In a move that is almost embarrassingly 2025, the Oxford English Dictionary has declared ‘rage bait’ its word of the year. We could have had, oh, I don’t know, ‘hope’, or ‘repair’, but no — we got rage bait, a term that captures the emotional manipulation underpinning modern life and is, as such, perfectly fitting for being crowned “word of the year.”

So, what is rage bait?

At its simplest, rage bait describes the kind of content increasingly filling your feeds — the sort that seems deliberately designed to spark outrage: Kim Kardashian’s face shapewear, say (see also: the provocative campus collection, pube thongs, nipple bras… you get the picture), or that Sydney Sweeney ad. Posts that are so inflammatory that they spread like wildfire before you’ve even had time to question their validity fall under the category of rage bait. AI slop (surely a contender for next year’s Oxford Word of the Year) feels rage bait-adjacent, too.

Communication scholar Angèle Christin describes rage bait as “the negative, vengeful cousin of clickbait.” She adds that whereas traditional clickbait tries to spark curiosity (“You’ll never believe what happened next!”), rage bait goes further — “it engages negative emotions, often provoking you to make harsh comments.” You only need to open your social media app of choice to see this in practice.

And yet, you’d be forgiven for wondering why anyone would want to actively incite such fury. The answer lies in the power that rage bait gives its creators. Take Donald Trump, for example, a man famously unafraid of controversy. Earlier this year, I started a roll call of everything he had done since becoming president — ending DEI programmes, stating only two genders should be recognised: male and female, and expressing unwavering support for the death penalty, to name but a few — but ultimately found that tracking executive orders was a full-time job in itself. And yet I couldn’t help myself from obsessively following the updates and inevitably heading to the comments after just to really wind myself up.

Academics call this the confrontation effect: when users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online than with content the agree with. A study published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes found that people (like me, and perhaps you?) are more likely to interact with political posts that challenge their views rather than align with them. Reporting on the phenomenon of rage bait, the authors write: “Individuals are strongly driven to voice their outrage toward those with whom they disagree.”

It’s not just politicians who can rile up the masses. In fact, 2025 has seen its fair share of rage-baiters across the political and cultural spectrum. The extended Kar-Jenner clan have long peddled in rage bait-y behaviour. Weighing in on SKIMS’ “The Ultimate Bush” thong hoopla, social scholar MJ Corey of the Instagram account @kardashian_kolloquium and author of the upcoming Dekonstructing the Kardashians: A New Media Manifesto dubbed the affair a way to “stir up a little light, campy body-humour controversy.” Corey also notes — in reference to another Kar-Jenner maelstrom — that “the influencer economy has completely revolutionized media and pop culture, and people with big followings who have made themselves famous for being #viral hold more cultural power than many people want to admit.”

That desire to go viral above all else can act as rage bait’s catalyst. In the ever-more competitive fight for eyeballs, we’re seeing creators embark on increasingly provocative stunts to boost engagement. Take adult entertainer Bonnie Blue, for example. Her appeal fits the same psychological patterns identified in research on divisive public figures: she uses highly polarising, identity-charged messaging that creates a strong in-group of supporters who interpret her bluntness as authenticity. Her style also mirrors what studies describe as “outrage-based influence”: direct, confrontational communication that thrives in algorithmic environments. In today’s media landscape (especially on social platforms), controversial and emotionally charged content (like having sex with 1,000 men in 12 hours) is amplified because it drives engagement: shares, comments, reactions. Neutral or nuanced discussion often doesn’t. This phenomenon has been described as part of the Outrage Industrial Complex.

In short, divisive figures both depend on and benefit from media structures that magnify outrage and reinforce group-specific worldviews. And still, even against that backdrop, the fact that “rage bait” has risen to the top of our collective vocabulary hints at a deeper societal question: in 2025, are we expecting to be manipulated — and, moreover, are we too obliging?

We know by now that outrage is profitable: it keeps us clicking, commenting, spiralling, and — most importantly — returning. Social media’s attention economy has evolved into a finely tuned machine that rewards spectacle over substance. Rage bait becoming ubiquitous reflects this shift: we are naming the tools being used on us — and yet (and yet) still falling for them.

The word of the year isn’t just a lighthearted commentary on the internet’s worst impulses; it marks the point where provoking hatred has become a mainstream content strategy. And when outrage becomes part and parcel of our daily digital consumption, the emotional baseline changes. Cynicism becomes instinctive, compassion fatigue sets in, and public discourse hardens into an ongoing, tiresome battle.

But constant outrage has a dulling effect. It makes real issues like climate change, inequality, and democratic backsliding harder to distinguish from made up ones. Anger being turned into entertainment gives us a glow of self-righteousness, a sense of belonging to the “right” side. It also allows us to perform morality instead of practising it. We can see this in the way so many of us are not only exhausted but disengaged, and yet (again, and yet!) somehow more reactive than ever.

Acknowledging rage bait feels like a sad recognition that we’re being manipulated — by politicians, creators, media outlets, and often by one another. But this realisation also, in a way, feels oddly hopeful: the more aware we become of rage bait, the less effective it becomes.

I can’t help but think of the sayings my family cycled through when I was getting bullied at school, things like “Rise above it” and “Ignore them and they’ll get bored.” Except now the bullies are billionaire tech bros bumping rage bait to the top of our feeds to piss us off and keep us on the platforms longer. The sayings are still as unsatisfying as I remember (“What do you mean ‘words will never hurt me’? Of course words hurt,” I find my inner child yelling), but maybe mother’s wisdom prevails. Maybe, for the sake of our own sanity, the best thing we can do is resist the temptation to engage in rage bait. We might not be able to control the algorithms or the opportunists who thrive on inflaming tensions. But we can control our own participation in the cycle; we don’t have to take the bait.

For years, Kim Kardashian et al, has been encouraging us to "snatch" our faces to high heaven. We'd bought into it way before Skims released their controversial line of face shapewear earlier this month—dutifully carving out our cheekbones, jawlines and eye sockets, as thousands of TikTok tutorials instructed. Some of us took it further: trimming off the ends of eyebrows to look more "lifted", before gelling our hair into restrictive ponytails designed to pull taught foreheads even higher. It's the defining beauty standard of our time and has been adopted by stars as diverse as Lindsay Lohan and Kris Jenner, to Emma Stone. The public, though, seems to be tiring of it.

Over the past few months, I've spotted all manner of social media videos, calling for a return to "soft faces" and sharing tutorials where they work with their features, not against them. "What if your face doesn't need to be snatched and lifted. What if you can stop actively fighting your natural features?" asks Jamie Janejira, a Thai-American, multi-hyphenate make-up artist and model in one such video. Instead of using blush to elongate her cheeks, she melts a dusty pink cream into the apple of her cheeks to mimic her natural flush pattern and emphasise her natural roundness. She says that she once shaved off the ends of her eyebrows to look more lifted, but now emphasises their downward turn: "I think eyebrows curve down for a reason," she adds. "They frame the eye. Brows that curve down are not going to make your face look sad and droopy."

The video went viral, with commenters hailing Janejira's account as the "healing side" of Instagram. One woman wrote: "As a soft, round-faced girlie, I love this. I feel silly trying to do makeup that doesn't match my features, it looks awful on me [sic]".

Janejira herself tells me: "I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the snatched look, but I'm ready for people to start thinking for themselves and stop blindly following trends. Many faces don't look like that, and they were never meant to look like that. I think that for people with soft, round features, the best and most beautiful thing you can do is let your face do what it wants to do, and be soft."

However, amidst the larger trendification of the human face, is this sentiment actually trickling through to the mainstream?

Award-winning aesthetic doctor, Dr. Priya Verma, tells Marie Claire UK that a more contoured or defined jawline has “always” been amongst the most sought-after aesthetic improvements requested by women and men at her clinic. “The term ‘snatched’ has been a more recent description, and whilst not every patient comes in requesting that kind of jawline, it is by far the most common characteristic of ageing I address. In my central London clinic, 60-70% of patients want improvements in their jowls, submental (under-chin) heaviness and lower face laxity.”

Advanced facial aesthetician, Dr Tara Francis, agrees. She explains that the "snatched" revolution came in around 2020-2021, during the COVID-19 lockdowns. "It often starts with requests for a sharper jawline, lifted cheeks or brows, and a more contoured profile," she says, detailing that the most popular procedures for this include a combination of jawline and chin filler for definition, midface filler to lift and contour the cheeks, botox to the masseters to slim the lower face, and skin tightening tehcnologies like radiofrequency, microneedling or ultrasound. There are other options, though: Dr Verma prefers Endolift—a minimally invasive, laser-based skin tightening and selective fat reduction treatment.

However, all three professionals note that the "snatched" look is dying down, and that clients are embracing a softer look that tends to work better with their natural biology. "Patients now want refinement and definition, but not at the expense of softness or natural movement", Dr Francis says. "It's evolving into something more balanced and understated. I'm seeing more requests for subtle tweaks that preserve character, rather than chase symmetry or perfection. Think gentle contouring, hydrated skin, and natural curves to the cheeks and lips."

Dr Verma doubles down: "The truth is, we are not all supposed to look overly sharp and angular; we each have different compositions of skin and fat draping over our bony skeleton, engineering our individuality. Treatments like polynucleotides, skin boosters and regenerative injectables are growing in popularity because they improve skin quality and restore volume subtly, rather than creating sharp, obvious lines."

It's also worth noting that the "snatched" look can work against many demographics' natural face structure. In any case, it's not one-size-fits-all, explains Sinaesthetics founder and consultant dermatologist, Dr Sina Ghadiri. "Facial shape varies widely across ethnic backgrounds. Many East Asian, some South Asian, Middle Eastern and African backgrounds may have softer contours, rounder face shapes, or fuller cheeks, which do not inherently create that sharp, lifted look—although the truth is individual genetics play a great role and a person of any ethnicity may be deemed to lack a 'snatched' look."

As such, measures to re-create this ideal, especially with invasive treatments, can lead to disappointing results: "Chasing a feature that doesn’t suit one’s face shape can lead to overcorrection, overfilling or an unnatural appearance, and this is far too easily done at the hand of the practitioner. Gradual changes towards a person’s desired look are recommended, and one must always respect and consider the contours of pre-existing facial anatomy to achieve a satisfactory result."

But no matter the incoming shifts, we live in a time where we can morph our faces to the whims of trends and the celebrities that endorse them. As such, "snatched" was always going to end. Much like how the Noughties' "bolted on" breasts now hark to an erstwhile beauty standard, so will permanent procedures like buccal fat removal (which slims the face by removing the fat pads located in the lower cheeks). Accordingly, practitioners like Dr Francis urge caution: "Facial aesthetics trends tend to evolve rather than disappear entirely. A phase may peak for two to three years, but its influence lingers. What changes is that the execution is less dramatic, more natural, and better technique."

Essentially, while beauty errs more and more towards the dystopian, we must be mindful of what we (literally) buy into.

It’s time for media, fashion, and social platforms to stop turning the image of the schoolgirl into something ripe for adult consumption.

It seems strange to have to point this out, but given the cultural climate, it bears repeating: a girl in a school uniform is just that — a girl in a school uniform. She is not “jailbait.” She is not “asking for it.” She is not a nostalgic fantasy, a marketing opportunity, or a Halloween costume.

And yet, the sexualised schoolgirl remains one of pop culture’s most enduring tropes. Across film and fashion, music and social media, the aesthetic of adolescence is constantly polished and repackaged for adult appeal.

Britney Spears was just 17 when she wore that now-iconic school uniform in Baby One More Time, but the image has endured for decades, serving as both a pop legend and a cultural warning sign.

More recently, Kim Kardashian — ever attuned to a lucrative marketing moment — launched the new Skims Campus collection ahead of the “back to school” season. Think flannel pyjama pants, baby tees, tube socks, pom-poms, “novelty accessories,” and plenty of plaid. These are classic collegiate hallmarks, styled on what Skims exclaims are “real college students!” But the visual language of tiny shorts, cheerleader energy, and soft-focus sleepover vibes clearly suggests something more than cosy loungewear.

As a ’90s kid, I’m hardwired to respond to the aesthetic. It reminds me of the teen flicks we played at sleepovers: Jawbreaker, She’s All That, even Not Another Teen Movie — basically any film featuring Solo cups and 25-year-olds playing badly behaved teenagers. Today, it’s actual 18–21-year-olds fronting ad campaigns built on decades of male-gaze fantasy.

The Skims Campus collection — like the brand’s viral face wraps — will no doubt sell out. And to be clear: Kim Kardashian alone isn’t the problem. She’s a product of this system too. But when we continue to sexualise schoolgirls, we contribute to a culture that endangers them.

Why, in 2025, are we still so invested in dressing up adolescence for adult attention? Why, more than 70 years after Nabokov unleashed Lolita on the world, are we still so culturally obsessed with sexualising schoolgirls?

Hannah Nixon, a writer whose play LOLA explores similar themes, notes the dissonance between the book and the widespread social understanding of the relationship between Lolita and her abuser-stepfather Humbert Humbert: “She’s a child being sexually abused by her stepfather, and so it’s very indicative of society that the narrative of what happens to her has been turned on its head and turned into something that is about a teenage child — actually, she’s not even a teenager — having some sort of power sexually over a man.”

Evocative of Adrian Lyne’s 1997 adaptation of Lolita, a young, blonde Skims model is shown blowing bubblegum in a baby pink tube top and hot pants — the outfit also brings to mind early Britney or Christina Aguilera. Elsewhere in the campaign, another familiar porn trope appears: the “sexy secretary.” A young girl in thin-rimmed glasses poses with a pencil pursed between her lips, gazing seductively into the camera. This isn’t just playful branding — it’s a well-worn formula: stylised, infantilised, sexualised.

The sexualised schoolgirl has long been a fixture in the porn industry, too. “Teen” is the most-searched category on major porn platforms, and its impact is far-reaching. Research suggests that “barely legal” porn, while technically featuring adults, functions much like virtual depictions of minors by activating “youth‑focused sexual schemas,” which, over time, may contribute to emotional desensitisation and escalation to content that is more extreme or deviant.

Now, with the rise of AI-generated “schoolgirl” content, that exploitation is colliding with technology in terrifying new ways. Studies indicate the surge in AI-generated “barely legal” content can normalise and reinforce the sexual interest in minors, according to research by the National Library of Medicine.

Then there’s the world of online sex work, where the influencer economy meets pornography.

In the much-discussed documentary 1,000 Men and Me: The Bonnie Blue Story, the OnlyFans creator details her “Schoolies” strategy: showing up at Australia’s end-of-high-school party week and distributing business cards with QR codes to her account. She later toured university Freshers’ Weeks around the world, seeking out “barely legal” young men to film sex acts with.

More recently — and more disturbingly — Blue filmed a so-called “sex education” class, using visibly young-looking OnlyFans hopefuls dressed in school uniforms. As reported in the documentary, these young women — and young men — weren’t paid, but participated in hopes that Blue’s fame would boost their visibility and, in turn, their earnings. The classroom setting and uniforms weren’t just a backdrop — they were the entire product. They also serve to reinforce the damaging idea that schoolchildren, or any child for that matter, can somehow be complicit in their abuse.

In defending her content, Blue made a chilling point in an interview with Janice Turner for The Times: “Men have made porn content with schoolgirls since day one... no one has ever caused an uproar about that. So why can’t I do a schoolboy?”

It’s true that the cultural obsession with “barely legal” girls has rarely been met with sustained outrage. But that doesn’t mean it’s harmless. A concerning Harvard study showed that after prolonged exposure to pornography, viewers perceived rape as less serious, endorsed shorter prison terms for offenders, showed less empathy for victims, and developed greater sexual callousness toward women — even in scenarios involving minors.

When we glamourise schoolgirl imagery, whether in porn, fashion, or influencer content, we feed a system that trains girls to see themselves through the eyes of adults. We make them more vulnerable to grooming and harassment, and to self-objectification at younger and younger ages. We teach them that their value lies in their desirability.

Just this week, Lil Tay — the “Youngest Girl On OnlyFans” — claimed she made $3M in just three hours on the site mere hours into her 18th birthday. In the run-up to her milestone birthday, Lil Tay began promoting the fact she would be releasing the “youngest link of the century” (OnlyFans bans under-18s on the platform), with an “18th Birthday Countdown.” At 12:01, she began filming content and claims to have made $1M within three hours.

Dr Charlotte Ord, a psychologist and author of Body Confident You, Body Confident Kid, a guidebook for helping parents teach their children to develop a positive body image, is concerned about the impact of young viewers in the current media landscape. “Exposure to sexualising material at a young age, whether adult film or physical intimacy itself, would interrupt healthy psychosexual development in that way.” Ord says she is worried that viewers, particularly younger viewers, “might think that they have to emulate that kind of behaviour in order to get attention, to get on in life, or at the very least become completely desensitised [to] very extreme sexual behaviours.”

It’s a concern shared by the UK pornography taskforce, which has proposed banning “barely legal” content after Channel 4’s Bonnie Blue documentary. The show has reportedly accelerated the taskforce’s work and prompted calls for legislative change, aiming to close legal loopholes around “barely legal” themes and limit the normalisation of youth eroticisation both online and offline.

The UK government’s new Online Safety Act and emerging initiatives also signal a shift. As Ofcom prepares to enforce age-verification rules and restrict sexualised content that fetishises youthful aesthetics, we might finally be seeing a turning point in how our society defines protection versus permissiveness. It is long overdue.

When teenagers absorb the idea that being watched, desired, and consumed is part of coming of age, their self-worth becomes tethered to sexual validation. Glamourising the schoolgirl trope is not just playing dress-up, it has real-world consequences. It’s time to end the Lolita fantasy once and for all.

It’s been a bad week to be on the internet. Kim Kardashian’s Skims has launched a new line of shapewear… for your face. Sydney Sweeney fronted a controversial campaign for American Eagle, igniting debate about race and Western beauty standards. Then there’s Bonnie Blue’s latest documentary and the dark underbelly of sex as spectacle. Oh, and to add to the Black Mirror-ness of it all, Gwyneth Paltrow cosplayed as the new CEO of Astronomer, Donald Trump Jr shared an AI-generated image of Donald Trump in double denim parodying the aforementioned ad, and the White House released a deportation video captioned, “When ICE books you a one-way Jet2 holiday to deportation… Nothing beats it!” overlaid with the infamous Jess Glynne track.

So, what does all this tell us—aside from the fact we’re all going to hell in a handbasket? Though face shapewear, a woefully tone-deaf advert (if we’re being generous), and OnlyFans might seem unrelated, in many ways, they all point to the alarming direction social media is headed (hint: backwards).

Everywhere I look, signs point to the digital world—which once promised progress, self-expression, and democratised voices—paradoxically becoming an engine for reviving regressive beauty standards and reactionary politics. Far from liberating us from outdated norms, platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube are now complicit in amplifying hyper-conservative aesthetics and ideologies that roll back decades of social progress.

This is all the more worrying when you consider that Gen Z is set to spend 25 years of their life on their phones. A new study, focused on phone use in education, revealed that usage was dominated by social media, messaging, and streaming. This aligns with research commissioned by Heineken, showing the average adult spends 5 hours and 48 minutes a day on their phones—that’s 88 days a year. By now, we’re well aware of the mental toll of doomscrolling and comparing our lives to the curated perfection of those we follow, but what’s emerging is far more insidious. Social media is fuelling a rise in real-world regressive politics and outdated beauty ideals.

There’s always the risk of looking back through rose-tinted glasses, but at one time, social media felt like a haven for body positivity and the rejection of narrow beauty ideals. Increasingly, however, the most viral beauty trends promote an uncanny return to ’90s thinness, Eurocentric features, and surgically enhanced femininity—often under the guise of “natural” beauty.

We’ve seen this in the rise of the “clean girl,” the “trad wife,” and the “hyper-feminine baddie” aesthetics, which glamourise highly curated looks that depend on wealth, whiteness, and conformity. Platforms reward visual content that fits an algorithmic mould of desirability. We should be worried about who is determining this matrix.

Glassy skin, tiny waists, big eyes, and symmetrical features dominate our feeds not because they are more common, but because they are more clickable. Beauty today is narrow, hierarchical, and increasingly retrograde. Sydney Sweeney is currently in the eye of this storm, not least because she conforms to these beauty standards. Of course, the fact that she’s been embraced by America’s right-wing is through no fault of her own. She’s simply the latest in a long line of All-American sweethearts. I assume this is in large part what attracted American Eagle to her, but it’s also what made the advert so disastrous.

For anyone lucky enough to have missed the media maelstrom: in American Eagle’s latest campaign, the camera zooms into Sweeney’s cleavage, bursting out of her denim two-piece, overlaid with a breathy audio: “My body’s composition is determined by my jeans (or is it genes)?” In another ad—no longer on social media—she reclines on a vintage Mustang, reciting inherited traits: “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair colour, personality, and even eye colour.” She continues: “My jeans are blue.” Defenders say it’s a hackneyed play on words; denouncers call it a dog whistle for white supremacists. The online discourse is deafening, so I won’t add fuel to that particular fire. Yet what seems undeniably true is that the return to so-called “traditional” beauty standards is now the dominant aesthetic.

Further proof? Another launch that sent the internet into a tailspin: Kim Kardashian’s Skims face shapewear, which the official press release describes as “a must-have addition to your nightly routine.” The backlash was swift: “SKIMS: Making women feel bad about themselves since 2018,” read one comment. “What in The Handmaid’s Tale am I looking at?” asked Michelle Elman. Alex Light, a body confidence coach, likened the “Ultimate Facewear” to post-surgical compression garments as well as the Scold’s bridle—a medieval torture device used to punish and humiliate (primarily) women deemed as “scolds” (women who spoke too much). The Kardashians do not act flippantly; they will go down in history as some of the most prolific and profitable marketers of all time (schools literally teach their methods). So I cannot imagine a world in which this product launch is anything but calculated.

It seems even in sleep, women are expected to self-optimise—the shapewear claims to sculpt your jaw while you sleep, though Harley Street Skin Clinic’s medical doctor Dr Nikita Desai says that at best, face wraps of this kind offer “temporary changes...and may help with de-puffing your face”. Desai also theorises that the design has taken inspiration from TikTok’s ‘morning shed’ trend, which promotes the idea “the uglier you sleep, the prettier you wake up.”

Skims’ shapewear doesn’t exist in isolation, it is part of a wider cultural shift that normalises weight-loss injections and promotes an AI-driven vision of homogeneous womanhood, argues Light.

Just as beauty ideals regress, so too do politics. This has played out in the “trad wife” phenomenon, where influencers like Hannah Neeleman, better known as Ballerina Farm, and Estee Williams, with huge social followings, espouse submissive roles, homemaking, and—in some cases—anti-feminist values. These creators often cloak their ideas in soft aesthetics and visions of domestic bliss, making the return to patriarchal norms feel less like oppression and more like personal choice. At the other end of this spectrum, Bonnie Blue also subscribes to this form of “choice feminism.”

The “choice feminism” narrative—the idea that any decision made by a woman is inherently feminist—blurs the line between agency and internalised oppression. Wearing face trainers, enjoying promiscuous sex, or embracing traditional gender roles isn’t inherently anti-feminist, but when these choices are made in environments where conformity is the price of visibility, they’re less about liberation and more about metrics.

This blend of nostalgia and performance is potent. Social media romanticises eras marked by rigid gender roles and systemic inequality, reframing them as times of simplicity and “natural order.” Users, especially younger ones, are often drawn to these aesthetics not for their historical accuracy but for the illusion of stability and meaning they provide in an age of uncertainty. That, to me, is worrying.

Of course, this isn’t the whole story. Many creators are using the same platforms to challenge these trends—amplifying inclusive beauty, dismantling gender norms, and pushing back against the romanticisation of oppressive pasts. Recognising the politics behind the aesthetics is the first step. Without it, we risk social media not only continuing to shape how we look but also what we believe. We’re all at the mercy of the algorithm, and in its current iteration, platforms that once promised a better vision of the future are turning into portals to the past.

The quest for the “perfect summer” isn’t just relentless—it’s ridiculously expensive.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that if you scroll TikTok long enough, you’ll end up convinced you need a Dyson Airwrap.

With summer sales in full swing and TikTok Shop pushing dopamine discounts at lightning speed, the virtual catwalk of “hot girl summer” hauls and “brat summer” edits isn’t just cluttering feed, it’s quietly draining bank accounts. Side note: Can we please stop turning everything into Something Girl Summer?

Social media doesn’t just warp how we spend — it warps how we feel about money, success, and self-worth. From £80 serums to sun-drenched European escapes, what starts as harmless inspiration can quickly morph into a relentless, internalised pressure to live up to an aesthetic ideal, often financed by buy-now-pay-later schemes, credit cards, and quiet desperation.

TikTok and Instagram aren’t just apps anymore — they’re finely tuned machines of aspiration. And while the glossy content may look harmless (read: aspirational), financial experts warn they’re fuelling a new kind of emotional spending spiral, with very literal costs.

“These platforms are, essentially, highlight reels of manufactured perfection,” says Ayesha Ofori, financial expert and founder of Propelle, a female-centred financial education community. “We scroll through curated lifestyles where 25-year-olds seem to own dream apartments, travel constantly, and wear head-to-toe designer—all without a hint of financial strain. But the reality is, these are carefully constructed illusions, often fuelled by sponsorships and selective sharing.”

To compound things—and not in the way we like, as in, compound *interest*—it’s becoming harder to tell the difference between genuine financial wellness and performative prosperity. Enter: money dysmorphia—a term Ofori uses to describe the increasingly common disconnect between how people feel about their finances versus the reality.

In a world where luxury appears effortless and spending is sold as self-care, it’s increasingly difficult to distinguish between authentic financial wellness and other misleading representations.

In 2025, over 63% of UK millennials have used Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL). services. Klarna reported a 50% year-on-year rise in travel bookings, and TikTok Shop racked up over £1.8 billion in beauty and personal care sales alone.

“It’s like financial body dysmorphia,” Ofori explains. “Even people who are doing perfectly fine might feel inadequate because they’re constantly measuring themselves against a filtered, monetised version of someone else’s life.”

And the fallout is more than emotional. According to UK Debt Expert, millennials and Gen Z now carry average personal debts exceeding £10,000, with short-term borrowing—especially via BNPL—on the rise.

“You’re not just buying the dress,” says Maxine McCreadie, personal finance expert at UK Debt Expert. “You’re buying the moment, the photo, the illusion of keeping up. It’s no wonder so many young people are waking up financially hungover.”

The thing is, the aesthetic of summer is seductive. From glossy Amalfi Coast vlogs to outfit transitions scored by Dua Lipa, the cost of participation adds up fast. Sure, the trends may feel harmless, fun even, but they come with a whole set of financial side effects beyond the gel manis, Ubers, and Aperol Spritzes.

“Seasonal peer pressure, amplified by the algorithm, can lead to spending that’s totally unsustainable,” McCreadie warns. “There’s nothing wrong with wanting to enjoy yourself—but when every scroll turns into a spending spree, it’s dangerously easy to lose track.”

So, How Do We Protect Our Wallets—and Our Sanity?

1. Curate Your Feed: The easiest way to escape the spending trap? Change what you see. Both Ofori and McCreadie recommend unfollowing or muting accounts that spark financial FOMO. “Out of sight, out of mind,” says Ofori. “Your summer doesn’t need a filter—or a credit card bill.”
2. Set a Summer Budget: Not sexy, but necessary. Build a budget that covers everything from festivals to fashion—and actually check in with it. “A budget isn’t about restriction,” says McCreadie. “It’s about freedom. You get to enjoy the season without the panic spiral come September.”
3. Plan Ahead: Spontaneous nights out might make for a good story, but they often come with a hefty price tag. Suggest alternatives—BYOB picnics, free outdoor cinema, a good old-fashioned BBQ. Still social, far more sustainable.
4. DIY the Glam: You don’t need a fresh set of lashes or a £200 Zara haul to look good. “Learn to do your own brows. Restyle what’s already in your wardrobe,” says McCreadie. “Make DIY your default.”
5. Track Your Spending: Use apps like Monzo, Plum, or Emma to keep tabs on your spending. The earlier you notice patterns, the easier they are to break.
6. Reframe Success: “Social media is marketing,” Ofori says. “It’s storytelling with a sales target. True financial wellness comes from knowing your values—not from replicating someone else’s curated lifestyle.”

Remember that flouncy, waist-cinching detail that once dominated both offices and your local Vodka Revolutions? Well, it’s back—the latest in a long line of Y2K styles we thought we’d seen the billowy back of (see also: the maxi boho skirts).

In 2025, the peplum top has shed its corp-core connotations and embraced a more versatile—and dare I say, fashion-forward—identity.

According to data analysts at the trend-forecasting site Lyst, searches for peplum pieces are up 37% month-on-month, with fashion insiders enthusiastically embracing the once-maligned silhouette.

On the Bally Autumn/Winter 2025 runway, peplums were plentiful, shooting out from structured leather tops and peeking out from underneath the bottoms of men’s bomber jackets.

At Erdem, peplums—admittedly somewhat a signature for the darkly romantic label—came in the form of structured skirts with in-built volume, cascading capes, and fitted blazers reminiscent of Dior’s 'New Look' of 1947, a defining moment in fashion history that designers continue to homage.

Bottega Veneta, Magda Butrym and Tove have also been quietly reworking the peplum, reimagining the silhouette as softer and less overtly corporate. Unlike earlier iterations, the peplum of 2025 is soft, architectural, and just a little subversive. Think: sculptural tops layered over column skirts, waist-cinching knits, and party season dresses with just a whisper of flounce.

Celebrities are leaning in, too. Sydney Sweeney, Demi Moore, and Kim Kardashian have all been spotted sporting modern peplum looks recently. Kardashian even wore a structured version designed by John Galliano to court for the long-awaited trial of the “Grandpa Robbers,” who held her at gunpoint in 2016. Sartorially speaking, it was a powerful statement—especially paired with £5 million worth of diamonds.

But statement celebrity styling aside, the modern peplum is all about balance. Pair a peplum top with slim trousers or a pencil skirt to highlight the waist without overwhelming your frame. Or, for a more relaxed vibe, try a peplum blouse with wide-leg jeans or a maxi skirt.

On TikTok, the girls are calling it “stealth flirty.” Another user summed it as such: “I swore I’d never go back, and yet…”

Like low-rise jeans and wedge heels before it, the peplum proves that it’s impossible to keep a polarising trend down.

Shop Peplum Tops

Can you hear that? It’s the sound of £4,500 worth of crystals coming together to form Lauren Sánchez’s Eiffel Tower-shaped handbag—or perhaps it’s the death rattle of quiet luxury, as the fiancée of the world’s second-richest man, Jeff Bezos, rings in a new Gilded Age for the 1%.

This weekend, Kim Kardashian, Kris Jenner, Katy Perry, and Eva Longoria joined the ranks of Sánchez’s inner sanctum to celebrate Sánchez’s Parisian hen party. Also in attendance were October Gonzalez (the wife of Sánchez’s football-player ex, Tony Gonzalez, with whom she shares a son), businesswomen Elsa Collins and Natasha Poonawalla, and Fox Sports presenter Charissa Thompson.

Given where we are as a society—where private space travel for the ultra-rich garners little more than a collective shrug—it makes a strange sort of sense that Sánchez, helicopter pilot, media personality, and betrothed to Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, would throw a hen do so astronomically lavish it all but sounded the death knell for stealth wealth and quiet luxury.

Photos from the weekend, which flew across social media with the speed of a Blue Origin test flight, show Sánchez surrounded by a bevy of glamorous women, wrapped in pristine white robes and oversized sunglasses, iPhones in tow (a wink, perhaps, at how the spectacle played out across social platforms?). The dressing gown-and-shades combo is an Instagram trope, as common on the app as the caption “Office for the week” when posting about one’s holiday. But that’s where any similarities between your average hen and this supersized soirée ended.

There was a stay at the ritzy Cheval Blanc hotel, dinner at the city’s esteemed Lafayette’s restaurant—where guests reportedly snacked on fried chicken starters—and a champagne-fuelled cruise along the Seine. All in, reports put the cost at £500,000. The wedding itself, reportedly due to take place in Venice next month, is rumoured to come in around the £5 million mark, with Elton John and Lady Gaga supposedly set to perform. The Times reported that the fleet of water taxis required to ferry glamorous guests around will cost £250,000 alone—almost ten times more than the average, albeit exorbitant, cost of a typical wedding.

Then, of course, there were the outfits: bridal whites, long a mainstay of hen parties, came in the form of an Arctic-white furry coat, a corseted co-ord by French brand Murmur, lashings of diamonds, and that Judith Leiber bag. There was also an Oscar de la Renta moment—a white crop top and matching mini skirt appliquéd with blooms.

It’s easy, and tempting, to dismiss the entire spectacle as simply the rich being rich, but as the images filled my feed—despite my not following Sánchez or any of the attendees—it became harder to console myself with the old adage: money can’t buy taste.

Sánchez, it’s worth noting, is no idle ornament in Bezos’s orbit. A pilot and entrepreneur with her own (much-derided) Vogue cover shoot, she has become a kind of First Lady of Billionaire America. That her hen party doubled as a spectacle isn’t only about vanity—it’s about visibility. The weekend, too, wasn’t just a party; it was a statement.

What that statement is, exactly, remains open to interpretation. What became increasingly clear, to me at least, as the weekend unfurled is that the rich are tired of pretending they aren’t. It felt like a middle finger to modesty, as well as a knowing wink to the haters (see again that bathrobe shoot and the mock horror as one of her hens checks her phone).

Of course, it could simply be exactly what it looks like at first glance: a party so ostentatious it can only exist in the gravity-free world of the ultra-rich—Marie Antoinette with a ring light. When it comes to this new Gilded Age, the rocket has already left the launch pad. It doesn’t much matter whether we’re inspired or appalled—we’ve all been pulled into orbit.

Sabrina Carpenter's campaign for Kim Kardashian's SKIMS didn't cause any issues between her and Taylor Swift — despite Taylor and Kim's rocky history.

Swifties criticised Sabrina online when her campaign was released, seeming to feel like it was a betrayal of sorts, but that wasn't the case at all.

"As much as people want to believe you’re tuned into every little thing, I’m not because I’m constantly working. In that scenario, I’ve been very, very communicative with her about that situation, and I just love her so much and support her till the end," Sab said about Tay in a new interview with Rolling Stone. "So it was no weirdness for me, but I know people will just say things because that’s all they have time to do."

The two singers' friendship developed through Sabrina being an opening act for Taylor on many Eras Tour dates — but they often hang out on other occasions now too.

Meanwhile, Taylor's history with Kim goes back to the mid-2010s, and involves the SKIMS founder's ex-husband Kanye West.

In 2016, the hashtag #TaylorSwiftIsOverParty took over Twitter (now known as X). To understand why, we have to go back in time a bit, to Kanye releasing a song titled "Famous" that contained the line "I made that b*tch famous," in reference to the unforgettable and surreal moment he leapt on stage after Taylor had won a VMA in 2009 and said that Beyoncé should have won instead. The phrase "Imma let you finish" might ring a bell?

Anyway, after he released the song, Kanye claimed that he had got Taylor's approval before using the line, per the Guardian. But Taylor subsequently denied having given her approval for the offending line. Coming to her then-husband's defence a few months later, Kim released recordings of Kanye and Taylor's phone conversation on Snapchat which the public felt proved Taylor had given her approval, but the "b*tch" line was never actually referenced in the recordings.

Taylor then released a statement that famously included the line, "I would very much like to be excluded from this narrative, one that I have never asked to be part of, since 2009."

After that, the singer laid low for months, then released the album Reputation, which is believed to take aim at Kim and Kanye.

Though it looked like things had improved between Kim and Taylor post Kardashian-West divorce, the album The Tortured Poets Department features a song titled "thanK you aIMee," which is widely believed to be a Kim Kardashian diss.

So, that's the drama! But Sabrina would very much like to be excluded from this narrative, thanking you!

As a Met Gala stalwart and one of the world’s most famous faces, it was inevitable that all eyes would be on Kim Kardashian as she walked the Met Gala red (or, to be precise, cream and green) carpet outside the Metropolitan Museum of Art last night (Monday 6th May).

For her 11th year attending fashion’s most talked-about event, Kim opted for a custom look from John Galliano for Maison Margiela in response to ‘The Garden of Time’ dress code: a corset-style dress with a very cinched waist that exaggerated her hourglass shape. But fans aren’t convinced the restrictive gown is safe.

The dress is a nod to Galliano’s spring 2024 Margiela Artisanal show during Paris Fashion Week, which featured 19th-century corsets and full skirts in a tribute to the romanticism of the Belle Époque era. Kim attended the haute couture, front row, alongside her mother Kris Jenner and sister Kylie Jenner.

Kim’s Met Gala gown reflected the extreme silhouettes of the period, with a tight lace bodice and sheer floral cut-out dress over the top, somewhat surprisingly teamed with a more casual grey bolero-style knit. The metallic finish of Kim’s corset only adds to its restrictive appearance.

Kim, who is renowned for her exaggerated silhouette (having famously “broken the internet” with her extreme proportions, has long peddled waist trainers. However, cosmetic surgeon and body confidence expert Dr Paul Banwell has warned of the dangers of tightly wound corsets.

One Met Gala fan commenting on X (formerly Twitter): “How is Kim Kardashian breathing? Her waist looks so small in that omg.” While another wrote, “Don’t like kim kardashian and don’t care about her but that corset thing is??? that must hurt like hell??” While a third commented: “Kim kardashian’s waist is absurd. like not to be a hater but it actually is concerning especially when ppl aspire to be like her. sorry.”

Another X user responded with the retort: "Gurl corsets been existing for centuries get some culture." While this social media user certainly has a point, should the A-list be championing corsets in 2024, particularly considering not only that they're deeply uncomfortable, but also what they represent historically?

As historian David Kunzle writes in Fashion and Fetishism, corsets were one of the "quintessential Victorian social horrors". Linked to fainting, reduced lung capacity and, in extreme cases, organ deformity, it's no exaggeration to describe extreme corsetry as a Patriachal horror. “Corsets caused indigestion, constipation, often led to fainting from breathing difficulties and even caused internal haemorrhages,” says Dr Paul Banwell remarking on the garment's dark past. He adds that in 1887, at the height of corset fashion, a list of 97 diseases caused by wearing a corset was published.

As Kunzle explains, "the forcing of young females into narrow corsets being regarded as morally and hygienically on a par with the forcing of small boys into narrow chimneys". It's not so glamorous when you put it that way.

Corsets fell out of fashion in the 1920s, but the pressure for a cinched waist remained, replaced by the less extreme, but still restrictive, girdle. Cue the second-wave feminism of the '60s and '70s, and we clapped off the corset and its later iterations for good—at least in the world outside of fashion runways and red carpets.

It feels somewhat archaic to see this restrictive item chosen by the fashion set, but then again, the corset has always been championed by the elite.

Arianna Grande's Met Gala gown paid homage to the Sleeping Beauties: Reawakening Fashion theme with its ethereal styling, but the eye is immediately drawn to her tiny waist bound in a structured bodice. Kylie Jenner walked the carpet in a strapless gown by Oscar de la Renta with a severe-looking bonded bodice contouring her shape.

Of course, it's not the first time we've seen Kim push the boundaries when it comes to exaggerated silhouettes. For 2019's Notes on Camp theme, she wore a skin-tight, latex corset dress, while 2022 saw Kim again champion the 'hourglass' ideal with Marilyn Monroe's Happy Birthday Mr President dress, originally designed by Jean Louis in 1962.

We know the Kardashians and Jenners are no strangers to advocating for unattainable beauty standards. Still, it would be refreshing to see Kim mark her 12th year at the Met Gala with a look that breaks away from outdated and—quite literally—restrictive ideals.

Taylor Swift has been extremely candid about her highly publicised feud with Kim Kardashian and Kayne West in an interview with TIME Magazine. The singer was given the prestigious title of TIME's 2023 Person of the Year', beating the likes of Barbie, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and King Charles III to the top.

In her first magazine interview in four years, Taylor discussed the highs and lows of her career as well as the infamous feud with Kim and Kayne that took the singer 'down psychologically to a place I’ve never been'. 

She told TIME: "I moved to a foreign country. I didn’t leave a rental house for a year. I was afraid to get on phone calls. I pushed away most people in my life because I didn’t trust anyone anymore. I went down really, really hard." Taylor then added: "I thought that moment of backlash was going to define me negatively for the rest of my life."

As a little bit of background; the drama between the music stars has been going on for over a decade, after Kanye interrupted Taylor's acceptance speech at the MTV VMAs in 2009. After some shade was thrown back and forth in various interviews, the pair seemed to bury the hatchet, with rumours even swirling of a potential collaboration between the pair - until Kayne dropped new track Famous in 2016. Its lyrics include the following: "I feel like me and Taylor might still have sex / Why? I made that bitch famous."

Cue much debate over whether Kayne asked Taylor for permission to release the song (which the singer strongly denied due to its misogynistic angle) and Kayne's then-wife Kim Kardashian jumping into the debate.

"She totally approved that," Kim told GQ. "She wanted to all of a sudden act like she didn't. I swear, my husband gets so much shit for things [when] he really was doing proper protocol and even called to get it approved."

Kim went as far as to say she'd recorded a conversation between Kayne and Taylor, teasing followers that she was going to release it, insinuating that Taylor had been lying all along. Taylor discussed the impact this had on her back in 2019. 

"In my experience, I've come to see that bullies want to be feared and taken seriously," she told Elle Magazine. "A few years ago, someone started an online hate campaign by calling me a snake on the internet. The fact that so many people jumped on board with it led me to feeling lower than I've ever felt in my life."

In the present day, Taylor is reflective of the experience, saying that despite adversity, you need to 'keep making art.' She said: "I’m very careful to be grateful every second that I get to be doing this at this level, because I’ve had it taken away from me before. There is one thing I’ve learned: My response to anything that happens, good or bad, is to keep making things. Keep making art. But I’ve also learned there’s no point in actively trying to quote unquote defeat your enemies. Trash takes itself out every single time."

Well, there you have it.

Over the years, American Horror Story has welcomed a number of surprising celebrities into the fold. While actors Sarah Paulson, Evan Peters and Lily Rabe have remained fan favourites throughout the show's eleven seasons, every now and then viewers are treated to a famous face that they perhaps weren't expecting. 

In 2015, Lady Gaga landed the part of a vampire Countess in AHS: Hotel, and her performance earned her with the Best Actress in a Limited Series Golden Globe the following year. She has since gone on to take lead roles in Hollywood movies like A Star Is Born and House of Gucci. 

Other musical celeb cameos have come in the form of Adam Levine and Stevie Nicks, with supermodel Naomi Campbell even popping in to the AHS universe. 

So when Kim Kardashian announced that she would be appearing in Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk's fantasy series, it was always going to gauge *some* kind of reaction. 

Sharing that she would be joining recurring AHS star Emma Roberts, Kim posted the news on Instagram and the trailer was also shared on show's official social channels. 

The caption simply reads: "It's happening. @emmaroberts will be joined by @kimkardashian for @ahsfx Season 12. Coming this summer."

The trailer gives very little away, other than calling both the stars 'delicate'.

Viewers were quick to share their thoughts on the casting, and while some are less than impressed others are holding judgement until the next season is released.

One wrote: "Kim Kardashian starring? Wtf did I just read? That’s the most horrifying part of the entire AHS franchise."

Another added: "Thanks for the heads up! Now I know to skip this season entirely."

However, others defended the decision to include Kim, with one follower commenting: "I’ll give it a shot to see what Kim can do. I was pleasantly surprised with Lady Gaga in Hotel, so we’ll see."

Another said: "If Kim’s character gets killed off in the first episode, then I’m ok with it."

It remains to be seen if Kim will have a starring role or will be making a guest appearance, but either way - it definitely has people talking. 

Will you be tuning in to the next season?

There are a few things you may remember from the Met Gala last year - there was an unexpected engagement, Blake Lively's colour-changing dress was a dream, and let's not forget Rihanna's surprise honour. 

However, one of the most talked about moments was Kim Kardashian stepping out on the red carpet wearing one of Marilyn Monroe's most iconic dresses. 

Marilyn famously wore the sparkly gown back in 1962 when she sang Happy Birthday to President John F. Kennedy, and Kim was given the dress on loan for the Met Gala red carpet. 

But she faced huge backlash when videos went viral claiming that she had damaged the historical item. The owners of the piece, Ripley's Believe It Or Not, later issued a statement denying that Kim had caused any ruin to the garment. 

While she had borrowed the item purely for the event, Ripley's also gifted Kim a lock of Marilyn's hair to keep. 

Now, The Kardashians star is adding to her trove of historical pieces as she has just bought one of Princess Diana's iconic necklaces. 

Kim paid £163,800 for the late royal's Attallah Cross statement pendant when it went on sale at Sotheby's London. 

The cross is a 1920's piece by luxury jewellery designer Garrard, and is made from square-cut amethysts and circular-cut diamonds. 

According to reports, Kim's representative was in a bidding war with three others during the last five minutes of the sale on Wednesday, which she eventually won. The piece, which Diana famously wore at a London charity gala in 1987, sold for more than double its pre-auction estimate.

Ahead of its sale, the head of jewellery at Sotheby's London, Kristian Spofforth, said: "Jewellery owned or worn by the late Princess Diana very rarely comes on to the market, especially a piece such as the Attallah cross, which is so colourful, bold and distinctive."

It is also reported that Kim owns one of former First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis' watches, paying $379,500 for the piece back in 2017. 

She's building up quite the collection!

Kim Kardashian lost 16lbs to fit into Marilyn Monroe's exact dress she wore in 1962 to sing President John F.Kennedy's birthday song to this year's Met Gala 2022.

The Keeping Up With the Kardashians star looked sensational in the embellished figure-hugging ensemble, which was on loan to Kim from Ripley's Believe It or Not! museum.

However, it has been reported Kim, 41, had a replica made, which she swiftly changed into after posing on the red carpet in the iconic number so not to damage the iconic original.

Speaking to Vogue she said: "I would never want to sit in it or eat in it or have any risk of any damage to it."

Kim certainly turned heads in the flattering number, which she has had the idea for since the last Met Gala.

Speaking about the whole ensemble and her inspiration, she said: "The idea really came to me after the gala in September last year. I thought to myself, what would I have done for the American theme if it had not been the Balenciaga look? What’s the most American thing you can think of? And that’s Marilyn Monroe.

“For me the most Marilyn Monroe moment is when she sang 'Happy Birthday'.”

However, Kim - who has North, Saint, Chicago and Psalm - found the dress didn't quite fit at first, but she gave herself a goal of three weeks to squeeze into it, which she did.

Recalling the styling process ahead of the Met Gala, the SKIMS founder said: "So I looked at them and I said: ‘Give me, like, three weeks.'

"It was such a challenge, it was like a roll. I was determined, I was determined to fit.

"And I did it.”

Kim attended the star-studded bash with boyfriend Pete Davidson, who wore a Dior suit, as well as her momager Kris Jenner, and siblings Kourtney Kardashian, Khloe Kardashian, as well as Kendall and Kylie Jenner.

This year's Met Gala was the first time Khloe had been invited, and she too impressed in a gold number to show off her enviable physique.

Kim Kardashian will be shutting her KKW Fragrance next month, following her divorce from Kanye West.

The 41-year-old reality star and businesswoman will be closing the business, which she first launched in 2017, on May 1, but that is not the end for her, or her perfume range.

Kim will be rebranding the label, which stands for Kim Kardashian West, and will relaunch the fragrance line under a new name in the future.

However, it is unknown when we can expect the new drop.

Kim - who has North, Chicago, Saint and Psalm with rapper Ye - announced the news on her Instagram Stories, which stay on the site for 24 hours.

She wrote: "Fragrance as many of you know is deeply personal for me.

“I put my heart and soul into every bottle, and I’m so incredibly proud of every KKW Fragrance product and collaboration that we have launched since Crystal Gardenia in 2017.

"Thank you from the bottom of my heart for your loyalty and love these last few years. I cannot wait to introduce you to the next chapter of my fragrance journey - I promise I won’t be gone for too long."

The new scents are said to be sold under a new online store, and shoppers will be able to shop all beauty categories, including her KKW beauty, and upcoming skincare line, on one site.

Meanwhile, Kim has launched a 40% off sale on her KKW Fragrance before the business shuts in one month's time.

The mum-of-four has a busy schedule, as the iconic show, which shot the KarJenner family to fame, Keeping Up With the Kardashians has come to an end, but she has been filming for their new reality show The Kardashians that will air on Hulu this month.

As well as expanding her SKIMS shapewear collection, juggling her multi-faceted career with motherhood, her public split from Kanye, and navigating her relationship with new flame Pete Davidson, Kim has been sitting exams to become a lawyer.

There's nothing she can't do.

Kim Kardashian and Kanye West have been at loggerheads ever since they split last year. 

The Kardashians star filed for a divorce in February 2021, but the pair have been embroiled in ongoing war of words. Kanye disagreed with their daughter North on TikTok, and the SKIMS mogul has tried to defend herself against her former partner's "constant attacks".

The Stronger hitmaker has even slated Kim's new boyfriend Pete Davidson, who stayed out of their feud, until more recently when the SNL presenter defended his 41-year-old girlfriend.

But now Ye, 44, who has North, Saint, Chicago and Psalm with Kim, is reportedly seeking help, and has promised not to say anything negative about her anymore to bring their feud to an end once and for all.

A source told Page Six: "For the sake of the kids, Kanye has told Kim he’s not making any public appearances or inflammatory social media statements, and he will go away somewhere to get better.

"At this time, Ye is committed to a healthy co-parenting relationship with Kim and is and focused on raising their beautiful children.

"It wasn't clear if West planned to go into a treatment facility, as he has stayed in Los Angeles to be with his and Kardashian's four kids."

The pair were sported at their son Saint's game in Los Angeles over the weekend, where they reportedly spoke and appeared amicable with one another.

These claims come shortly after Kanye was suspended on Instagram after his ongoing rants on the social media platform.

It has been reported plans for the musician to perform at the 64th Annual Grammy Awards on 4 April in Las Vegas have been scrapped, although it was not confirmed if he was to take to the stage at the event prior to the upcoming bash.

Though it is unknown if Kanye will be checking into a "treatment facility", as the source mentioned, he was hospitalised for "psychiatric emergency" back in 2017 and the Yeezy designer had to cancel his Saint Pablo tour in 2017 at the time.

Kim Kardashian has proved she is a force to be reckoned with.

From her KKW Beauty and fragrance line, to her SKIMS brand, as well as focusing on her career as a lawyer, while filming the new tell all show The Kardashians in replace of Keeping Up With the Kardashians, and juggling motherhood, she has a lot on her plate.

Throw into the mix a new collection with her shapewear label. We just don't know how she does it.

Kim, 41, has revealed she has been working on a swimwear line for SKIMS, which she co-founded in 2019, and it is set to be released on Friday 18 March.

The mogul announced the exciting news on her Instagram and Twitter, alongside a string of campaign images of her on the beach modelling cut out swimsuits, as well as a variety of two piece bikini sets.

She captioned the post: "You've asked, we've listened @SKIMS SWIM launches this Friday, March 18 at 9AM PT."

The upcoming drop will boast 19 mix and match styles, all of which will come in seven colours; from the brand's signature neutral hues, as well as cobalt and periwinkle blue.

The collection will include skimpy sets, as well as sporty designs, such as t-shirt bikini separates, and bikini shorts, so there is something for everyone to feel comfortable while on the beach.

The line will be available to shop in XXXS to 4X, and will retail from approximately £28 up to £80.

But Kim - who has North, Saint, Chicago and Psalm with estranged husband Kanye West - has revealed she has wanted to release a swimwear line for "a really long time", but has remained tight lipped for a while so not to give too much away.

Speaking to the Business of Fashion, Kim said: "I even had to stop tagging [Skims], I do want there to be a nice element of surprise for it. I've really wanted swim for a really long time."

Kim co-founded SKIMS in 2019, and over the last three years the brand has come from strength to strength, as it has expanded from shapewear to loungewear, as well as pyjamas, and now swimwear, and is available in major UK stockists, such as Selfridges.

Pete Davidson has remained fairly quietly and refrained from publicly hitting back at Kanye West, following an onslaught of criticism from the rapper, as well as aims fired at Kim Kardashian.

But, for the SNL co-host enough was enough and he is "done with being quiet", and has decided to stand up for him and girlfriend Kim.

Kim has previously reached out to Kanye to stop with the hateful comments to her and Pete.

However, the 28-year-old - who has recently gone Instagram official with his relationship with the SKIMS founder - has takne matters into his hands and reportedly messaged Kanye to end their bitter feud.

Images of their conversation was shared by Pete's friend, Dave Sirus, in a since deleted Instagram post.

It has been reported in the conversation Pete praised Kim, 41, as "the best mother", and pleaded with the Stronger hitmaker to "take a minute and calm down."

In the since deleted post, Pete's text read: "Can you please take a second and calm down.

"Kim is literally the best mother I've ever met. What she does for those kids is amazing and you are so f***ing lucky that she's your kids mom.

"I've decided I'm not gonna let you treat us this way anymore and I'm done being quiet. Grow the f**k up."

However, the message did not go down well with Kanye, 44, who replied: "Oh you using profanity", followed by him asking "Where are you right now?"

In the comeback of all comebacks, Pete replied "in bed with your wife", alongside a selfie.

Kanye hit back and replied: "Happy to see you're out the hospital and rehab."

But this fuelled the argument even more as Pete alleged to have told Kanye to check himself in, which is a dig at his mental health battle that saw Kanye cancel his Saint Pablo Tour back in 2016 and hospitalised for exhaustion.

Pete is said to have asked Kanye to "talk" and stop being "a little internet b***h boy".

It has been reported Pete's conversation continued to see him offer help to Kanye, and to stop making his frustrations public, but to settle them in private.

Pete is said to have claimed he has stopped any gags on SNL about Kanye, in a bid to end their spat.

Kim filed for a divorce last year after seven years of marriage to Kanye, with who she has North, Saint, Psalm and Chicago with, and was recently granted legal single status.

Kim Kardashian and Kanye West have been embroiled in a war of words for months since they filed for divorce.

In a recent turn of events, the rapper has slammed the SKIMS founder for letting their daughter North on Tik Tok, after he forbid his oldest child from the social media platform.

In a clip, which was shared on The Keeping Up with the Kardashians stars Instagram, North can be seen with black eyeshadow and lipstick, singing Machine Gun elly and Willow's new track Emo Girl.

Kim, as well as North's cousin Penelope - who is Kourtney Kardashian and Scott Disick's child - also feature in the clip, which has since been deleted from Kim's Instagram.

Stronger rapper, saw the video and was in uproar, so much so, he commented: "I told y’all before about this Tik Tok stuff Now my 8 year old on here singing she fell in love with an emo girl.

"Leftist don’t want fathers to have no say in our childrens lives I don’t want my kids at godless Sierra Canyon school I got a voice and I’m not having this."

In the post Kanye, 44, then took aim at Perez Hilton, as well as nemesis D.L. Hughley, for mocking Kanye's mental health.

Kanye's rant continued: "And Perez Hilton you still ain’t answer my question And never put my name next to the word abuse

"Don’t play with my name like that I’m a real person who wants the best for my children"

"So don’t speak on me or my children I can afford to hurt you."

Kanye has previously made it known he disapproves of his children being on social media.

In a previous interview with Hollywood Unlocked, he said: "Don't have my daughter wearing lipstick on TikTok, or don't have her on TikTok at all, if I'm not there to approve that.

"It was done without me knowing and it happened again so I feel like it's poking the bear, trying to antagonise me or create this 'crazy' narrative."

Kanye previously shared the rights of TikTok and the users age on his Instagram account to support his case, but the post has since been deleted.

Kim Kardashian and Pete Davidson have been dating for a few months, but they have finally taken the next step and made their romance official - on Instagram.

The social media world went into utter meltdown when the Keeping Up With the Kardashians star shared a string of photos, of her laying on the floor with the SNL presenter, a cute selfie, as well as a meme they were recreating.

In clever Kim K fashion she disguised the post with the first picture being of her crouched down on the floor in an oversized metallic fur coat, black sunglasses and silver knee high boots.

But, swipe along a few images and you will see the couple looking more in love than ever.

She captioned the post: "Whose car are we gonna take?"

Kim posted the collection of photos on the photo-sharing site, and within hours it has racked up over four million likes on the platform.

Friends, family and fans, have been quick to show their support for the couple, as Kim's sister Khloe Kardashian commented: "I love this."

A separate follower wrote: "This is the post I’ve been waiting for", while another added: "Okay instagram OFFICIAL."

Pete and Kim are said to have got close after they filmed the Aladdin segment together on SNL back in October, and shared a kiss while filming the parody sketch.

Though they have remained tight lipped about their romance, just one month later it was reported the pair were "casually dating".

They have been spotted out and about, heading to the cinema and on romantic dates together, and even spent Christmas together last year.

The 41-year-old SKIMS founder filed for divorce from rapper Kanye West in February 2021, after seven years of marriage, and just last week Kim obtained legal approval of her single status.

The former couple have children North, Saint, Psalm and Chicago together.

Kim Kardashian never fails to take those leaps when it comes to fashion, but she pulls it off.

After being announced as the new face of designer label, Balenciaga, last month, the SKIMS founder pulled out all the stops to show her devotion to the brand during this year's Paris Fashion Week.

The Keeping Up With the Kardashians star attended the Balenciaga Autumn/Winter 2022 fashion show in Paris on Sunday 6 March, but she went one step further to show her support as she wore an entire outfit made from yellow tape, emblazoned with the fashion house's name over.

The full-body ensemble was certainly a statement.

Kim - who has North, Saint, Psalm and Chicago with estranged husband Kanye West - shared behind the scenes clips of her getting ready for the PFW show on her Instagram Stories.

She slipped into a full black catsuit, which she was taped into, from neck to toe, by at least four people. Kim's accessories, including her bag and pointed toe boots, were also covered in the Balenciaga tape.

Kim slicked her long brunette tresses back, and opted for a pair of black square-framed sunglasses to complete the look.

But, if you are anything like us, you may be wondering how she got out of the outfit. We have the answer.

Kim continued to document the aftermath of the show, and told her Instagram followers she was cut out of the suit, but is keeping it as an "archive", along with extra Balenciaga tape - just in case she wants to slip into the one piece in the future.

Speaking in a string of Instagram Stories, which last on the site for 24 hours, she said: I kept my look from the Balenciaga show, and I literally had them cut it off me, and I kept it, so it is still in tact with the bags and the boots, for my archive.

"They put rolls of tape in here for me so I could have extra."

We're not quite sure if we could, or would, try to pull this off, but Kim certainly nailed it, and it's bound to be a look to go down in history.

Kim Kardashian has been declared legally single, just over one year after she filed for a divorce from Kanye West.

The Keeping Up With the Kardashians star confirmed the news as she changed her name from Kim Kardashian West to just Kim Kardashian on her Instagram handle, despite the rapper challenging her request for single status.

Eagle eyed fans were quick to notice the change, with some taking to Reddit to share the news.

One post read: "West no more", while another added: "I just realised it second ago and ran here."

Kanye has also shaken off his own surname, as he recently changed his name to Ye.

Kim attended a virtual hearing regarding her divorce from the Stronger hitmaker this week in which she was declared "legally single", however Kanye did not attend, but instead released a diss track.

Following the change in the Skims founders relationship status, the 44-year-old artist released the accompanying music video for his track Eazy, which has not gone down well with Kim or her new flame Pete Davidson, who is embroiled in a heated feud with her ex.

In the track Kanye raps: "God saved me from the crash, just so I can beat Pete Davidson's a**", while the music video appears quite threatening as it captures a clay model of Kanye kidnapping and burying the SNL presenter alive.

A source close to Pete, 28, told Page Six: "This is, for real, really scary."

And Kim, 41, is not impressed.

A separate source close to Kim - who has North, Saint, Chicago and Psalm with Kanye - told PEOPLE: "[Kim] thinks it's way too violent and is upset.

"She's really upset with Kanye that he'd do this. She's completely over all of this and she wants it to stop."

Kim Kardashian has given a rare insight into her family home following her split from estranged husband Kanye West.

The 41-year-old mogul filed for divorce from the rapper in February 2021, after seven years of marriage, and has kept the $60 million home in Calabasas, California, they shared with their four children, North, eight, Saint, six, Chicago , four, and Psalm, two.

The former couple previously gave a tour of their neutral home, which was designed by architect Claudio Silvestrin, who previously worked with Kanye on his Manhattan property, but Kim has recently taken Vogue Magazine on a tour of her humble abode once again, which has been "updated".

The Keeping Up With the Kardashians star showcased the crisp cream interior in the "main areas" in the home, but revealed she has added "amazing art" and more of her "favourite things" to her home.

Speaking in the video, the SKIMS founder said: "We are here in my home, once again.  A a few things have been updated, I’ve filled it up with some amazing art and all my favourite things.

"My house is really minimal, I find there’s so much chaos out in the world, that when I come home I want to be just really quiet."

Though the kitchen, sitting room and bathrooms boast a neutral colour palette, Kim has revealed her children's bedrooms are a stark contrast and allow them to be more expressive.

She said: "I have the playroom with filled with clutter, bedrooms, one is pink, one is purple, one is blue, one is dinosaur, each kid can have their full style and taste and have so much fun. But in the main house I really like the calmness, and shockingly four kids haven’t messed up my cream house."

Kim went on to share her most sentimental belongings in her home, which includes a scrapbook for each of her four children, filled with baby scans, her diet and cravings during the pregnancy, the baby shower, as well as photos of her friends and relatives with her little ones.

In North's album eagle eyed viewers will notice a photo of Nicole Ritchie holding the oldest daughter, as well as Jay Z and Beyonce.

Kim proudly showed off North's creative masterpieces, which included a landscape painting, numerous animal portraits, and a charcoal self-portrait during her time isolating with Coronavirus.

Speaking about her child's artwork, Kim said: "It's a charcoal, maybe that was just her emo mood. I love seeing the different personality and the moods and everything that she goes through, and is feeling, it's really been an amazing hobby of hers."

Kim has also kept a trunk filled with birthday cards and costumes her mum, Kris Jenner, 66, kept for her when she was growing up.

She went on to show off the outdoor space, including her basketball court and gym area, which co-ordinate in the black and cream theme throughout her home, before displaying her impressive garden, meadow and vegetable garden, where her children, nieces and nephews pick their own fruit and vegetables from.

Another one of Kim's pride and joys is her extensive car collection, because she has "always been a car girl".

Just like her home interior, exterior, Kim wanted her motor collection to "blend in" with her house, and indeed they do as they are all a soft grey shade, with her favourite being the Maybach Sedan out of the Rolls Royce Phantom and Lamborghini Urus.

She said: "I've always been a car girl.

"I wanted my cars to kind of blend in with my house so I did all grey cars instead of my typical matte silver that I used to do."

Kim Kardashian filed for a divorce from estranged husband Kanye West filed in February 2021, and has since filed a request for a single status, and her maiden name to be reinstated.

But Ye is fighting against the legal request until other issues are resolved first, PEOPLE has reported.

The Yeezy designer responded to Kim's petition in the Superior Court of California on Wednesday in Los Angeles County. In the court documents, which have been obtained by the publication, Kanye's lawyers believe granting Kim's single status prior to resolving the custody of their four children, and settlement of their shared properties, could pose a "risk of adverse consequences" and "create barriers to obtaining evidence" if one decides to remarry before the end of the case.

The 44-year-old rapper has challenged Kim's request with his own "conditions", which he wishes to be met.

Kanye - who has North, eight, Saint, six, Chicago, four, and Psalm, two, with Kim - has stipulated for the Keeping Up With the Kardashians star to forfeit her marital privilege with him, as well as her new spouse if she was to remarry, until the custody battle has been resolved.

Marital privilege also includes conversations between them to be concealed.

The documents state: "An early termination of status also creates barriers to obtaining evidence [if one] remarries before the case is concluded.

"If status is terminated now without his condition, then a barrier to obtaining evidence regarding parenting and custody will arise if Kim remarries before the case is concluded."

Kanye has also requested his "right of reimbursement if either party dies", and for the SKIMS founder to not move any assets before the settlement surrounding their property resolved.

PEOPLE has reported Kim's hearing for her petition is set for early March.

Kim, 41, and Kanye married in 2014 but split last year after almost seven years together.

Kim has since moved on with SNL comedian Pete Davidson, who went public with their romance in November last year, shortly after they appeared on the American chat show together.

Kanye was romantically linked to actress and model Julia Fox, although the pair are said to have since gone their separate ways.

Kim Kardashian has been embroiled in a war of words with estranged husband Kanye West in recent weeks following their split.

Though the pair called time on their marriage last year, and appeared to have both moved on, as Kim has been dating Pete Davidson, while Kanye was romantically linked to Julia Fox - though the duo have since parted ways - tensions are high.

In recent weeks the Stronger hitmaker shared private text messages from The Keeping Up With the Kardashians star about her boyfriend, and asked her ex to stop with the relentless cyber attacks.

In the since deleted messages Kim pleaded with the father to their children - North, eight, Saint, six, Chicago, four, and Psalm, two, - to stop "creating a dangerous and scary environment", as she fears if anything bad was to happen to her new flame it would be Kanye's "fault."

The 44-year-old rapper also posted a private message of Pete, 28, calling him a "d***head", mocked his tattoos, which has since been deleted.

Kanye ignited the feud by sharing a post by Hip Hop Numbers listing all of Kanye's "beefs", which included Pete, Taylor Swift, Kim's momager Kris Jenner, and many more.

Kanye captioned the repost on his Instagram account: "Come on guys… This list is twice as long. You gotta put Apple Spotify Vivendi Universal Lucien Grange Tik Tok Black History Month Obama the whole cast of SNL Hillary Clinton Corey Gamble Bezos Charlamagne Disney Librals and of course Skete and any and all corny s**t in general Can somebody from Chicago let these people know what Skete meant when we was growing up It’s up for everybody!!!!! Wow. Being rich is fun!!!!"

In true family support, Kim's siblings, Kourtney, Khloe, Kendall and Kylie Jenner, have backed their sister and unfollowed Kanye on Instagram, but they have remained tight lipped about the ordeal. Subtle, but impactful.

However, Kris, 66, still follows the music mogul.

In a turn of events, Kanye has recently followed the SNL presenter and comedian on the photo-sharing site.

Pete and Kim have been dating since November 2021 following their SNL sketch together, months after the SKIMS founder filed for a divorce from Kanye in February of the same year after seven years of marriage.

Kim Kardashian has come under fire on numerous occasions by estranged husband Kanye West since their split.

The Keeping Up With the Kardashians star set up a joint TikTok account with oldest daughter North, eight, and often share fun videos or dance routines together - much to the Stronger hitmaker's disapproval.

Kanye, 44, recently screengrabbed a photo of North on the social media platform, which he posted on his Instagram account, and wrote: "SINCE THIS IS MY FIRST DIVORCE I NEED TO KNOW WHAT I SHOULD DO ABOUT MY DAUGHTER BEING PUT ON TIK TOK AGAINST MY WILL ?"

But the comment hit a nerve with the 41-year-old reality star and beauty mogul, as she hit back on her Instagram account and aired her own frustrations towards her ex whose "constant attacks" are "hurtful."

In a lengthy post, which was shared on Kim's Instagram Stories that delete after 24 hours, she wrote: "Kanye's constant attacks on me in interviews and social media is actually more hurtful than any TikTok North might create.

"As the parent who is the main provider and caregiver for our children, I am doing my best to protect our daughter while also allowing her to express her creativity in the medium that she wishes with adult supervision - because it brings her happiness.

"Divorce is difficult enough on our children and Kanye's obsession with trying to control and manipulate our situation so negatively and publicly is only causing further pain for all."

Although the pair who have since moved on with different partners; as Kim is reportedly dating Pete Davidson, while Kanye is linked to Julia Fox, aimed to split amicably and co-parent their children, North, Saint, six, Chicago, four, and Psalm, two together, Kim has revealed Kanye is making it "impossible".

She added:"From the beginning I have wanted nothing but a healthy and supportive co-parenting relationship because it is what is best for our children and it saddens me that Kanye continues to make it impossible every step of the way.

"I wish to handle all matters regarding our children privately and hopefully he can finally respond to the third attorney he has had in the last year to resolve any issues amicably."

However, this did not go down well with the rapper who, once again, screengrabbed Kim's post and shared on his main Instagram feed.

He commented: "What do you mean by main provider ? America saw you try to kidnap my daughter on her birthday by not providing the address.

"You put security on me inside of the house to play with my son then accused me of stealing I had to take a drug test after Chicago's party cause you accused me of being on drugs. Tracy Romulus stop manipulating Kim to be this way."

He went on to share a photo of the terms and conditions for Tik Tok users, which stipulates a child must be over the age of 13 years old to have an account, and will be assigned to Tik Tok for Younger Users Experience, which is said to have higher security.

Just last month the Yeezy fashion designer claimed Kim was making it difficult for him to see their children, in an interview with Hollywood Unlocked.

Last month, Kanye gave a heated interview with Hollywood Unlocked where he hinted that Kim, 41, was somehow preventing him or making it difficult for him to see their children, and he moved to be in the same neighbourhood as his family to see them frequently.

Kim filed a divorce from Kanye in February 2021.

Kanye West recently bought a new mansion in the same neighbourhood as estranged wife Kim Kardashian following their split, for $4.5 million.

While some thought the 44-year-old rapper's behaviour was slightly out the ordinary, especially so soon after the couple split, the Yeezy designer has opened up as to why - and it makes a lot of sense.

In a teaser clip for Hollywood Unlocked with Jason Lee, Kanye revealed the reason he moved was to be as close as possible to his four children, North eight, Saint, six, Chicago, three and two-year-old Psalm, as he knows first hand what it was like not to see both his parents when he was growing up.

He said: "That’s why I even got the house.

"When my mom took me from Atlanta to Chicago, my dad didn’t come to the coldest and most-dangerous city in the world to be next to me. There’s nothing with my career, whether it’s rap [or designing], none of that is going to keep me from my children.

"Don’t play with me and don’t play with my children. Ain’t no security going to get between me and my children."

Us Weekly previously reported the Heartless hitmaker paid an extra $421,000 above the asking price just to be on the same road in the Hidden Hills, California, as his family,

Despite Kim and Kanye's split, the musician still vows to be a "big part" in his children's lives.

An insider previously shared: "[Kim] wants Kanye to be a big part of the kids’ lives. [He] will be invited to all holidays and family celebrations.”

Kim filed for divorce in February in 2021, six years after the former couple tied the knot.

It has been reported the Keeping Up With the Kardashians star paid Kanye $23 million for his share of the Hidden Hills property they had previously bought together.

Kim has since moved on with boyfriend Pete Davidson, while Kanye has been cosying up with Julia Fox.