Cosmetics: An evil plot to fool the men of the world into thinking that ladies are pretty

People have raised substantive issues, here, Chuck. It’s you who are fixating on your admittedly abominable writing style. I, for one, am willing to concede that even a shitty writer may have a point. I haven’t seen that to be the case for you.

But go on calling us liberals and quoting Ann Coulter, as if that proves anything.

Chuckee, I’m prattling about this exchange:

you, quoting blitzgal:

hot women are obligated to fuck every man who wants them

you, going off on her for saying “hot women are obligated to fuck every man who wants them”:

Why? Seriously. Where does that sense of obligation come from? The idiot that pressures you? Or does it come from yourself? I need to understand why anyone should feel obligated. I also feel “obligated” when a woman hits on me. Why’s it different for you?

Completely missing the fact that she was paraphrasing MRAL. So you’re actually going off on MRAL.

When I pointed this out, blitzgal’s reaction was:

Thank you.

Where exactly did my reading comprehension go wrong, again?

Oh yeah, and about my bad sex with a “10”: it was consensual, so it was 50% my responsibility, 50% hers. Did you have some other answer in mind when you asked that leading question?

Do be specific, instead of waffling in unsubstantiable [oops, big word] abstractions. “To role-play, to play a “type” of woman, as in feeling sexy and attractive…” provides a comprehensive spectrum that covers pretty much all possibilities, from “making a statement” through to the good Cap’ns wife’s example of dressing for work (just as men wear suits for work). Your thinking seems terribly linear and one-dimensional. You must be a liberal.

Referring to what you wrote as “overly simplistic, trite and demonstrably false” is neither waffling, nor abstract. What you wrote was overly simplistic because it starts from the flawed assumption that every time a woman puts on her clothing or covers a pimple with concealer that first, and foremost, she is thinking about what she looks like to men. It also conflates fashion and clothing. I would expand on this but I doubt you could follow me. For now, let’s just stick to what might actually penetrate that thick haze of unearned self-importance and, I don’t know probably Old Spice, that swirls about your head.

The idea that highlighting features and concealing flaws, when applied to how average women use cosmetics, is a form of deception is absurd. This is why I asked you if you’d ever applied make up outside of a costume. Clearly you have not or you’d know how ridiculous the idea of eye-liner as a form of deception, really is. I’ve seen professional makeup artists do some fairly amazing things at photo shoots. Their work takes hours and hours to achieve. You don’t have to take my word for it; look up one of Kevin Aucoin’s books on Amazon. The man made Isabella Rosselini look Barbara Streisand and made up Grace Jones to look like Marilyn Monroe. The idea that the average woman in her bathroom mirror before her work day/date night/brunch with the girls, is doing anything of the sort is fucking laughable.

As for the second part, saying that women are role-playing a “type” in order to feel sexy and attractive does not in fact cover a “comprehensive spectrum.” Not even close. “Sexy,” quite often has jack-shit to do with projecting a professional appearance. In fact “sexy,” even inadvertent “sexy” can be an impediment to projecting a professional appearance. Also, it isn’t “role-playing” if a woman actually is a professional with the full expectations of her occupation and standards of dress to consider. This is the real world, dude, not Halloween. Women aren’t out playing “Sexy Accountant” when we go to work. There are also women who use clothing and cosmetics for the purpose of “making a statement” in manners that, once again, have nothing to do with being sexy and attractive for men. See the serious fashionistas that populate many cities. Take a look at the harem pants, and slouchy tunics, and grey nail polish and explain to me how that has anything to do with being attractive for men. Or, even better, explain to me how all men find the same kinds of clothing and make up attractive. There’s so much more but I need to go back to working on this presentation.

The thing is, chuckeedee, you’re kind of an idiot. But much like the whole “…thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters…” thing you actually managed to hit on something that’s not entirely untrue. Sexy and attractive, both as concepts and ways in which women dress, do not and cannot exist in a vacuum. They are cultural and can take in to account the opinions and desires of men. But men are not a monolith so what actually is “sexy and attractive” to them varies wildly. You’re also ignorant of the fact that women dress and present themselves, as often as not, for the benefit and judgment of other women. Yes, women also have culturally influenced ideas about what makes other women attractive and even sexy. These ideas also don’t exist in a vacuum and are deeply influential.

What you wrote is bullshit because it starts with a single, flawed premise –women only dress with men in consideration. And that idea is overly simplistic, trite, and demonstrably false.

…that thick haze of unearned self-importance and, I don’t know probably Old Spice, that swirls about your head.

I wholeheartedly applaud this graceful turn of phrase, but I suspect LYNX. You call that Axe across the pond, I think.

Ninja’d by MissPrism! 🙂

You two are funny.

Actually, I figured Old Spice because he’s such a Coulter fan and, demographically, that puts him in his 40s/50s. But, you’re right, “Axe” would have been better for the bit.

Also, hellkell, my sister and I did contact the Corporate HQ. The home office/dispatcher was trying to get to me first, before the corporate rep. Apparently this is an ongoing issue with their techs. Lovely.

chuckeedee: You are complaining that we are missing your metaphor?

What we don’t find compelling is your analogy. You have said we are what… derailing to mock your language and grammar?

It’s a bad analogy; you are the one who introduced it (and your putatory intellectual bona fides). So trying to show that we are suffering from getting lost in the weeds, and further trying to imply that we are somehow suffeing from, “Liberal Derangement Syndrome” by using “Bush Blaming” as your analogous behavior; in the form of a side-door ad hominem…. weak.

If you want to speak metaphorically, use metaphors, if you wish use a similie, make a similie. If you want to be anything close to thought of as educated, call things by their names.

If you want to be seen as an intellectual, show some intellect. It’s not formal education one needs (it’s not as if I have any degree post high school), it’s rigor. It’s putting one thing in front of the other, and seeing to it the conclusions follow from the premises.

That’s a fuck-ton more important than grammar, or word choice, and it’s what you, consistently fail to do.

That’s why we consider your disclaimer risible, because the words it follows give it the lie; and you fail, even in the teeth of the evidence, to attain any comprehension as to why.

Oh, a Lebowski reference. My day is seriously complete.

he is veritably Tacitus in the modern day.

As a classicist, I resent that

“abstractions” is actually a word, not that chuck used it right though. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abstraction?show=0&t=1316715373

Chuckadee, your unsubstantiated anecdotes being used to draw bizarre analogies suggests you could certainly use more linear thinking. Or, you know, just thinking in general.

I’m still waiting for chuck to substantiate his claims with something empirical. I see it still isn’t happening. Oh, wait, using data correctly is a liberal debate tactic. Duh.

Holy shit, is this in the US? (I’m a (female) software engineer and I’m wearing a woot tshirt, jeans, and sneakers to work today.) I think I would be out interviewing for other jobs right now if the people I worked with tried that on me… I am far too lazy for that shit 🙂

It’s in Texas, so sort of.

$300/month on makeup sounds a bit steep, unless she has skin problems that make the drugstore brands a minefield. I can relate somewhat, and it’s true that you can burn alot of money looking for the right stuff for your situation.

It’s a hell of a lot more than I’ve ever paid, but I don’t work anywhere near that nice. All I know is what she paid and the reaction she gets. It’s fucking ludicrous.