I think Will Baude is partially wrong on the whole "I hate make-up" thing. I say partially, because it's a perfectly reasonable aesthetic preference to say you don't like women to wear a lot of make-up. So, he doesn't like lotsa eyeliner, glossy red lips, and so on. Fine (I disagree, because make-up can be fun sometimes and can look great). But, I'd be willing to bet that Will thinks some women look good without make-up when they are in fact wearing skilfully applied makeup. Is he really going to notice that someone has curled her eyelashes and put on one coat of non-clumping mascara? Or is he just going to think she has big eyes? How about someone who has put a small amount of foundation around the base of her nose and the outer corners of her eyes? Matte white pencil on the lower, inner rim of the eyelid? A dab of Rosebud Salve? A quick once-over on an otherwise bare face with the NARS The Multiple stick in Palm Beach? Guerlain bronzer in the cleavage? Is Will going to think, hey, nice job with the Shu Uemura foam make-up base, concealer, and translucent lavender powder (to counteract sallowness), or is he just going to think the girl's got nice, even-toned skin? Are those flushed cheeks and just-bitten lips natural, or did they come out of the Philosophy The Supernatural bottle (you should really buy this, by the way. It's amazing)? Is Will aware that some women comb their eyebrows? Perhaps even with the eyelash comb they used to remove the excess mascara, thus setting their brows and slightly darkening them in one easy step? I don't know, I mean, maybe he's out there in bright sunlight with the magnifying mirror checking shit out, but I'm willing to bet he's frequently fooled. I often feel sorry for guys, who can't wear make-up, and this have to go around looking like crap all day when they, say, have a hangover.
My theory on why men say they prefer women to not wear makeup is that the only place they've seen them without makeup on is in bed.
Just a guess.
Posted by: Contrary Mary | September 21, 2004 at 10:52 PM
This is like wearing sexy underwear to work. Nobody can see it but it puts a spring in your step (or it used to). As you get older, even minimally applied makeup will settle in the wrinkles and be obvious in the scrutiny of harsh daylight.
Posted by: eudoxis | September 21, 2004 at 10:53 PM
Ars est celare artem, d00d.
Posted by: ben wolfson | September 22, 2004 at 12:24 AM
I think that appreciating makeup is something many guys need to learn to do (like appreciating coffee or martinis). Belle's post emphasizes that an appealing natural look often has unnatural foundations, but a more vivid and dramatic look is also an integral part of the complete aesthetic package.
Don't feel sorry for the guys who look terrible after the hangover. They (we) get to spin it as a badge of honor -- it's all a matter of expectations.
Posted by: Sean | September 22, 2004 at 12:31 AM
Also, "NARS the Multiple"? Seriously? Sounds like the name of an alien supervillain capable of existing in more than one place at a time.
Posted by: ben wolfson | September 22, 2004 at 12:36 AM
Some of us look terrible even without a hangover, Belle. It's out moral corruption seeping through.
Posted by: FL | September 22, 2004 at 02:23 AM
Belle, you are so dead on with this.
This is probably the one and only blog post I've ever read that I agree with not 99.9%, but 100%.
It's the blog post I should have written, but never have. Thanks.
I think the two main reasons why guys don't want women to wear makeup are of course both self esteem related.
1. They find it too much work to keep up with this level of personal grooming/ aesthetic perfection, but feel like a slob next to her if they don't (i.e., they don't want the pressure of having to be perfectly showered, shaven, powdered, deodorized; with smooth, peachy skin and not one hair out of place, but feel they have to if she's so perfect).
2. Their little bitty egos worry that with makeup on, she may be out of their league, and desirable to men they themselves are no match for. Ouch!
Posted by: Eva | September 22, 2004 at 02:33 AM
And now for something else... MORE KIDDIE PICTURES, PLEASE! Get out that digital cam and show us what your little rascals are up to! Pluhease!!!
Posted by: Eva | September 22, 2004 at 02:36 AM
And now for something else... MORE KIDDIE PICTURES, PLEASE! Get out that digital cam and show us what your little rascals are up to! Pluhease!!!
Posted by: Eva | September 22, 2004 at 02:37 AM
Eva, your reasons don't apply to men who don't want women they aren't romantically involved with to wear makeup, or who think (perhaps because they have been well fooled) that such women look better without it.
Since we know that there are women to whom there exist men who stand in that relation, what do you think the explanation is in those cases?
Posted by: ben wolfson | September 22, 2004 at 02:51 AM
I think that Contrary Mary's theory is right -- although I do think it's nice that women have led such a successful "conspiracy-without-a-subject" to hide from us men what they really look like.
I also think that the theory that men don't want to bother with grooming is right. I'd love to have a girlfriend, but I'm not sure if it's worth the bother of shaving every day and getting what I think they still call "a haircut" (did I get that right?) more than three times a year.
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | September 22, 2004 at 04:02 AM
I spent too much energy over the past thirty years arguing the other way, but over recent years have started to relent.
I used to argue purely for the natural look. I used to argue for the yuckines of makeup. A portion of that was based upon, well, kissing, and not liking to kiss stuff that wasn't the skin of my love.
I still tend to hold to that, but I've also come to note that in recent years I can, in rather limited circumstances, I can be attracted by women wearing make-up.
I still tend to think that an awful lot of women over-estimate it's power, and more do it immensely badly. But I'll no longer assert that it is completely repulsive in all cases.
It still seems to me that that's not exactly a great case for using make-up in most cases. It still tends to seem to me that women understandably want to believe that make-up will work to make them more attractive, and thus tend to believe so. What the actual numbers are, I have no idea. However, I am not going to now go buy that stuff in my e-mail that makes my, um, thing much bigger. I don't believe that works, either.
But, yes, sometimes makeup, done right, can be nice.
I probably should have been able to put that into two sentences.
Posted by: Gary Farber | September 22, 2004 at 04:09 AM
That bit about "Philosophy the Supernatural" was a troll, wasn't it? I mean, really. Does John drink "Berkeley Classics Department" brand beer?
Posted by: Matt Weiner | September 22, 2004 at 04:47 AM
Kudos to Matt Weiner for using the word "troll" correctly!
And I think Contrary Mary's theory may have the same vulnerability that Eva's do, though I can't actually tell if she's talking about men preferring to see specific women without makeup or women in general without makeup.
(Adam, you get your hair cut three times a year? Talk about a person who is basically such as a coxcomb.)
Posted by: ben wolfson | September 22, 2004 at 05:33 AM
Damn, Adam, it's even worse than you make it sound. The mustache has got to go.
And shouldn't we consider that bloggers, as in their political opinions, occupy the fringe of woman-wanting taste? Mightn't most guys quite like a painted woman, and think she looks scary when natural?
Posted by: ogged | September 22, 2004 at 06:45 AM
What are you talking about, ogged? He looks great (albeit a bit feminine).
What's that shirt made out of, sackcloth?
Posted by: ben wolfson | September 22, 2004 at 07:35 AM
Ben,
Do you mean to imply that "troll" is a noun referring to the comment itself, rather a noun referring to the commenter, with a derivative verb form?
Love,
Adam
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | September 22, 2004 at 08:11 AM
Adam,
Actually, the verb should be the primary sense. Secondarily it could refer to the actual post or comment (the act of posting same constitutes a trolling). Using "troll" to refer to the poster is wrong. "Trolling" in the internet sense comes from trolling for fish, not from dwellers under bridges.
I think that trolling can't really be practiced on blogs.
Forever yours,
Ben
Posted by: ben wolfson | September 22, 2004 at 10:14 AM
So what should we call the poster? A troller? A dick-weed? A butt-nugget?
Posted by: Adam Kotsko | September 22, 2004 at 10:31 AM
You needn't call the poster anything, really. Circumlocutions suffice. "Soandso is a troll" becomes "soandso is trolling", which is more accurate. "Troller" would work, I guess. I think it's more common to call someone who habitually trolls a troll than a troller. So, I'm going to say that you can call such a person a troll, as long as you understand what you're doing.
Dick-weed and butt-nugget are right out. I have been acquainted with some very good trollers who were neither of those things. It's a sign of what was lost when mankind was expelled from Usenet into the web that trolling has become so debased and reviled. A good troll is a joy unto all (except the ones who are suckered (this is part of why it makes little sense to call, say, low-rent empirical positivist a troll(er). Who falls for it? Does he get into lengthy arguments with your commenters? All y'all know what he's about, and, it seems to me, ignore him. He may be trying to troll you, but it doesn't look like it's working. The whole concept of having a, as it were, domesticated troll--it makes no sense.).
Posted by: ben wolfson | September 22, 2004 at 11:10 AM
I had no idea there was so much to cosmetics. Is every attractive woman wearing make-up, unbeknownst to me? Probably not, I guess, but still: thank you, Ladies.
I've long felt bad that men can get away with the bare minimum--khakis and a shirt, usually--and look so BORING. And then I go shopping with my girlfriend and she finds really amazing white boots that can practically double as slacks, while the men's department has only racks and racks of faded jeans. So don't blame me is what I'm saying.
Posted by: Adam R. | September 22, 2004 at 03:23 PM
Not only are all those attractive women wearing make-up, they are dynamically digitally enhanced by a portable version of photoshop that uses a holographic projector to overlay an image over their faces.
That's the only reasonable explanation I can come up with to explain how they look so good.
There might also be something to do with the emission of mind-altering pheromones.
Posted by: PZ Myers | September 23, 2004 at 02:31 AM
I am of course aware that women wear makeup even when I don't notice that they are, but the kind of makeup that one remarks as being too much just strikes me as gross, by the way on this point i think Eva is trolling - I find certain types of makeup and makeup application strategies physically repulsive, it is the opposite of thinking someone is too perfect, it is the corollary of thinking someone is a self-mutilated clown (the women may want to think of Brad Pitt with a big wad of chewing tobacco hanging partways off his lip and with a mullet for an equivalent).
that said I generally find women very enticing when they have engaged in strenuous physical activity (such as sports, folks), and in these situations I'm wondering if the makeup is perhaps less than in others, in fact i've often noted that women I thought were amazing at the gym, at a party later were less than amazing mainly because they had what I considered as being more makeup on. I never actually asked any of them though: "Do you have more makeup on, or do you just have less skillfully applied makeup - perhaps of a different brand?"
Posted by: bryan | September 24, 2004 at 04:25 AM
This is not a question that gets easier to deal with as you get older (understandably).
My wife wears very little makeup, and looks great, but if she doesn't have lipstick on in the morning, she looks dead. That is, she looks dead in her Wall Street suit and done-up hair and everything else. On a weekend morning, I wouldn't notice. Which means that it's all acculturated. One might almost say 'fetishistic.
But you know what really bothers me? Earrings. Oh, I buy them; I know just the kind of good everyday costume jewelry that my wife will actually wear (hint to New Yorkers: Gail Grant). But earrings? Would I wear earrings? Has nothing to do with gender, has everything to do with advertising. "My husband can afford to deck me out." Anyone who's see the tai tais in Hong Kong will know about display. It's all a trifle too ... pleistocene.
Posted by: R J Keefe | September 24, 2004 at 11:37 AM
Jesus, I look a lot better with a hangover. Come to think about it, people seem to like me better too.
Posted by: W. Kiernan | September 25, 2004 at 03:45 AM
Make Up Tips: The Economics of Lipstick
I had Saturday lunch with a friend who works for a prestigious Italian formulator and packager of color cosmetics. Their major client is Estee Lauder and Lauder owned brands like MAC, Bobby Brown and Francois Nars. (Lauder brands control over 45% of the U. S. department store cosmetics market).
I asked about the basic economics / cost structure of color cosmetics. My friend provided some fun-to-know facts about the manufacturer’s wholesale price to Lauder:
$.50 Filling and Formulation
$1.25 Packaging
100,000 Minimum Order Per Color
10 Typical Number of Colors Offered, (so 1,000,000 minimum tubes to launch a collection).
$22.50 Retail Price
Posted by: Scott | October 03, 2005 at 12:53 PM
Interesting makeup economics, from a man who is about to go shopping with a little foundaion,concealer,bronzer,eyeshadow and lipstick. I look much better like this, without my skin looks blotchy.
Posted by: John | April 12, 2006 at 02:03 PM
Has anyone heard of the new makeup company called FACE TIME COSMETICS? It's scheduled to launch in November/December 2006 and I hear that it's a line for sophisticated girls who just want to simply look pretty without altering their individuality. It seems like a great way to wear minimal makeup and look and feel fresh and pretty. Be on the lookout for it at www.facetimecosmetics.com!!!
Posted by: emmaplush | October 30, 2006 at 05:34 AM
I actually just heard about this line from a friend...I checked out the website www.facetimecosmetics.com and it seems that Face Time Cosmetics is very close to launching. I am so sick of the trendy and scary girls behind some makeup counters these days...we are in desperate need for someone to show us how to simply look pretty and not look CRAZY! I am over the trendy look! No wonder why this line is attracting all of the buzz before it even launches! I will be their first costumer..!
Posted by: Hillary | November 20, 2006 at 10:01 AM
I actually just heard about this line from a friend...I checked out the website www.facetimecosmetics.com and it seems that Face Time Cosmetics is very close to launching. I am so sick of the trendy and scary girls behind some makeup counters these days...we are in desperate need for someone to show us how to simply look pretty and not look CRAZY! I am over the trendy look! No wonder why this line is attracting all of the buzz before it even launches! I will be their first costumer..!
Posted by: Hillary | November 20, 2006 at 10:01 AM
I think Face Time Cosmetics is due to launch this summer...can't wait...!
Posted by: Susie | April 30, 2007 at 07:18 AM
I think Face Time Cosmetics is due to launch this summer...can't wait...!
Posted by: Susie | April 30, 2007 at 07:18 AM