woman and make-up

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 12:55 am
@iconoclast,
Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that although you have every right to engage in any innocent pleasures you choose, the problem is the objectification of women in the first place.

As I said before, the other sex has a particularly bad habit of classifying the other sex as a species of animal rather than a human being. That seems like a major problem to me. The whole make-up thing is exoticist. It is a form of chauvinism and fetishism, not intimacy which I would think is not respect for the opposite sex but a continued belittling of the other.
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 06:02 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon,

Quote:
the problem is the objectification of women in the first place.


I think this, as a response, is too politically correct to be entirely serious. Do you not have a penis?

Quote:
... the thought just has severe implications and insinuations.


No doubt, the objectification of women can have serious implications, but enjoying watching women put on a little make-up isn't one of them.

It's a voyeuristic pleasure to be sure, and voyeurism is objectification in the sense that vision is the subjective appreciation of the object. Voyeurism can be taken to extremes, but that extreme is absent here.

Women enjoy a man taking pleasure in thier beauty - within the bounds of the consensual, and that's her call. It's like if she's walking along the street in a g-string - there's nothing pervy about looking at her asre. It's only women who don't get admired and penisless men think there is.

It can be a difficult balance to strike, but I assure you I know where the line is, and always endeavor to stay the right side of it. I assumed that would be understood.

iconoclast.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 09:32 am
@iconoclast,
thing
 
Khethil
 
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 10:50 am
@VideCorSpoon,
Hey Vid,

I *think* I see where you're coming from. But I'd very much like to address aspects of your post that I think cheapen and skew sexuality. I agree with most of what Iron said; if I may, I think those aspects of it you found disagreeable were meant to illustrate the sentiment: Have you no natural, appreciation for the female? But I shouldn't try to speak for others.

VideCorSpoon wrote:
The whole make-up thing is exoticist. It is a form of chauvinism and fetishism...


No it's not. Although there are cases of neurosis/abnormal fixation associated with any behavior, the act of 'fixing oneself up' should not, ever, be categorically pigeonholed as this statement appears to. Of course, this is but my own opinion.

VideCorSpoon wrote:
...not intimacy which I would think is not respect for the opposite sex but a continued belittling of the other


This... belittling? Do you view this as 'dirty'? Is it a lecherous and slovenly practice? I know a class of people that see all who appreciate the natural - and yes sexual - beauty of a woman as Perverted, Wrong, Sinful, Abject-slime. Is this were you're coming from? Can not sexually-based appreciation be a good, natural and productive thing? I think so...

VideCorSpoon wrote:
Is it not hypocritical to acknowledge the objectification of the opposite sex and yet allow chauvinistic perceptions in the same breath?


You're equating these views to 'objectification'; and that of a class most-demeaning. So this appreciation is chauvinistic? Oh my gosh - to take something so wonderful, so filled with beauty and appreciation on both sides of the gender-coin and cheapen it into a debaucherous mindset. Ugh!

VideCorSpoon wrote:
But you speak as though the perception of woman is that of an animalistic automaton, some thing concerned with the trivial matters of the opposite sex rather than their own unique personhood.


1) We are animals. 2) To appreciate aspects of our sexuality *is* programmed in, *is* good and is indeed necessary. Whether you believe we evolved through reactions or intentionally created, does not this appreciation (animalistic, as we undeniably are) enrich our interaction, procreation, interpersonal and martial bonds? 3) Our sexuality is intertwined with our personalities and concept of self. Denying this is destructive and self-defeating - it is part-and-parcel of our personhood.

Appreciation of ours (and others) sexuality is a natural, honest, fulfilling and productive part of life. It does not, I repeat, does not necessarily lead to the sort of unethical objectification of which you speak. Understanding and appreciating people, as people, giving them the respect they deserve is absolutely and unequivocally necessary; however, only two-dimensional thinking says that appreciating/acknowledging sexually-based beauty equates to this.

I hope I've spoken to this point well, and I hope you (and others) perceive the goodness in this issue as I've intended.

Thanks
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 11:14 am
@Khethil,
Kethil,

To add anything would be to take away - so i'll just quote you:

Quote:
Appreciation of ours (and others) sexuality is a natural, honest, fulfilling and productive part of life.


here here!

iconoclast.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 11:45 am
@iconoclast,
Kethil,only two-dimensional thinking says that appreciating/acknowledging sexually-based beauty equates to this." Now exactly who was it earlier on who referred to the two sexes as a two sided "gender-coin?"


Iconoclast,[Also note that this is not personal, this is philosophical discourse in radical perspectives.]
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 12:49 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon,

Quote:
[Also note that this is not personal, this is philosophical discourse in radical perspectives.]


I'm a red-blooded and decidedly obvious male - there's nothing hidden or dirty about my sexuality, thank you very much. What Kethil means by 'cheapen it into a debaucherous mindset. Ugh!' is that it's you who have seen squalor and objectification where there is only a love of something quintisentially feminine.

But hey, I'm not one to hold grudges.
iconoclast.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 01:40 pm
@iconoclast,
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 03:22 pm
Videcorspoon,

Males and females are genetically different. I am not sure how familiar you are with the facts of male vs. female neurology, but we have decidedly different brain organization and emphasis. We are all animals, what, do you think men are above beasts? If so I would call you vain and foolish. What have we to distinctly seperate us? Reason? No, the great apes hold this, if only to a lesser degree. What then, sets us apart? Nothing. We are animals, of course we are animals.

On another point, everything could be taken as fetishism if anything can. It can easily be argued, and often is, that evereyone is simply a projection of ourselfs and thus that real connection is in a sense false. There is no real, penetrating connection. A sexual mechanism can be uselful or useless, but not evil or wrong. If it is normal, it is right, if it is functional, it is right. If this were not the case, we would have to throw psychology out the window, for what else is there but norms and statistics to justify treatment of what is abnormal or malevolent?

You cannot raise sexuality to a metaphysical level, to do so is absurd. Sexuality is a function, it is a beastial, anamalistic, basic, necessity. It is nothing more. If a male is in a sexual mode of thought due to a female in the work place, would you have him sterilized in order to increase productivity? Seperate them totally, seperate but equal? Thought control to supress inconvenient sexual urges, deemed so by the oppresive minority? Sexual tyrrany?

If you can say a perspective is male, please explain how it is not then hypocritical to say that males and females cannot be objectified and viewed as different 'species'. You must either accept that all perspective is human or throw that point of view out the window. How can one justify showing that a perspective is male and then state on the other hand, that women are not different than men?

Political correctness is Orwellian and Lenninist propaganda. Lennin coined the term and invented the ideology behind it. I do not subscribe to it, for it is a constriction of freespeech, no matter how benign or superficially beneficial.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 03:44 pm
Zentetic,Iconoclast,

In conclusion... our discussion is finished.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 05:11 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
All of my ideas are relative, and I would say that nothing is without some aspect of relativity.

As for Political correctness; Cartesian, Rosaveltian, it doesn't matter, my attack was upon its reality and implications, the relegation of freedom of speech, control speech, control the argument, that is part of lennin's ideology. Offense is not grounds to justify control of speech.

There are many studies indicating neurological difference in males and females. The differences are biggest in formative years, where males and females develop different areas of mental functioning in different succession.

I wonder if it is not true that women objectify men? Is this never the case? What of when I hear a girl observeing a muscular, tan, 6'2" guy exclaim "Omg, he is sooo hot!", is this not similar objectification? When a woman prefers a man who is fit, with a certain set of physical features, is this not objectifying him? Case in point on a different level: An old friend of my mothers is very concerned with appearences, and seeks out mates who she can present as though they were trophies. Her first husband was a mathematician, then a theoretical physicist, then an engineer, and she loves to brag about them and she very much desires to be viewed as an intellectual and acts on and for a certain type of status. Is this not objectification?

On the other hand, is it not true that many women play into the objectification? Do they not enjoy being viewed as somthing that holds such power over men? I know that some do or at least express that they do. One looks at a woman as an object that stimulates sexual urges when they do not know this woman and she seems desireable. I do not think that what is desireable is formed by social opinion, but it is more individual. I am not very attracted to every supermodel I see, I am much more specific and look for specific traits. I do not like how most super thin models look, I do not like how blonde porn stars look very much.

Early man mated by selecting traits of utility to ensure strong young. Today, the healthy model has come along and we are all encouraged to adhere to this norm. Get fit, don't smoke, don't have view X, Y or Z, but rather P, Q and R. The shifting social machine might define what is desireable to some extent, but people define the social machine and genetics paired with experience defines people. I would argue that perhaps the social machine and genetics combine to form identity and all which that entails.

Sexual interaction is entirely biological, any 'metaphysical' aspects are a result of lack of scientific inquiry/development in regards to this subject. I view people as entirely physical or at least entirely undivorced from anything else by their nature. The social theories, one can only hope, shall be dissolved into scientific theories, as social science is quite insufficient and only a crutch to hold up certain ideologies until a sounder process can take over. Since these theories are our best bet for this subject now, I suppose we have no choice but to try to work them out.

Edit:
Is gay a choice? Is it biological, or maybe in certain cases a pathology? Many gay men were abused as boys. I cannot make myself attracted to men, I find gay sex quite upsetting, just as I find a number of fetishes disturbing. Where does gayness divorce itself from a fetish, where does any sexuality divorce iself from a fetishistic complusion?
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2008 06:16 pm
@Zetetic11235,
[Also, I would like to note that I thanked you for the conversation because I consider it a particularly good, well founded conversation in the best exercises of philosophy. This is a good, rational conversation. Iconoclast did not fully understand that, so I don't want to give you any wrong impressions]
 
Justin
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 09:17 am
@VideCorSpoon,
Moderator - Several of these posts have been deleted while others have been edited to remove any inflammatory statements which began an argument between two members of this forum.

This thread is re-opened and we kindly ask that you all be careful with your words towards one another and not argue. Poking and prodding at each other is no way to carry out a philosophical dialog. :poke-eye:

Thank you all and let's keep this on topic!
 
Heather phil
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 03:17 pm
@de budding,
I am inclined to agree with VideCorSpoon's comments. John Berger says roughly that women know they are being watched (by men) therefore they put on a display for a watcher. Our society is still a male-dominated one and in order for a woman to have a hope (especially an uneducated woman) in hell of being successful in life, she needs a man to want to take care of her. People can say that there is equal opportunity for women, but I say that isn't true. Men are hired more often for jobs that pay higher and have better benefits. Employers wouldn't say it outright, but women are often shunned from good positions because of the possibility they may rear children, thus need more sick days, mat leaves etc... That being said, women are (not all women of course) forced to depend on a man for having children, financial stability, and ****ering with salespeople and mechanics. That, in my opinion, is why women wear make-up and all that other stuff, so we will be accepted in a male dominated world, so people are more likely to notice us as people, and also so that we will be attractive candidates for jobs etc because we are conforming to a societal 'norm' and because the person behind the desk interviewing us is more than likely a man who wants someone qualified and pleasing to the eye to work with. :puzzled:
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 03:41 pm
@Heather phil,
 
Heather phil
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 04:56 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon, I find what you say (or quote) about black people not being seen very interesting. Do you think this theory works for other minorities as well?

As for preconceived notions and true equality, I'm not sure. I tend to think it can't exist and that nothing can change societal notions. However, things have progressed over the years, society has more of an open mind than ever before on issues of equality (which isn't really saying a whole lot). Change has come usually through some revolutionary process, which isn't necessarily always good either. Is there a peaceful way to change these things? I don't know, probably but is it effective change?. Once society is changed and we are perfect (har har) does that make things completely fine? Probably not.

Ok, now that I haven't answered your question, I think that all we can do is be open to change and quit kidding ourselves about change being easy or being up to someone else to change first. :confused:
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 05:27 pm
@Heather phil,
 
de budding
 
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 04:32 am
@VideCorSpoon,
Well if change is what is wanted we can appeal to the almighty magazines who could set an anti-trend quite quickly to encourage woman to dress down.

But to be sure we are doing the right thing... Can you imagine woman being dominated by an equal and opposite paradigm to that of make-up and clothes? If the trend was set to wear no make-up, would woman still thrive to out do each other on this battlefield of the aesthetic? Or a weight trend... woman ballooning to three times their original size in competition with others?

We have said previously, because of evolutionary evidence, that the whole make-up thing is 'natural'. Part of either the male of female mating ritual which has evolved out of control! But is it just a psychological president that can be varied but will have the same effect on men and woman?

If we managed to convince all magazines to naturally and slowly introduce pictures of large, make-up-less and down-clothed woman would we see men and woman in equal parts drifting in preference towards that type of woman? Would woman put on weight and would men all become chubby chasers?

Dan.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 04:46 am
@de budding,
de_budding wrote:
But to be sure we are doing the right thing... Can you imagine woman being dominated by an equal and opposite paradigm to that of make-up and clothes? If the trend was set to wear no make-up, would woman still thrive to out do each other on this battlefield of the aesthetic? Or a weight trend... woman ballooning to three times their original size in composition with others?


Excellent point - one that strikes to the heart of the issue.

*What* is done to make oneself attractive is a defined by the culture (everything from sharpening one's teeth, to becoming plump, to the number of rings stacked on the neck, to tattoos and so on).

And since we all have an instinctive desire (to some lessor or greater extent) to attract a mate, to feel attractive; there would logically be a lively discussion on the Philosophy Forum on the evils of <insert method>. Some would demonize the "Ring Mongers" or "Teeth Sharpeners" while others would speak to how this is a natural expression of the human animal.

Very nice point, thank you.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 04:51 am
@VideCorSpoon,
VideCorSpoon wrote:
... But with that understanding in mind, males tend to look at female equality through a particularly skewed lens.


Yes, absolutely. Given the nature of male sexuality, this is our only hope of giving females the respect they deserve - to be aware of the lens with which we're viewing females and work - really work - to give the respect deserved.

One can't likely compensate for their biases if they're not aware of them.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 01/27/2023 at 06:22:53