site banner
Lykurg  We're all living in Amerika  1yr ago (putanumonit.com)   4523 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 put makeup into the same box as getting swole.

Wearing something unobtrusive like "no makeup" makeup is the same as being trim and fit. It definitely stems from wanting to attract mates via signaling heath. Putting makeup on "for myself" means the woman doesn't want to lose against other women who don't look like they've had only five hours of sleep.

But more elaborate makeup gets women more dates the way more plates get men more dates: vanishingly few members of the opposite sex will care about your perfect wingtips and your perfectly defined serratus anterior, but there are same-sex support groups that value makeup and musculature as a form of performance art.

It's at core just an exaggeration of individual agency typical of third wave choice feminism. To claim that one can transcend the male gaze in an essentially hetero-male gaze focused society is an absurdity.

When a woman claims she doesn't wear makeup for men, she is claiming that she didn't do it for any individual identifiable man or subset of men, which may be accurate. The stronger claim that there isn't a male gaze somewhere in the causal chain is absurdly wrong.

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.

I don't think that's a feminist explanation, I think it's more profound than that. Admitting she wears makeup for men can make a woman look promiscuous or vain, which women shy away from.

I suppose a traditional religious woman might admit to wearing makeup for her husband (being married avoids the promiscuity suggestion) but she's not going to say that it's to impress random men that she encounters because she enjoys the attention, even if it's true.

I prefer the third alternative: the prior reason that women do most things in relation to their appearance is for the approval of other women.

Triessentialism posits that there are four foundational categories of value: utility, agency, experiences, and esteem. In this view, women tend to do the above because esteem is the value category they intuitively weight highest. (It tends to be low but nonzero for people with autism.)

Interesting. Is there an intro that you recommend?

It’s a work in progress, even after twenty-two years, but you can read early blogposts on it from 2006 in my early twenties, with the current best of the posts being http://triessentialism.blogspot.com/2006/11/unbearable-separateness-of-being-and.html - it was more of a scratchpad than a blog, really. EDIT: here’s a post more in line with the OP

I also have attached a handy Venn diagram, the theoretical details of which have not changed since it was created.

https://www.themotte.org/images/16757467502810833.webp

Thanks!

You may want to read TLP's dissertation on the subject, whether you agree with it or not. Beware, following this guy down the rabbit hole may be infohazardous.

When they say, "it's a woman's choice" what they mean is "it's not a man's choice, it is thoroughly stupid to wear make up just for men, the only acceptable reason is if you do it for yourself, if it makes you feel better about yourself."

Let me offer a contrary position, unpalatable but worth considering: the only appropriate time to wear make up is to look attractive to men. Or women, depending on which genitals you want to lick, hopefully it's both. "Ugh, women are not objects." Then why are you painting them? I'm not saying you have to look good for men, I'm saying that if wearing makeup not for men makes you feel better about yourself, you don't have a strong self, and no, yelling won't change this. Everyone knows you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, now you're saying the cover of the book influences how the book feels about itself?

I am not doubting that in fact you do feel better about yourself, I am saying that that fact is both pathological and totally on purpose. Since this cognitive trick does help you feel better about yourself, by all means go ahead, but at what point will you stop pressuring other women to go along with it? When will you stop "requiring" it, like when you say, "oh, she's so pretty even without makeup" as if the default was makeup?

That's a guy who is not a female employee working a front-facing job:

Unequal Burden

Employers can legally require women to wear makeup as part of an established dress code; they can impose such restrictions on female employees while not burdening male employees at a similar level. While some plaintiffs have tried to show that requiring women to wear makeup takes more time and costs more money, thus being a greater burden on women than men, these arguments have not proven successful as of the date of publication.

Or even suggestion that it harms your career if you don't wear it:

A study carried out by Boston University and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in 2011 found that women who wore a “professional” amount of makeup at work were regarded as “capable, reliable, and amiable,” and ultimately, “more competent” than those women who did not wear any. Another study published in Scientific American Mind in 2016 found that women wearing makeup were seen by men (but not women) as more prestigious and seen by women (but not men) as more dominant than those who do not wear makeup.

I have no idea how TLP carries out his career, if he has a job where he has to interact with others, but imagine if he consistently turned up unshaven, hair not combed or washed, dirty clothes with holes in and worn-out shoes. How long before a tactful suggestion he needed to smarten himself up? No, whether your shoes are polished or not has no bearing on how good you are at your job, but all the same you should polish them.

"And no, yelling won't change this".

He, uh, cited the study you're talking about? Through HuffPo, but - if you're not going to read the link, then sure:

The evolution from "enhances sexual attractiveness" to "doing it for yourself" is definitely a regressive step, and by regressive I here mean "regressing to age two", but it's the next step which reveals the presence of a neurosis: recruiting science as a justification for behavior: "Study finds makeup makes you appear more competent." Can't wait to read about that study in a Jonah Lehrer book. Ugh. So here's the evolution of feminist theory, take notes: "I want to look better" to "I want to feel better about myself" to "I want people to think I am better." Madness.

The further clue that the problem is not gender but... you... is that you find this pseudoscience while you are browsing the internet, i.e. it is your entertainment, your free time; your leisure time is spent justifying a behavior you can't not do. "But I wasn't looking for those articles, I just stumbled on them." Exactly.

Alone is not a pleasant person to read most of the time. His brain works in mysterious ways, and his material is intentionally acerbic because it's meant to make you question yourself. The point about makeup is completely orthagonal to the point about how power works in society, narcissism, and pornography (the general theme of pretty much all his writing).

but imagine if he consistently turned up unshaven, hair not combed or washed, dirty clothes with holes in and worn-out shoes.

He's a psychiatrist in Baltimore, dealing with general population. No one would really give a damn. Maybe it'd be helpful, given the demographics, probably would make his job slightly easier.

Also, he doesn't shave iirc.

I think often women do wear make up just for themselves. Or because looking prettier has a wide array of social benefits because people treat good looking people better, looking good isn't just useful for finding a partner. But I do think that line is over used, a sizeable amount of looking good is to attract the opposite sex and it's dumb to pretend otherwise.

Makeup strikes me as one of many appearance-based ways to trade effort for status, which may be slanted towards provoking sexual attraction in men--heavily overemphasized eyes and lips, for example--but isn't necessarily. Neatly arranged hair and flatteringly tailored clothing can also be bids for status...but there are also yoga pants with "JUICY" printed across the ass.

In general, working on your appearance sends the message "I have the time and resources to present myself like this, and chose to spend both doing so." Results vary a lot, and I think the motives do as well. It can be a confidence-booster to know you are putting your best foot forward, which probably shouldn't be reduced to "doing it for men," but if you're going full Kardashian, I am with you in not buying the "it's for me, not men" line.

There's a general effect where the people who consume or practice an art want more experimental or self referential art then people who casually consume it. Men seem to prefer more naturalistic makeup looks on women where the goal is a flawless slightly exaggerated version of natural beauty that doesn't call attention to its artificiality. But people who are really good at makeup probably get bored with more minimalistic looks and can do more complex expressive artificial techniques that exist less to emulate flawless natural beauty and more to impress other makeup users with your skill. Then you get to some of the high end drag stuff where the makeup demonstrates flawless technical ability but is trying to produce a pointedly artificial version, or in some cases almost cubist parody, of female beauty.

My guess is a lot of beauty stuff goes like that. Women might be cultured to gain skill at various forms of self presentation to appeal to the male gaze but once you develop knowledge and skill and are good at something it becomes pleasurable to do that thing (dancing, fashion) in forms that are exhibitions of skill and not purely catering to the male gaze.

I think part of the problem is it's a little too reductive to say it's only for men. Why do I as a man go to the gym? One component is certainly to improve my appearance, but that's the least socially acceptable of many other good reasons including to genuinely make myself feel physically better. I do think women wear make up for men, as well as for themselves and for other women. There is practically no situation in the modern world where looking more attractive is anything but a point in your favor. Halo effect, actually attracting partners, and just general confidence.

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