User Tag List

First 123

Results 21 to 23 of 23

  1. #21
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    One thing I think the article seems to grasp (that many do not) is that some people do not use makeup, clothing, etc, just to look "pretty" or to enhance their appearance to be more attractive to others. They may use it to self-express, to create an interesting aesthetic, to send a message about themselves & other reasons. Does this mean they are not influenced at all by beauty ideals in the process? No, but it doesn't change their main intent.

    I just get sick of the idea that anything a woman does to her appearance is an effort to be sexy or beautiful. These things can simply be fun for some people. Applying makeup is fun. Putting outfits together is fun. There's nothing more shallow about this than many, many hobbies other people spend time & money on. Some people probably do the fake, garish look because it's fun to them. As the article notes, they aren't looking to fool anyone, but that also doesn't necessarily mean they ask you to embrace fakeness as the beauty standard or even a beauty standard. Instead, you can just accept that people approach their appearances differently, with different motives, a different sense of aesthetics, and different levels of seriousness.

    And then of course, the dichotomy of faux-natural and obviously fake does not exist. I personally don't go for the natural look nor some garishly fake trampy look. I don't even think I'm in between; just something else altogether. To use these things ONLY to enhance the appearance is dull to me; I use makeup & clothes & accessories because they are fun to play with. I like to create different looks which don't necessarily have anything to do with being more attractive. It's like creating a physical manifestation of your inner self and all its different aspects via colors, silhouettes, textures, etc. My natural physical self is what genetics gave me, but what the look I create is what I choose. It doesn't mean I am completely unaffected by external ideas, but that doesn't mean I'm brainlessly following trends either.

    And I think that's what the article is saying; can WE as women choose to look how we want & not have to play by these rules about what is tasteful, what is acceptably fake & what is too much, etc....? Trading one narrow (and impossible) beauty standard in for another is not liberating.
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTp
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    One thing I think the article seems to grasp (that many do not) is that some people do not use makeup, clothing, etc, just to look "pretty" or to enhance their appearance to be more attractive to others. They may use it to self-express, to create an interesting aesthetic, to send a message about themselves & other reasons. Does this mean they are not influenced at all by beauty ideals in the process? No, but it doesn't change their main intent.

    I just get sick of the idea that anything a woman does to her appearance is an effort to be sexy or beautiful. These things can simply be fun for some people. Applying makeup is fun. Putting outfits together is fun. There's nothing more shallow about this than many, many hobbies other people spend time & money on. Some people probably do the fake, garish look because it's fun to them. As the article notes, they aren't looking to fool anyone, but that also doesn't necessarily mean they ask you to embrace fakeness as the beauty standard or even a beauty standard. Instead, you can just accept that people approach their appearances differently, with different motives, a different sense of aesthetics, and different levels of seriousness.

    And then of course, the dichotomy of faux-natural and obviously fake does not exist. I personally don't go for the natural look nor some garishly fake trampy look. I don't even think I'm in between; just something else altogether. To use these things ONLY to enhance the appearance is dull to me; I use makeup & clothes & accessories because they are fun to play with. I like to create different looks which don't necessarily have anything to do with being more attractive. It's like creating a physical manifestation of your inner self and all its different aspects via colors, silhouettes, textures, etc. My natural physical self is what genetics gave me, but what the look I create is what I choose. It doesn't mean I am completely unaffected by external ideas, but that doesn't mean I'm brainlessly following trends either.

    And I think that's what the article is saying; can WE as women choose to look how we want & not have to play by these rules about what is tasteful, what is acceptably fake & what is too much, etc....? Trading one narrow (and impossible) beauty standard in for another is not liberating.
    Well that's how I understood the article, and I mostly agree. They claim that what we identify as "natural beauty" is usually not natural at all but enhanced by make-up and others things that are discreet enough to look natural. But it doesn't change the fact that it's not.
    On the other hand they approve of people whose "beauty" (the word is badly chosen in my opinion: "appearence" would be better) is obviously fake, because these people are showing their style and not trying to deceive others by pretending that their beauty is natural. I guess goth people are included in this definition, for example.

    I'm absolutely not a visual person so I'm neutral to those people. I don't have a problem with their intentions because they're not trying to "cheat". However I'm still heavily against any attempt to enhance your appearance while still looking natural. This is deception and manipulation to me, and it'll always be. It is the exact definition of "playing by the rules", as you say it: you're just twisting the rules to your advantage instead of creating your own rules altogether.

  3. #23
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    OoOoh, so Nana was just being subversive?

    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

Similar Threads

  1. [INFP] In praise of INFP's
    By substitute in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 212
    Last Post: 05-20-2016, 02:10 PM
  2. In defense of Bernie Sanders conciliatory stance regarding foreign policy
    By The Wailing Specter in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 12-15-2015, 09:49 AM
  3. [INTP] In defense of INTPs.
    By braziljoe in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-15-2010, 08:39 PM
  4. list of functions in order of awesomeness
    By Prometheus in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-09-2009, 12:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO