Makeup or no makeup?

in Survivor, regardless of whether they are man or woman, i find that the contestants are overwhelmingly much better looking on the island than when you see them during the reunion show. those on the jury are on a middle ground, with some looking better but i still mostly prefer how they look before the makeup.

what i wonder is how much of this opinion is subjective to the majority. a person should logically look better after they clean up, so my view must be a niche one. or maybe not?

I find makeup to be creepy so I agree with you. On Survivor specifically, other than the emaciated look the contestants get, they are exerting themselves out in fresh air so they would look naturally healthy.

The latest creepy one was Sister Wives. They normally wear minimal makeup and look fine, like regular natural-looking people. They then appeared on a “special” with makeup on and it just looked weird.

I generally prefer more natural looks. Some people benefit tremenduously from make-up (Oprah), but I think most people are fine without it.

That said, I also think it’s easier to prefer the “look” you’ve grown accostumed to. I like the way beards and mustaches look on most men, for instance. But if I’ve only seen you clean-shaven and then suddenly you come to work with a beard, it’s probably going to be a bit jarring. The same goes with make-up. Whenever I see celebrities without make-out, I’m usually like, “Whoa!!” Even though they look perfectly fine. It’s just that they look so different that I almost don’t recognize them.

hmm, that’s a good point. the sudden transformation after you’ve grown used to the beards and sheen is a factor.

Yeah man that was weeeeird. Made me appreciate how nice the women looked without makeup, that’s for sure! I can’t find a good picture of it.

On the flip side, the cast of Jersey Shore shows up for a TV appearance in a studio and if they get made up at all, heck if anyone can tell. Because during their show those kids were made up 24/7, on their own. Same with the Real Housewives.

I can go either way, but I generally find women more beautiful with makeup than without. YMMV. What I really find appealing is painted nails, though.

Different strokes. I’m 180 degrees the opposite.

I’m sure some women benefit from light application of make-up, but what I see on most magazine covers and in real life looks clownish to me, and very unattractive.

I’m grateful that my wife wears no lipstick or makeup at all. (Makes kissing of all kinds a more pleasant experience, for sure.)

I find her naturally beautiful, in an honest way, not a knock-out one. At 63, she has been taken for at least 15 years younger by some.

As for nails, long, polished, garishly colored ones do absolutely zero for me. I just have never been able to make the connection that long manicured nails = sexy.

Can’t stand Excessive makeup, What appealed to me about my girlfriend is what little to no makeup she wears.
Long painted nails really gross me out, a woman at work has those things. She was pointing out something and I got a look under her nails. She had so much crud and goop caked under there, I nearly wretched all over her monitor.

Girl you don’t need makeup. [warning Amy Schumer]

100% agree on the Survivor thing.

I often see women where I wonder how’d they look without all that crap on their face. Better, I’m sure.

Of course it’s easy to fall victim to the hairpiece fallacy: all of them look fake! Except the ones that don’t, because you don’t notice them. So it’s not really possible to say whether a woman in particular or women in general (or men…) look better with or without makeup unless you get to see them in both situations. That’s why the Survivor case is interesting, but it’s hard to generalize from such a specific sample.

It seems that makeup is created to make 15- and 35-year old women look like they’re 25… Whether that’s a useful thing is a matter of taste.

Good makeup looks like no makeup at all. Done very well, makeup can indeed improve a woman’s (or a man’s) appearance. Done less well, however, and it becomes visible, and will make a person look worse than without it. So unless you’re very good at it, or having it done by a professional who’s very good at it, don’t bother.

Well, on Survivor, the people are normally tan, which improves everyone’s looks.

And current makeup standards are fugly. I hate the super-smoky eye look, obvious contour, and giant fake eyelashes. They look fine at night or if you are singing onstage, but it’s disconcerting to see a news anchor wearing a smoky eye and heavy contour. Can’t wait until those trends die and become like brown lip liner from the 90s. Can we go back to the 70s and a more natural daytime look for the next trend, please?

Chronos is correct – good makeup should essentially be invisible. Anything that shows, should show for a reason (such as red lipstick).

Well, she was just nasty, then. When I had long painted nails, I always cleaned under them. Also used a nail brush.

interestingly (Baader Mentos?), i’ve just read that it applies to taste as well, and might be a reason why we dislike blended steak.

Yeah, its scary. WTF is up with make-up anyway? Grind up some palm-fronds, slather on the goop, scrape off the excess with the tail of the dead lizard that you speared your grool with last night and…

“Good Heavens, Miss Sakamoto, you’re Beautiful…!”

:smack:

Whether someone “needs” makeup to look good on screen or on stage isn’t quite the same thing as whether they need makeup to look good in person.

I’d say “looks better in make-up” since, as others point out, what most of us think of as the “natural look” is still using make-up to smooth skin tones, hide blemishes, add subtle shadowing, etc. Take that away and you get the “Gee, do you have the flu?” responses because “natural look” doesn’t actually mean natural.

I generally prefer the “natural look” make-up over “event” make-up although the second can still look good in its own way when done well. Striking smokey eyes, red lips and all that.

And, of course, it’s not really fair to discuss this in a film/photo context where most people would benefit from make-up to account for harsh lighting, etc. Hence all the “Famous sexpot actress looks like shit when walking her dog!” photos. We all look like shit when someone flashes a bulb in our face aware. 99% of all photos of people in human history are probably of someone looking like shit because that’s what cameras do unless you prepare for it.

I don’t watch Survivor, but since it is a TV show I’d suspect that contestants may be chosen in part on the basis of how good they’d look under the usual competition conditions. I don’t know that I’d trust that these conditions are totally makeup-free, either.