Stupid Pet Peeves

[idestroyedthetoilet]

The question would be whether they are using make-up to attract anyone at all, as opposed to other reasons. It's our western view that associates make-up with sexual signaling.



I have doubts about putting so much into an attribute.

I'm aware there are other reasons but how do you know those reasons, i.e. career woman, aren't coming from genetically caused attraction?

I don't see why you specify this as a western view, at all. The Egyptian women used makeup. Traditional Chinese and Native American and Indian and pretty much every society's makeup. It's all designed to beautify the woman for men, often in ceremonies. Weddings, etc.

 

[LogGrad98]

I hate trying to park my truck (i suck at it) so i always park really far away where there are no cars around.

You are officially one of the 1%.

 

[One Brow]

I'm aware there are other reasons but how do you know those reasons, i.e. career woman, aren't coming from genetically caused attraction?

You are thinking like a Western man again. For example, a bindi (in and of itself) is not applied for the reasons of beauty nor for sexual attractiveness.

I don't see why you specify this as a western view, at all. The Egyptian women used makeup. Traditional Chinese and Native American and Indian and pretty much every society's makeup. It's all designed to beautify the woman for men, often in ceremonies. Weddings, etc.

Time-centric, as well. For how long do you think English men used make-up for various reasons? When did that stop? Do you think that cause was biological/evolutionary?

 

[One Brow]

I hate trying to park my truck (i suck at it) so i always park really far away where there are no cars around.

I also suck at parking, but I'm too manly to drive a truck, so I bought a Spark.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

You are thinking like a Western man again. For example, a bindi (in and of itself) is not applied for the reasons of beauty nor for sexual attractiveness.

I thought we had already established that foundation. If not, consider us in agreement on alternative reasons.

My question still stands in other situations like the example I gave.

 

[Miggs]

The fascination guys have with owning a truck baffles me.

Way more expensive to buy. More expensive to insure. Way more expensive to fill with gas (or diesel, because real men have a turbo diesel). More expensive to change oil. More expensive to maintain. WAY Way more expensive to replace tires.

Now if you're pulling a camper or toy-hauler every other weekend, fine. But if it's your commuter vehicle and you justify it by saying that you have it in case you need to haul stuff... They rent trucks at U-Haul for less than $50/day. That's less than the difference in what you pay for gas in a month over what I pay for a car. But yeah, you're pretty ****ing manly with your big *** truck you can't figure out how to park right.

It’s phallic.

 

[One Brow]

I thought we had already established that foundation. If not, consider us in agreement on alternative reasons.

My question still stands in other situations like the example I gave.

Since we are in agreement that some make-up usage is not related to sexual attraction, I'm not sure why we can speculate on the reasons of any given person at any given time for, as an example, wearing make-up to work.

Going back, you asked how I knew "those reasons, i.e. career woman, aren't coming from genetically caused attraction?" My best response is that, outside of using foundation to hide blemishes enhance symmetry, any sexual response to make-up seems to have cultural ties rather than genetic ties. People raised in the US understand red lip-stick to mean greater sexual readiness, regardless of their genetic heritage. Having ruby-red lips naturally would indicate disease more than health, as would odd skin colors around the eyes.

What is the positive argument to a genetic/biological response to make-up that is not just as easily explained as a cultural response?

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

The fascination guys have with owning a truck baffles me.

Way more expensive to buy. More expensive to insure. Way more expensive to fill with gas (or diesel, because real men have a turbo diesel). More expensive to change oil. More expensive to maintain. WAY Way more expensive to replace tires.

Now if you're pulling a camper or toy-hauler every other weekend, fine. But if it's your commuter vehicle and you justify it by saying that you have it in case you need to haul stuff... They rent trucks at U-Haul for less than $50/day. That's less than the difference in what you pay for gas in a month over what I pay for a car. But yeah, you're pretty ****ing manly with your big *** truck you can't figure out how to park right.

It's a way of life for country boys, and I bet most truck owners use them for intended purposes for the most part. Add in the extra cost of a fuel efficient vehicle 3rd vehicle and country boys aren't having any of that. I will always have a pickup, but commute in it? Hell no. My '05 has less than 60k miles. It tows, it hauls, hunting, and gets me a short distance to the train.

It drives me nuts when my dad has to drive his diesel up to Strawberry to fish. "Let's take my car". "Hell no!".

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Since we are in agreement that some make-up usage is not related to sexual attraction, I'm not sure why we can speculate on the reasons of any given person at any given time for, as an example, wearing make-up to work.

Going back, you asked how I knew "those reasons, i.e. career woman, aren't coming from genetically caused attraction?" My best response is that, outside of using foundation to hide blemishes enhance symmetry, any sexual response to make-up seems to have cultural ties rather than genetic ties. People raised in the US understand red lip-stick to mean greater sexual readiness, regardless of their genetic heritage. Having ruby-red lips naturally would indicate disease more than health, as would odd skin colors around the eyes.

What is the positive argument to a genetic/biological response to make-up that is not just as easily explained as a cultural response?

I'm speaking in the aggregate; you are speaking in the specific.

You haven't given any proof behind cultural ties. If anything, makeup is cross cultural. Makeup is universally used to create the allusion of youth and thus fertility. I doubt you can find many examples (even neck stretching is out), that goes against attractive enhancement .

Changing culture won't change attraction, and makeup choice will follow as necessary.

 

[Miggs]

I'm speaking in the aggregate; you are speaking in the specific.

You haven't given any proof behind cultural ties. If anything, makeup is cross cultural. Makeup is universally used to create the allusion of youth and thus fertility. I doubt you can find many examples (even neck stretching is out), that goes against attractive enhancement .

Changing culture won't change attraction, and makeup choice will follow as necessary.

The following link is full of traditions, not done for reasons of appeal, but rather as rites of passage for young men. Your post made my mind wander and think of this.

It’s definitely worth the read.

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/male-rites-of-passage-from-around-the-world/

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

The following link is full of traditions, not done for reasons of appeal, but rather as rites of passage for young men. Your post made my mind wander and think of this.

It’s definitely worth the read.

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/male-rites-of-passage-from-around-the-world/

Interesting. The soft science have been catching up to the helicopter parenting problem as well. The changes I've seen in my short lifetime alone are example enough.

For example, I camped with my fam last week and let the 7-10 year olds axe firewood. My control freak dad comes storming out of his trailer saying "I don't care what your dad says, this isn't a toy", ripping the axe from my son's hands.

Me: you had me chopping wood at five and starting the morning fire at 6 a.m. with [older brother].

Dad: no I did not!

Mom: Yellow house, remember?

Sisters and me: Yup.

That was a right of passage in the same vein even if not nearly as dangerous as your article. And from that point on even the little ones chopped some wood, under even more scrutiny of course.

Letting kids learn seems almost a forgotten, and worse a looked down upon, part of our society.

 

[RJF]

****tard neighbor mowing his lawn at 9:45pm by car headlight.