Stupid Pet Peeves

[idestroyedthetoilet]

The above reminds me - when did we as a society decide that women are naturally ugly and cannot be seen without makeup? Women have been conditioned to admire other women who never leave their house without their "face" on. There are those who brag that even their husbands have never seen them without makeup (which causes me to think their marriages are bizarre). Those of us who have decided that our everyday faces are just fine for everyday endure comments like "you'd be so much prettier if you wore makeup," etc. So I have to make sure I don't look like myself to be acceptable to society? What a screwed up world we live in.

But yeah, don't put it on in the car, or at least wait until a red light.

My theory is that it's a relic of evolution. Many species compete for the strongest male, and much of that obviously includes competing with other females. Women are wired that way and it's hard to change your wiring no matter what the subject.

Many give this up after having children; job done, right? I think many of the trophy wife types keep up the appearance out of insecurity or a void (staring at 4 walls all day and also thinking they are not contributing because they don't earn money). Or insecurity that their mate will leave them for a better looking woman. Others do it because they enjoy looking good.

 

[One Brow]

My theory is that it's a relic of evolution. Many species compete for the strongest male, and much of that obviously includes competing with other females. Women are wired that way and it's hard to change your wiring no matter what the subject.

If you really want to look from the viewpoint of evolution, females prefer to mates with a variety of males, the same female can have different standards at different times, and different females exhibit different preferences.

It's not like female chimpanzees or bonobos wear makeup. Using evolution to explain a behavior unique (among primates, anyhow) to humans is usually a gateway for confirmation bias.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

If you really want to look from the viewpoint of evolution, females prefer to mates with a variety of males, the same female can have different standards at different times, and different females exhibit different preferences.

It's not like female chimpanzees or bonobos wear makeup. Using evolution to explain a behavior unique (among primates, anyhow) to humans is usually a gateway for confirmation bias.

You can't pigeonhole evolution this way.

Plus, evolutionary psychologists have plenty of studies on this.

And you are fully incorrect in implying that other female primates, or pretty much any species, do not put on a display of fertility. Dimorphism has many evolutionary reasons in the sense of mating but with increasingly higher intelligence that can take on multiple reasons over the course of life.

 

[Rubashov]

My new neighbours park their cars on my nature strip every ****ing day and night, me and my mate watered them heavily tonight after the pub tonight. I eagerly await a reaction.

 

[One Brow]

You can't pigeonhole evolution this way.

Yes, that was my point.

Plus, evolutionary psychologists have plenty of studies on this.

Evolutionary psychology is like chiropracty. There is a small vein of legitimate, useful work by serious practitioners, but most of it is hyped-up and does not stand up to close scrutiny. I mean, you can find evolutionary psychology reasoning males are associated with blue and women with pink, even though that association is less than 150 years old. This happens all over the place in EP.

And you are fully incorrect in implying that other female primates, or pretty much any species, do not put on a display of fertility.

What about makeup indicates fertility in any sort of useful evolutionary measure?

Dimorphism has many evolutionary reasons in the sense of mating but with increasingly higher intelligence that can take on multiple reasons over the course of life.

Again, that was my point.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

What about makeup indicates fertility in any sort of useful evolutionary measure?

Look younger. Look more attractive to opposite sex through creating an illusion of unblemished symmetry.

Both pretty easily identifiable indicators of the concept of "fertility."

 

[One Brow]

Look younger. Look more attractive to opposite sex through creating an illusion of unblemished symmetry.

Both pretty easily identifiable indicators of the concept of "fertility."

Youth has very little to do with fertility. 45-year-old women are something like 7% less fertile than 20-year-old women. It's swamped by other measures of fertility evaluation.

Unblemished symmetry is fine, but most make-up women wear introduces what would be blemishes (eye shadow, odd lip colors, etc.) in a person without make-up.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Youth has very little to do with fertility. 45-year-old women are something like 7% less fertile than 20-year-old women. It's swamped by other measures of fertility evaluation.

Unblemished symmetry is fine, but most make-up women wear introduces what would be blemishes (eye shadow, odd lip colors, etc.) in a person without make-up.

Symmetry is maintained.

And perception drives the sexual aspect of evolution much more than anything else. A more colorful male peacock is no more fertile than a less colorful one, but it's the one perceived by the female as being more desirable.

Now, let me ask you. In human society the world over, are younger women of a child bearing age considered more desirable than older women of child bearing age?

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Yes, I thought about attaching the "soft science" moniker, but I'm talking to you and know you know.

There is a study that shows women who wear red lipstick are approached by men in a bar quicker than one who wears brown lipstick or none. This is a valid, reproducible experiment. Theorists think things like lipstick and curled eyebrows trigger fertility instincts in [most] men. It's no different than a peacock's tail or other utterly useless dysmorphic traits.

You can run through the gamut of reasons for why women keep up appearances and there are plenty. So thanks for the micro view correction that you always take. I was suggesting more of a macro take but realize that's not a fair judgement to the individual.

 

[JazzGal]

Okay, you've convinced me with some valid points. I'll back off a bit on my "women hate themselves" stance and go with the "women are competing for men and it is in their nature" stance more often. It's true that if I was trying to get and keep a man or woman, I'd wear makeup more often than I do just because it is part of the game. I suppose I fight those impulses now because I'm old and don't care, but it isn't right to think all women should feel the same way. Who can fight evolutionary psychology and fertility urges after all?

 

[Miggs]

There is a study that shows women who wear red lipstick are approached by men in a bar quicker than one who wears brown lipstick or none. This is a valid, reproducible experiment. Theorists think things like lipstick and curled eyebrows trigger fertility instincts in [most] men.

Screw fertility. That lipstick just means she's DTF. And that's why they're approached.

 

[Rubashov]

Screw fertility. That lipstick just means she's DTF. And that's why they're approached.

DTF? Is that like ATM?