Is there any other discussion topic in which 10% of poll respondents would claim that “Some” of something can be classified as “None” of that thing?
Drugs? Food additives? Advertising? Electricity? Time?
I thought the point about fashion (and “the look”) is that women dress (and make up?) to be noticed and judged by other women.
Whereas men dress so as not to be noticed or judged by other men.
The ladies are here to inform us men what we really should be thinking when asked an opinion.
There’s a word for that, gynocentrism.
Sure. For example, many vegetarians will avoid eating chunks of meat but not worry too much about the gelatin in a gummy bear. Or people who don’t drink who will have a sip of champagne at a wedding or a slice of rum cake at Christmas.
There are lots of borderline products. Putting on Chapstick, moisturizer, and acne treatment is normal for many people. These all come in lightly tinted versions. My hubby uses a tinted acne cream on pimples, but I wouldn’t say he “wears make up.” Not do I really think I’m “wearing make up” if I grab the cherry Chapstick rather than the plain.
By and large, guys think that “no makeup” really does mean “no makeup”. Are we being fooled? Maybe, I dunno (that’s kind of what “being fooled” means). But that’s what we think.
It really leans on context, but in reading your question, I attach a literal meaning. “No makeup” means none. In the real-world, though, everything falls into ranges. I don’t often consider lip gloss to be makeup, if it’s used to moisturize, for example. It’s borderline, but one of those things where it can go either way, depending on what else the person is or isn’t applying. It’s arguable, but splitting hairs.
Meanwhile, my SO likes makeup, enough that she will apply it for friends and formal events. She’s good at it, looks better with it, but also looks fine, without. Like most anyone, you can either put yourself together and look sharp/great, or you can keep it casual, with multiple levels between the two. Attention isn’t desired 100% of the time, so with or without, will vary depending on the situation. We both prefer that we dress/style ourselves as appropriate for a given situation, and often times, that’s casual (none or very light makeup).
The entire “natural look” thing is a bit of a misnomer, but I take it to mean “light makeup”, to fit a perception that’s the opposite end of this– or an attempt to recapture or maintain a youthful appearance, depending on the age of the person. Some people even say it to mean “apply correctly”, as a nicer way of telling someone they aren’t good at it. It’s all relative, because there is no clear threshold for what people consider “light”, “heavy”, or “natural” application, which would further vary by person, anyway.
Good point, thanks.
Thanks for a gracious response to what was, admittedly, a bit of a snarky question on my part. 
I thought the word for it would be womansplaining.
I’ve seen all those pictures, and I prefer the no makeup version in every case. Have you ever thought that the average man is attracted to “average” women? Especially the ones with beautiful faces and great bodies? Face paint is unnecessary in every case. If you’re beautiful you won’t need it and if you’re ugly it won’t help. And there is no middle ground, in my opinion, every woman I’ve met falls into one of those two categories.
Makeup to me means high-maintenance and vanity, at best (unless we’re at a funeral or job interview – for the women I know, makeup is their suit and tie). No makeup implies confidence and someone who is comfortable in their own skin. It’s sort of like the poll that came out recently showing that women prefer guys with a little gut and body hair to the low bodyfat six-pack fitness model guys, mainly because those guys look like they spend more time at the gym or in front of the mirror than with their girlfriend. I’m not saying it’s true, I’m saying that’s the impression given.
And yet the guys were thinking “yeah right, I’m sure if Mr. Chippendale walks in here half naked you’re going to keep looking at me”. And women are thinking “Yeah right, if I don’t wear makeup he’s going to think I’m his grandma”. In both cases I think guys want to be beefcakes to impress other guys and girls want to dress, paint and doll themselves up mostly to impress other women. The other sex just goes along with it because we’re nice.
Ok, but light makeup-- say some BB cream, lipgloss and mascara-- takes literally seconds to apply. I do that plus full eyes, and it take me no more than five minutes. Now, if can definitely take longer for people doing elaborate contouring and the like, but that’s well out of the the realm of “light make-up.”
If make-up is a turn off that’s fine, but begrudging a woman five minutes of personal time seems kind of silly.
Yeah, she looks *horrible *in the pics without make-up. :rolleyes:
(Oh, where is the old rolleyes when I need it…)
Wut? 
:dubious::smack: I don’t even…
Although, I suspect that the site may be a joke, because on their front page there is an article about “Brad Pitt without make-up”. Also Justin Bieber and Enrique Iglesias.
Hmm? That was some very adorable Brits having a race around the London Overground.
What is the relevance to this thread? Um… actually, I have no idea. I’m sure it made some kind of bizarro sense to me when I posted it.
Let’s see what I can do… OK, the girls in the clip may or may not be wearing X amount of make-up. But I think that is not, in any way, what determines their level of adorableness. More make-up would not add to it, and less make-up would not detract from it.
The point isn’t that she looks horrible But she looks very noticeably different. Without makeup, she does look like a different person. She doesn’t look like a gorgeous, glamorous pop star.
And that’s not a value judgment. I’m a guy who (thinks that he) likes women without makeup. But it’s a recognition of the fact that makeup does actually make a difference and that while I think I like women without makeup it might actually be the case that what I like is women without obvious or noticeable makeup.
I don’t want to date a glamorous pop star. I want to date a nerdy British girl… oh, maybe I should just stop making this about my public transport fetish.
Just at least find a pic of someone who looks like a hag without make-up on, is all I’m saying, as opposed to someone who looks cute. That link implies that “normal” is “bad”.
Yeah, I’d more or less got that far on my own. I guess I’m looking for an underlying rationale more than just a factual overview. It seems too slickly produced to be some basement youtube project, but too geeky to be anything else. It’s like Sheldon Cooper’s Fun With Flags made by folks with talent.
That said, I did watch the whole video. And went looking for a London transit map so I could see where they’d been. And then watched the video with the last of the '67 subway cars. So on some level, it seems to have worked.
Yeah, I know, I was actually wondering that myself. It doesn’t seem to be related to Transport for London in any sort of official way, or be made by any kind of real media operation. On the other hand, it has too much of a professional feel to be the kind of thing someone would to for shits and giggles.
Maybe made as an “application” for real video production jobs?
Ah I just remembered, back when I was doing a few modeling jobs (long, long ago), a photographer told me to show up in natural fibers and no makeup. So I took him quite literally, and put on no makeup.
That was not what he meant at all. What he meant was, “look like you have on no makeup.”
Now this was back in what I might actually call my formative years, but he was a man, he said “no makeup,” and he meant “some makeup.” I really should have known this. He called me up after looking at shots where I had on makeup. He met me when I had on makeup. Just not a lot.
So when men say, “Don’t wear makeup,” I think “look natural” is actually what they mean.
Also most people look better with makeup, even men. Johnny Depp in eyeliner? Yum. Johnny Depp au naturel? Meh.
As if that were the point. It’s not, by the way.
This whole conversation started with your claim that if someone is beautiful with makeup, then she is beautiful without it. That’s clearly not true given how the transformation created by makeup in at least these few prominent cases takes a woman who is ordinary looking and makes her a star.
Katy Perry without makeup is not someone I would run into in the street as a stranger and think “Wow! She’s beautiful!” That’s not even a criticism.
And it doesn’t matter whether you or me or anyone else says he prefers to date ordinary-looking women. Because (1) we can say what we want, but that doesn’t make it true or significant (2) makeup has an undeniable effect on people’s lives and prospects, and (3) there are women *in this very thread *telling you that they experience on a daily basis how using makeup in different ways gets people interacting with them in wildly different ways.
You can’t look at those facts and stick to “If she’s beautiful with makeup, then she’s beautiful without makeup.” That’s not a statement of fact. That’s not the reality that women in this society live in.
I don’t care what the link implies. The pictures show that makeup makes a difference, and it’s the kind of difference that is significant enough to make or break people’s careers. That’s the point.
I don’t wear make-up, none at all, because it makes my face itchy, but I’ve been accused of lying about the fact that I’m not wearing it, so part of the confusion is just the default assumption that women wear make-up, no matter what. A woman who says “no make-up” must mean “just a little,” because “literally no make-up” isn’t possible.
*Again *with everyone calling me a liar…
No one called you a liar.