site banner
Lykurg  We're all living in Amerika  1yr ago (putanumonit.com)   4155 thread views

Why Are Women Hot? – Put A Number On It!

putanumonit.com

Primarily relevant to here through the discussion of what people claim to find attractive vs. choose, but also considers various other measures of attractiveness. I dont agree with all these analyses but think its worth posting simply for considering the topic in a lot more detail then Ive previously seen.

21
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've always disliked the common feminist answer of "I wear makeup for myself, not for men". I find that very reductive and very much a poisoned explanation based on the feminist brain worm that no woman anywhere should ever try to do anything for the sake of men/a man, try to make a man/men happy, or seek any form of approval from a man/men.

I think there's the issue of proximal and distal causes here, or just different levels of abstraction to explain the same phenomenon.

When I say "thank you" at a restaurant after the server gives me my food, I'm not really "doing it for the server" any more. I'm doing it because it's a deeply ingrained habit at this point, shaped by a lifetime of social conditioning. I'm sure at some point I heard the explanation that saying "thank you" was the polite thing to do, and I did it a few times and got positive reactions, and I slowly became conditioned to do it automatically as a result.

In the same way, I can actually believe that a lot of women wear make up "for themselves", in the sense that they have no conscious thoughts along the line of "Gee, I wonder if a cute boy will see this and swoon over my amazing make up." But it's not going to apply to all women, and I do suspect there's a bit of denial going on for some.

Women know men haven't a fucking clue about makeup, they'll think some girl has a 'natural' look when a woman can tell it took three hours to achieve that 'wind-tousled hair and barely-there makeup' look. Or do you really think men care about contouring videos or what shade of red goes with my skin's undertones?

Like Herrick's poem, which seems to think that "a sweet disorder in the dress" is not fine art. If she really threw her clothes on carelessly, Herrick would not be attracted, he would think she was a slattern:

Delight in Disorder

BY ROBERT HERRICK

A sweet disorder in the dress

Kindles in clothes a wantonness;

A lawn about the shoulders thrown

Into a fine distraction;

An erring lace, which here and there

Enthrals the crimson stomacher;

A cuff neglectful, and thereby

Ribands to flow confusedly;

A winning wave, deserving note,

In the tempestuous petticoat;

A careless shoe-string, in whose tie

I see a wild civility:

Do more bewitch me, than when art

Is too precise in every part.

That's why women say "I do it for me", because while men can't tell, other women can, and if you feel that you look good/are following the season's trends, you feel confident and that you are not left out of the loop.

I agree that some subset of "I do it for me" is trying to say a socially acceptable lie, but I have also heard complaints from women that there are social expectations that they must wear make up to look "professional."

I could easily see some women doing a minimalist 30 minute make up routine that looks reasonably good, and just doing it out of habit. It's the same way that I'm sure many women who shave their legs and arm pits aren't doing it "for" other people's delectation, but because it is arbitrarily considered "unhygenic" or "gross" by many people to not do this, and so they keep up with it mostly out of habit.

30 minutes per day on a decent fraction of days is, on a population basis, a lot of time. If the value is mostly just signaling, and make the terrible estimate of (mixing in 'some women don't do makeup much', 'children and old people don't do makeup', etc) (4% of total female population) * (30min/day) ... 1822 entire human lives, per year, spent on makeup. That's quite a bit! It's much less than something like 'commutes', and less than 'showering', sure, but those are (arguably) bad too - many remote workers correctly think back on the daily commute as awful.

And (controversially) I don't think there's any fundamental basis in which losing some amount of time, on a population basis, is that different from an individual never existing, or dying. One can spend one's commute thinking about things, sure, and maybe there's a skill aspect to makeup some find interesting. But is "you will die at 74 instead of 78 because of the carcinogen in your cereal" really that different from "1 extra hour of your day, every day, will be burned for no reason"? Commutes, of course, have reason - unless remote work is an option. Everything is commensurable in this sense, tbh. 'Base' / 'vulgar' things matter, and 'sacred' / 'deontological moral breaches' aren't of a different kind.

That's not to say we should jail executives who don't allow remote work - harsh incentives against things like murder exist because murder is so easy, physically - but the actual impact, and hence responsibility, of a particularly effective advertising exec isn't necessarily better than the impact / responsibility of an auto exec who cuts safety features, leading to a .000001% increase in accident risk, resulting in a hundred deaths over 100 years.

minimalist 30 minute

My condolences. Seriously though, how early do you have to get up for that?

because while men can't tell

Some men can't tell. Some men can't tell faces apart, or detect social cues.

Other men have good visual acuity and can tell contouring from actual shape, thus plenty of men can tell when a woman is "plastering on makeup like a trollop", to quote a revered American statesman.

The idea of makeup being to appeal to men hits up against the historical fact that some men did protest about women wearing makeup, and that use of cosmetics was associated with actresses and other loose women. There was supposedly a law passed about women deceiving men into marriage via the use of cosmetics, though that seems to be one of those "everyone knows" factoids that isn't actually true.

So while cosmetics have been used to promote sexual appeal, their use was not uncontroversial. Women who sold their sexuality used cosmetics, respectable women did not.

"The idea of bikinis appealing to men hits up against the historical fact that conservatives did protest women wearing immoral clothing". Men today overwhelmingly respond positively to both. (even though they're wrong to do so!)

up against the historical fact that some men did protest about

That was because these men understood why the women wanted to wear make up - to appeal to other men.

Or maybe they didn't understand, but were just parroting the understanding of the people who wrote the various holy books.

Women trying to get with other men is what creates a lot of chaos in a society, which is why practically every known society harshly punishes adultery. Because if in your society men don't trust each other due to women, they're far less likely to cooperate in mutual interest.

For what it's worth, I'm in my 40s and I'm just now becoming aware, sometimes, that the reason I think a woman is really pretty is because she's done a really good job with her makeup. Lot of obvious makeup is unattractive to me, but probably because I associate it with lower-class women. But no makeup is definitely less attractive than well-done subtle makeup. I think the same thing happens in reverse with more educated, higher-class women finding jacked guys in muscle shirts less attractive than a man who manages to signal strength/fitness and masculinity more subtly, but also don't find completely unfit, weak men attractive at all.

For what it's worth, I'm almost 40 and I remember marvelling at the fakery girls were pulling with makeup since about age 16 when they started slathering it on. I had a hard time getting it as a kid. What's the point? Your bone structure will be equally shit after you've painted makeup all over your face, everyone will see it. I guess I was typical-minding as apparently people don't see it and say weird shit along the lines of 'make up changing the entire face'. I remember seeing women like that but to me that wasn't attractive, just .. jarring.

Sure, it can pay off at times with hiding blemishes and improving contrasts, etc but as a fan of athletic women and/or big boobs I've always felt most of them would've been far better served by spending time in a gym or getting a nice set of silicone implants.

After all, these don't wash off in water and especially for the implants, the time investment is probably far lower.

While I agree makeup is just a distraction, and the important thinks appearance signals (which are actually improved by eg time in the gym) are just covered up by makeup - there's a wide variety in makeup skill, and it'll vary with social class.

There's a big difference between this and natural looking makeup.

True.

are just covered up by makeup -

You can't cover body shape by makeup or clothing, unless you go for the full beekeeper burqa outfit. And even in that case, e.g. the width of the body and other such will still be discernible, and probably any guy would be able to distinguish a mildly overweight from a slender woman wearing a burqa looking at a high-def video.

face shape but yeah

The silicone implants bit does demonstrate that big boobs and thin waist are not really naturally attainable unless you're very genetically blessed; if you have naturally big boobs, you'll be big all round and if you have a tiny waist, same. So there are unrealistic standards.

When men say they like a thin waist, they mean relative to the hips and bust. Women trying to fit into a size 0 dress is something that they do for other women. Not for men. (This is not meant to imply that no men prefer women with a tiny build).

Makeup does change the entire face, even if you don't try to change your bone structure.

Reddit has enough examples, e.g. https://old.reddit.com/r/MakeupAddiction/comments/87tns7/no_makeup_vs_no_makeup_makeup/

Individual differences, I guess.

To you, it may look quite different. To me, same nose, same eyes, same hairline, same lips, same overall shape, the face on the right looks maybe 5% more attractive on account of the paint and the main difference I'm seeing is that she tilted her face to the side in the right picture.

An honest question: are you neuroatypical in any way?

More comments

As is all too common, I think there's an element of miscommunication between the modal reactions of men and women.

Men hear "I do it for me," notice that the thing being done is overtly public and communicative, conclude that the woman is not accurately describing her true motivations, and typical-mind into the conclusion that "obviously, attracting positive attention from the opposite sex is the real goal."

Women note that the conclusion is (often) wrong, and dismiss the rest of the argument. This is also wrong, because while "feeling confident" is internal, knowing that other women will notice and recognize that you are not out of the loop is quintessentially social and externally motivated. There is a contradiction between "I do it (just) for me" and "I do it for social reasons," and men are correct to notice, even if the modal conclusion drawn is in error.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats