Controversial 'incel' video game Revenge on the Gold Diggers is renamed after controversy
Released on gaming platform Steam China on June 19th, it was billed as a live action 'anti-fraud' game in which the aim of the game is to spot deception before it happens.
However, all of the 'baddies' are women out to manipulate, with male protagonists ready to 'fight to the death' against them - and critics say it will appeal to and encourage incels, men who blame women for their romantic failure.
The blurb for the game says its plot centres around a character called Wu Yulun, 'a man who was once deeply hurt by gold diggers' - and was apparently inspired by real-life experiences of the games' Hong Kong creators.
Players are invited to 'navigate between several glamorous and highly adept female characters, and experience an emotional hunt that is gripping with every step.'
After it became an unexpected hit, a maelstrom of controversy quickly unfolded with many calling the game misogynistic and deeply offensive.
It's title was changed to 'Emotional Anti-Fraud Simulator' within 24 hours of its release.
Chinese artist Xu Yikun told BBC News the term 'gold digger' is rarely attributed to men in the country, saying: 'If you have a rich boyfriend, you are called a gold digger.
'If you try to make yourself look pretty, you are called a gold digger... Sometimes the label is used on you merely for accepting a drink from someone.'
Others have defended the narrative, saying: 'Would men criticise a game if it were titled "Womaniser Game"?'
In China, one newspaper said the game labelled 'an entire gender as fraudsters' - but the Beijing Youth Daily said it simply highlighted the growing issue of scams and emotional fraud in modern China.
According to the country's National Anti-Fraud Centre, around £204million was lost to romantic scams in 2023.
A Beijing-based video producer named Huang told the New York Times that the game 'very precisely taps into the intense gender antagonism currently sweeping through Chinese society.'
He says the video game will appeal to incels, or involuntary celibates, men who believe they are unable to have sex or form relationships with women - often because they deem themselves not attractive enough.
They often blame women and are extremely hostile towards them as a result.
One Chinese man, 23, who is unemployed, told the newspaper: 'I hate women, though I still want to fall in love, just a little bit.'
In Australia this week, parents were being warned their children could have access to hundreds of online games that simulate and encourage horrifying scenarios including rape, incest and child sex abuse.
When searching on Steam, at least 232 results matched 'rape', a campaign group called Collective Shout revealed.
On the same day, a search for 'incest' turned up 149 results.
The game titles are the stuff of parents' nightmares, from 'Incest DEMO' and 'Incest Twins', to virtual reality 'Reincarnation in another world going to rape'.
The latter allowed players to explore a virtual 'town' raping all the women who are non–player characters (NPCs) – avatars who are not controlled by a player.
Another game allowed players to 'set up' hidden surveillance at a female neighbour's home to secretly record her sexual acts.
Graphic imagery, which has been seen by Daily Mail Australia but is too disturbing to publish, included violent sexual torture of women and children, including incest-related abuse.
Kelly Humphries, who lives in central Queensland, is a survivor of familial child sexual abuse and has shared her horror at the games.
'There's not a lot that surprises me anymore but this was shocking,' she told Daily Mail Australia.
Experts have warned gaming platforms used across all age groups, including children, have listed video games that allow players to rape characters. In one game, a player could pretend to be a man recording a neighbour performing sexual acts
'I look at that research and I'm just so ashamed, angry and frustrated because I don't understand why this behaviour is acceptable for big companies.'
Ms Humphries has worked in law enforcement and is an activist raising awareness about abuse, including as an ambassador for Collective Shout.
'To see this violence depicted in such a horrific, brazen and humiliating way pushes survivors back into themselves,' she said.
'It completely undermines their experiences by gamifying and almost making fun of their true experience.'
Ms Humphries said the games will take a psychological toll on players, particularly on young people who interact online more often than older generations.
'(The games) are normalising this behaviour,' she said.
'(Young people) are either going to act out that behaviour or they're going to be a victim and suffer silently.'
This was echoed by University of New South Wales' Professor Michael Salter, who said the games are 'part of subcultures online that normalise sexual abuse'.
Professor Salter, who is also director of the East Asia and Pacific branch of Childlight, said the content will reinforce the acceptability of violence for children or people with problematic behaviour if they play the games.
He said that, while the games breach national laws, platforms like Steam and Itch.io operate internationally and as such, do not follow Australian standards.
Both Ms Humphries and Professor Salter signed an open letter to companies including PayPal, Mastercard, Visa, and Paysafe Limited, to request they cease processing payments for gaming platforms which host rape, incest and child sexual abuse–themed games.
Professor Salter said there are no rules in international law to manage the issue so 'payment services effectively become a de facto regulator'.
Daily Mail Australia has contacted Valve Corporation, which operates Steam, and the platform Itch.io, which is also named in the open letter, regarding the claims.
Valve is understood to have changed its rules earlier this week, adding a clause prohibiting content that broke rules set out by payment processors including 'adult content'.
There were initially 14 clauses which banned content including hate speech, malware, sexual content of real people or exploitation of children, Automaton Media reported.
Professor Salter has also raised concerns about discoveries by his team which noticed people breaching others' boundaries on new technology platforms.
'Gaming services often forge ahead with designs without building in safety,' he said.
'(On virtual reality platforms), we see kids adopt avatars that are highly sexualised adult avatars and then interact with actual adults.'
He said the issue comes down to regulation and the need for clear, enforceable content rules to protect children, adding that parents can take action at home too.
'It's important to have discussions with kids about the gaming services they are on and the content they are seeing,' he said.
'It's not as easy as monitoring games so parents should set clear rules about types of games they are permitted to play and the types they are not allowed to play.'
Another suggestion was that parents explain to children that their behaviour online matters and speaks to their character.
'There is a pervasive view that online behaviour is not real, that it is not serious,' he said.
'So it licenses a range of behaviours that are antisocial and transgressive.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Lewd, crude and politically astute: South Park's history of controversy
It's been a banner week for South Park. On Tuesday it was announced that parent company Paramount had just struck a five-year, 10-episode-per-season deal with series creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone for the whopping price of $1.5bn. This comes amid public uproar against Paramount for their cancellation of The Late Show after host Stephen Colbert's criticism of the studio settling a $16m lawsuit with Donald Trump against CBS (which belongs to Paramount) in alleged exchange for FCC approval for their proposed $8bn merger with Skydance. (Said approval was announced on Thursday, with the extra caveat that Paramount would refrain from producing programs based on supposed diversity, equity and inclusion standards.) On Wednesday, the season premiere of South Park's 27th season debuted, and lest you think that Parker and Stone's billion-dollar deal would keep them from biting the hand that feeds, they came out chomping, delivering sharp digs at Paramount and CBS for their kowtowing to the president's demands. But their most brutal stuff was reserved for Trump himself, depicting him as a petty, predatory tyrant (à la their past caricature of Saddam Hussein) overcompensating for a tiny penis – which, in the episode's jaw-dropping closing moments, they show in graphic detail via a fake ad using the most realistic AI animation seen to-date. The episode has, in the short time since it aired, proven to be the most show's most controversial in years. But of course, it's nothing new for South Park, which is certainly the most controversial American sitcom – animated or otherwise – of all time. South Park proved controversial even before it went into production. Fox was originally meant to pick up the series – an expansion of Parker and Stone's 1992 short student film The Spirit of Christmas (Jesus vs Frosty) and it's viral follow-up The Spirit of Christmas (Jesus vs Santa). But when members of the network objected to the character of Mr Hanky – a talking piece of poop – Parker and Stone nixed the deal, eventually landing at the Paramount unit Cartoon Network. While other adult-oriented cartoons had paved the way in terms of both popularity and controversy (The Simpsons debuted in 1989 and Beavis and Butt-Head in 1993), it was clear from the start that South Park meant to push the envelope further than anything that came before it, so much so that a tongue-in-cheek disclaimer was inserted at the start of each episode: 'All characters and events in this show – even those based on real people – are entirely fictional. All celebrity voices are impersonated … poorly. The following program contains coarse language and due to its content it should not be viewed by anyone.' This did little to curb its popularity with young audiences. Within a few episodes of the first season, South Park was a cultural force to be reckoned with. And reckoned with it was, particularly by educational and parental groups who, outraged at its unrelenting dedication to toilet humor, violence and especially profanity, tried their best to get it taken off the air (and, failing that, to ban its merch from schools). The series embraced this outrage, using it as fodder for meta-commentary by way of a fictional show-within-a-show, Terrance and Phillip, a constant source of outrage for the idiotic and easily led parents of the show's main foursome. This would culminate in the 1999 feature film, South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, which would – to the surprise of any number of cultural commentators – go on to earn as many accolades (including an Oscar nomination for best original song) as it did objections. As the series continued, its focus started to shift. It dropped popular but stale gags (such as the recurring 'You killed Kenny!' bit), while evolving its characters in fascinating ways. Nowhere is this more evident than Eric Cartman, the spoiled, obese, bigoted breakout character. While always something of an antagonist, by the fifth season he was murdering the parents of a school rival and feeding them to him à la Titus Andronicus. Things only got darker from there, with Cartman coming to embody seemingly every hateful and degenerate vice humans are capable of. The fact that he would simultaneously remain the show's most popular and beloved character brooked no shortage of handwringing from the show's detractors (and often even their fans), who worried that viewers, particularly impressionable youngsters, were taking all the wrong messages from it. At the same time, messaging became a central part of South Park. While it always contained some level of social commentary and political satire, that aspect moved to the forefront. The singular schedule that Parker and Stone kept – episodes are developed and produced within a week of airing – allowed for them to take on hot button news items while they were still in the headlines. This was, and for the most part remains, unheard of when it comes to sitcoms (especially animated ones, which usually require a longer production schedule). Viewers were shocked when South Park ended up airing episodes about the Elián González custody and Terry Schiavo medical battles in real time (the latter airing mere hours before Schiavo died). Parker and Stone have described themselves as libertarians (although they're Gen X libertarians and thus less simpatico with today's breed) which meant that they were often pissing off both liberals and conservatives. For the most part, they were less interested in preaching their personal ideology than they were calling out others' hypocrisy. As a result, no sacred cows were left untipped. Given the show's sacrilegious origins, it's no surprise that it's biggest controversies came from their skewering of religion. Perhaps their most infamous episode to date is season nine's Trapped in the Closet, which used the ridiculous R Kelly song to poke fun at famous Scientologists Tom Cruise and John Travolta. Even though the crux of the episodes revolves around those stars' rumored sexuality, the real target was the Church of Scientology itself, which Stone and Parker depicted as a cult and scam, going so far as to animate, in detail, the bonkers mythology at the heart of the religion, which the church had strived to keep secret from the larger public. (Knowing how litigious the Church of Scientology is, everyone who worked on Trapped in the Closet was credited as John/Jayne Smith.) Comedy Central moved the episode from its original air date, purportedly at the demand of Cruise, who was starring in Paramount's upcoming blockbuster Mission: Impossible 3, although all parties have denied this. What's not disputed is that Parker and Stone threatened to quit the show if the episode wasn't released. It eventually did air (after the action sequel came out), and although the cultural impact is impossible to quantify, it's not coincidental that it marked the start of a hard public scrutiny of the Church of Scientology. One proven result of the episode was the high-profile departure of one of the show's original voice actors, Isaac Hayes, who was a Scientologist. This, in turn, would lead to the show killing off his character, Chef, just a couple of years before Hayes himself passed away. Similar episodes targeting Mormonism and Catholicism followed, and while they brooked their share of objections from the Church of Latter-day Saints and various Catholic leagues, they were teacup tempests compared with what came in season 10. Amid an increasingly violent reaction from Islamic extremists over European cartoonists' satirical depictions of the prophet Muhammad (something forbidden by certain sects within the broader religion), Parker and Stone inserted themselves into the issue by attempting to do just that (albeit by using rival animated show Family Guy as their in-universe proxy). Despite the unassailable moral point they were attempting to make – if they were allowed to make fun of every other religion's sacred figures, they should be able to do so with Islam without fear of violent reprisal – the network once again balked, airing the episode but placing a black 'censored box over the character of Muhammad. Thankfully, this did not lead to any violence, although when Stone and Parker touched on the issue again during the 14th season (in episodes 200 and 201, where the mere name Muhammad was censored by Comedy Central) it did lead to public death threats against them, as well as a demanded apology from Malaysia's main conservative party. What's most ironic about all of this is that South Park had already shown Muhammad in an early season, and even included the character in its original title sequence. No one objected to this at time, although this was before 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the global sea change those atrocities ushered in. Today, all these episodes have been scrubbed from streaming, although some are available on their respective seasons' original DVD releases. Attempts to get South Park banned in various parts of the globe have been hit and miss, but China eventually succeeded. Already angry with the show for dealing with banned subject matter (including the Dalai Lama) and its intentionally over-the-top ethnic humor, the final straw came via the season 23 episode Band in China, which directly targeted American corporations' expansion into the Chinese market in spite of the Chinese Communist party's broad censorship and brutal repression of political dissidents. As much as they have managed to piss off social/religious conservatives and authoritarian regimes, Parker and Stone have also proven a constant thorn in the side of outraged liberals and leftists, less so because of any single issue they have dealt with – although their mocking of Al Gore's warnings over climate change (represented in the show as a made up cryptid called ManBearPig) certainly earned them lots of criticism, which they eventually acknowledged, going so far as to issue a begrudging on-air mea culpa – than a larger feeling of irony-poisoned political nihilism. Certainly, much of modern conservative ideology is indistinguishable from the intentionally offensive antics of Cartman. One need only look at the volume of social media accounts belonging to rightwing shitposters that use South Park-style illustrations for their avatars and profile pics (although this trend isn't nearly as prevalent as it was between 2010 and 2020). Over the past several seasons, as well as the handful of direct-to-streaming 'movies', South Park has taken on the right's favorite issue, wokeness (in 2015, they introduced a new character, PC Principal, who embodies all of the worst qualities of overly sensitive millennials). At the same time, they were lampooning Trump, although in a less direct way than past public figures, choosing to use the character of Mr Garrison – the show's resident hedonist reactionary – as an analog. But in 2017, Parker publicly announced that they would stop making Trump jokes, as he'd grown bored of them and didn't want South Park to resemble supposedly liberal institutions like CNN. This response earned praise from the conservative figures, including Donald Trump Jr (who would also go on to praise a recent South Park special for its woke pop culture reboots). Which brings us to the surprise of this most recent season premiere. While it's hardly surprising that Parker and Stone would reverse course, given the extremity of Trump's corruption and attacks on the first amendment, the directness of their attack still came as a surprise to both fans and detractors alike. Hours after episode aired, the White House released an enraged response, in which they accused South Park and its creators of being hypocritical and inauthentic, while also claiming it hadn't been relevant in 20 years. Obviously, any show that just inked a $1.5bn deal can't be realistically called irrelevant, but it has been a minute since South Park has made headlines. While this isn't new territory for the series, something feels different this time. There is a real sense of shock and betrayal coming from the right. Undoubtedly, this is because they recognize that much of the show's fanbase is composed of their supporters. Unlike the weak tea being slung by Colbert and his ilk, this isn't a case of preaching to the choir. While it's ridiculous to think that South Park will be the catalyst for any real political change, it's telling how hysterical the right's ferocity against it has been over the course of just a few hours. That this is coming on the heels of broader backlash against the president from supposedly sympathetic sources over his refusal to release the Epstein files shows that, for the first time since the election, their back is truly against the wall. Trump is the most easily offended man alive, while Parker and Stone have never backed down from a fight. If the history of South Park is any indication, this latest controversy is just the tip of the iceberg (or, rather, the tip of a minuscule talking phallus).
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Lewd, crude and politically astute: South Park's history of controversy
It's been a banner week for South Park. On Tuesday it was announced that parent company Paramount had just struck a five-year, 10-episode-per-season deal with series creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone for the whopping price of $1.5bn. This comes amid public uproar against Paramount for their cancellation of The Late Show after host Stephen Colbert's criticism of the studio settling a $16m lawsuit with Donald Trump against CBS (which belongs to Paramount) in alleged exchange for FCC approval for their proposed $8bn merger with Skydance. (Said approval was announced on Thursday, with the extra caveat that Paramount would refrain from producing programs based on supposed diversity, equity and inclusion standards.) On Wednesday, the season premiere of South Park's 27th season debuted, and lest you think that Parker and Stone's billion-dollar deal would keep them from biting the hand that feeds, they came out chomping, delivering sharp digs at Paramount and CBS for their kowtowing to the president's demands. But their most brutal stuff was reserved for Trump himself, depicting him as a petty, predatory tyrant (à la their past caricature of Saddam Hussein) overcompensating for a tiny penis – which, in the episode's jaw-dropping closing moments, they show in graphic detail via a fake ad using the most realistic AI animation seen to-date. The episode has, in the short time since it aired, proven to be the most show's most controversial in years. But of course, it's nothing new for South Park, which is certainly the most controversial American sitcom – animated or otherwise – of all time. South Park proved controversial even before it went into production. Fox was originally meant to pick up the series – an expansion of Parker and Stone's 1992 short student film The Spirit of Christmas (Jesus vs Frosty) and it's viral follow-up The Spirit of Christmas (Jesus vs Santa). But when members of the network objected to the character of Mr Hanky – a talking piece of poop – Parker and Stone nixed the deal, eventually landing at the Paramount unit Cartoon Network. While other adult-oriented cartoons had paved the way in terms of both popularity and controversy (The Simpsons debuted in 1989 and Beavis and Butt-Head in 1993), it was clear from the start that South Park meant to push the envelope further than anything that came before it, so much so that a tongue-in-cheek disclaimer was inserted at the start of each episode: 'All characters and events in this show – even those based on real people – are entirely fictional. All celebrity voices are impersonated … poorly. The following program contains coarse language and due to its content it should not be viewed by anyone.' This did little to curb its popularity with young audiences. Within a few episodes of the first season, South Park was a cultural force to be reckoned with. And reckoned with it was, particularly by educational and parental groups who, outraged at its unrelenting dedication to toilet humor, violence and especially profanity, tried their best to get it taken off the air (and, failing that, to ban its merch from schools). The series embraced this outrage, using it as fodder for meta-commentary by way of a fictional show-within-a-show, Terrance and Phillip, a constant source of outrage for the idiotic and easily led parents of the show's main foursome. This would culminate in the 1999 feature film, South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut, which would – to the surprise of any number of cultural commentators – go on to earn as many accolades (including an Oscar nomination for best original song) as it did objections. As the series continued, its focus started to shift. It dropped popular but stale gags (such as the recurring 'You killed Kenny!' bit), while evolving its characters in fascinating ways. Nowhere is this more evident than Eric Cartman, the spoiled, obese, bigoted breakout character. While always something of an antagonist, by the fifth season he was murdering the parents of a school rival and feeding them to him à la Titus Andronicus. Things only got darker from there, with Cartman coming to embody seemingly every hateful and degenerate vice humans are capable of. The fact that he would simultaneously remain the show's most popular and beloved character brooked no shortage of handwringing from the show's detractors (and often even their fans), who worried that viewers, particularly impressionable youngsters, were taking all the wrong messages from it. At the same time, messaging became a central part of South Park. While it always contained some level of social commentary and political satire, that aspect moved to the forefront. The singular schedule that Parker and Stone kept – episodes are developed and produced within a week of airing – allowed for them to take on hot button news items while they were still in the headlines. This was, and for the most part remains, unheard of when it comes to sitcoms (especially animated ones, which usually require a longer production schedule). Viewers were shocked when South Park ended up airing episodes about the Elián González custody and Terry Schiavo medical battles in real time (the latter airing mere hours before Schiavo died). Parker and Stone have described themselves as libertarians (although they're Gen X libertarians and thus less simpatico with today's breed) which meant that they were often pissing off both liberals and conservatives. For the most part, they were less interested in preaching their personal ideology than they were calling out others' hypocrisy. As a result, no sacred cows were left untipped. Given the show's sacrilegious origins, it's no surprise that it's biggest controversies came from their skewering of religion. Perhaps their most infamous episode to date is season nine's Trapped in the Closet, which used the ridiculous R Kelly song to poke fun at famous Scientologists Tom Cruise and John Travolta. Even though the crux of the episodes revolves around those stars' rumored sexuality, the real target was the Church of Scientology itself, which Stone and Parker depicted as a cult and scam, going so far as to animate, in detail, the bonkers mythology at the heart of the religion, which the church had strived to keep secret from the larger public. (Knowing how litigious the Church of Scientology is, everyone who worked on Trapped in the Closet was credited as John/Jayne Smith.) Comedy Central moved the episode from its original air date, purportedly at the demand of Cruise, who was starring in Paramount's upcoming blockbuster Mission: Impossible 3, although all parties have denied this. What's not disputed is that Parker and Stone threatened to quit the show if the episode wasn't released. It eventually did air (after the action sequel came out), and although the cultural impact is impossible to quantify, it's not coincidental that it marked the start of a hard public scrutiny of the Church of Scientology. One proven result of the episode was the high-profile departure of one of the show's original voice actors, Isaac Hayes, who was a Scientologist. This, in turn, would lead to the show killing off his character, Chef, just a couple of years before Hayes himself passed away. Similar episodes targeting Mormonism and Catholicism followed, and while they brooked their share of objections from the Church of Latter-day Saints and various Catholic leagues, they were teacup tempests compared with what came in season 10. Amid an increasingly violent reaction from Islamic extremists over European cartoonists' satirical depictions of the prophet Muhammad (something forbidden by certain sects within the broader religion), Parker and Stone inserted themselves into the issue by attempting to do just that (albeit by using rival animated show Family Guy as their in-universe proxy). Despite the unassailable moral point they were attempting to make – if they were allowed to make fun of every other religion's sacred figures, they should be able to do so with Islam without fear of violent reprisal – the network once again balked, airing the episode but placing a black 'censored box over the character of Muhammad. Thankfully, this did not lead to any violence, although when Stone and Parker touched on the issue again during the 14th season (in episodes 200 and 201, where the mere name Muhammad was censored by Comedy Central) it did lead to public death threats against them, as well as a demanded apology from Malaysia's main conservative party. What's most ironic about all of this is that South Park had already shown Muhammad in an early season, and even included the character in its original title sequence. No one objected to this at time, although this was before 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the global sea change those atrocities ushered in. Today, all these episodes have been scrubbed from streaming, although some are available on their respective seasons' original DVD releases. Attempts to get South Park banned in various parts of the globe have been hit and miss, but China eventually succeeded. Already angry with the show for dealing with banned subject matter (including the Dalai Lama) and its intentionally over-the-top ethnic humor, the final straw came via the season 23 episode Band in China, which directly targeted American corporations' expansion into the Chinese market in spite of the Chinese Communist party's broad censorship and brutal repression of political dissidents. As much as they have managed to piss off social/religious conservatives and authoritarian regimes, Parker and Stone have also proven a constant thorn in the side of outraged liberals and leftists, less so because of any single issue they have dealt with – although their mocking of Al Gore's warnings over climate change (represented in the show as a made up cryptid called ManBearPig) certainly earned them lots of criticism, which they eventually acknowledged, going so far as to issue a begrudging on-air mea culpa – than a larger feeling of irony-poisoned political nihilism. Certainly, much of modern conservative ideology is indistinguishable from the intentionally offensive antics of Cartman. One need only look at the volume of social media accounts belonging to rightwing shitposters that use South Park-style illustrations for their avatars and profile pics (although this trend isn't nearly as prevalent as it was between 2010 and 2020). Over the past several seasons, as well as the handful of direct-to-streaming 'movies', South Park has taken on the right's favorite issue, wokeness (in 2015, they introduced a new character, PC Principal, who embodies all of the worst qualities of overly sensitive millennials). At the same time, they were lampooning Trump, although in a less direct way than past public figures, choosing to use the character of Mr Garrison – the show's resident hedonist reactionary – as an analog. But in 2017, Parker publicly announced that they would stop making Trump jokes, as he'd grown bored of them and didn't want South Park to resemble supposedly liberal institutions like CNN. This response earned praise from the conservative figures, including Donald Trump Jr (who would also go on to praise a recent South Park special for its woke pop culture reboots). Which brings us to the surprise of this most recent season premiere. While it's hardly surprising that Parker and Stone would reverse course, given the extremity of Trump's corruption and attacks on the first amendment, the directness of their attack still came as a surprise to both fans and detractors alike. Hours after episode aired, the White House released an enraged response, in which they accused South Park and its creators of being hypocritical and inauthentic, while also claiming it hadn't been relevant in 20 years. Obviously, any show that just inked a $1.5bn deal can't be realistically called irrelevant, but it has been a minute since South Park has made headlines. While this isn't new territory for the series, something feels different this time. There is a real sense of shock and betrayal coming from the right. Undoubtedly, this is because they recognize that much of the show's fanbase is composed of their supporters. Unlike the weak tea being slung by Colbert and his ilk, this isn't a case of preaching to the choir. While it's ridiculous to think that South Park will be the catalyst for any real political change, it's telling how hysterical the right's ferocity against it has been over the course of just a few hours. That this is coming on the heels of broader backlash against the president from supposedly sympathetic sources over his refusal to release the Epstein files shows that, for the first time since the election, their back is truly against the wall. Trump is the most easily offended man alive, while Parker and Stone have never backed down from a fight. If the history of South Park is any indication, this latest controversy is just the tip of the iceberg (or, rather, the tip of a minuscule talking phallus).
Daily Mail
9 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Is the tide turning on Molly-Mae Hague? Influencer dubbed this generation's Lady Di faces backlash for poor quality clothing line, 'bland' TV show, and 'always complaining'
She's been dubbed the younger generation's version of Princess Diana, but the tide might be turning on Molly-Mae Hague. The Love Island star-turned-influencer, 26, who lives in Cheshire, won over legions of fans when she and her partner, Tommy Fury, claimed second place on the reality show in 2019. Her fame continued to climb once outside the villa, with the influencer securing some of the most lucrative deals and sponsorships among all the Love Island alumni, including a £500,000 deal with PrettyLittleThing. Alongside her impressive business deals, Molly-Mae's social media presence has climbed to a staggering 8.5 million Instagram followers. However, a series of controversial moves and outputs might now be casting doubt over Molly Mae's untouchable status. Last year, Molly-Mae delighted fans when she announced the arrival of her clothing line, Maebe, but upon its release, shoppers shared their disappointment at the line's poor quality, despite 'luxe' price tags. Negative reviews continued to flood in when Molly-Mae released her Prime show, Molly-Mae: Behind It All, which viewers branded 'uninformative' and concluded all the 'revealing footage' must have been 'left on the cutting room floor' Most recently, the mother-of-one to daughter Bambi was blasted for her 'out of touch' complaints, saying that she hadn't done 'one fun thing this summer', despite sharing recent summer snaps, including a plush holiday and Wimbledon outing. Negative press arrived for Molly-Mae in October last year when she released her fashion line Maebe, which saw items sell out in as little as three minutes. The influencer said the business's aim was to 'reshape premium fashion, making it accessible without the high price tags'. However, shoppers complained of its poor quality, with some stating that items were 'ruined after just one wear'. Fans also questioned a blazer's high price point of £140 when the garment is made entirely of cheap fabric - 63 per cent Polyester, 19 per cent Viscose and 18 per cent Acrylic. Content creator Lily Marie Bond shopped the collection and managed to get her hands on the collection's grey blazer. She went out one evening and realised after that the sleeves of the premium priced jacket had bobbled and there was a loose thread by one of the buttons. She said, 'I'm not impressed, I'm very disappointed. It's just piling, it's not looking good. I would not recommend buying this, it's not worth it. I wasn't doing anything crazy, I was just sitting down and having a few drinks.' Others criticised the poor quality at the high price point, with some saying a basic white shirt for £65 was 'criminal'. Meanwhile, model Scott Staniland, who often speaks out against fast fashion brands, informed others that Jaeger was selling a very similar blazer to Molly-Mae's that was £20 more for 98 per cent wool. The influencer and businesswoman recently went on a family trip with Tommy and their two-year-old the Isle of Man - despite saying she's 'not done one thing fun' He said Molly-Mae's brand is 'all fast fashion with a premium price tag even though it's all basically plastic'. Another customer called Melissa Jade said she had been wearing the grey blazer for two days before it started bobbling around the edges. 'I'm actually gutted. Not sure how I can fix the bobbling. I'm not sure what to do,' she said. On the Maebe website, Molly-Mae wrote: 'With a focus on high-quality pieces designed for daily wear, the brand draws inspiration from traditional British heritage, reimagining timeless classics that exude quality. 'It's for the person who seeks a touch of sophistication in their day-to-day style, but without the unattainable price point.' Molly-Mae showcased her new line in June last year, posting an image to her Instagram profile which amassed over 160,000 likes. She told MailOnline at the time: 'The Ultimate Blazer is my absolute favourite, it's the piece when we were designing the collection that I have been the most excited about. The quality is beautiful and it's a piece I know I will wear again and again.' After dealing with the backlash regarding her clothing line, Molly-Mae then faced negative reviews on her Prime documentary - Molly-Mae Hague: Behind It All. Others criticised the influencer for selling 'grandad' jeans and charging £65 for a simple white shirt Molly-Mae Hague: Behind It All - What did the critics say? The Guardian Rating: 'Much like The Masked Singer, though, you could skip the first two-thirds of any episode and still see all the bits you need to see'. ''I wanna know what Molly-Mae gets at McDonald's,' says a director, off-screen. Reader, we find out. She loves pyjamas – 'a sacred part of life' – and is embarrassed to open a drawer full of belts that does not please her on an aesthetic level'. 'This series makes it look as if she is being less guarded, but when you play closer attention, I am not sure how true that is'. The Evening Standard Rating: 'Layering stressful music over footage of Molly-Mae fussing over candle sizes at a fashion pop-up doesn't evoke a sense of peril so much as farce. It's all so overdone to the point it feels like Amazon ordered a drop shipped version of a celebrity documentary'. 'Attempts at weaving together narrative arcs for each episode are flimsy at best. The documentary was, it claims, initially covering the run-up to Molly-Mae and Fury's wedding and forced to volte-face when the couple called it off'. 'But any actually revealing footage of the fall-out seems to have ended up on the cutting room floor – or locked up in a vault to preserve the fairytale-redux ending the on-off couple seem to be teasing – and which may well come in the final three episodes that will stream in the spring'. The Independent Rating: 'Just like Hague, the series is polished and clean. It's more comparable to American documentaries on Lady Gaga or Taylor Swift, say, than the playful, rough-and-ready British reality shows on the likes of Katie Price or Gemma Collins'. 'Behind It All goes some way to deliver its promise of revealing the intimate life behind the persona – but it could've gone further. There are another three episodes to follow in the spring, but you get the sense that they've got all the breakup stuff out of the way first'. The Times Rating: 'I expected it to be polished, bland mulch, and I was right. Partly' '[Tommy Fury's alcohol problem] felt to be the only 'authentic' part of this series (three episodes are currently available) and I use the word sparingly because, like everything else, it was all still glossily managed'. ''I don't have another night in me, lying in bed being upset,' she said, and I felt very sorry for her here. It was a heartfelt statement. I wish there had been more of them. She denied it had been a publicity stunt (I believed her). She ended the relationship, she said, because he gave her no choice. 'He wanted a family life but also the life of a 25-year-old boy with no responsibilities.'' The Telegraph Rating: 'Thanks to Amazon's billions and Hague's clout, Behind It All is slick and well-made; you can't help but let out a giggle at the overly dramatic score, which lends each of Hague's day-to-day stresses – controversy over Maebe's dodgy fabric, Bambi throwing a tantrum over beans on toast – the OTT heft of a Hollywood epic'. 'But the first three episodes suffer from their emphasis on clothes – nobody tuning in wants to hear Hague wax lyrical about mass-produced grey blazers and denim jeans. We're here for the Tommy gossip: what did he do, and will they get back together?' 'A teaser for the next instalment promises to be juicier, touching on their much-discussed New Year's Eve kiss as well as Hague's battles with body-image, and her decision to dissolve her face filler'. The much-anticipated documentary left critics underwhelmed after the first three episodes started streaming in January. Reviewers branded the show 'uninformative' and concluded that all the 'revealing footage' must have been 'left on the cutting room floor'. The show threw the influencer's mansion doors open to viewers as she gave insight into life as a single parent following her temporary split from Tommy. But while some claimed the series was 'surprisingly candid' others were less impressed by the 'highly produced' show, which they compared to Molly-Mae's own flawless social media posts. The Guardian 's Rebecca Nicholson wrote in her three-star review that viewers could 'skip through the first two-third of any episode' and the 'mundane details' of Molly-Mae's life before getting to learn anything juicy. ''I wanna know what Molly-Mae gets at McDonald's,' says the director, off-screen. Reader, we find out. She loves pyjamas – 'a sacred part of life' – and is embarrassed to open a drawer full of belts that does not please her on an aesthetic level'. 'Such details have low stakes. They wash over you, inoffensively, and all of a sudden, three hours have gone by. The business of launching the fashion brand takes up a lot of screen time, as Hague frets about the launch party (the candles aren't big enough and there is 'a situation with the projector')' 'This series makes it look as if she is being less guarded, but when you pay closer attention, I am not sure how true that is'. Meanwhile, The Evening Standard 's India Block gave the show two stars and said Molly-Mae's 'sadness and vulnerability' throughout the episodes was 'palpable'. However she concluded: 'Layering stressful music over footage of Molly-Mae fussing over candle sizes at a fashion pop-up doesn't evoke a sense of peril so much as farce. 'It's all so overdone to the point it feels like Amazon ordered a drop shipped version of a celebrity documentary'. 'Any actually revealing footage of the fall-out seems to have ended up on the cutting room floor – or locked up in a vault to preserve the fairytale-redux ending the on-off couple seem to be teasing – and which may well come in the final three episodes that will stream in the spring'. The Times ' Carol Midgley said: 'I expected it to be polished, bland mulch, and I was right. Partly' before going on to praise the 'reveal' of Tommy's alcohol problem. Writing in her three-star review: 'This felt to be the only 'authentic' part of this series (three episodes are currently available) and I use the word sparingly because, like everything else, it was all still glossily managed'. Most recently, the influencer came under fire for 'always moaning' after she told fans she's 'not done one fun thing all summer' despite jetting off to multiple destinations. The former Love Island star and business owner made the admission in her latest YouTube vlog which landed this week. Molly, who has shared many glossy snaps of her summer on Instagram, said in the life update, 'I said to a friend the other day, that I'm going to make it to the end of summer having not done one fun thing.' She then spoke to her sister and said, 'Zoe, I haven't socialised once. I'm going to get to the end of this summer having not done one social fun thing. 'I haven't a life. That's not good is it. Summer will end and I've not done one fun social thing.' It left some fans open-mouthed as they called out how she failed to acknowledge the three holidays she's already been on this year. Some comments read: 'She's a millionaire, she can literally wake up tomorrow and do whatever the hell she wants', 'Wimbledon, lunches, Spain, Dubai, France, Centre Parcs... let's normalise that', 'This was so jarring because she can casually spend £6,000 in Dior on an outfit to log to Wimbledon then complains she has no time for herself', 'Why does she always want us to feel sorry for her?' The mother-of-one - in this year alone - has been on no expense-spared trips to Dubai, Budapest and even Disneyland in 2025. Back in March, she and Tommy took baby Bambi on a family holiday to the United Arab Emirates, marking a reunion holiday for the clan. Just a month later, Tommy treated Molly to a European trip as the pair enjoyed downtime in Budapest. During their break, they stayed at The Pullman, a five-star hotel where prices start from at least £500 per night. Meanwhile, in May the dotting parents took Bambi to Disneyland Paris where they enjoyed a lavish stay at the park's resort. Similarly, her sister, Zoe Rae, found herself at the centre of negative attention when she complained about her recent holiday to Bali. Despite staying in a huge sea view room at the Radisson Blu, a five-star hotel, they decided to leave early and jet to Dubai instead. Zoe explained that Bali looks better on social media than in real life, as influencers make it look luxurious. She claimed that it did not meet their high expectations after being promised 'lovely places to eat, beaches, gyms and coffee shops'. However, she insisted that the 'reality' of Bali is not shown online, which she believes is down to influencers sharing a misleading version on social media. There were many staunch advocates for the Bali who praised the 'beautiful' views across the ocean in scenic videos of the area. For instance, Fiona Wang - who goes by @heyfionawang - insisted that the 'real Bali' is not overrated as she posted a sneak peek at her accommodation. She said: 'If you think Bali is overrated like I did the first time I came here, it's because you don't know where to go. Because look at this, oh my lord, that's the ocean and the pool and that's so beautiful and that's my villa. 'Actually have the views directly to this and all this is only $120. So this is called Segara Seaside in Nusa Ceningan and in my next video I'll give you a full review and show you the real Bali that is not overrated. Meanwhile, Tom Birchy - known as @tombirchy on the platform - revealed that Bali was growing on him after previously being a 'hater' of the area. He said: 'When we got here two days ago we were driving through the streets and we were like wow it's a bit dirty here like, look, there's a river - not looking its best. 'But after two days here I'm kind of getting the charm. It's definitely not for me, it's different - but I get it.' He admitted he can see why people are drawn to the island as a place to base themselves as a digital nomad. He said: 'If you're in your late 20s, early 30s, a digital nomad looking for a place to base yourself with a load of likeminded individuals Bali's got that. Especially this area I'm in now, Changu.' Revealing what it's got going for it, he said: 'It's got brekkie spots and artisan coffee shops, everything you could want.'
