Questions For Women

[Toni]

...
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.

That does not necessarily have a thing to do with wearing a lot of makeup.

 

[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.

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

Well, I didn’t feel I could give James Brown a point at that time because he had asked good questions, but never replied, so it was not clear whether he was interested in the answers. His follow up did clarify that he was, so, a point for him!


Same applies to laughing dog; while his posting history suggests he does care about the answers, at the time I answered that question it was not evident in the thread..

 

[Rhea]

What would you tell your teenage self?

Oh. Thought more about this.

“Wear sunscreen. Don’t smoke.”

 

[Emily Lake]

Excellent post, Sohy!

I suppose some men might think that we dress for them due to what they see on tv and the movies etc...

Or you know, because men in the aggregate have a tendency to think that the world (which they designed and built to suit their needs and desires) revolves around their wants and desires (which they've helped to instill into children and women through cultural conditioning).

Or... in a much shorter phrase: male privilege.

 

[Emily Lake]

... 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.

I have thoughts on this.

There is a lot of social pressure on women, and a whole lot of it revolves around two particular elements: sexualization of women and infantilization of women. Unfortunately, the two go hand in hand. There's a social stereotype of "desirable" women being vulnerable, childlike, and unable to care for themselves - they need men to take care of them. While this deep seated gender bias is gradually changing, it's moving slowly - especially in terms of fictional portrayals of women, which carry a whole lot of weight. We can say whatever words we want, but the perspectives of children are strongly formed by what they are shown. And they are shown "good women" and "desirable women" as having large eyes, small noses, and full lips relative to their head size. These are also, by the way, the characteristics that visually distinguish children from adults. It's actually part of what drives humans to want to care for baby animals - we're hardwired to want to take care of children, and that's true for both men and women.

But we often end up with a combination of women being portrayed as both infantilized and hypersexualized - childlike faces with exaggeratedly sexually mature bodies. One of the most extreme of these would be Betty Boop - giant eyes, no nose, tiny full lops on top of a body with enormous boobs, tiny waist, round hips, and thin legs. And that paradigm has continued through media. Women are often portrayed in makeup and outfits that accentuate those same things... Anime is an excellent example. It's also an interesting one, because often even though the female characters are portrayed as having both physical and mental strength... they're also strongly influenced through fan-service. So those strong female leads are also portrayed as hypersexualized, in skimpy revealing outfits, with a lot of giggling and "girlish" behavior... because that's what male fans want those females to be. Disney's not a lot better, it also tends to feature infantilized heads on top of sexualized bodies for female characters. Disney also tends to show a lot more extreme variation in head shape and facial features for male characters, with a much more cookie-cutter look for females.

That's a long post. What it boils down to is that in general, women are portrayed in media the way that men want us to be portrayed, not as we actually are. Men in media tend to be portrayed either as men actually are (The Simpsons, Family Guy), or as an archetypally masculine ideal, based on a fully mature male body and face. So throughout media, portrayals of men vacillate between how men actually are (normalizing reality) and how men want to be perceived (idealized mature masculinity and strength), whereas women are portrayed who men want women to be.

 

[Emily Lake]

My dear, men just find big doe-eyed girls with pouty lips and flushed cheeks very enticing

Translation: human males are attracted to barely-pubescent females exhibiting sexual responsiveness during ovulation...

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Well, I didn’t feel I could give James Brown a point at that time because he had asked good questions, but never replied, so it was not clear whether he was interested in the answers.

He repped me for my answer, though that's not visible to anyone else.

 

[Toni]

My dear, men just find big doe-eyed girls with pouty lips and flushed cheeks very enticing

Translation: human males are attracted to barely-pubescent females exhibiting sexual responsiveness during ovulation...

Yeah, I forgot to add: make money for them OR give them an erection.

 

[southernhybrid]

I like what Rhea said about her daughter's make up. I totally get that. I don't wear much make up although I don't leave home without lipstick. Why lipstick? I am so fucking white that if I don't add some color to my lips, people think I am ill. I use a tiny bit of foundation to smooth out my skin. Plus it has sunscreen in it. That's how you get to look about 50 when you're actually about 70. I stopped wearing a tiny bit of mascara when the pandemic began. I just got lazy. It was only a tiny bit to add a little accent to my eyelashes. I do my 2 minute makeup routine, even if I'm never stepping foot outside all day. I don't think anyone notices but me, and I like to look good for myself.


And then there's the nail thing. I have never wanted to paint or decorate my finger nails and I like them short, but I have family members who consider nail decor to be a very important part of their over all appearance. I'm sure they don't do that for men! Nail salons are a very common sight in the US. Maybe if any of the women here are into nail art, they might explain its appeal. I am not being critical, as I am a big fan of jewelry, which is another expression of art, totally unnecessary, but fun to wear.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My dear, men just find big doe-eyed girls with pouty lips and flushed cheeks very enticing

Translation: human males are attracted to barely-pubescent females exhibiting sexual responsiveness during ovulation...

Correction: human males are attracted to females most likely to conceive.

 

[Emily Lake]

My dear, men just find big doe-eyed girls with pouty lips and flushed cheeks very enticing

Translation: human males are attracted to barely-pubescent females exhibiting sexual responsiveness during ovulation...

Correction: human males are attracted to females most likely to conceive.

That's not a correction, that's what I said.

 

[laughing dog]

Correction: human males are attracted to females most likely to conceive.

That's not a correction, that's what I said.

You ought to know by now that it sounds more authoritative coming from a man.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Correction: human males are attracted to females most likely to conceive.

That's not a correction, that's what I said.

The point is that it is about fertility, age is just a proxy. It's not men are hardwired for pedophila.

 

[Toni]

Correction: human males are attracted to females most likely to conceive.

That's not a correction, that's what I said.

The point is that it is about fertility, age is just a proxy. It's not men are hardwired for pedophila.

I believe this little subdiscussion started around Emily Lake's mention of 'barely pubescent' girls. In other words, girls who have just begun to ovulate and menstruate. Technically, they may (or may not yet) be fertile but a pregnancy for such a young girl is risky to her health during pregnancy and childbirth and can have long term adverse consequences to her physical health, not just her emotional health, mental health, education and social development. Such young girls are not at their peak fertility and will not be until their late teens. Peak fertility for girls and women in the US occurs between late teens and late twenties. So, some years after the period Emily Lake mentioned. So being attracted to those barely pubescent girls is definitely NOT being drawn to the most fertile females.

You may say that such attraction is not pedophilia but rather hebephilia. You say tomato. I say tomahto. It's detrimental to the girls, inappropriate, illegal and definitely not hardwired in men.

 

[Emily Lake]

Correction: human males are attracted to females most likely to conceive.

That's not a correction, that's what I said.

You ought to know by now that it sounds more authoritative coming from a man.

 

[Emily Lake]

The point is that it is about fertility, age is just a proxy. It's not men are hardwired for pedophila.

I believe this little subdiscussion started around Emily Lake's mention of 'barely pubescent' girls. In other words, girls who have just begun to ovulate and menstruate. Technically, they may (or may not yet) be fertile but a pregnancy for such a young girl is risky to her health during pregnancy and childbirth and can have long term adverse consequences to her physical health, not just her emotional health, mental health, education and social development. Such young girls are not at their peak fertility and will not be until their late teens. Peak fertility for girls and women in the US occurs between late teens and late twenties. So, some years after the period Emily Lake mentioned. So being attracted to those barely pubescent girls is definitely NOT being drawn to the most fertile females.

You may say that such attraction is not pedophilia but rather hebephilia. You say tomato. I say tomahto. It's detrimental to the girls, inappropriate, illegal and definitely not hardwired in men.

I'd say "softwired" by long-running culture. Favoring girls who have just entered puberty for mating helps the male of the species guarantee that it is HIS progeny that get carried. The only way for males of the human species to ensure the continuance of their genes is to literally control the reproductive capacity of the females.

I say softwired, rather than hardwired, because it differs from simple mating rights and access to a sexually receptive female, which we would see in most other sexed creatures on the planet. It has some variation with humans, because we end up with inheritance of properties, wealth, and status as part of our social structure.

 

[Toni]

The point is that it is about fertility, age is just a proxy. It's not men are hardwired for pedophila.

I believe this little subdiscussion started around Emily Lake's mention of 'barely pubescent' girls. In other words, girls who have just begun to ovulate and menstruate. Technically, they may (or may not yet) be fertile but a pregnancy for such a young girl is risky to her health during pregnancy and childbirth and can have long term adverse consequences to her physical health, not just her emotional health, mental health, education and social development. Such young girls are not at their peak fertility and will not be until their late teens. Peak fertility for girls and women in the US occurs between late teens and late twenties. So, some years after the period Emily Lake mentioned. So being attracted to those barely pubescent girls is definitely NOT being drawn to the most fertile females.

You may say that such attraction is not pedophilia but rather hebephilia. You say tomato. I say tomahto. It's detrimental to the girls, inappropriate, illegal and definitely not hardwired in men.

I'd say "softwired" by long-running culture. Favoring girls who have just entered puberty for mating helps the male of the species guarantee that it is HIS progeny that get carried. The only way for males of the human species to ensure the continuance of their genes is to literally control the reproductive capacity of the females.

I say softwired, rather than hardwired, because it differs from simple mating rights and access to a sexually receptive female, which we would see in most other sexed creatures on the planet. It has some variation with humans, because we end up with inheritance of properties, wealth, and status as part of our social structure.

Your explanation does not make sense. Girls do not hit peak fertility for some years after menarche, and then it is dependent largely upon nutrition and other environmental factors as well as genetics, to a certain extent. A male is less likely to be able to ensure genetic offspring by pursuing someone who is not only not yet at peak fertility but who also lacks physical, psychological, intellectual and social maturity to best be able to bring a healthy pregnancy to term, resulting in the healthiest offspring with the best chance at surviving until adulthood. Please consult whatever sources you choose to compare the chances of offspring reaching adulthood, by age of mother at the time of pregnancy. Just for shits and giggles, throw in education level of mother.

There is no way around such 'attraction.' It's a choice. Particularly here in the US. There is zero acceptable excuse for pursuing a barely pubescent child of any gender. Zero.

I think a better 'explanation' is that by pursuing sex with a barely pubescent child, one can more easily control one's sex partner and just as importantly, ensure that they are virgin and therefore unable to make any unflattering comparisons. Or have opinions or agency of their own.

That's the real point.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'd say "softwired" by long-running culture. Favoring girls who have just entered puberty for mating helps the male of the species guarantee that it is HIS progeny that get carried. The only way for males of the human species to ensure the continuance of their genes is to literally control the reproductive capacity of the females.

I say softwired, rather than hardwired, because it differs from simple mating rights and access to a sexually receptive female, which we would see in most other sexed creatures on the planet. It has some variation with humans, because we end up with inheritance of properties, wealth, and status as part of our social structure.

Your explanation does not make sense. Girls do not hit peak fertility for some years after menarche, and then it is dependent largely upon nutrition and other environmental factors as well as genetics, to a certain extent. A male is less likely to be able to ensure genetic offspring by pursuing someone who is not only not yet at peak fertility but who also lacks physical, psychological, intellectual and social maturity to best be able to bring a healthy pregnancy to term, resulting in the healthiest offspring with the best chance at surviving until adulthood. Please consult whatever sources you choose to compare the chances of offspring reaching adulthood, by age of mother at the time of pregnancy. Just for shits and giggles, throw in education level of mother.

There is no way around such 'attraction.' It's a choice. Particularly here in the US. There is zero acceptable excuse for pursuing a barely pubescent child of any gender. Zero.

I think a better 'explanation' is that by pursuing sex with a barely pubescent child, one can more easily control one's sex partner and just as importantly, ensure that they are virgin and therefore unable to make any unflattering comparisons. Or have opinions or agency of their own.

That's the real point.

The red bit above is what I was getting at - by controlling the girl's reproductivity, and ensuring that she only has one sex partner, they also ensure that any offspring are theirs.

Thus... child brides and women viewed as property. All to control access to baby-making for that man alone. It's not about them being at peak fertility, it's about making sure that their children aren't someone else's get.

 

[Toni]

I'd say "softwired" by long-running culture. Favoring girls who have just entered puberty for mating helps the male of the species guarantee that it is HIS progeny that get carried. The only way for males of the human species to ensure the continuance of their genes is to literally control the reproductive capacity of the females.

I say softwired, rather than hardwired, because it differs from simple mating rights and access to a sexually receptive female, which we would see in most other sexed creatures on the planet. It has some variation with humans, because we end up with inheritance of properties, wealth, and status as part of our social structure.

Your explanation does not make sense. Girls do not hit peak fertility for some years after menarche, and then it is dependent largely upon nutrition and other environmental factors as well as genetics, to a certain extent. A male is less likely to be able to ensure genetic offspring by pursuing someone who is not only not yet at peak fertility but who also lacks physical, psychological, intellectual and social maturity to best be able to bring a healthy pregnancy to term, resulting in the healthiest offspring with the best chance at surviving until adulthood. Please consult whatever sources you choose to compare the chances of offspring reaching adulthood, by age of mother at the time of pregnancy. Just for shits and giggles, throw in education level of mother.

There is no way around such 'attraction.' It's a choice. Particularly here in the US. There is zero acceptable excuse for pursuing a barely pubescent child of any gender. Zero.

I think a better 'explanation' is that by pursuing sex with a barely pubescent child, one can more easily control one's sex partner and just as importantly, ensure that they are virgin and therefore unable to make any unflattering comparisons. Or have opinions or agency of their own.

That's the real point.

The red bit above is what I was getting at - by controlling the girl's reproductivity, and ensuring that she only has one sex partner, they also ensure that any offspring are theirs.

Thus... child brides and women viewed as property. All to control access to baby-making for that man alone. It's not about them being at peak fertility, it's about making sure that their children aren't someone else's get.

Sure. I read the part in red the first time. A couple of times. I thoroughly understood the logic. Plays very well into the male world view. But not modern reality.

Tell me how important all that part in red is in the United States, Europe, Australia. Most of Asia. Much of Africa and the Middle East.

There is nothing 'natural' about men wanting barely pubescent girls.

 

[Emily Lake]

The red bit above is what I was getting at - by controlling the girl's reproductivity, and ensuring that she only has one sex partner, they also ensure that any offspring are theirs.

Thus... child brides and women viewed as property. All to control access to baby-making for that man alone. It's not about them being at peak fertility, it's about making sure that their children aren't someone else's get.

Sure. I read the part in red the first time. A couple of times. I thoroughly understood the logic. Plays very well into the male world view. But not modern reality.

Tell me how important all that part in red is in the United States, Europe, Australia. Most of Asia. Much of Africa and the Middle East.

There is nothing 'natural' about men wanting barely pubescent girls.

I think we're talking past each other. I don't think it's "natural". I think it's a result of a brutal, violent patriarchal society viewing females as their property and chattel. It's not hardwired, it's a result of males being bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and pretty much running the entire world on a "might-makes-right" principle... which includes raping and mutilating women across the globe and treating women as sub-human. It's culturally ingrained, and is something that has entered the culture of males as a result.

It's NOT something I approve of. In case that part wasn't clear?