Is Makeup Really That Bad?

[brucethecollie]

I know that a lot of this conversation has been about using make-up to appear more attractive to men, but I have also heard that women apply make up and jump through all of the other painful fashion-hoops partially also for other women. Bruce, when you haven't worn make up, do you get similar comments from women? What about your friends who have been told these things, have these statements come from women? I know that guys do similar things in order to establish a hierarchy and henpeck amongst themselves.

 

I was reading this book last night, and there was this really powerful quote that came to mind, "women are most responsible for the oppression of women in our culture." I don't truly know how much this might apply to our world today, but I think that it is an interesting perspective to examine.

I try to only have female friends who don't say such things nowadays but yes, only from women, in fact. In high school and in college, when I was around others but not necessarily friends with them, it was common for women to say those things. They would mostly say it gently but it still implied that make up should be used. My mother has asked when looking at my photo "why didn't you put on make up?" while my dad never did that. My sisters have complimented my looks only regarding my make up technique or outfit while my brothers have just complimented my looks, period. My cowardice about not wearing make up is about my fear of criticism from females (silly, I know). No male has ever given me any comment about make up except encouraging me not to use it or worry about it. I wonder if partly it has to do with females knowing the effort that goes into it, I don't know.

[Drew.]

I try to only have female friends who don't say such things nowadays but yes, only from women, in fact. In high school and in college, when I was around others but not necessarily friends with them, it was common for women to say those things. They would mostly say it gently but it still implied that make up should be used. My mother has asked when looking at my photo "why didn't you put on make up?" while my dad never did that. My sisters have complimented my looks only regarding my make up technique or outfit while my brothers have just complimented my looks, period. My cowardice about not wearing make up is about my fear of criticism from females (silly, I know). No male has ever given me any comment about make up except encouraging me not to use it or worry about it. I wonder if partly it has to do with females knowing the effort that goes into it, I don't know.

 

Yeah, I don't think it's silly to do something to avoid attack/criticism. It might be silly for you to do that now, but when you learned to do this behavior, it must have been devastating to be criticized about it. With what you have shared, I feel even more confident asserting that women wear make-up mostly for other women. Thank you for sharing.

[Mole]

What if there is no such thing as genetic beauty? Rather, it's a social construct. I mean, what evolutionary purpose is there for genetic beauty? Health, hormones and age are the only thing I can understand in regards to beauty which isn't usually to do with genetics. Personally, sometimes I find 'ugly' girls rather attractive, it can even be exotic. Many girls share similar facial features and that can definitely be attractive. If it really is the case that our sense of genetic beauty is a social construct, then make-up would only distort health, hormone levels and age, and that I find rather important information. Information that is important for a relationship. With age comes wisdom and experience. With health comes discipline. With hormones comes suitability and needs. It's rather obvious, for example, that make-up does make a girl look as if they are constantly horny. Sure it turns guys on, but that's beyond just aesthetics. That, I would think, would have some kind of impact on perception and morals. If genetic beauty does exist, though, then I find no problem with make-up because genetic beauty cannot be controlled so it really has no important information for a relationship.

EDIT: Okay maybe not literally a social construct, but not as relevant as people think, perhaps.

[Frosty]

I see no reason to believe that a smart, moral and virtuous person must never use makeup, or that use of it necessarily implies the lack of those things.

 

It is however a red flag for me, if a woman uses makeup and sexual attraction alone to net a partner, then it could be reasonably assumed that she is primarily interested in men who are interested in her for her looks. However if you meet a woman who displays virtuous traits and looks for virtuous traits in people she is romantically interested in, but also happens to wear makeup, then I see no problem with that at all, it's something that needs to be seen in context.

 

As humans we're hard wired to enjoy certain things and there's nothing wrong with indulging those desires, it's kinda like saying if a man takes you out on a date and he pays for an expensive restaurant that serves 5 star food, then be on the lookout as he might be trying to buy your affection. There's nothing wrong with enjoy good food or enjoying an attractive face, it just can't be the primary motivator for a relationship if you want long term happiness.

 

I wouldn't be outspoken against makeup or even particularly supportive of women who don't wear it, that's the wrong end of the stick. Just continue to champion virtue. Why not have it all, virtue, attractive looking mate and good food?

[dsayers]

I see no reason to believe that a smart, moral and virtuous person must never use makeup, or that use of it necessarily implies the lack of those things.

I for one am not saying it necessarily does. However, I think it's probably a lot closer to that position than not. Not wearing makeup is an instinct. Wearing makeup is a decision. So what is the motivation behind that decision? I think you'll find every reason given to be an indication of a lack of self-knowledge or self-worth. At which point makeup would exacerbate that problem instead of addressing it, like self-knowledge, self-care, and self-love would. Does that make sense?

[rosencrantz]

Wearing makeup is a decision. So what is the motivation behind that decision?

 

Gain higher status to get more ressources or find a partner. 

 

I think you'll find every reason given to be an indication of a lack of self-knowledge or self-worth

 

Self-knowledge, self-worth can't be measured objectively. Status or a partner can be. 

[dsayers]

Gain higher status to get more ressources or find a partner. 

 

Self-knowledge, self-worth can't be measured objectively. Status or a partner can be. 

Higher status can't be measured objectively because preferences are subjective. To me, a woman confident/pragmatic enough to not wear makeup in a world where that is the norm is of higher status.

 

How do you know that self-knowledge and self-worth cannot be measured objectively? Seems like begging the question to me. An assertion. Is a person willing to call things by their proper name? Are they willing to acknowledge their bias? Are they willing to ask questions that (the answer) might be uncomfortable, but will lead towards the truth? Do they aspire to grow? Are they willing to challenge others to grow? All of this is observable.

 

Even if I am wrong about that, I'm not sure what difference it makes. Saying something cannot be measured objectively doesn't mean it is of no value. If your point is that we meet people's likenesses before we meet them, then say that. Though that too would not be the end of the road, eh? Because those of us with self-knowledge would acknowledge that and adjust accordingly. For example, I make a concerted effort not to treat (attractive) women differently just for that reason.

 

Good discussion by the way. This is a topic I wish I could talk more about but have found way too many females unwilling to broach the topic without taking it personally. Not suggesting you are a female, but addressing my feeling of constraint of opportunity to flesh these ideas out and gather the feedback/thoughts of others on the subject.

[rosencrantz]

Higher status can't be measured objectively because preferences are subjective.

 

Status is the sum aggregate of a group's preferences. You can measure it by observing a group, how individual members relate to each other. 

 

How do you know that self-knowledge and self-worth cannot be measured objectively?

 

There is no unit for self knowledge. I am 5'7'' tall and I can say that somebody is smaller or taller than me. I can also quantify by how much. The same isn't true for self knowledge. You cannot compare yourself how much more knowledge you have nor can you state the amount of self knowledge you have in absolute terms.

 

Is a person willing to call things by their proper name? Are they willing to acknowledge their bias? Are they willing to ask questions that (the answer) might be uncomfortable, but will lead towards the truth? Do they aspire to grow? Are they willing to challenge others to grow? All of this is observable.

 

 

Exactly. The only thing you can see are results of a therapy or self work. 

 

Saying something cannot be measured objectively doesn't mean it is of no value.

 

Value is subjective. But if you want to judge the positive effects of therapy in an objective way, you have to look at things that can be measured.

[dsayers]

Status is the sum aggregate of a group's preferences. You can measure it by observing a group, how individual members relate to each other. 

A fair statement. Thank you for defining your terms. However I don't think this substantiates your claim that status can be objectively measured or addresses my claim that they cannot be. Using your own standard (which is also fair), what is the unit of status? What tool measures it?

 

It seems like a form of begging the question. I stand here telling you barring all other variables, that I would hold an identical twin without makeup to be of higher status than the one choosing to wear makeup, yet you are claiming that makeup is objectively an indication of higher status. How do you reconcile this empirical evidence to the contrary of your position?

 

As for the rest of your post, you're right. "Self-knowledge" is such a broad term, encompassing any number of topics, that there would be no way to quantify it or compare it in others. However, I still think my examples are fair. If one person accepts the truth while another responds with emotional bias, that is one indication of a self-knowledge disparity. And so on.

[rosencrantz]

However I don't think this substantiates your claim that status can be objectively measured or addresses my claim that they cannot be.

 

You can do that by watching a group that persists for some time. Over time there will be patterns. Who relates to whom? Are there people left out? Who has the contacs, who has the least? If you apply the same criteria, independent people will come up with the same ranking. You can attach ordinal numbers to the single members (that person is first, he or she has the highest ranking within the group). In addition to that, you can identify subgroups some certainty by the sort of makeup they wear (or don't wear). 

 

yet you are claiming that makeup is objectively an indication of higher status.

 

The way we dress, the way we put make up on is a veneer for sex. Usually, dresses for men emphasize strength (broad shoulders). Dresses and make up for women tends to emphasize sexual markers or general genetic fitness (clear skin, red lips, accentuated eyes). 

 

If one person accepts the truth while another responds with emotional bias, that is one indication of a self-knowledge disparity.

 

Indeed. But shouldn't therapy also allow you to express yourself in the 'real' world. If you gain knowledge but your circumstances (relationships, job, money) stays more or the less how much did it really help you? Usually, the understanding is the easier part. Acting on it is much much harder.

[dsayers]

I think you're flip-flopping and avoiding my challenge. First, you reference height, which we can whip out a tape measure and determine almost in an instant. Then you talking about studying aggregates over a long period of time, which still isn't units or a tool, but will not apply that same possibility to self-knowledge. It's not consistent, which seems dishonest.

 

Then you mention makeup as a veneer for sex and red lips. However, I've communicated numerous times that makeup is a turn OFF for me and that part of the reason this is my experience now is because I LOVE the red lips when they occur naturally. Yet you continue to leapfrog over this feedback to re-assert your conclusion, which doesn't fit as long as somebody can hold the preference that I do, making it very clearly subjective despite your objective, absolute claim.

[rosencrantz]

Then you talking about studying aggregates over a long period of time, which still isn't units or a tool, but will not apply that same possibility to self-knowledge.

 

The effects of self-knowledge and the status in a group are similar. If somebody says he is enlightened, I can ask that person how that materializes in his or her every day life. How did the life change since gaining more knowledge, what improved, what has gotten worse. Those things can be tested. You can only test phenomena in the real world. If the person claims to have knowledge but there is no testable material available you can be sceptical of the claim. After all, anybody can claim to have profound insights. 

 

First, you reference height, which we can whip out a tape measure and determine almost in an instant.

 

Status is a social relationship in a group. You can sort of deduce it from body language, but to determine the degree of it, you need to observe how individuals interact in a group. You can do that with any groups of mammals living together socially, including humans. 

 

However, I've communicated numerous times that makeup is a turn OFF for me and that part of the reason this is my experience now is because I LOVE the red lips when they occur naturally.

 

 

Sure, I get that. But like I said, status is determined in a group. If you are together with a group of friends, say 7 people and 2 don't like lipstick, 5 do and you meet a lady with pink lips which is fancied by your friends the status of her within the group is determined as the agregate. If you are alone, her status in your eyes is determined only by you, pink lips being one factor.

 

Yet you continue to leapfrog over this feedback to re-assert your conclusion, which doesn't fit as long as somebody can hold the preference that I do, making it very clearly subjective despite your objective, absolute claim.

 

Status signals work when they are accepted within the majority of a given group. When they don't work as signals anymore, they are abandoned. Your preferences are varying degree of the acceptance depdending on the size of the group. Lip sticks work as signals for fertility because they are accepted as such (and trigger desires) by a majority of heterosexual man. 

 

For some time, Apple products were a status symbol. I may hate the fact that they are, but my opinion is only one among many uninformed people to take another example. 

[dsayers]

Status signals work when they are accepted within the majority of a given group.

Right, but what group? The question isn't meant to diminish the explanation you provided afterwards. Which was quite good and fair. I understand that I have the minority opinion with regards to women and makeup amid society at large.

However, the point of contention is your claims that status can be objectively measured and that SK cannot. I think the former is false despite your solid explanation, and I think the two are comparable and therefore could not experience opposite identities here.

 

For example, imagine two cars on the road. In the one, you have a playboy driving the 2017 Overcompensator, with 3 dimes in expensive clothing. In the car behind him, you have a homely couple, in second hand clothes, driving a car that is 20 years old and rusting out. In the back seat are two delightful children who are very friendly and intelligent because they are being raised in a loving home. Which of these cars is a greater indication of status? How do you know?

 

If there is more than one answer, I think this would serve as proof that status cannot be objectively verified. For the purpose of defining terms, when I say objective, I mean exists/valid independent of individual consciousness.

[taraelizabeth21]

Cosmetics on a woman is like paint on the inside and outside of a house. Paint won't make the house any warmer in the winter. Paint won't make the walls any sturdier or keep the roof from leaking (at least not for very long). Paint won't keep the foundation from washing away or keep the floors from being eaten away by termites. If "the bones" of a house are no good, all a fresh coat of paint will do is serve to temporarily conceal this fact and convince the more inexperienced and shallow investor of a higher value than it rightly deserves.

 

On the other hand, if "the bones" of the house are good, the foundation solid and strong, the walls and roof solid, strong, and in tact, the walls and roof or attic well insulated and the windows well built and maintained, a fresh coat of paint will make the house even more appealing and more attractive to the prospective investor as well as any who ultimately lives in it or frequently sees it. The paint doesn't turn a bad house into a good house, and the lack of paint won't generally turn a good house into a bad one. It will simply make both appear more attractive and pleasant and enhance the experience and enjoyment of both.

 

Cosmetics on a woman (or a man) work exactly the same way. On a woman without many (or any) virtuous qualities, cosmetics and clothing can make her appear more attractive than she actually is to the person who is shallow or only looking for short, temporary enjoyment. For someone looking for a long-term relationship, these will only serve to temporarily conceal the many flaws and other vices she may possess.

 

On the other hand, on a virtuous woman, skillfully selected and applied cosmetics and clothes will only serve to enhance the enjoyment one may experience with her. Her virtuous qualities may still be overlooked by shallow men seeking only passing or transitory interest in her; but such men would be less likely to be interested in her without her "make up"either. The man seeking a virtuous woman will see past her cosmetics and dress to "her bones", he will look to see whether the outward presentation matches the inner reality. And most men will experience greater enjoyment with such a virtuous woman who takes the trouble to present herself in the most attractive way she is able, just as she will experience similar enjoyment from a virtuous man who does likewise.

 

So to answer the thread's titular question... it really all depends on whether it's used to enhance virtue, or conceal vice.

Everybody go home this guy just won the thread

[rosencrantz]

In the back seat are two delightful children who are very friendly and intelligent because they are being raised in a loving home. Which of these cars is a greater indication of status? How do you know?

 

You do a survey essentially. Like I said, status is about perception. Or you can have a family father and that playboy interact with a different groups of people, do a network analysis and determine their status. 

 

when I say objective, I mean exists/valid independent of individual consciousness.

 

This may be too strict a definition. I am not sure what exactly you mean by that.

[dsayers]

Self-knowledge, self-worth can't be measured objectively. Status or a partner can be. 

 

You do a survey essentially.

Pick one. These claims are mutually exclusive. Survey's measure people's subjective experiences and cannot determine that which is objectively true.

[rosencrantz]

Survey's measure people's subjective experiences

 

They do indeed. The aggregate of them determines status. Status can be determined how people interact in a group. You can rank the status of groups pretty much like google or alexa rank websites.