• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

"In defense of fake beauty" (article)

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

Nales

New member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Messages
74
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
OoOoh, so Nana was just being subversive?

tumblr_kx3s0a0ZQB1qb00zno1_500.jpg
 
Top