upworthy
More

Let's break down 15 terrible excuses from accused sexual harassers and predators.

The world is currently being treated to a slow-rolling reveal of the alleged bad behavior of some of its most powerful men.

And inevitably, with bad behavior comes excuses.

It's no surprise that prominent accused harassers and predators, once cornered, would try to wriggle out of accusations of sexual conduct and abuse. What is surprising is the variety in their attempts to justify their alleged behavior. Excuses by way of apology. Excuses by way of confession. Excuses by way of firm, uncompromising denial. All attempting to convey how they didn't do what they've been accused of or that what they did do made sense to them in the moment. In some way, they're the most revealing window into the personal, social, and cultural forces that enable their alleged misdeeds.


Excuses, ultimately, reflect our beliefs about what's just and fair. Which raises some questions: Do any of them actually put the behavior in a context that makes it, in some distressing way, understandable? Do they ever work? And what does it say about us if we believe them?

Here are just some of the excuses we know they've tried:

1. I'm from a different era, and this strange, new culture is confusing to me.

To date, more than 50 women have accused Hollywood mega-producer Harvey Weinstein of engaging in a decades-long pattern of abusive behavior ranging from harassment to sexual coercion to rape. But lest "what he supposedly did" is coloring your impression of him, Weinstein wants you to remember he's not an evil man: He's just a recovering hippie!

"I came of age in the '60s and '70s when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different," Weinstein wrote in a statement. "That was the culture then."

Harvey Weinstein. Photo by Rich Polk/Getty Images.

Of course. Who doesn't remember the '60s and '70s? Flower power! Free love! Cornering women in a hotel room and trying to force them to watch you shower! Though the millions of other people who made it through those turbulent decades without harassing or abusing anyone — or threatening them if they told anyone and thenhiring ex-spies to help cover it up — might remember those decades slightly differently, Weinstein simply refuses to let the swingin' spirit die. No matter the decade, his behavior is less "groovy" and more "galling."

Weinstein's excuse depends on eliding two wildly different notions: (1) That America failed to take workplace harassment and sexual abuse seriously in the '60s and '70s, and (2) that it was OK back then — or perpetrated by anyone reared back then — as a result. While the first assertion is undeniable, the second is self-serving nonsense. Just because a behavior was ignored, tolerated, or even encouraged doesn't make it remotely close to excusable.

2. Hey, it's not like I didn't ask!

Thus wrote comedian Louis C.K. in a widely praised (and widely derided) statement confirming a New York Times report that he had masturbated in front of almost half a dozen unwilling women.

"At the time, I said to myself that what I did was O.K. because I never showed a woman my dick without asking first, which is ... true. But what I learned later in life, too late, is that when you have power over another person, asking them to look at your dick isn’t a question. It’s a predicament for them."

Some might argue C.K.'s approach forgoes the most critical part of consent: waiting for a response. Still others might assert that without getting a "yes" or a "no" back, there's no point in asking at all. Viewed that way, C.K.'s logic is baffling at best, and it's both miraculous and frightening that he somehow got to the age of 50 believing the world works like this.

More frightening still, scattered segments from C.K.'s TV show and various stand-up specials in which the comedian acknowledges viewing masturbation as a form of control or tool of revenge suggest that he did indeed know the effect his behavior had on others — and simply didn't care.

3. The closet made me do it. Also, I was drunk.

Ah, alcohol. Absolver of all responsibility. Whether knocking over a glass vase, texting your roommates at 4 a.m., or sexually assaulting teenagers, some men apparently believe that acknowledging that you were blasted when it happened is a one-way express ticket to Forgiveness Town. That reportedly includes Kevin Spacey, who actor Anthony Rapp says drunkenly attempted to force himself on him when Rapp was 14.

"If I did behave then as he describes, I owe him the sincerest apology for what would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior, and I am sorry for the feelings he describes having carried with him all these years," Spacey wrote in a statement responding contritely to the alleged incident. Since the story of Rapp's accusation broke, over a dozen more accusers have come forward.

Kevin Spacey. Photo by Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images.

To make matters worse for everyone but himself, Spacey used the space of his response to come out as a gay man — all but implying a connection between his alleged predation and his closeted sexuality. It reads as a desperate attempt to buy a modicum of sympathy at the cost of casting suspicion on millions of innocent LGBTQ Americans.

4. It's just what guys do.

Donald Trump's now-infamous comments about sexually assaulting women — "Grab 'em by the pussy" and "I moved on her like a bitch" — have largely disappeared down the memory hole, thanks to the steadily strengthening storm of scandals swirling around the now-president. Still, it's tough to forget how the former reality show host became president in the first place: by managing to convince a depressing percentage of Americans that his unscripted admission was just a case of "boys being boys."

"This was locker-room banter, a private conversation that took place many years ago," Trump said in a statement following the revelations.

Was it, though? On one hand, you've got the producers of "Access Hollywood," who fired Billy Bush for merely participating in that very discussion; dozens professional athletes asserting that, no, that's not at all what locker rooms are like; not to mention the dozens of women who have come forward and accused Trump of doing pretty much exactly what he described. On the other hand, you have the word of Donald Trump, a dude who lies constantly.

Tough call, I guess.  

5. I knew it was wrong, but no one complained, so how wrong could it have been?

"Toward the end of my time at ABC News, I recognized I had a problem," journalist Mark Halperin said in a statement responding to allegations he had sexually harassed multiple women during his tenure at the network. "No one had sued me, no one had filed a human resources complaint against me, no colleague had confronted me. But I didn’t need a call from HR to know that I was a selfish, immature person who was behaving in a manner that had to stop."

Of course, Halperin "knew" that what he was doing was wrong in the same way that his victims likely "knew" that going to human resources to complain about their boss would get them sidelined, fired, or branded as a troublemaker. That power imbalance allows Halperin to attempt to have it both ways: pretending to take full responsibility of the allegations while slyly implying that the women he harassed share the blame for not speaking up sooner or louder.

6. I'm too old and infirm to be a threat, and it was a joke anyway.

George H.W. Bush. Photo by David J. Phillip - Pool/Getty Images.

After multiple women came forward to accuse former President George H.W. Bush of groping them while posing for photos, the elder statesman did something few accused predators have the integrity to do: He admitted it.

Still, as drafted by his spokesperson, his statement-slash-confession seemed to carry more than a whiff of an implication that his victims were needlessly slandering a harmless, disabled, old American hero:

"To try to put people at ease, the president routinely tells the same joke — and on occasion, he has patted women’s rears in what he intended to be a good-natured manner."

And while it's true that Bush is in his 90s and his arms aren't as flexible as they used to be, a pat is different than a squeeze — and if someone squeezes your ass, you know. Not to mention, this explanation would appear to be contradicted by new reports that a less old and less infirm Bush was, apparently, no less inclined to grope the women (and girls, in some cases) standing next to him in photos.

7. I made them stars, and this is how they repay me?!

For some serial abusers, getting a woman her dream job apparently means assuming sexual ownership over her forever and always in exchange. Consider Roger Ailes, who reportedly made a series of unwelcome overtures to former Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, even repeatedly attempting to kiss her in his office. The excuse he gave, framed as a furious denial, attempts to marshal other, generous actions as evidence to why he couldn't or wouldn't have engaged in misconduct.

"I worked tirelessly to promote and advance [Megyn Kelly’s] career, as Megyn herself admitted to Charlie Rose. Watch that interview and then decide for yourself," Ailes said. As is commonly the case, Kelly wasn't close to alone in her accusations among the women hired by Ailes. Since former Fox anchor Gretchen Carlson launched her lawsuit against her ex-boss, more than 20 women have come forward with similar allegations.

For others, that imagined control extends to merely pretending to get women jobs. That was, allegedly, the longtime MO of director James Toback, who is accused of inviting over 200 women to professional meetings only to proposition and, occasionally, assault them once in private. Toback put his denial even more aggressively:

"The idea that I would offer a part to anyone for any other reason than that he or she was gonna be the best of anyone I could find is so disgusting to me. And anyone who says it is a lying c*cksucker or c*nt or both."

8. I'm trying to be a good guy now, and I respect the hell out of women, so let's just wipe the slate clean.

A popular excuse, especially among various left-of-center men of Hollywood and the media, mixes a nod to contrition with a subtle appeal to tribal loyalty: "I may have been a jerk once," the argument goes, "But I'm on the right side of the issues that you care about."

Here's Casey Affleck's response, who reportedly harassed multiple women on the set of "I'm Still Here":  

"There’s really nothing I can do about [the allegations] other than live my life the way I know I live it and to speak to what my own values are and how I try to live by them all the time."

Casey Affleck. Photo by Leon Bennett/Getty Images.

And here's what Dustin Hoffman had to say after he was accused of making inappropriate and lewd comments to a production assistant during "Death of a Salesman":

"I have the utmost respect for women and feel terrible that anything I might have done could have put her in an uncomfortable situation. I am sorry. It is not reflective of who I am."

And here are Leon Weiseltier's words, who allegedly harassed multiple women of a series of years as editor-in-chief of The New Republic:

"The women with whom I worked are smart and good people. I am ashamed to know that I made any of them feel demeaned and disrespected. I assure them that I will not waste this reckoning."

Whether that "reckoning" ever comes is often irrelevant to the alleged abuser. What matters is that enough people believe he's an asset to whatever fight they're fighting, leaving open the possibility that he'll be rehabilitated by his community without having to lift a finger.

9. This is a political ploy by my enemies to ruin me.

Bill O'Reilly. Photo by Ilya S. Savenok/Getty Images.

When in doubt, blame those bastards in the opposition party for trying to tear you down.

"If you look at the totality, this was a hit job — a political and financial hit job," argued Bill O'Reilly, after reports surfaced that he settled an unknown sexual harassment claim for $32 million in addition to allegations that he harassed or abused a string of coworkers during his decade-plus at Fox News.

As a naked appeal to tribal loyalty, it's a nefarious tactic but potentially a good deal more effective than, say, trying to shame your accusers by sharing the thank you notes they wrote you for some unrelated thing or outright blaming God — two things O'Reilly for real tried to do in the wake of allegations against him.

10. This is a political ploy by the media to get clicks and sell papers.

When in even more doubt, blame the fake news for whipping up people's anger and impairing their "objectivity."  

"Brett Ratner vehemently denies the outrageous derogatory allegations that have been reported about him, and we are confident that his name will be cleared once the current media frenzy dies down and people can objectively evaluate the nature of these claims," said the director's spokesperson in a statement responding to allegations that Ratner had engaged in sexual misconduct on set.

Despite Ratner's denial, actor Ellen Page followed up days later with a blistering Facebook post, accusing the director of outing her against her will with an unwelcome, sexually tinged comment. Ratner as of yet hasn't respond to her claim, unmediated by the media such as it was.

11. It was the Russians!

George Takei. Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images.

When in the most doubt, blame Vladimir Putin. As if the allegations against George Takei (which eerily paralleled a story Takei himself told Howard Stern several weeks earlier) weren't upsetting enough, especially given Takei's history of speaking out about the serious issue of sexual harassment, his response could not have been more bizarre:

"A friend sent me this. It is a chart of what Russian bots have been doing to amplify stories containing the allegations against me," Takei wrote, after allegations that he had groped a fellow actor without his consent surfaced. "It’s clear they want to cow me into silence, but do not fear friends. I won’t succumb to that."

12. But what about all the men who are falsely accused?

Of course, not all of those accused of harassment or abuse are guilty, though recent studies peg the incidence of false reports at between a mere 2% to 8%. But while the guilty category is larger by leaps and bounds, that inkling of doubt too often allows alleged harassers and predators to weasel their way into the former.

"No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing," Woody Allen wrote in The New York Times after his daughter, Dylan Farrow, accused him of sexually assaulting her in the pages of the same paper a week earlier.

When reached for comment on the on the Harvey Weinstein allegations, Allen told the BBC he wished to avoid "a witch-hunt atmosphere" where "every guy in an office who winks at a woman is suddenly having to call a lawyer to defend himself." It's a frame that conflates workplace flirting (potentially harassing behavior in its own right) with Weinstein's alleged pattern of coercion and assault or, perhaps, his own by association.

13. No comment, through a lawyer.

Rather than offer an excuse, which can be its own form of admission, some alleged abusers simply choose to say nothing and hope the accusation goes away. That's what Bill Clinton did in response to claims that he raped then-nursing home operator Juanita Brodderick in a hotel after luring her there with the promise of a professional meeting. First, Clinton's attorney called the allegations "absolutely false." Later, Clinton himself doubled down.

"My counsel has made a statement about the ... issue, and I have nothing to add to it," the then-president told the Washington Post.

14. I'm a sick man.

Anthony Weiner. Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images.

Of course, when the allegations become impossible to deny, some abusers see no option beyond making a full-throated, self-abasing confession. Anthony Weiner did this after pleading guilty to "transferring obscene material to a minor."

"This fall, I came to grips for the first time with the depths of my sickness. I had hit bottom," he said in court. "I entered intensive treatment, found the courage to take a moral inventory of my defects, and began a program of recovery and mental health treatment that I continue to follow every day."

"I accept full responsibility for my conduct," he continued. "I have a sickness, but I do not have an excuse. I apologize to everyone I have hurt. I apologize to the teenage girl, whom I mistreated so badly. I am committed to making amends to all those I have harmed. Thank you."

Weiner certainly isn't the first prominent accused predator to claim to be broken. Harvey Weinstein checked himself into rehab for sex addiction after allegations against him surfaced. Kevin Spacey did the same some weeks later. Weiner himself previously had done a stint at rehab. But while Weiner's statement completely acknowledges the scope of his wrongdoing, it nonetheless contains an excuse. In some way, it implies that the former congressman's sickness mitigates the harm his actions caused or, at the very least, absolves him of some of the blame.

It's evidence that even the best, most clinical excuse is substandard at best.

Which is why the most reasonable excuse might just be:

15. I have no excuse.

On Nov. 1, former NPR news chief Michael Oreskes stepped down in the wake of allegations that he had harassed multiple women on the job. His acknowledgement was direct and, notably, didn't offer an explanation for his behavior.

"I am deeply sorry to the people I hurt. My behavior was wrong and inexcusable, and I accept full responsibility."

Apologizing unconditionally doesn't make it all better. It doesn't restore the careers of the women Oreskes' behavior likely sidelined, marginalized, or ended. And it doesn't provide a quicker, smoother path to forgiveness. Doing so merely acknowledges what should by now be obvious.

When it comes to harassing or abusing the people who work for you, depend on you, admire you, or simply those who are around you, there is no excuse.

Technology

Here’s how one nonprofit org is using Adobe to change the world

Adobe empowers nonprofits to fundraise, advocate, and further their missions.

True

In 2024, it’s practically impossible to function as a nonprofit without the right digital resources. Nonprofits use computer systems and applications for things like education, fundraising, engaging clients, and communicating with donors. However, with limited funding and expertise, it's often difficult to get the digital tools they need to fully support their missions.

The planet needs nonprofit organizations, and nonprofits need better digital tools. For decades, Adobe has provided nonprofits with the tools they need to fulfill their mission—helping them with everything from social media advocacy to educational videos to graphic design. Now, Adobe is offering the pro version of Adobe Acrobat for Nonprofits, the most requested and comprehensive set of document and e-signature tools, for just $15 per user per year, which represents a 94% annual savings off the regular price. This will make it easier than ever for nonprofits to streamline business processes and increase their impact with engaging educational and fundraising assets – from annual reports, contracts and grant submissions to brochures and white papers.

Keep reading to hear more about how Adobe helped one nonprofit improve efficiencies and giveback potential – and how you can start using Adobe tools today for your organization.

A nonprofit success story

Albert Manero, a mechanical engineer and graduate of the University of Central Florida, founded Limbitless Solutions, Inc., as a passion project in a small lab. Today, Limbitless is celebrating its 10-year anniversary and has grown into an interdisciplinary team based at the University of Central Florida in Orlando that includes 50 interns with nine different fields of expertise. Their mission? To inspire and empower underserved communities through creative, accessible technology.

Manero and his team of experts create bionic, 3D-printed arms for children with limb differences. Combining visual storytelling with art and engineering, the Limbitless team wants children with limb differences to feel included and capable, while at the same time, able to express their personal identity more fully. Developing bionic arms covered in flowers or designed like Iron Man’s armor, kids with these bionic limbs can not only grip objects, hold hands and more, but can feel empowered to be themselves.

Using Adobe to make a difference

Limbitless, like many others, has utilized Adobe for Nonprofits offerings, which gives nonprofit organizations access to Adobe programs at a deeply discounted rate, including access programs like Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Express and Adobe Acrobat as well as Adobe’s 3D tools.

Adobe solutions are the oil that keeps organizations running smoothly behind the scenes. For the grant application and reporting processes, employees at Limbitless have credited Adobe Acrobat with helping the team secure funding and communicating clearly with donors and partners. With Acrobat, they’re able to create, edit, and manage PDF documents that look professional and polished. The company has also transitioned most of its internal documentation to digital formats using Acrobat. This includes everything from design blueprints, brand guidelines, intern contracts, and user manuals for bionic limbs.

Better tech for a better future

In addition to helping day-to-day operations run smoothly, Adobe has also helped bring Limbitless’ mission of inclusion and accessibility outside of office walls.

Using Adobe Express, the fast and easy create-anything app, Limbitless has been able to create quick how-to videos for young patients and their families that showcase how to use their bionic limbs, as well as a series of videos promoting STEAM (science, technology, engineering art and math) education. The company’s Operations, Advocacy, and Logistics team utilizes Express as well, developing content and visual assets for their social media accounts. Recently, Limbitless partnered with the Adobe Express’ Animate Characters team to create six unique, limb-different selectable avatar characters for their educational outreach and social media campaigns.

And Adobe is helping Limbitless empower kids with limb differences, too: Limbitless’ comic series, Bionic Kid, was created using Adobe Illustrator and features a superhero with limb differences who uses a Limbitless prosthetic arm. This inspired a fundraising concept initiated from the idea by a Limbitless prosthetic recipient Zachary Pamboukas, which has been used in fundraising efforts for more bionic arms and has already raised over $20,000.

Inside the organization and out, Adobe is enabling people to reach their full potential, contributing to better nonprofit organizations and, overall, a better world.

Learn more about the new Adobe Acrobat for Nonprofits offering and explore more ways Adobe can help your organization today.

Our home, from space.

Sixty-one years ago, Yuri Gagarin became the first human to make it into space and probably the first to experience what scientists now call the "overview effect." This change occurs when people see the world from far above and notice that it’s a place where “borders are invisible, where racial, religious and economic strife are nowhere to be seen.”

The overview effect makes man’s squabbles with one another seem incredibly petty and presents the planet as it truly is, one interconnected organism.

In a compelling interview with Big Think, astronaut, author and humanitarian Ron Garan explains how if more of us developed this planetary perspective we could fix much of what ails humanity and the planet.

Garan has spent 178 days in space and traveled more than 71 million miles in 2,842 orbits. From high above, he realized that the planet is a lot more fragile than he thought.

“When I looked out the window of the International Space Station, I saw the paparazzi-like flashes of lightning storms, I saw dancing curtains of auroras that seemed so close it was as if we could reach out and touch them. And I saw the unbelievable thinness of our planet's atmosphere. In that moment, I was hit with the sobering realization that that paper-thin layer keeps every living thing on our planet alive,” Garan said in the video.

“I saw an iridescent biosphere teeming with life,” he continues. “I didn't see the economy. But since our human-made systems treat everything, including the very life-support systems of our planet, as the wholly owned subsidiary of the global economy, it's obvious from the vantage point of space that we're living a lie.”

It was at that moment he realized that humanity needs to reevaluate its priorities.

“We need to move from thinking economy, society, planet to planet, society, economy. That's when we're going to continue our evolutionary process,” he added.

Garan says that we are paying a very “high price” as a civilization for our inability to develop a more planetary perspective and that it’s a big reason why we’re failing to solve many of our problems. Even though our economic activity may improve quality of life on one end, it’s also disasterous for the planet that sustains our lives.

It’s like cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Actor William Shatner had a similar experience to Garan's when he traveled into space.

"It was among the strongest feelings of grief I have ever encountered," Shatner wrote. "The contrast between the vicious coldness of space and the warm nurturing of Earth below filled me with overwhelming sadness. Every day, we are confronted with the knowledge of further destruction of Earth at our hands: the extinction of animal species, of flora and fauna … things that took five billion years to evolve, and suddenly we will never see them again because of the interference of mankind."

“We're not going to have peace on Earth until we recognize the basic fact of the interrelated structure of all reality,” Garan said.

However dire the situation looks from the surface of Earth, the astronaut has hope that we can collectively evolve in consciousness and wake up and embrace a larger reality. “And when we can evolve beyond a two-dimensional us versus them mindset, and embrace the true multi-dimensional reality of the universe that we live in, that's when we're going to no longer be floating in darkness … and it's a future that we would all want to be a part of. That's our true calling.”


This article originally appeared two years ago.

Animals & Wildlife

Scientists just solved the chicken-and-egg debate, so what will we argue about now?

A billion-year-old discovery has officially cracked the ultimate evolutionary mystery.

Richard Symonds

This handsome gent just got some bad news.

In the ultimate mic-drop for chicken-or-egg debaters, Chromosphaera perkinsii, a billion-year-old unicellular organism, reveals that nature had "eggs" on the menu way before chickens (or any animals) arrived. But, though the mystery has been unscrambled, the discovery has cracked open an entirely new chapter in the story of life's origins.

Meet Chromosphaera perkinsii, a single-celled organism found in marine sediments off Hawaii that threw evolutionary biologists a curveball. This tiny protist, dating back more than a billion years, does something remarkable: it organizes itself into multicellular structures that look exactly like the earliest stages of animal embryos.

A sequence of images showing Chromosphaera perkinsii forming a colony. It looks like images you may have seen of early cell division, but this is of individual Chromosphaera perkinsii forming a colony. © UNIGE Omaya Dudin

Nature’s OG egg

Researchers from the University of Geneva (UNIGE), led by Omaya Dudin, have spent years studying this humble organism, and the findings are nothing short of stunning. Unlike most single-celled creatures, C. perkinsii can coordinate cell division without growing larger. Instead, it creates colonies that resemble the first steps of animal embryonic development.

"Although C. perkinsii is a unicellular species, this behaviour shows that multicellular coordination and differentiation processes are already present in the species, well before the first animals appeared on Earth."

— Omaya Dudin

Even more mind-blowing? When scientists analyzed the genetic activity within these colonies, they found it eerily similar to what happens in the embryos of modern animals. The processes that allow embryos to grow from a single cell into a multicellular organism—a hallmark of animal life—were apparently hanging out in the evolutionary toolbox long before animals even existed.

A billion years of practice

The study, published in Nature, even raises the possibility that multicellularity evolved multiple times in different lineages, meaning the transition from single-celled life to complex organisms could be less linear (and more chaotic) than previously believed.

"It’s fascinating, a species discovered very recently allows us to go back in time more than a billion years."

— Marine Olivetta

The research could also reignite debates about mysterious 600-million-year-old fossils that look like embryos. Are they early animals or ancient organisms like C. perkinsii? Either way, this tiny protist suggests that nature was testing out egg-like developmental strategies long before anything resembling a chicken—or even a jellyfish—arrived on the scene.

The egg’s ultimate win

For anyone still clinging to the chicken in this debate, it’s time to throw in the towel. The egg wins by a landslide. And while these ancient “eggs” might not have shells or yolks, they set the stage for the evolutionary leaps that eventually gave us the breakfast staple we know today.

Still not convinced? Neil deGrasse Tyson shares the evolutionary approach to the puzzle. He bluntly points out that the egg came first; it was just laid by a bird that was not a chicken.

@neildegrassetyson we've cracked the case over which came first, chicken or egg! 🐣 #scienceflex
♬ original sound - StarTalk

Discoveries like this remind us how much we still don’t know about the origins of life. If a billion-year-old protist can hold the key to one of our oldest questions, imagine what else nature has waiting for us in its archives. But one thing’s certain: we finally have our answer. The egg was here first, and it’s been waiting for us to catch up for over a billion years.

So, with that settled, we are now tasked with finding something else to argue about. Science has yet to weigh in on the tree in the woods. Perhaps that puzzle will be the next to fall.

Photo by Nati/Pexels

If you feel "old" practically overnight, there may be a good reason for that.

Aging is weird. You're trucking along, enjoying your middle-aged life, finally feeling like a real adult, when you look in the mirror one day and gasp. "Where did those wrinkles come from?" "Is that skin on my arm…crepey?!?" "Why am I aching like that?"

Somewhere in your mid-40s, you start noticing obvious signs of aging that seem to arrive overnight. You assume it was a gradual process that you just hadn't noticed, but it sure as heck felt like it happened really fast.

New research indicates that may very well be the case. A study from researchers at Stanford tracked thousands of different molecules in people age 25 to 75 and found that people tend to make two big leaps in aging—one around age 44 and another around age 60. These findings indicate that aging can actually happen in bursts.

“We’re not just changing gradually over time. There are some really dramatic changes,” said senior study author Michael Snyder, Ph.D, geneticist and director of the Center for Genomics and Personalized Medicine at Stanford University. “It turns out the mid-40s is a time of dramatic change, as is the early 60s. And that’s true no matter what class of molecules you look at.”

The researchers assumed the mid-40s changes would be attributed to menopausal or perimenopausal changes in women influencing the overall numbers, but when they separated the results by sex they saw similar changes in men in their 40s.

"“This suggests that while menopause or perimenopause may contribute to the changes observed in women in their mid-40s, there are likely other, more significant factors influencing these changes in both men and women. Identifying and studying these factors should be a priority for future research,” said study author Xiaotao Shen, PhD, a former Stanford Medicine postdoctoral scholar who now teaches at Nanyang Technological University Singapore.

older couple smiling togetherAging happens in bursts, scientists find.Photo by Tristan Le/Pexels

The study included 108 participants who submitted blood and other samples every few months for several years. The scientists tracked age-related changes in 135,000 different molecules—nearly 250 billion distinct data points—to see how aging occurs.

The study may shed light on the reasons for jumps in certain diseases and maladies at certain ages. For the 40-somethings, scientists found significant changes in molecules related to alcohol, caffeine and lipid metabolism; cardiovascular disease; and skin and muscle. For those in their 60s, changes related to carbohydrate and caffeine metabolism, immune regulation, kidney function, cardiovascular disease, and skin and muscle were found.

The study authors did note that lifestyle might play a role in some of these changes. For instance, alcohol metabolism may be influenced by people drinking more heavily in their 40s, which tends to be a period of higher stress for many people. However, the researchers added that these bursts of aging in the mid-40s and early 60s indicate that people may want to pay closer attention to their health around those ages and make lifestyle changes that support greater overall health, such as increasing exercise or limiting alcohol.

The research team plans to study the drivers of these aging bursts to find out why they happen at these ages, but whatever the reasons, it's nice to know that the seemingly sudden onset of age-related woes isn't just in our imaginations.

It's understandable that worry about aging, as physical signs of aging remind us of our own mortality. We also have all kinds of social messaging that tells us youth is ideal and beautiful and old is bad and ugly, so of course we give aging the side-eye. But none of us can avoid aging altogether, so the more positive and healthy we are in our approach to aging is, the better off we'll be, no matter when and to what degree aging hits us.


This story originally appeared in August.

Amazing video shows 1950s mom of 7 without arms doing it all on her own

It may be difficult to imagine living in a world with limited technological assistance available but to do it while also physically disabled seems nearly impossible without extensive support. But that's exactly what people had to do for years and one mom made the news in the 50s for her unique experience raising children. Phyllis Lumley was born without arms and one foot six inches longer than the other in Battersea, London.

Her ability to care for her children, all seven of them, without any outside assistance is what seems to be the reason she garnered so much attention. A picture of the mom placing her baby in the bassinet along with a story of the large family made it to the Australian newspaper. Lumley's story is inspiring to others due to her sheer determination to figure out how to become a mother and homemaker successfully.

While the mom of seven didn't have arms or hands to assist her while her husband was working, in the interview conducted by British Pathé you see her utilize her feet and mouth to compensate. It's something she had become accustomed to since childhood, never letting her disability slow her down.

National Library of Australia

The many forms of technology that have become part of our daily lives simply didn't exist in the 50s. Same goes for the advancements in prosthetics and other assistive technologies, they were mere dreams for future generations to enjoy. Lumley was determined to live life on her terms and not the limited expectations of those around her. So when she and her husband decided it was time to start a family, Lumley practiced how she would care for an infant by practicing with a doll.

In 1954, she told Pix that though she faced strange looks and ill words as a child, when she became pregnant she found a clinic that treated her like any other pregnant person.

National Library of Australia

"Mrs. Lumley admits that when her first babies were very young, there were times that she seemed to be up against problems that were insoluble but she learned that if she thought hard enough she could find a way around every difficulty," Brittish Pathé narrates.

In the video, the mom uses her feet to comb her child's hair, button someone's sweater, iron clothes and thread a needle to embroider a handkerchief. Her ability to be a successful caregiver clearly caught the attention of the world at that time, especially since there weren't really any accommodations for disabled people back then, let alone robotic prosthetic arms.


Caring for 7 children isn't an easy task for able-bodied individuals but in a true sign of the times, Lumley did it with little to no help from her husband. The woman mastered managing a household at a time when childrearing and housekeeping fell solely on the mother most of the time, which is evident in the interview.

The video recently made it's rounds on social media where people were flabbergasted at Lumley's skills with someone writing, "The fact that she threaded a needle alone is mind blowing, and the fine embroidery!! That’s bonkers."

The Goldbergs Yes GIF by ABC NetworkGiphy

Another person says, "how tf does one raise seven kids with NO ARMS?? I've barely gotten by with BOTH my arms and two kids!"

"Fine motor skills with her feet is ridiculously impressive," someone else chimes in.

"I love the looks in her children’s eyes. You can see how much they adore her. This is one impressive Mama," one person shares.

Lumley clearly loved her children and stopped at nothing to make sure they were properly cared for even if she had to pave her own path to do it.

Joy

Someone asked if 80s kids really 'roamed freely.' After 40,000 answers, the truth is clear.

There is definitely some rose-colored nostalgia in these responses, though.

Were 80s childhoods really as feral as they sound?

Ah, the nostalgia of an 80s childhood. If you've ever watched "The Goonies" or "Stranger Things," you've seen how kids of all ages were largely left to their own devices most of the time, parents playing a background role if any role at all. Children went on unsupervised outdoor adventures for hours upon hours, getting into just enough trouble to learn some lessons but not enough to die (usually).

But is that really what childhood in the 80s was like? Were parents really that hands-off? Did kids really roam around freely like the movies and stereotypes portray? Were people really not worried about what the kids were up to when no one knew where they were and no one had cell phones to check in?

Someone asked that very question and the overwhelming response pointed to a clear answer.

Yes, 80s kids really did have childhoods that are hard to imagine now

"Did parents in the 80s really allow their kids to roam freely, or is that just a portrayal seen in movies?" X user OThingstodo asked. Here are the top responses:

"Really. And it was awesome."

"Facts. We are the generation who raised ourselves. There really was a commercial that came on each night asking parents if they knew where their children were. We survived off hose water & anything we perceived as food. (Berries, fruit trees, etc) We were not allowed to sit inside.. if we tried, we'd get loaded down with chores. We truly were the feral generation.. we took no guts, no glory to new heights & feared absolutely nothing. It was amazing times that still, to this day, bring forth a rush of nostalgia at the smallest memory."

"This is so true. And Sometimes we just got to cook our own TV dinners. And our parents did not constantly have to engage us or make sure we weren’t bored."

"Allowed? We were not allowed in the house during the day. We had bikes and friends. There was 3 rules 1: don't get hurt 2: don't be brought home by the police 3: see that light? If it's on you're late and grounded."

"In the summer it was get home when the streetlights come on. Raised on hose water & neglect. It was glorious."

"I used to roam the sewer drains around town with my friends. Just a handful of us and some flashlights."

"Yep. We rode our bikes all over the place exploring reality. We also had unlicensed lemonade stands, and after we sold out, we’d ride up to the store alone to buy snacks alone. We had our own house keys, we stayed home alone after school, and we cooked for ourselves. No one freaked out about it either."

"We left the house after school and they wouldn’t see us until the street lights came on. Didn’t ask us where we had been or what we did either. We were raised on hose water and neglect in the 70’s and 80’s."

"Well into the 90s. They told us to be home for dinner by ___ or before nightfall. They didn't have a clue where we were or really any way of finding out. This was just the norm. ... then cell phones."

"It’s true. Realize that back then, there weren’t cell phones, video games, 24 hour kids TV, etc. You wanted to be with your friends & that was outside, even in winter. Your bike was your prized possession & while there were bad elements then too, it wasn’t like now. Sad."

That last point, "while there were bad elements then too, it wasn't like now" sentiment came up a lot in the responses. Let's dive into that a bit.

It's easy to look at the past through rose-colored glasses

For the most part, everything people said about those 80s childhoods is true, except this: The world was not safer back then. There weren't fewer "bad elements" and there wasn't less crime.

Around the year 2015, articles started coming out about how children were statistically safer than they'd ever been.

In fact, statistically, the 80s were less safe than now by pretty much every measure. Looking at violent rime statistics from 1960 onward shows that the 80s had significantly higher violent crime rates than we've seen in the 2000s. The idea that Gen X childhoods were carefree with nothing to fear is simply wrong. We just weren't aware of everything there was to fear.

Social media and 24-hour cable news networks put scary things in front of our faces all day every day, giving us a skewed perception of reality. And that's not just conjecture—according to Pew Research, Americans tend to think crime is rising even when it's going down. "In 23 of 27 Gallup surveys conducted since 1993, at least 60% of U.S. adults have said there is more crime nationally than there was the year before, despite the downward trend in crime rates during most of that period."

The folks remembering their free-range childhoods as blissful and safe seem to have forgotten that we started our days pouring milk from cartons that had pictures of missing children on them. A few high-profile abductions and murders of children caused a bit of a missing children panic in the U.S, leading President Reagan to sign the Missing Children Act in 1982 and the Missing Children's Assistance Act in 1984, which founded the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.

But "high-profile" in the 80s meant a spot on the nightly national news and a headline in a newspaper. Most crimes were only reported locally, there as no "going viral online" and it was easy to avoid scary news if you wanted to. We live in a totally different world today, but not in the way people think. We're safer by nearly every measure, from car accidents to infectious disease to violent crime. But we feel less safe, which directly affects how we parent our children.

There was indeed magic in our blissful ignorance

There's something to be said for being unaware of every bad thing that's happening in the world. We may have been less safe in the 80s in actuality, but not knowing that had its perks.

The question is, can we put the genie back in the bottle? Is it possible to give kids an 80s-style childhood in the age of ubiquitous screens and parents being arrested for letting their tweens walk less than a mile from home by themselves?

Societal expectations of what kids can and should do have changed drastically, as have levels of anxiety and fear in general. Parenting styles have shifted toward more involvement and greater attachment, which isn't bad in and of itself but can be taken to an extreme. The neglectful parenting style of the past wasn't ideal and neither is the overprotective style the pendulum swung to.

If we could somehow find a way to give kids the joy of unstructured outdoor exploration of the 80s and the stronger parent-child connections of the present, we might just hit the sweet spot of raising healthy kids. Perhaps the next generation of parents will figure it out.