• 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)

Viridian

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
3,036
MBTI Type
IsFJ
An article I found interesting from feminist website The F Word:

http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2011/12/in_defence_of_fake

Recently I had the misfortune to catch an episode of a programme called Snog, Marry, Avoid.

You might have heard of it; as a trailblazing champion of 'natural beauty', it delivers a smug weekly package of body-policing wrapped up in tasteful matching colours. A young woman takes us on a tour of her wardrobe and beauty routines, usually involving copious amounts of fake tan, eyeliner and sequins (occasionally, in the interest of diversity, the show features a camp man). She or he meets Pod, a snarky robot who proceeds to explain why every aspect of their taste and style is tacky, fake and disgusting, backed up by members of the public opining on just how grossly undesirable and slaggy they look.

This is followed by an extensive make-under, designed, supposedly, to reveal its object's natural beauty under all that gunk, transforming the women into an image of demure femininity more palatable to the public taste.

The ultimate purpose of the project seems to be to assure women that, if only they'd present themselves nicely, some anonymous men on the street might be generous enough to marry them. Which, as we all know, is every girl's dream.

In capitalism's ever-evolving vocabulary of domination over our bodies, the make-under is an clever little piece of marketing: "I was never here," it whispers. "I only want to help you uncover your natural self," it promises. And you certainly wouldn't want to go around looking unnatural, would you?

'Natural' beauty slyly requires us to use just enough makeup, spending just enough money and putting in just enough effort to convince people there was never any money or effort or makeup involved.

And, as it turns out, such an achievement doesn't come particularly cheap, or particularly easy. The cult of natural beauty does not, in reality, ask us to strip away our feminine 'fakery', but rather to make our fakery more subtle and more convincing, which requires ever more expertise, ever more specialised products, and ever more anxiety about getting it wrong. A dress that doesn't flatter her, an uneven streak of foundation, a dodgy hair dye job: signs of failure, mocked because they signal ineptness at mastering our image - the ultimate sin of womanhood.

In a society of compulsive airbrushing, saturated with images of impossible perfection, the notion of embracing a more natural - a more realistic - image of ourselves may seem instinctively appealing to a feminist sensibility.

But we would do well to think carefully about the assumptions that structure such aesthetic categories. Natural has never really signified an intrinsic pre-cultural quality. As the process of the make-under so aptly demonstrates, what we call 'natural' is only ever a different mode of artifice, produced within society's power-structures and equipped with its own set of cultural codes and meanings.

To talk about natural beauty is to naturalise a specific form of beauty, and naturalisation is always a process of privileging and exclusion.

We live in a culture where the natural is made synonymous with the real, the authentic, the true and, by implication, the good. We live in a culture that still persuasively naturalises inequality, and we live in a culture where deviations from 'natural' states of gender and sexuality are met with heavy penalties.

Society's unnaturals are forced to constantly work at convincing it that they're real enough and honest enough to be accepted into its fold: that they were "born this way", that they have an authentic, immutable origin of identity (a gene, a brain structure, a hormone) and a doctor's note to prove it. All this is demanded of them in order to validate their very existence, and still they are regarded with brutal suspicion.

When it comes to feminine beauty, the stakes are not quite so high, but similar assumptions are woven tightly into the disparagement of fakery.

Dictionary definitions of the word 'cosmetic' are twofold: the term signifies beauty and adornment, but also superficiality and deception. Our cultural discourse on femininity, one may note, is pervaded by the very same pair of ideas. In reality, the trend towards 'natural' makeup and dress - fashion that flatters, that covers, that airbrushes away the unseemly bits of our bodies - is perhaps more insidiously oppressive than the garish tastes of the Snog, Marry, Avoid targets.

This is certainly not to suggest that the industries of glitter and hair-dye are free from problems of consumerist pressure, insecurity and marginalisation. But the most striking aspect of the show's subjects is their brash self-confidence. Each professes a deep attachment to the accoutrements of her 'fakery' and a reluctance to give them up.

On the whole, these do not seem like people who spend hours agonising over which dress will most effectively mask their bellies or whether their foundation is a convincingly even shade; they revel in their own fakery, thoroughly enjoy embellishing and exaggerating the image of themselves that they are sold.

The women are loud, hyper-real versions of the femininity to which we are all supposed to aspire, and the disdain with which our culture drenches them is a telling indictment of its own narratives.

What we have is not a war against fakery, it is a war against that which displays itself as fakery; we're all supposed to be pretending that we're naturally wide-eyed and soft-skinned and blushing and blemish-free. Women are expected to be photorealist portraits of femininity, not expressionist canvasses; lies are tolerated only in so far as they are told convincingly. But when we start being too overt about the fabricated status of natural femininity, there's a lurking danger that we might start to question their absurdity, or realise that we can invent altogether new images in radical moulds.

Perhaps, then, instead of demonising fakery, we should embrace a proliferation of artifice, in a style that refuses to acknowledge the existence of any such thing as 'natural'.

Fashion and cosmetics can often seem close bedfellows of consumerism and marginalisation, but nonetheless, fashion as an aesthetic field provides a uniquely frank view of the fact that beauty has a history, that self-expression is not spontaneous but culturally determined.

Traditionalist aesthetics always deals in oppressive universals. In fashion, nothing is intransigent, no beauty is transcendental, everything has a material existence and a social position: this month's hideous mistake can be next month's bold statement. Style and beauty are produced, discarded and reinvented with startling rapidity and, in such a climate, the very notion of the natural can be seen for what it really is: just another aesthetic category, its signs every bit as carefully fabricated as the most flamboyant artifice.

It is this aspect of fashion and cosmetics, perhaps, that can put them in the service of transformative ideals. A radical aesthetic of the body would not coerce us to 'flatter' and flatten ourselves into a tasteful range of shapes and styles; it can provide, instead, a space to adorn them, to perform them and invent them and challenge what they signify.

Interesting... Sounds like a post-modern concept of beauty.

I have a few thoughts about the article, but I'd rather hear what you guys think about it. Agree? Disagree? Only partially? Why?
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
This is certainly not to suggest that the industries of glitter and hair-dye are free from problems of consumerist pressure, insecurity and marginalisation. But the most striking aspect of the show's subjects is their brash self-confidence. Each professes a deep attachment to the accoutrements of her 'fakery' and a reluctance to give them up.

On the whole, these do not seem like people who spend hours agonising over which dress will most effectively mask their bellies or whether their foundation is a convincingly even shade; they revel in their own fakery, thoroughly enjoy embellishing and exaggerating the image of themselves that they are sold.

So, the argument seems to be that because everything is fake (even what the cosmetic industry would have us believe is "natural beauty"), then there is no such thing as "natural" or "real." Thus we should embrace artifice because (1) if we believe hard enough, it can be authentic and empowering, and (2) by taking it to extremes, we can indirectly reveal the absurdity of dominant messages about femininity.

To me, this seems to be the same as saying that since we can't beat them, let's just join them and take things to their logical conclusion, at which point it might be revealed that it was all bullshit to begin with. I have serious problems with this because (1) it seems like a pipe-dream, (2) it sounds like apologia for dominant interests, and (3) it gets away from structural critique and more towards being bogged down in subjectivism (e.g., if I don't feel oppressed by having ten guys cum on my face, then Bukkake is not an oppressive practice!)
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
An article I found interesting from feminist website.
I have a few thoughts about the article, but I'd rather hear what you guys think about it. Agree? Disagree? Only partially? Why?

What women are loath to admit is that they mimic arousal to actually arouse the male.

This gives women the upper hand, as when men are aroused, they are susceptible to suggestion, while the woman remains fully awake and in command of herself and the situation.

So female 'beauty', natural or not, is the mimicking of arousal for advantage.
 

Viridian

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
3,036
MBTI Type
IsFJ
So, the argument seems to be that because everything is fake (even what the cosmetic industry would have us believe is "natural beauty"), then there is no such thing as "natural" or "real." Thus we should embrace artifice because (1) if we believe hard enough, it can be authentic and empowering, and (2) by taking it to extremes, we can indirectly reveal the absurdity of dominant messages about femininity.

To me, this seems to be the same as saying that since we can't beat them, let's just join them and take things to their logical conclusion, at which point it might be revealed that it was all bullshit to begin with. I have serious problems with this because (1) it seems like a pipe-dream, (2) it sounds like apologia for dominant interests, and (3) it gets away from structural critique and more towards being bogged down in subjectivism (e.g., if I don't feel oppressed by having ten guys cum on my face, then Bukkake is not an oppressive practice!)

That's what I meant by post-modern. To me, it sounds kinda like "Let's embrace those standards - but ironically!". I might be misinterpreting it, though...
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
My first reaction is that there is also the option of not wearing make-up and buying clothes at thrift stores and wearing them for years. You can also just run a brush through your hair in the morning. These are all more possibilities to explore.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
That's what I meant by post-modern. To me, it sounds kinda like "Let's embrace those standards - but ironically!". I might be misinterpreting it, though...

No, that's exactly it. I tend not to like that pomo shit.
 

Viridian

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
3,036
MBTI Type
IsFJ
No, that's exactly it. I tend not to like that pomo shit.

Yeah, I found it kind of odd that fia's suggestion:

My first reaction is that there is also the option of not wearing make-up and buying clothes at thrift stores and wearing them for years. You can also just run a brush through your hair in the morning. These are all more possibilities to explore.

...was not explored by the article. I did think the "natural vs. appearing 'natural' through even more painstaking work" point was worth exploring, though. It's like two articles in one.

I guess I just assumed I had missed something. :shrug:
 

Moonstone3

New member
Joined
Jun 10, 2010
Messages
182
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
9, 5
I agree that 'natural' primping requires an equal, if not more, amount of effort. To me, the difference is this: Enhancing natural beauties is someone else telling you what your best qualities are and directing you to enhance them. This is because they can see from the outside-something you cannot do. Overdone/Exaggerated/Loud adornments are usually things we feel, as individuals, come from our core and we are not concerned with how they appear from the outside.
I like certain colors-blacks, reds, blues, etc. I wear them because the color is awesome, not because they make me look thinner. I do not wish to obsess over my projection to other people. I am much more concerned with my image of myself, and how it resonates with my inner core.
All in all, I think that any person that knows who they are and how they want to dress/appear has the right to do so. NO ONE should be made over, unless they seek it out. Does this show belittle people into thinking they are wrong about their ideas. Ideas that hurt no one. Free ideas. Entitled to them by their creator.
I don't know where society gets all this 'natural' talk, either. I guess they mean natural-like a baby when it's first born. That does not appeal to me. They are still judging skin imperfections and the like-which may be totally natural for some people. Acne IS natural. Most people do go through it.
Since the dawn of time, people have had tattoos, worn huge elaborate hoop earrings, and dyed their clothes to wear colors of the Earth.
If we're going to be natural, then we should all walk around naked, too. Because that's natural. To me, all this natural talk is just another ploy to calm down the rebels and make everyone drones.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
I did think the "natural vs. appearing 'natural' through even more painstaking work" point was worth exploring, though.

It's certainly true that the idea of striving to appear "natural" is both (1) fundamentally absurd and (2) a symptom of a patriarchal society which seeks to control women's bodies and behaviors. So, yes, the Snookies of the world get policed because their over-the-top look is just as much a failure to conform [to what is asserted, at this time at least, to be how a "real, natural" woman looks] as a woman who chooses to wear no make-up.

Where the article goes wrong, IMO, is when it starts to prop up the "radical, transformative" power of the over-the-top use of make-up over the critique inherent in choosing to wear no make-up (which is why, I think, they failed to mention the no make-up option, because, like, that's for prudes!) The latter is an opt-out of the system while the former, for all its transgressiveness, is still an opt-in. That's why I originally said that they must be formulating this entire argument around the fundamental idea that there is no such thing as an opt-out; everything is artifice, and the sooner we embrace it the better we'll be able to combat false ideas such as "natural beauty." I think that's where, like you said, it's like there are two articles in here; one with a structural critique of the deceptive use of "natural," and another cynically denying altogether that we can ever get around the deception...except with further deception...all while hoping that this will reveal, not the truth, but rather that there is no truth, so anyone saying that they have it is a liar.

I really, really don't like pomo bullshit (and this article does it wrong, anyway, because it wants too much. That's the problem with using this shit as a rhetorical and philosophical springboard for anything having to do with liberation of any sort.) It's incoherent, impotent for the purposes of knowledge and critique, and just...really fucking boring.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
There is the question of why do women want to be beautiful?

Do all women want to be beautiful?

Well, some lesbians don't want to be beautiful.

What does this mean?

It means they don't want to be beautiful for men.

And who can blame them, for being beautiful for men means mimicking arousal to arouse the man.

And who wants that?

Well, almost all straight women.
 

Nales

New member
Joined
Feb 8, 2012
Messages
74
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
What women are loath to admit is that they mimic arousal to actually arouse the male.

This gives women the upper hand, as when men are aroused, they are susceptible to suggestion, while the woman remains fully awake and in command of herself and the situation.

So female 'beauty', natural or not, is the mimicking of arousal for advantage.
This is what I believe, and indeed out of all the women I've confronted about this, the only one who (reluctantly) admitted it as the truth was my own mother. Others claimed it just made them "more comfortable", "more feminine" and had nothing to do with seducing men. But to me they're just being delusional.

I wouldn't say they do it to make males susceptible to suggestion, though. Instead, I see the process like this:

- She wants to be with a male who's as attractive (protective, strong, whatever) as possible.
- Attractive males know they're attractive, so they will only settle for attractive women.
- So in order to get an attractive male, she has to be attractive herself.

It sure makes sense. Whether an attractive person is more likely to make us happy on the long term, however, is an entirely different matter (one I don't agree with).


The article is correct when claiming we want women to "be artificial, but not let it show". However I disagree with their solution of going all-out. The correct way to me is to ditch all artifices forever.
It won't happen, though. Not when women can use artifices to look more attractive and still look natural. Much like guys won't stop hiding their emotions when it can make them appear to control the situation at all times (and therefore "stronger" and more attractive).
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
Whether an attractive person is more likely to make us happy on the long term

Much like guys won't stop hiding their emotions when it can make them appear to control the situation at all times (and therefore "stronger" and more attractive.

It is likely that the person who can make us happy in the long term is ourselves. Of course we hope to meet our soul mate who will make us happy - but I think it is best to take our happiness into our own hands and then share it.

I have noticed that creativity comes from the nurturing of vulnerability. And so as creativity reaches higher status, women may find they are attracted more to creativity than strength and control.
 

Viridian

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
3,036
MBTI Type
IsFJ
This is what I believe, and indeed out of all the women I've confronted about this, the only one who (reluctantly) admitted it as the truth was my own mother. Others claimed it just made them "more comfortable", "more feminine" and had nothing to do with seducing men. But to me they're just being delusional.

I wouldn't say they do it to make males susceptible to suggestion, though. Instead, I see the process like this:

- She wants to be with a male who's as attractive (protective, strong, whatever) as possible.
- Attractive males know they're attractive, so they will only settle for attractive women.
- So in order to get an attractive male, she has to be attractive herself.

It sure makes sense. Whether an attractive person is more likely to make us happy on the long term, however, is an entirely different matter (one I don't agree with).


The article is correct when claiming we want women to "be artificial, but not let it show". However I disagree with their solution of going all-out. The correct way to me is to ditch all artifices forever.
It won't happen, though. Not when women can use artifices to look more attractive and still look natural. Much like guys won't stop hiding their emotions when it can make them appear to control the situation at all times (and therefore "stronger" and more attractive).

I understand the whole "internalization" thing, but how can one tell when someone is doing something because they want it and when they're doing it because they feel ashamed of doing otherwise and are lying to themselves? I find that a relevant question...

Its nice article on fake beauty but its not only related with only woman number of men also do this like they make your body with supplements.

Mmm, reminds me of something I read a while ago on AlterNet about the new "brotox" trend...

EDIT: Here it is:

http://www.alternet.org/story/15376...ondemn_us_all_to_unreachable_beauty_standards
 
Last edited:

Elfboy

Certified Sausage Smoker
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
9,625
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm too lazy to read the article, but honestly I'm very pro fake beauty. for the most part, beauty to me is unnatural and, for the majority of their lives, I would consider most people extremely ugly
 

Lady_X

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
18,235
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
784
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
screw all of it...i mean i enjoyed the article...or the 75% of it i read but really can't care less how people choose to present them self. overdone can be cool...not done at all can be cool...subtlety is cool too. i just reject the notion of there being one way that's acceptable...the do's and don'ts...i mean come on...the don'ts make life interesting.

i don't do myself up all tacky like but that's my preference...i say let the tacky folk be tacky if they wanna. :cheese:
 

CzeCze

RETIRED
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Messages
8,975
MBTI Type
GONE
It sounds like the 'Whole Foods'-ing of mainstream femininity. I loathe Whole Foods. Wearing $115 organic bamboo yoga pants by Lululemon does not make you a more conscious, spiritually advanced person. It's just another clique in the long history of mean self-esteem eroding high school cliques for girls.
 

violet_crown

Active member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
4,959
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
853
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Traditionalist aesthetics always deals in oppressive universals. In fashion, nothing is intransigent, no beauty is transcendental, everything has a material existence and a social position: this month's hideous mistake can be next month's bold statement. Style and beauty are produced, discarded and reinvented with startling rapidity and, in such a climate, the very notion of the natural can be seen for what it really is: just another aesthetic category, its signs every bit as carefully fabricated as the most flamboyant artifice.

It is this aspect of fashion and cosmetics, perhaps, that can put them in the service of transformative ideals. A radical aesthetic of the body would not coerce us to 'flatter' and flatten ourselves into a tasteful range of shapes and styles; it can provide, instead, a space to adorn them, to perform them and invent them and challenge what they signify.

Interesting article. Beauty is as much science as it is an art. A person possessing some combination of clarity, symmetry, harmony, and vivid color is going to be considered attractive no matter what culture he or she comes from. What is the harm in using artifice to achieve what nature didn't give you? In defense of cosmetics, I ask the simple question: What's wrong with wanting to be beautiful?

I understand the whole "internalization" thing, but how can one tell when someone is doing something because they want it and when they're doing it because they feel ashamed of doing otherwise and are lying to themselves? I find that a relevant question...

I suppose the article’s answer is “Because the way we try to be beautiful has been imposed on us.” Yeah, well, no shit. We show we are beautiful to indicate attractiveness and self-care. There’s a language we speak, and you’re hard pressed to challenge the grammar of it. The desire to be attractive is an intrinsic one, but on a certain level it must kowtow to prevailing standards to be successful. This correspondence is not about shame, but simply being a functional human being. Ultimately, I agree with the posters who have suggested that the best way to “rail against” is to simply not play: do the au naturel thing to the hilt. Otherwise, you’ll inevitably bump into that grammar issue as you attempt to construct an outward statement that is “genuine”, but still readable as “beautiful”.
 

Mia.

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
821
It sounds like the 'Whole Foods'-ing of mainstream femininity. I loathe Whole Foods. Wearing $115 organic bamboo yoga pants by Lululemon does not make you a more conscious, spiritually advanced person. It's just another clique in the long history of mean self-esteem eroding high school cliques for girls.

Yes. My sister (INFJ) is a crunchy progressive, and makes veiled jabs at me for embracing what she terms "artifice." I use my appearance for self-expression and am pretty artsy with it, so I love playing with makeup, perfume, glitter and sparkle, temporary tattoos, nail art, potions and lotions, jewelry, piercings (just tongue and ears), and high contrast clothing colors made from "unnatural" fabrics (vs. natural and woodsy-colored stuff she wears.) I'm careful to use these subtly - I don't look like what others would term a freak show or clown. But the disdain is pretty easy to pick up on, and it comes from not looking "natural" in her opinion which equals attractive, and like I'm also contributing to my own oppression that I'm too stupid to realize is happening or something. (I think she's the one oppressing me.) Whatever.... I have more fun. ;)
 
Top