Questions For Women

[Politesse]

you quoted one sentence out of a much larger post. and you also completely and utterly dodged the entire body of my response to you.

so come on Politesse, you're the one getting indignant at me abusing "your discipline", actually put some effort into it and show me where my facts are in error instead bleating like a goat stuck in a trash can over a falsehood you've created.

my statement of fact is that non-utilitarian clothing evolved in humans as a means of trait signaling, and as such from a social and cultural anthropological perspective the purpose of non-utilitarian clothing in humans is ultimately to signal traits.
if you dispute this statement of fact, provide me with evidence. i'd rather be correct than be proven right, so if i have misinterpreted the data available from numerous studies which i have perceived to all conclude that non-utilitarian clothing in humans is trait signaling, please show me the information which shows this is not true and educate me.

my personal assertion in light of the above is that due to non-utilitarian clothing in humans being trait-signaling, the vast majority (if not functionally all) of that trait-signaling is ultimately sexual display - this is derived from the simple correlation that even in the instance of trait displays that are not explicitly about sexual receptivity, most (if not all) other types of display (for example wealth or class status) are ultimately still sexual in nature because i posit that the point of being seen as wealthy or successful or high class is to increase your value on the sexual marketplace.
(to put it very succinctly, it's all about the fuckin')

ipso facto (and wow do i kind of feel like a douche for saying that, but in that case i literally mean what ipso facto means), all non-utilitarian clothing in humans comes down to trait-display because that's the entire reason that non-utilitarian clothing exists in the first place.
it seems pretty bog-standard logic to me to then conclude that non-utilitarian clothing is by necessity of its existence about showing off for potential mates, since showing off for potential mates is (as just established) the entire purpose of trait display in the first place.

this isn't rocket science or some wild conspiracy theory, i didn't just dream this up out of nowhere in order to invent a reason clothing exists, i posit this assertion because it is the valid conclusion of the facts in evidence.
look at the studies, look at the data - this is all well established.

if i've misinterpreted the data, fine - show me where i'm wrong and i'll gladly change my perspective.
but just sitting there crying that i'm a sexist meanie poopoo head because.... what, because you don't like the data?
well that's just pathetic.


so am i, and yet you people keep doing it. it's honestly kind of impressive.

Those are your words. You typed them. And then you quoted them again.

and you evidently joyfully ignored all the other words around them in order to harp endlessly on the most ridiculous extrapolation one could possibly make based on a single sentence.
and then, despite the fact that i have no said "no, that is not what i meant" to your ridiculous straw man, you're here STILL harping on me about it completely ignoring the fact that i've attempted to correct you people a dozen times.

at this point it's rather clear that you're going the route of "ignore what is front of you because you have a pre-existing rage boner you need to satisfy" and i'm just the unfortunate target of your bias.

i'd also like to point out the delicious irony of people, notably toni, doing literally the thing they're falsely accusing me of: making the claim that they know the inside of another person's head better than they do.

way to follow fox news logic, people.

This post is simply contradictory. I don't see how you can be taking other social aspects of display into account while also insisting that

the vast majority (if not functionally all) of that trait-signaling is ultimately sexual display - this is derived from the simple correlation that even in the instance of trait displays that are not explicitly about sexual receptivity, most (if not all) other types of display (for example wealth or class status) are ultimately still sexual in nature because i posit that the point of being seen as wealthy or successful or high class is to increase your value on the sexual marketplace.
(to put it very succinctly, it's all about the fuckin')

Either there are social displays for reasons other than sexual receptivity, or there aren't. The claim that "all" social status is connected to sexuality is ridiculous, considering that human fertility and human social displays aren't correlated; people still produce conscious affect well before and long after their fertile period, very much unlike the sexual displays of other animals.

You also seem to be extremely confused about the definition of a biological trait. Clothing is not a trait, and it cannot evolve. Indeed, traits themselves do not evolve, though evolution in a sense produces them. But clothing is a human artifact, and thus not a phenotypical question at all. We produce it, we define it, reinvent and redesign it. Our creativity and capacity for complex planning such as is necessary to manufacture tools is a trait. But those tools are not themselves traits, and are not subject to phenotypic variation in the same way that traits are. If you're going to continue manspalining biology as you understand it, you could at least stop misusing the basic terminology of the field.

I'll be happy to analyze your "data", should you actually produce any. But it seems you are similarly confused about the meaning of that term. For instance, no data is cited in the quoted post. To a scientist, data is not a synonym for your opinions, or of vague appeals to authority, it has have certain qualities to be considered data. Such as being, for instance, a quantifiable measurement garnered in some way from observations of the natural world.

 

[prideandfall]

This post is simply contradictory. I don't see how you can be taking other social aspects of display into account while also insisting that *snip*

this is contradictory in the same way that saying "the food you eat eventually becomes poop" means "all food is poop" - ie, you have to infer a lot of personal bias into the equation to arrive at the conclusion you're making.

studies indicate that basically all behaviors surrounding ornamental clothing originate in mate signaling - and i'll repeat once again that this statement is based on papers i've read on the subject and is not just pulled out of my ass - so if it all originates from the same function, it can have adapted uses while still fundamentally being the original thing.

Either there are social displays for reasons other than sexual receptivity, or there aren't.

sure there are, of course. i never suggested otherwise.

The claim that "all" social status is connected to sexuality is ridiculous

social "status" no, but i never claimed that.
i have claimed that social status signaling is, at the end of the day, just dick-swinging with extra steps which is backed up by the data. it's not explicitly for the active purpose of procuring a mate in that moment in time, but most of it comes from that base set of behaviors.

considering that human fertility and human social displays aren't correlated; people still produce conscious affect well before and long after their fertile period, very much unlike the sexual displays of other animals.

ah, but within human society the idea of being "fuckable" and that idea being positive exists not only outside the scope of fertility, but far beyond when fertility is even a factor.
or would you try to argue that there is not, for example, a claim out there is the cultural zeitgeist that sophia loren and helen mirren are smoking hot babes who people totally want to bang? (or sean connery, or a host of other older men that are still considered sexy... i'm not focused on women for this, it's just easier to directly correlate to your point about fertility since women generally have a more clearly defined cut off point for procreation)

You also seem to be extremely confused about the definition of a biological trait.

i haven't the slightest idea where you're getting that from since i haven't cross referenced the ideas, but ok.

Clothing is not a trait, and it cannot evolve.

you seem to be confused by the definition of cultural evolution - for someone who claims ownership of this "discipline" that is surprising.

If you're going to continue manspalining biology as you understand it, you could at least stop misusing the basic terminology of the field.

ah, i see you also don't understand the word mansplaining. good for you.

and in the 6 times i've used the word biology in this thread, you're right i used evolutionary biology where i should have said cultural evolution, so fair point there.
feel free to point out any time the word biology was used incorrectly excepting that one time.

I'll be happy to analyze your "data", should you actually produce any. But it seems you are similarly confused about the meaning of that term. For instance, no data is cited in the quoted post. To a scientist, data is not a synonym for your opinions, or of vague appeals to authority, it has have certain qualities to be considered data. Such as being, for instance, a quantifiable measurement garnered in some way from observations of the natural world.

ah ok so going with "i'm too lazy to follow your instructions on how to find the data you're referring to therefor it doesn't exist and you're making this up"
sorry i didn't do your homework for you and spoon feed you information that you're ignorant on, i forgot that both sides of a discussion on a subject are the responsibility of a single party.

do you need me to hold your hand through discovering that non-utilitarian clothing is largely about trait signaling and social communication? or do you just need a primer on sexual psychology in humans?
do i need to spoon feed you information on the enclothed cognition theory, or are you capable of doing any research on your own?
let me know your level of ignorance so i can prepare a proper course for you.

 

[Politesse]

i have claimed that social status signaling is, at the end of the day, just dick-swinging with extra steps which is backed up by the data. it's not explicitly for the active purpose of procuring a mate in that moment in time, but most of it comes from that base set of behaviors.

Please feel free to produce this "data" at any moment.

you seem to be confused by the definition of cultural evolution - for someone who claims ownership of this "discipline" that is surprising.

Cultural evolution is a real subdiscipline, but not one in which artifacts are ever described as traits, nor are said to evolve. Organisms evolve, not objects. And biological traits are non-cultural by definition.

What's with the scare quotes? Have you seriously never heard of an academic discipline before?

sorry i didn't do your homework for you and spoon feed you information that you're ignorant on, i forgot that both sides of a discussion on a subject are the responsibility of a single party.

I did follow your instructions, to the letter. It took me to an academic article that refuted your points, and that you still haven't addressed in any way. Also "google it", is not how you cite a source normally speaking. So far, I've invested a rather more labor on your ridiculous point than you have. Which is weird, since it is your point, and generally the onus of proving a point is on the one trying to make it.

do you need me to hold your hand through discovering that non-utilitarian clothing is largely about trait signaling and social communication? or do you just need a primer on sexual psychology in humans?
let me know your level of ignorance so i can prepare a proper course for you.

I have a graduate degree in anthropology. You're talking nonsense and scrambling together terms well away from their usual contexts.

That doesn't make either of us right or wrong, as a person can easily have a degree and be wrong about something. But I say this to reassure you that I am unlikely to be baffled by your no doubt fascinating array of misunderstood terms and misplaced theoretical concepts. Don't worry, I've probably seen worse scrambles on student papers this very week. On the other hand, unlike them, I'm not paid to be polite to you.

 

[Emily Lake]

i see the reality that all biological life on this planet is about 4 things: eating, shitting, fucking, and sleeping

Which of those motivations is this discussion addressing for you?

Maybe you'd like to take a few minutes out of your posting to give some thought to Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs? Give some thought to where you're placing all of us - especially women - in that hierarchy, and whether or not there might be some good reason for us to be a bit insulted that you've locked us into the "physical needs" range, and have dismissed the psychological and self-esteem aspects.

thus far, every single person who has replied to me has instead whined about how i'm a bad person because i pointed out that data exists, and they don't like it.
not a single one of you has mentioned a study to refute any of the data that i am pointing out exists, or given a logical construction for how the data points to a different conclusion.
every single one of you has just had a little snit fit over the fact that you don't like what the data says, and then attacked the messenger for having the audacity to have pointed out that said data exists.

You are interpreting the information incorrectly. You have taken the broad category of social signaling, and have reduced it to only mean sexual signaling.

 

[Emily Lake]

studies indicate that basically all behaviors surrounding ornamental clothing originate in mate signaling - and i'll repeat once again that this statement is based on papers i've read on the subject and is not just pulled out of my ass - so if it all originates from the same function, it can have adapted uses while still fundamentally being the original thing.

Can you provide a link to any of these studies?

 

[laughing dog]

I have two questions for women. What do you think the probability is that a man asking you a question about why do you something
either cares about your answer or accepts that you know why?

 

[Emily Lake]

I have two questions for women. What do you think the probability is that a man asking you a question about why do you something either cares about your answer or accepts that you know why?

About 50%. It used to be higher... but I'm pretty sure women's progress is backsliding at the moment

Also, that was only one question

 

[Rhea]

er... literally every single post i've made on the subject?
granted a lot of my replies in this thread so far have been me stupidly engaging with the idiotic strawmen that others have been throwing around so there's a lot of noise to signal here, but every single post i've made that expounded on the subject either explicitly states that, or rather strongly implies it.

You’re very emotional. You should calm down.

 

[Rhea]

I have two questions for women. What do you think the probability is that a man asking you a question about why do you something
either cares about your answer or accepts that you know why?

Well, in this thread we are 0-for-9 I think.
One definitely doesn’t think we know why we think what we think or do what we do, and the other eight (if my count is right) are either asking questions without caring about our answers or taking it upon themselves to answer for us.

So, it looks like 0% from here.

But if I missed one that said, “thanks for answering, I always wondered about that,” then I’ll gladly correct my math.

 

[Toni]

In this thread and IRL, the answer is 0%--except professionally when asked why I chose to use a particular method or technique, that was accepted and almost universally respected, although occasionally some suggestions were made by someone more experienced. Likelihood was equal regardless of whether the person asking was male or female.

 

[James Brown]

I have two questions for women. What do you think the probability is that a man asking you a question about why do you something
either cares about your answer or accepts that you know why?

Well, in this thread we are 0-for-9 I think.
One definitely doesn’t think we know why we think what we think or do what we do, and the other eight (if my count is right) are either asking questions without caring about our answers or taking it upon themselves to answer for us.

So, it looks like 0% from here.

But if I missed one that said, “thanks for answering, I always wondered about that,” then I’ll gladly correct my math.

What about these?

 

[Rhea]

Oh, thanks for pointing to that. I meant to answer and it got off my radar.

How would your life change if all men had a curfew of 9:00pm?

Interestig to think about. The answer is far different at different times of my life - young and socializing vs older and socializing, young and working vs older and working. But the idea (assumes curfew is enforceable and enforced) evoked feelings of less danger and less harassment for certain activities. Like walking home late after work, or socializing when your goal is to have a fun time without navigating groups of people who think my presence means I want their sexual attentions and insisting that I respond.

Suppose you were magically provided with an hour of free time. No obligations to anyone else, no demands. What would you do during that hour?

Again, different answers at different ages. There was a time when I would revel in grocery shopping alone. Or going to the bathroom alone. Or lying in the yard on a blanket reading. Nowadays I want people to join me for shoppng and I barge in on the kids in the bathroom to use the toilet. But I still like lying in the yard reading.

What if it was a year? Again, no obligations, no expectations, and at the end of the year you pick up your old life right were you left off. What would you do with a free year?

Probably an artistic endeavor. Maybe travel.

They're forming up a Martian colony. The life will be rugged, hard, and immensely rewarding. (Imagine that the odds of survival in just reaching Mars is the same as flying to another continent on Earth.) Would you go? What if you could take one person with you--would that change your answer, and who would that person be? What do you think you would do in a harsh frontier?

I don’t think I’d go - at this time in my life. But I’d def read a book about it. At this point, I know how much of THIS planet I haven’t seen yet, and it doesn’t require a space-suit and being on the edge of survival.

If I did go, I would only go if I were with my husband - I’d miss him if he weren’t there.

What would I (we) do? I would hike, I would do science on the rocks and sand and weather. I would try to paint it. Make pottery out of it. Hike some more. And, because of the lower gravity, I would do a back-handspring.

If you have children, and if you could go back in time before you had kids, would you do it again? Would you want the same number of kids you have now?

I have two. Definitely would do again. Probably same number, our choice was based on population concerns. Only thing I’d change is I would like to have had kids earlier. More time at peak fitness with them. On the other hand, that would have changed everything - my maturity, my financial stability, undoubtedly my contentment. One of my goals in rearing them is to help them achieve maturity earlier than I did.

What do you hope to accomplish in the next 10 years?

I am less than 5 years from retirement, so this answer includes wanting to document some training for younger engineers at work, guiding my kids through launching into adulthood, establishing some volunteer efforts to help in my community. And - increasing my fitness to make retirement more exciting. My husband and I hope to bicycle from Newfoundland to Key West in that time.

When you look back on your life, what do you think will be your biggest accomplishment? What will be your biggest regret?

Biggest accomplishment is probably rearing my children in a way that gives them a good start with healthy personalities. They have become wonderful people and I am so happy for them to enter adulthood as people who make the world a better place and feel content and happy.

Biggest regret? Not being there enough for my niece. I should have done more, been there more. After her suicide, I will forever regret every thing I didn’t do.

What would you tell your teenage self?

I’m not sure I would have listened. I needed guidance that my parents were incapable of giving. I would have needed a whole lot more than just telling myself something once. Maybe, “ask someone you trust to help you mature.”

 

[Toni]

I have two questions for women. What do you think the probability is that a man asking you a question about why do you something
either cares about your answer or accepts that you know why?

Well, in this thread we are 0-for-9 I think.
One definitely doesn’t think we know why we think what we think or do what we do, and the other eight (if my count is right) are either asking questions without caring about our answers or taking it upon themselves to answer for us.

So, it looks like 0% from here.

But if I missed one that said, “thanks for answering, I always wondered about that,” then I’ll gladly correct my math.

What about these?

Excellent point! We have derailed, haven't we?



How would your life change if all men had a curfew of 9:00pm?

We actually had a similar thread a few years ago. Some (predictable) posters nearly lost their minds.
It's here: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-A-POLITICAL-THREAD-THIS-IS-SUPPORT-FIRESIDE*

I don't know if you really want to revise that thread but personally speaking, as a teenage girl, I would have had much more freedom as my parents were concerned about me being out after dark by myself. In college, that was no longer an issue: I was out when I liked to be, with or without any one with me. I will note that when I worked a very late night shift and walked the mile or so home, it was comforting to know that a patrol car would pass me at least twice. Ditto when I closed up a small convenience store: I was comforted by the patrol car that sat out in the middle of the parking lot as I closed up. Later, after marriage and kids? Well, it would have saved the issue of finding a babysitter so I could see a late night movie! And it would have saved my husband a few trips to pick up whatever I was unreasonably craving while I was pregnant. But mostly, I've never been a person who went to bars or late night venues. I don't know that I can suss out whether it was because of my nature to not particularly enjoy bars (when I was young, not only noisy but filled with smoke--yuck) or because I never particularly cared for being hit on by strangers. I am not a particularly fearful person. I'm also not a stupid person. I know from statistics and from personal experience that most victims are raped by someone they know, not a stranger. Still, the convenience store where I worked had been robbed before, at gunpoint, and campus had had a series of stranger rapes when I worked that late shift. I didn't think much about potential trouble--except the patrol cars reminded me. I had had some years of experience escaping someone who was trying to do me serious harm long before I was on campus or had that job. I'm sure I was over confident.


Suppose you were magically provided with an hour of free time. No obligations to anyone else, no demands. What would you do during that hour?

I'm retired now, so, theoretically, there's a lot of that. So, I sometimes watch something on TV, sometimes read a book (usually more than an hour) or ding around on the internet. Hi, everyone!

What if it was a year? Again, no obligations, no expectations, and at the end of the year you pick up your old life right were you left off. What would you do with a free year?

Assuming no pandemic, and infinite money: I'd travel. I think I'd spend some summer months in a nice little cottage on the shore of a lake I know, visit Europe with heavy emphasis on France, Italy, Wales, all of Great Britain, actually. Maybe New Zealand (a year isn't that long!). I'd love to visit the pacific northwest (US) and Alaska in the summer (cut into my lake time). I'd work on my photography and art. I'd visit friends and family.

They're forming up a Martian colony. The life will be rugged, hard, and immensely rewarding. (Imagine that the odds of survival in just reaching Mars is the same as flying to another continent on Earth.) Would you go? What if you could take one person with you--would that change your answer, and who would that person be? What do you think you would do in a harsh frontier?

My younger self would, enthusiastically! Now? I am less certain whether I would or not simply because of my age, given the harsh frontier. Who would I take? I'm not sure. An obvious answer would be my husband but I don't think he'd enjoy going so I'd have to think through my list of friends for those who might be so inclined and have the appropriate mindset...

If you have children, and if you could go back in time before you had kids, would you do it again? Would you want the same number of kids you have now?

Yes! Enthusiastically, yes! I always knew I wanted to raise children, from as far back as I can remember. I like children. I like being around children. I like my children!

What do you hope to accomplish in the next 10 years?

I hope to finally finish the renovation projects around my home in the next couple of years. I'd love to be able to do some travel and to host more of my far flung friends. I'd like to declutter my home (especially the attic) and finish some projects with photos that I have put on hold because of the upheaval of the renovations.

When you look back on your life, what do you think will be your biggest accomplishment? What will be your biggest regret?

Survival? I don't know, actually. I think I have grown as a person. I am more tolerant, more forgiving, more flexible (not physically, unfortunately).

I regret not trusting my instincts about a couple of people and second guessing myself. I still regret that I did not stand up for myself in some situations. For the most part, I have no regrets as far as friendships go, but there was one pretty disastrous one that I do honestly regret that I was stupid enough to enter into.

I regret that I wasn't able to balance personal academic/career ambitions and family life better. Much of that has to do with standing up for myself in certain situations. But.....I know that I caved because I had legitimate concerns/fears about what would happen if I dug my heels in. If I had a way to revisit and choose differently, with the ability to return to my current life if I didn't like how that turned out, I would do it.

What would you tell your teenage self?

Don't second guess yourself. Stand up for yourself. It isn't selfish to pursue your own ambitions. Also, don't sleep with that guy. BIG mistake.

 

[Emily Lake]

I have two questions for women. What do you think the probability is that a man asking you a question about why do you something
either cares about your answer or accepts that you know why?

Well, in this thread we are 0-for-9 I think.
One definitely doesn’t think we know why we think what we think or do what we do, and the other eight (if my count is right) are either asking questions without caring about our answers or taking it upon themselves to answer for us.

So, it looks like 0% from here.

But if I missed one that said, “thanks for answering, I always wondered about that,” then I’ll gladly correct my math.

Nah, give a point to James Brown and a point to Laughing Dog on this one, I think.

 

[Emily Lake]

We actually had a similar thread a few years ago. Some (predictable) posters nearly lost their minds.
It's here: https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...-A-POLITICAL-THREAD-THIS-IS-SUPPORT-FIRESIDE*

I just read through that. The twitter responses were powerful. Simple, but so, so, so revealing.

 

[southernhybrid]

Out of curiosity, I did a search today for articles and/or studies about why we dress the way that we do. Not once, did I find anything that suggested that women dress to please men. Sure, there are times that women might dress to please a partner or to look sexually attractive, but most of what I read came to the conclusion that women dress to either please themselves or to fit in with other women or for the approval of their female peers. I think that's mostly done when we are younger. By the time we reach middle age, most of us dress the way we want, regardless if our style is very casual or what might be considered sexy or very trendy.

I also read an article about why women wear high heels. Most were business women who said that they either wore heels because they were pressured to due so due to their work and that gave them advantages when it came to promotions. Some said that they like wearing them because it makes them feel powerful. I guess that may be due to heels making them taller. Most agreed that they were painful, so they kept them under their desks most of the time and also had a pair of flats with them as well.

I also found an interesting interview with a fashion historian. Who knew that was a thing! It was very interesting. His or her conclusion was that Americans started to dress casually in the 1920s and we've become a lot more casual since then. In fact, the person claimed that American culture when it comes to dressing very casually has influenced other cultures around the world to some extent. I lost my link. If I find it again, I'll post it.

I suppose some men might think that we dress for them due to what they see on tv and the movies etc. That's a fantasy. We aren't male birds, spreading our plumage to find a mate. We tend to like mates that are interested in us for things other than how we dress. Men can find us attractive wearing the simplest, most unsexy clothing. Some women enjoy showing off their body parts too, but that doesn't even mean that they are doing it to attract men. They might like attention or they simply don't give a damn what anyone else thinks about them.

Women are individuals, so not all women fit into some of the generalizations that I read about dress and style. Sometimes when I see a woman in a store wearing mis matched clothing, pajama bottoms with flip flops etc. I wonder what she was thinking going out like that, but other times, I admire her don't give a shit attitude. My wish is that women would be less critical of each other and unite despite our differences. It's the only way we will bring down the patriarchy, and take over the world. bwahaha

 

[Treedbear]

... My wish is that women would be less critical of each other and unite despite our differences. It's the only way we will bring down the patriarchy, and take over the world. bwahaha

Well that's the last straw! That's the last time I'm putting the toilet seat down! (You have to draw the line somewhere. )

My only complaint about women is the excessive use of makeup. I just have a hard time seeing around it. And I don't want to make that a generalization because it is mostly from what I watch on TV. But I can't help but get the impression that the wearer feels inadequate and uncomfortable without accentuating the size of the eyes and lips. Now I realize it's everyone's right to express themselves appearance-wise. But for me (Mr. Natural) I wish I could see men and women as they are without the distraction. That might just be me, and most men probably enjoy seeing women made-up (so to speak), for whatever reason. Personally I even get put off when the person I'm talking with doesn't automatically remove their sunglasses. I want to see their eyes. That's half of the conversation. I don't want to have to try to see through the kabuki mask.

 

[Toni]

... My wish is that women would be less critical of each other and unite despite our differences. It's the only way we will bring down the patriarchy, and take over the world. bwahaha

Well that's the last straw! That's the last time I'm putting the toilet seat down! (You have to draw the line somewhere. )

My only complaint about women is the excessive use of makeup. I just have a hard time seeing around it. And I don't want to make that a generalization because it is mostly from what I watch on TV. But I can't help but get the impression that the wearer feels inadequate and uncomfortable without accentuating the size of the eyes and lips. Now I realize it's everyone's right to express themselves appearance-wise. But for me (Mr. Natural) I wish I could see men and women as they are without the distraction. That might just be me, and most men probably enjoy seeing women made-up (so to speak), for whatever reason. Personally I even get put off when the person I'm talking with doesn't automatically remove their sunglasses. I want to see their eyes. That's half of the conversation. I don't want to have to try to see through the kabuki mask.

My impression is that the men who like seeing women with a lot of make up are looking to make money off of her, one way or another.

OTOH, a small bit is different. Sometimes, I wear a bit of foundation to cover up when I have a rosacea break out. Not always, and I don't always have a lot of rosacea. But once in a while, I look in the mirror and all I see is the red and I'd rather not.

I also occasionally wear make up--a little around the eyes, a little tinted lip balm. Usually only if I am going to 'an occasion' where I should look dressed up. It's part of the costume, I guess. I also do my best to make it look like me, not like a face full of make up.

 

[Treedbear]

...
My impression is that the men who like seeing women with a lot of make up are looking to make money off of her, one way or another.
...

My dear, men just find big doe-eyed girls with pouty lips and flushed cheeks very enticing. But I think most of us find nature most beautiful in a woman's unadorned eyes.

ETA - Sorry. I was watching an old movie last night on TCM starring Maurice Chevalier and Claudette Colbert.

 

[Rhea]

My only complaint about women is the excessive use of makeup. I just have a hard time seeing around it.

I had a big discussion with my daughter about this. She would show me makeup and ask what I thought. I would tell her it was very nice but that I liked her plain face, too. One day she stopped me and said, “mom, you have to realize how insulting that is. I spend time, on this, I learn how to do it. I am enjoying my work of art. So if I handed you a painting I worked really hard on and asked if you liked it, wouldn’t you be a jerk to say, ‘I’d like a blank sheet of paper just as much’?”

I had to admit that was a compelling argument. The makeup was not t cover an insecurity (as I had always judged it) but, for her at least, it was a painting on a canvas that she wore around. I can enjoy her make-up now.

Though I still am not really a fan of make-up, and I wear none myself.

Personally I even get put off when the person I'm talking with doesn't automatically remove their sunglasses. I want to see their eyes. That's half of the conversation. I don't want to have to try to see through the kabuki mask.

Totally with you on this! I hate talking to people in sunglasses.