne Lister’s diaries for the screen for over 20 years, and the result of her efforts is a period drama that features complex women on-screen, captured by many brilliant women behind the camera. “People haven’t been aware that women like Anne Lister existed until now because people like her have been rendered invisible by history,” Wainwright tells me. “That’s why Anne Lister’s diary has been referred to as the Rosetta Stone of lesbian life [in the 19th-century]. We realized we have a clear record of the level of intimacy that existed amongst women.”
Wainwright and Jones both wanted to ensure that Anne’s queerness was depicted realistically and fairly, so Wainwright hired a lesbian advisor and an intimacy advisor to coordinate the sex scenes. Jones appreciated having the experts available to her. “I think, in the current climate, every show should have [an intimacy advisor,” Jones says. “It just makes everyone safe and comfortable. We had someone that we could talk to if there were any questions.”
“I wanted to make a point of not being gratuitous,” Wainwright says of the sex scenes. “But I wanted to combine that with making a big character. Anne Lister was a great lover, and her sex was very evolved. I think we shot the scenes in a way that’s very beautiful, very apt.”
Jones and Wainwright worked with the advisors to treat every detail delicately, considering everything from the feelings of the women Lister slept with to the temperature of the room. “We looked into how they all had sex differently and how comfortable they were,” Jones explains. “Those houses are really cold, so you’d need to have your nightie on. Also, it’s really important that if anyone knocks on the door and walks into the bedroom they could jump apart and pretend they were just two friends sleeping in the same bed, which women [at the time] did without any questions being asked.”
“I think if anyone’s looking for titillation or flesh, this is not the show for them,” Jones continues. “It’s a much more intellectual, psychological vision of a character.”
This attention to detail even carried out in the way Jones physically played the character. “We took from the diaries the fact that she walked quickly and upright, that she sounded deep and masculine,” Jones says. “She was mistaken for a man and called ‘Gentleman Jack.’ So we worked with her intelligence coming out in a physical manner like big gestures.”
As a lesbian myself, there is much to lust after in Gentleman Jack. Lister is unlike any lead character I’ve seen on TV—she’s towering, intimidating, unnerving. She also vibrates with life and excitement in a way that feels completely timeless. As Wainwright told me, Lister was a “fantastically bold woman who just didn’t conform to societal norms, who didn’t hide her sexuality.”
That boldness is fiercely female—even if, historically, it was once labeled as “gentlemanly.”
Jill Gutowitz is a writer and comedian living in Los Angeles.
Following the death of Luke Perry on March 4, the last episode that the actor filmed of Riverdale is scheduled to air on Wednesday, April 24, at 8 p.m. ET, on the CW. Since the series started, Luke had been portraying the role of Fred Andrews, father to Archie Andrews, played by KJ Apa.
On Sunday, April 21, Riverdale creator Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa shared with his Twitter followers the news of Luke’s last episode, writing, “This week’s #Riverdale is the last episode Luke filmed. As always, Fred’s imparting words of wisdom to Archie. A beautiful, true moment between a father and his son. Wish these scenes could go on forever…”
The cast and crew of Riverdale have not yet fully explained how the show will continue without Luke’s character, but Aguirre-Sacasa previously confirmed that the series would be addressing his death. “We know that we have to address it in some way, but we’re giving ourselves a little bit of time and space before we figure out the best way to honor him,” he toldEntertainment Tonight.
Additionally, Cole Sprouse, who plays Jughead on the series, confirmed there was “something planned narratively,” Entertainment Tonightreported.
Since Perry’s passing, Aguirre-Sacasa revealed that every future episode of Riverdale will be dedicated to the late Beverly Hills 90210 actor. In the episode that aired on March 6, two days after Luke’s death had been confirmed, the show placed a memorial title card at the conclusion of the episode.
Prior to that, series cast and crew paid tribute to their costar by sharing social media messages that noted his impact. The tributes included a message from Lili Reinhart, who wrote, “I’m finding it hard to grasp that he will no longer be around to give long hugs and share his wisdom and kindness with all of us. I’m thinking of his family. His children. I pray for them to heal and find peace in this devastating loss.”
Game of Thrones fans are waiting on pins and needles for the battle between the living and the dead. HBO has been building this war up for seasons now, and it’s only a matter of time before we see it. The Starks have a pretty solid plan in place to lure the Night King to Winterfell (essentially, they’re using Bran as bait). But one fan on Reddit, Jurkovsky, thinks the family isn’t fully prepared for all that could happen. There’s a new theory floating around suggesting the Night King isn’t going to Winterfell at all, but to King’s Landing—which throws a wrench in literally all the Starks’ plans.
It makes sense, when you think about it. After all, Game of Thrones has a history of making viewers believe one set of events would go down and then throwing the wildest of curveballs. This just happened in season seven, when Tyrion was discussing the plans to obtain Casterly Rock. Here’s what Jurkovsky posits specifically:
“The scene [from Sunday’s episode] with Jon going through the battle plans reminded me a lot of the scene in [season 7] when Tyrion was discussing the plan to take Casterly Rock whilst they showed out the actual events. In this scene, the Unsullied were tricked and the Lannister army used this deception and took High Garden instead.
I believe this is exactly what will happen next episode. We will get the entire battle of Winterfell, and at the end the characters will be waiting for the Night King and they will show him riding Viserion, yet when they pan out it won’t be towards Winterfell. It will show him riding towards Kings Landing.”
So if the Night King is going to King’s Landing, does that mean he’s going to kill Cersei? Is he trying to make more White Walkers? My head is spinning with questions.
The trailer for episode three provides even more evidence for this theory. Notice how we see the army of the dead at Winterfell’s gates, but not the Night King. We only see him briefly in a shot flying on Viserion. “I believe this was some trickery by the producers, and that will be footage from the Night King in King’s Landing at the end,” Jurkovsky continues.
I could totally see this happening. After all, Sansa did say in season seven that they needed to be fighting this battle from all angles. That includes King’s Landing!
Of course, we will find out what happens definitively at some point this season. Game of Thrones airs Sunday nights at 9 P.M. ET on HBO.
Within even the last 12 months, there’s been a shift in how we talk about climate change. What we once framed as a serious, but distant threat is now an imminent catastrophe, with implications that are hard even to imagine. And as the crisis deepens, all the other issues we face—from public health to national security to immigration—will become that much more complicated to address. It’s no surprise that as sea levels rise people who live in coastal cities will be at greater risk for flood or that parts of sub-Saharan African will have to contend with famine in the more immediate future than the Pacific Northwest. Those are discrepancies we can plan for. What’s less understood is the extent to which climate change overall will have a disproportionate impact on women.
As scientists put it, climate change and gender are inextricably linked. In less-developed regions it falls to women to gather food and water for their families. If crops can’t grow, those women will lose both their livelihoods and their food source. At the same time, as extreme weather events become more frequent, huge populations of women and families are forced to leave their homes. Women will bear the brunt of the crisis. “If we don’t consider gender roles in our understanding of climate change and its solutions, we might end up exacerbating gendered inequalities,” says Dr. Miriam Gay-Antaki, a University Teacher in Human Geography at the University of Edinburgh, who studies the intersection of gender and climate change.
But here’s the (additional) problem: Even as scientists know that to be true, the vast majority of people who work in climate science are men. And sexism and prejudice within their ranks have an impact on the research that the field produces. Because climate research involves a range of disciplines, it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly what percentage of climate scientists identify as women, but mostestimates put it at under 20 percent. The homogeneousness of the field is more than a “bad look.” It results in derivative, narrow research that is less equipped to examine how climate change will take its toll on different populations.
“It’s absolutely vital that climate scientists and researchers mirror the populations that are impacted by climate change,” says Dr. Victoria Herrmann, president and managing director of the Arctic Institute, a think tank focused on Arctic security issues. “There’s a pretty good research base now to know that personal histories and experiences influence your own research methodology, your research bias and your research results. No individual comes to research with complete objectivity.”
Scientists should know that, but women like Herrmann report that it’s still hard to have their perspectives heard in rooms full of men, who seem to consider their own perspectives the scientific “default.” Despite the fact that she manages a team of 25 researchers, Herrmann has heard men refer to her as an intern. Dr. Becky Bolinger, an assistant state climatologist who leads drought monitoring research within the Colorado State Climate Center, is excluded from important conversations at work frequently enough that she’s developed a kind of gut-check: “Would this have happened to me if I wasn’t a woman?” (Answer: Probably not..)
This difference between how male and female climate scientists are treated begins early on, and starkly unfair experiences are not easily shaken. When Bolinger was enrolled at Florida State University to earn her master’s degree, an older male professor suggested she submit research papers under her initials because she’d be more likely to get published if people didn’t know she was a woman. “The best way to keep women in STEM when they’re going through school is to make sure the environment is open and welcome. And that can’t just be done by women,” Bolinger says. “It’s going to move a lot more smoothly if it’s men who point out when they see things that are wrong, or men who are making sure that their women colleagues are at the table with them like they deserve to be.”
Rumors of a “royal feud” between Prince William, Kate Middleton, Meghan Markle, and Prince Harry have been swirling around for months. On some days, it’s the brothers who aren’t getting along. On others, it’s the duchesses. But today’s “feud” story regroups the Fab Four: People on Instagram seem to think Kensington Palace’s latest post is Middleton and Prince William’s way of snubbing Markle.
If that statement alone doesn’t make you roll your eyes, just look at the actual photo that has commenters up in arms. It’s a birthday tribute to Queen Elizabeth II—who turned 93 on April 21—which Kensington Palace captioned, “Wishing a very happy 93rd birthday to Her Majesty The Queen!” In the photo, you see Queen Elizabeth, Prince William, Prince Harry, Middleton, Princess Charlotte, and Prince George all smiling during a Trooping the Colour ceremony. Markle, however is noticeably absent.
It didn’t take long for the comments section to blow up with accusations the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were dissing Markle by not including her in the pic. “I just noticed Meghan isn’t here,” wrote one person. “Why deliberately leave Meghan out?” commented another. A third person asked, “But where is Meghan? An official photo without her…why?”
And there are even more responses like this in the comments section. Here’s a non-exhaustive list:
“Interesting choice of photo. . . .almost like you looking for trouble. Is there not enough rumours and speculation going around. Why add fuel to the fire?”
“Happy Birthday Your Majesty👑 ps: there is a part of Harry but no MM”
“oooooh probably sending a message – the present and the future and who really matters. MM isn’t too important”
“Oh dear, methinks someone is missing from the photo…”
“Not a good display of brotherly love in excluding Prince Harry’s wife Megan [sic].”
But there’s a perfectly logical, non-shady explanation for why Meghan Markle isn’t in the pic: She physically wasn’t there. Queen Elizabeth wore her iconic, lime-green suit to 2016’s Trooping the Colour ceremony. Markle only attended her first one last year. It’s literally just an old photo. Nothing to see here. Markle was probably running her Suits lines and posting about fun summer cocktails on The Tig as this was happening.
The outrage of this is seriously hilarious. Fans are really out here thinking Kate Middleton opened Photoshop and let out a maniacal laugh as she cut Markle from this pic—which is ridiculous for many reasons. For one, I have a hard time believing Middleton or Prince William post to the Kensington Palace Instagram account themselves. They have way more important things to do, like pick out new spring shorts for Prince George.
Also, check out the full image, below. Prince Charles is actually cropped out, but you don’t see anyone drumming up feud rumors between him and the Cambridges. (Though now I’m imagining what those three could possibly fight about.)
As royals expert Katie Nicholl explained to Glamour a few weeks ago, the idea of there being a melodramatic rift between the Fab Four—specifically Markle and Middleton—is a gross exaggeration.
“I do think there is some truth to there having been some tension—not just between the duchesses but between the dukes, as well,” she said. “As we all know, things can gather momentum pretty quickly. So while I think there’s been tension, I don’t believe there has been some feud.”
That intense attention to detail also applies to the teams creating the hairstyles for the show, which often contain hidden messages about the series. But some eagle-eyed fans spotted what looks to be a mistake with Daenerys Targaryen’s braids in the season eight premiere.
You see, actress Emilia Clarke has worn many wigs over the years while playing the mother of dragons—but it looks like she wore two subtly different ones when she and Jon Snow entered Winterfell with her soldiers. Oops.
“Dany is wearing different wigs during her arrival in Winterfell ☠️☠️😓 #GameOfThrones,” one fan wrote on Twitter. “I rewatched it a thousand times hoping to find an explanation,” another replied.
Let’s take a closer look, shall we? You can see in the first shot that her Dothraki-inspired braids are sitting in a half-up style at the back of her head.
But then, in the next shot, there are more braids that are woven into a larger bun. The different wigs were easy to miss when watching the show. Once you notice the change, though, the mistake becomes quite obvious.
Others on social media couldn’t believe it, either. “Doesn’t everybody pack multiple wigs when meeting your SO’s family?” one joked. “I have a feeling this is going to cause me to spend too much time checking out her wigs for the rest of the season,” another wrote. (Same!)
In all likelihood, this is simply a continuity mistake—but those are not super common on Game of Thrones, which is why this is noteworthy. But this being Thrones, could it hold a more significant meaning? We’ll find out soon enough as the show wraps up its final episodes over the next four weeks.
Note: This post does contain spoilers for Game of Thrones. Consider yourself warned.
Of course, I love watching Game of Thrones every week to see what is actually happening in Westeros, but reading the endless theories from super fans in between episodes is almost as much fun.
Last night, on the second episode of the final season, we watched everyone at Winterfell preparing for the looming battle with the Night King and the Army of the Dead. Jaime knighted Brienne, Arya had sex with Gendry, and Jon broke some fairly devastating news to Dany about his true parentage. But it was the preview for next week that got one Redditor theorizing about events to come.
The Thrones crew never gives away much in the trailers, but there is one line in particular that led to this new theory. Daenerys says to Jon, “The dead are already here.” The most simple reading of the line is that it’s in reference to the Night King’s army of white walkers and wights, who are actually dead. But there’s another way to look at it.
“That line happens between Dany and Jon, and felt super significant — but we already see the army of the dead, felt it was too obvious to be their reaction to them. Then it clicked: The crypt is full of dead people,” IgnorantSportsFan wrote on Reddit. “All episode they keep repeating and emphasizing how safe it was in the crypt, but it’s GOT and we cannot have nice things. So is it possible we have old Starks rising from the crypts? Or is that too far fetched? PLUS we saw in multiple previews Arya fighting in the crypts with her new weapon…”
Well, that is interesting indeed. There were a lot of references to the crypts in episode two—it’s meant to be the place where those not fighting the battle will be hidden and safe. But what if it’s not such a safe space after all? Could this be the moment that Catelyn Stark reemerges as Lady Stoneheart? Guess we’ll find out next week.
Yes, she was empowered. Yes, it was one of the most consensual sex scenes in Game of Thrones history. Yes, she’s old enough to have sex. (Maisie Williams, who plays Arya, is 22; the character is 18.) These are all things I know to be true—and still, I did not enjoy Arya Stark’s sex scene last night with her friend and former traveling companion Gendry.
I’m not saying my reaction is correct or even that feminist. Objectively, I believe Arya made a strong, empowered choice with the autonomy she was afforded on her last night before the Battle for Winterfell. Arya needs no protection, nor does she need anyone telling her what to do with her body. And just a quick glance at Twitter tells me that many fans loved the scene:
Williams told Entertainment Weekly she’s happy with the scene, too, though she thought the showrunners were joking when she first read the script. “At first, I thought it was a prank,” Williams says. “I was like, ‘Yo, good one.’ And [the showrunners were] like, ‘No, we haven’t done that this year.’ Oh f—k!”
Two episodes deep in the final season of Game of Thrones, I stand where I always have: very protective of Arya. That doesn’t mean she can’t or shouldn’t ever have sexual experiences—so if that reaction makes me garbage, I get it—but as I watched I thought about how we’ve seen her grow up way too fast in every other way, from seeing her father’s beheading at a young age to fleeing her nest and going scorched earth on her enemies. Truly, the only way that Arya hasn’t been mature beyond her years is in sexual experience.
Her story has always been about revenge and murder, slicing and dicing her foes with the grace and ease of an infomercial chopping device. The writers almost got through the whole series without sexualizing her—something I really thought they would do because of her one-track mind for retribution.
But they just couldn’t help themselves, could they? They couldn’t wrap this show without Arya Stark revealing herself to a man in the nearly textbook way that almost every other woman on this show has done before. (Seriously, the behind-the-naked-female-butt camera angles on this show are like clockwork. Why must the women always get undressed before the men?)
It felt jarring to me that this is the thing Arya wants to do before she dies, when that hasn’t been fully baked into her character until now. And I’m not alone in that opinion:
There’s something else about the scene that didn’t sit right with me. Again, I’m not saying I have the correct opinion—but I want to voice how I feel: The sex scene unintentionally prodded its finger into an old wound of mine. I’ve been pretty vocal on Twitter about my desire, as a queer person, to see more diversity of sexuality on this show. After all, there aren’t many characters on Game of Thrones with a queer experience. Yara Greyjoy is a lesbian character who flirted with Daenerys last season and nearly had a killer sex scene with Ellaria Sand, but she’s never gotten her due romantically. When Yara and Ellaria kissed, men literally burst into the room to kidnap them.
As a character with a less explicit sexual history, Arya was easy for me to relate to. She was a tomboyish kid who parlayed her brawny, raw power into a brute strength—and I loved that about her. Deep down, I knew the show wasn’t going to make her queer—but I was hoping we’d make it through the series without seeing her fall into a heterosexual romance in a way that felt forced to me.
That said, I’m glad Arya got to have sexual experiences before (possibly) dying in the Battle for Winterfell, which takes place next episode. I am, really. I just have a lot of complicated feelings about it. Let me put it this way: I think if Arya had a Twitter, she’d be writing things like, “yeah sex is great but have you ever stabbed a man?”