Jilly Bean Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 OH Good! I started wondering if you were in a high pressure relationship like one of my female friends. Especially the 5 -7 lbs standard you cited. It has turned her into a wreck with anorexic tendencies. She is always clucking after me for not being more primped up all the time. No, that was sarcasm, too. I can't say it enough here. The large majority of humans are not conventionally, mass-appealingly attractive. However, most of these people seem to be very happy, in love, and in relationships. I suppose if one choses to focus on what they lack, instead of appreciating and foster what they can offer, then life will always be doomed - and THAT is far more unattractive than being physically less than stellar looking, or sporting 20 extra pounds.
WineCountry Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 I can relate. I never would leave the house totally bareface. Maybe minimal makeup, less eyeshadow but never without any at all. I like feeling valued when I go out in public Megan...see that's just IT. You are freaking VALUED without having to put CHALK on your face. Please, girl. Anyone who only " values " someone if they are wearing makeup is twisted. And it's not make up that makes you valuable, hon. YOU do. I bet you are just fine without makeup.
MeaganRaye Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Megan...see that's just IT. You are freaking VALUED without having to put CHALK on your face. Please, girl. Anyone who only " values " someone if they are wearing makeup is twisted. And it's not make up that makes you valuable, hon. YOU do. I bet you are just fine without makeup. I don't feel that way. On a good day, when I am the right shade and my makeup is applied perfectly, I see men and some women admiring me. Men walk up to me, start a pleasant conversation, open the doors for me, tell me I look nice, just make me feel good. i feel like I am valued and that I have a purpose out in this world. Without it, people (men) see right through me. I hate being ignored and being treated as if I am insignificant. It's very depressing for me
Sam Spade Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 A woman feeling like she has to cake on makeup to be seen in public is just plain SAD and different from a kid leaving the house dressed like a bum. I mean, her own HUSBAND has never seen her without makeup?? That is just weird. Is she an alien, here to observe us, and thus can never let her real face be shown as she has like.. an extra eye that she covers up with makeup?? How intriguing!! You might be unintentionally right, kind of. The rest of the world (this world, the planet Earth) is perpetually baffled by how little americans (and especially american tourists ) care about how they show up in public. (And not, that's not a good thing. And no, putting effort in your appearance signifies not low self esteem, but basic level of respect for self and others. Oh, wait..., nevermind.). Conversely, the "I may look like a slob, but you should appreciate me anyway" attitude is not confidence, it's obnoxiousness (wrapped in obliviousness) .
Ariadne Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 putting effort in your appearance signifies not low self esteem, but basic level of respect "I may look like a slob, but you should appreciate me anyway" attitude is not confidence, it's obnoxiousness (wrapped in obliviousness) . I disagree. If people are appropriately covered and clean, they should not dress to suit any other person or country's standards of fashion. People should wear what they feel comfortable with.
clv0116 Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 People used to care what they looked like in public, and that they don't anymore is a shame in my opinion.
Jersey Shortie Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Conversely, the "I may look like a slob, but you should appreciate me anyway" attitude is not confidence, it's obnoxiousness (wrapped in obliviousness) . Actually, it's basic human respect. And judging others on external factors about the type of person they are is really another form of insecurity and rather pretencious. There is this rich man in my community. Man is loaded. But he walks around in overall, works on a farm and drives an old truck. We've all heard that type of story. I'm not saying that you shouldn't take care of yourself. But lets not pretend that people that do are better people for it.
Intellectualbrat Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Or the corollary: Why women are scared to death of men who fall in love with who they are? Hint: It involves the superficial and control Wow you hit the nail on the head....you are so right!
Sam Spade Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Actually, it's basic human respect. And judging others on external factors about the type of person they are is really another form of insecurity and rather pretencious. There is this rich man in my community. Man is loaded. But he walks around in overall, works on a farm and drives an old truck. We've all heard that type of story. I'm not saying that you shouldn't take care of yourself. But lets not pretend that people that do are better people for it. Of course, you can look fantastic in overall/any classic american workwear, and that's really not the problem. Not putting any effort at all in looking presentable/appropriate for the environment and being borderline proud of that is the problem. Sadly, this is not a strawman argument, but an everyday experience. I've had colleagues show at work in tevas, shorts, and oversized t-shirts. Pretty girls wearing pant suits paired with sneakers influenced by science fiction; etc.
WineCountry Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 You might be unintentionally right, kind of. The rest of the world (this world, the planet Earth) is perpetually baffled by how little americans (and especially american tourists ) care about how they show up in public. (And not, that's not a good thing. And no, putting effort in your appearance signifies not low self esteem, but basic level of respect for self and others. Oh, wait..., nevermind.). Conversely, the "I may look like a slob, but you should appreciate me anyway" attitude is not confidence, it's obnoxiousness (wrapped in obliviousness) . See, I'm not talking about someone being clean and neat. Im talking about someone, a woman, feeling the need to get all DOLLED up to go out in public, to even be seen by her own hubby. I am specifically talking about feeling the need to put MAKEUP on. She can look very neat and presentable without caking makeup all over..like she feels her face is not good enough to be seen with just some good ol' fashioned soap and water. Why does someone have to put on makeup in order to look decent if they are not going to some specific event? Even then... Simply being neat and clean is not good enough now adays?? Hey..i have to go buy kitty litter tomorrow. Hmm..where's that dress I wore to the XMAS party last year. Black, strapless..ahh yes there it is! Hmm..where are my heels...ahh yes..there they are. Ahh..what shade of eyeshadow should I wear?? Hmm.... What eyecolor just screams " I'm going to buy kitty litter"?? Hmm..I have green eyes......should i use..ahh okay! Where is my eyeliner..blush...okay good. Alright. Im all set to go buy kitty litter tomorrow. I hope everyone approves of how i look to go to the feed store.
Sam Spade Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 See, I'm not talking about someone being clean and neat. Im talking about someone, a woman, feeling the need to get all DOLLED up to go out in public, to even be seen by her own hubby. I am specifically talking about feeling the need to put MAKEUP on. She can look very neat and presentable without caking makeup all over..like she feels her face is not good enough to be seen with just some good ol' fashioned soap and water. Why does someone have to put on makeup in order to look decent if they are not going to some specific event? Even then... Simply being neat and clean is not good enough now adays?? Hey..i have to go buy kitty litter tomorrow. Hmm..where's that dress I wore to the XMAS party last year. Black, strapless..ahh yes there it is! Hmm..where are my heels...ahh yes..there they are. Ahh..what shade of eyeshadow should I wear?? Hmm.... What eyecolor just screams " I'm going to buy kitty litter"?? Hmm..I have green eyes......should i use..ahh okay! Where is my eyeliner..blush...okay good. Alright. Im all set to go buy kitty litter tomorrow. I hope everyone approves of how i look to go to the feed store. Yep, our grand parents did it. Manners were up, crime was down. Of course there is a fine line. I wouldn't put a suit to go to wal mart either. But, call me a nazi, but going to the store in your pijama pants and flip flops is not approrpiate, yet i see it every time, in any store . The only girls that could get away with this look are college girls that are actually in their dorm room:laugh: Also, let's not forget: Track suits on airplanes; crocks on grown men (and women); disfigured shoes that have never been polished; oversized suits; etc. It's a crisis, really .
c-riouz Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 The tatoos have nothing to do with why she turns me off. I have seen women with tattoos and an alternative look that are very attractive but her rotten attitude just seeps through every pour. What exactly do you mean by her "rotten attitude"?
Jersey Shortie Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Yep, our grand parents did it. Manners were up, crime was down. Do you know what NYC was like leading into the 60s and 70s? Broadway was a breeding ground for crime. Things weren't all pretty back then. You also aren't factoring in population growth. And actually, there are some crimes, such as rape, that are down *now*. Not back then when "our" grandparents were at their primes. Although I will agree that there were more "manners" in the traditional sense. Also, let's not forget: Track suits on airplanes; crocks on grown men (and women); disfigured shoes that have never been polished; oversized suits; etc. It's a crisis, really. I personally think these items our a reflection of the amount off free time we have compared to our grandparents. I don't think people want to spend the time to look nice when they can be downloading itunes, surfing the web, or looking at internet porn.
Sam Spade Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Do you know what NYC was like leading into the 60s and 70s? Broadway was a breeding ground for crime. Things weren't all pretty back then. You also aren't factoring in population growth. And actually, there are some crimes, such as rape, that are down *now*. Not back then when "our" grandparents were at their primes. Although I will agree that there were more "manners" in the traditional sense. I personally think these items our a reflection of the amount off free time we have compared to our grandparents. I don't think people want to spend the time to look nice when they can be downloading itunes, surfing the web, or looking at internet porn. Aww, the 60's, the 70's and our parents. Not to be confused with our grandparents generation though (the greatest generation - fought 2 wars and the depression; the baby boomers did nothing except to sabotage a perfectly winnable - if ill advised - war, and the basic rules of personal hygiene; aww the irony ). The increased leisure time is among the prime explanation for decreasing formality of dress, of course. But that's not the point - casual doesn't have to mean sloppy. You see too much of that in public spaces. Going to the museum IS a recreational activity, and it's disrespectful to others to look like a rag while doing it. As for the relationship to manners, the link is not merely rhetorical . A kid that knows that his father would smack him - figuratively or literally - for not polishing his shoes is a kid less likely to have casual attitude towards anything, possibly including "hanging", recreational drug use or robbing mom and pop stores . (And even it he eventually embarks on a life of crime, he'll do it in style . May I please have your wallet, sir. ). Conversely, a father who decomposes/hangs out at home on the couch in sloppy sweats (instead of cleaning up and engaging the kids in an age-approrpiate adult-ish activity in public or in private) is a poor role model and deserves what's coming at him.
norajane Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 This is true, at least initially. It is also true in reverse - women treat good-looking men differently upon meeting them. But as they get to know them (both genders), the story changes. It becomes a matter of character and personality. The people who are successful at relationships know how to treat others with respect and dignity. They are friendly and open, but know how to handle bad behavior. They are socially GRACEFUL. These qualities have nothing to do with looks. I think initial attraction is mostly based on looks, and a little based on what is not seen, like confidence and the way a person carries themselves. As you get to know a person, then personality and character become more significant. A lot of guys on this thread have said that if her personality turns out to be crap, her looks aren't enough to maintain interest and fall in love. I think that's true, for the most part. However, I also believe that if her personality is not crap (an extreme), but falls somewhere in the middle, she can get away with a LOT more bad behavior than if she were less pretty/hot. If she's often late, can be rude to store clerks or waiters, texts other people while she's out with you, has a noticeable tendency to be selfish or isn't often considerate of other people's feelings, has little interest in your hobbies or interests, or insists more often than not that you eat where she wants to eat, go to whatever clubs, movies, events she wants to go to even if you think otherwise...a hot woman can get away with a lot more of those things than an average looking woman. Guys will overlook or accept a lot more of that behavior simply because she hot and they're into her because of it - their tolerance level is much higher for a hot woman.
Star Gazer Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 I think Megan Fox's looks are somewhat overrated in that she has an extreme cheapness and slight drag queen look that detracts from her overall beauty. This isn't entirely the way she does her makeup -- it also has to do with the structure of her face and the tacky plastic surgery enhancements (overly inflated lips). That said, she is beautiful for a normal person. She looks as attractive to me in the candids as she always does. You just can't see her face because of the glasses. My gosh, Shadow. Are you always this critical of other women? Does it really matter? Personally I find these models to be much more beautiful: http://theones2watch.com/models/profiles/women/tina-petelin http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/4849/74780120qe2.jpg http://images.fashionmodeldirectory.com/model/000000179722-alana_zimmer-fit.jpg I'm sure a lot of guys would find them less hot than Megan, but I prefer a face that is interesting and sophisticated over something generic. Of course you'd say that. They all look the same, and like you!
C-i-C-u Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Personally I find these models to be much more beautiful: http://theones2watch.com/models/profiles/women/tina-petelin http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/4849/74780120qe2.jpg http://images.fashionmodeldirectory.com/model/000000179722-alana_zimmer-fit.jpg I'm sure a lot of guys would find them less hot than Megan, but I prefer a face that is interesting and sophisticated over something generic. Yay, to the first girl and Nay to the other two.
GorillaTheater Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Yay, to the first girl and Nay to the other two. The "waif" look doesn't do much for me. Besides make me want to fix them a sandwich.
Sam Spade Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 Personally I find these models to be much more beautiful: http://theones2watch.com/models/profiles/women/tina-petelin http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/4849/74780120qe2.jpg http://images.fashionmodeldirectory.com/model/000000179722-alana_zimmer-fit.jpg All super hot, but then again, none of them would make me cream my panties any more than any averagely pretty girl; more or less the same stuff, different packaging . (Of, why buy branded, when generic is the same and less expensive ?)
Author shadowplay Posted June 11, 2009 Author Posted June 11, 2009 My gosh, Shadow. Are you always this critical of other women? Does it really matter? Of course you'd say that. They all look the same, and like you! No, I'm holding Megan to a much higher standard because she's a celebrity. If I saw her walking down the street I'd do a double take and think she was gorgeous. Even for an actress I think she's beautiful, but she's somewhat overrated as actresses go. I've heard plenty of women on LS criticize different models/actresses as overhyped. I remember TBF saying Adriana Lima was overrated, for example. It's all a matter of taste. I still see no resemblance between those models and me. If they all look the same, it's partly because the second two photos are of the same model. I thought that was obvious, but it might have been confusing because of the difference in makeup. That said the two models look nothing alike, imo, aside from coloring. The first girl has a shorter, wider face with larger cheekbones. The second girl's face is longer and flatter and her eyes are more sloe while the other's are doe. Most of the women whose looks I admire don't resemble me at all: Catherine Zeta Jones, Hedy Lamarr, Elizabeth Taylor. I have a penchant for old school beauty. But the common thread is they all have sophistication. Megan Fox, while hot, does not. Anyway, this thread has gotten really off topic. I'm sick of talking about Megan Fox.
Sam Spade Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 aww, the (figuratively) old school Salma Hayek, Kathryn-Zeta Jones, and (credibly) old school Sophia Lauren, Grace Kelly, Ingrid Bergman etc., etc., etc., give all the bony skanks a run for their (undeserved) money. Class (not ass) is the name of the game :love:.
Star Gazer Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 That said the two models look nothing alike, imo, aside from coloring. The first girl has a shorter, wider face with larger cheekbones. The second girl's face is longer and flatter and her eyes are more sloe while the other's are doe. See, still analyzing them. Why is that? I don't get it.
Author shadowplay Posted June 11, 2009 Author Posted June 11, 2009 See, still analyzing them. Why is that? I don't get it. I was just explaining why I think they look different! Sheesh.
Sam Spade Posted June 11, 2009 Posted June 11, 2009 I think you should settle this in the KY jelly pit. No holds barred style.
Recommended Posts