Fantasy in Makeup and Photography

Have we forgotten what real women look like?

Readership: Men;

Introduction

Instagram and other photo-based websites have become an online fantasy photo album bordering on cosplay.

Photo modification has become so prevalent, that it is obvious that fantasy is routinely preferred over reality – all for the sake of competing in the SMP. It’s gotten to the point where women are ashamed to display their true appearance in photos without some readjustments and filters.

This post will take a look at the effects of posing, makeup, lighting, and image retouching (i.e. “photo shopping”) that has become commonplace. For this purpose, I’ve collected a total of 20 “before and after” photographs from around the web, which will reveal the nature of the transformation.

Concerning the models…

  • Some of the models are from dating websites.
  • Some of the models are famous actors.
  • Some of the models are porn stars.

Concerning the image treatment…

  • Some “after” images have cosmetic make up added.
  • Some “after” images have studio lighting.
  • Some “after” images have photo editing.
  • Some “after” images have some combination of the above.

You may notice that some women actually look better without any cosmetic makeup. In general, younger women and naturally beautiful women look better without makeup, while older women and naturally fugly women look better with makeup added.

Those who need a little “extra help”, face the enticing temptation to enter the world of fantasy, so that they can look good enough to be eaten by the sexually voracious.

Features that are commonly modified through photo editing include the following.

  • Add highlights and shadow.
  • Enhance color contrast.
  • Remove signs of aging (e.g. cellulite, crow’s feet, jowls, nasolabial folds, pockmarks, sags, wrinkles…).
  • Improve signs of fertility (e.g. add color to the cheeks, eyes and hair, enhance WHR, increase breast size, smoothen the skin…).
  • Enhance fitness (e.g. reduce bulges and folds of flab, emphasize muscular definition…).
  • Amplify vitality (e.g. bigger, fuller hair, “glowing” skin, larger eyes with enhanced cosmetic accentuation around the eyes…).
  • Add a glorified gloss to the presentation (e.g. studio lighting, shaved/waxed and oiled skin, shiny hair…).
  • Create the illusion of intimacy and sexual access (e.g. smiling, open mouth, raised chin, less clothing and more skin…).
  • Removing certain details of humanity.

Concerning the last item on the list, this is one of the most common photo editing treatments.  The details which are addressed are worth considering, because some details are uniquely endearing, while others create an impression of common debasement which is the natural result of spiritual dissipation (i.e. sin). It is interesting because many details that are endearing are often removed (e.g. freckles, a wisp of hair, crooked teeth, epicanthic folds for Native Americans, Asians, and Irish…), while certain indicators of debasement are left remaining (e.g. dyed hair, haughtiness, hollow eyes, tattoos…).

A Collage Comparison of Images

Here are a few images using makeup only.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Here is one with cosmetic makeup, hair color, and studio lighting.

8.

Here is what photo editing can do.

9.
10.

Here are two examples with studio lighting and photo editing.

11.
12.

When cosmetic makeup, studio lighting, and photo editing are used in combination, the result is a total transformation that looks nothing like the real person.

13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.

Conclusions

When comparing the above images, you may notice that from among the different types of image modification, cosmetic makeup is largely responsible for the drastic transformation of facial images. Photo editing is used most effectively to transform surfaces, facial structure, and physical form. Studio lighting has the least effect of all on the form of appearance, except that it can glorify the final presentation.

As you can see, the overall goal of posing, lighting, and photo enhancement is to glorify the outward appearance through an assortment of image treatments.

Women have forgotten that true beauty originates in the heart.

Do not let your public presentation be merely attention getting — painting your face like a clown, wearing skimpy clothing, or photo shopping yourself into a caricature of the real you — rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.  For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you show natural affection to your husband and are not alpha widowed with any insecurities.

1st Peter 3:3-6 (NΣFV)

Upon reviewing a number of these treatments in the photos above, the impressions gained here may help “recalibrate” your estimations of women’s actual appearance and true level of attractiveness.

If it looks too good to be true, it is probably fantasy.

In fact, let’s call it what it is — fantasy cosplay with an emphasis on sexual semiotics.

Men, know what to look for!

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Attraction, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Discerning Lies and Deception, Female Power, Glory, Personal Presentation, Sexual Authority, SMV/MMV, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to Fantasy in Makeup and Photography

  1. SFC Ton says:

    I have a young relative who makes some ok side money via tic tok and cosplay…… man does that make up and costume lie. She’s a sweet enough girl, but rather plain and not very sm-art. She’d make a decent enough wife if someone does it before life beats her down….. which statically ain’t gonna happen

    The whole thing reminds me of a fishing lure, bright and shinny but hiding something potentially lethal

    Liked by 11 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Jack,you as well as I know this started with it being daceptible for women to wear make-up&swimming suits by the 1920’s&then picked up ever more steam in the ’60’s with breast implants, bikinis, &miniskirts &now even many men are returning to roman&egyptian ways of ”man-scaping”&eye-liner!Again,”nothing new under the sun”,people are returning to their roots as their dead tree’s will most likely be cut-down&thrown into the fire,one way or another sooner or later.

      Liked by 4 people

  2. Novaseeker says:

    A seasoned professional photographer will tell you that they can tell from the structure of a woman’s face how she will shoot, well without makeup. It has to do with symmetry, cheekbones, jaw, eye shape and size. It’s true that all of this can be edited, but the really successful face-beauty models (and instathots and porn girls and what have you) are in the upper tier out-of-the-box, even though they don’t look like their glamor shots or porn shoots when they wake up in the morning.

    For women there are really two different battlefields here” face and body.

    The face is much less “democratic” than the body, in that a woman can’t just throw effort at her face and get the same return. There is an aristocracy of facial beauty that resists that. Makeup and surgery close the gap, but they don’t eliminate it. The remaining gap can be eliminated in photography and in high budget videography (pornographers rarely bother to do that in their videos, but AAA movies do), but in real life with regular women there is only so much they can do with makeup because they lose the control over context, lighting, and editing that photography gives them. It’s easier to look great, facially, on Insta than on the street. Much easier.

    This is why, in the real world, there is currently such a massive emphasis on the body side of things for women. It’s been a dramatic shift. Women have preferred to be thin and “small” for quite some time, but it is only in relative recent history that women have been focused on being “hard-bodied” — that is, muscled/toned but in a female way, so as to be firm and somewhat defined but not “large” in a masculine way. Firm/hard/toned/compact is the look now, and this is relatively new — the hot girls when I was growing up in the 1980s were not “hard-bodied” in many cases — they were small, compact, not fat, but also a bit… soft. Not flabby, but feminine meant soft, not compact/hard, like it does now. This has happened, I think, for various reasons, but a main one is that the body area is one in which intra-female competition is more democratic, and women can get more return for their time invested. There are still differences here that are genetic and therefore undemocratic (body frame type, tendency to form muscle more or less easily and so on), but it’s much more democratic than facial beauty is … but .. and here’s the key … only if the standard shifts to bodies that are formed rather than bodies that are made.

    That is: the old standard of female physique beauty (like when I was growing up) was less finagleable by women, and therefore less democratic, because some women were simply naturally smaller/softer/petite-er, in terms of physique (not necessarily height … there are tall women with petite frames and many have been models over the years), than other women were, and so there was a similar, undemocratic beauty thing taking place on the level of female bodies as there was on the level of female faces (and largely still is, photo editing aside). By shifting the beauty standard for female bodies away from the “naturally petite soft feminine” look and towards the sculpted/molded/toned/worked/maintained/built/formed look, more women could compete for that kind of a body, and achieve it to some degree, if they were willing to put in the time and effort to do so. And so they have done so, en masse.

    An objection will be immediately raised around this point: this is nuts, women are more obese than ever!! Yes, that’s true. But it’s like virtually everything else in our culture. The low-end is proliferating and getting worse, but the high end is consolidating and getting better, and everything is becoming more divided. The big blue cities have plenty of obese people in them, for sure, but far fewer than the hinterland does. There are all kinds of taboos against obesity in the upper middle class, especially on the coasts, which have come into vogue in the last 20-30 years (I am old enough to remember the previous version of the UMC, which was quite a bit larger than the current version is). While it’s true that much of the culture is getting obese, the portion that is not getting obese is tending to get, on the female side, rather hard/toned/firm, in a way that wasn’t the case 30 years ago. As with everything else (e.g., economics, SMP, etc), the middle, the “in-between” of “neither obese” but also “neither hard/toned” has all but disappeared and been replaced with a lopsided set of two extremes (lopsided in the sense that there is much more on one side than the other, as is the case in all of these hollowing out scenarios in our culture).

    This is why, for example, the area where I live (DC metro) has among the fittest population in the country, but is certainly not full of “beautiful people” by any means. Among women here we have very few 8+, far fewer than NY, Miami, TX cities, CA cities etc. But we have more 6s than almost anyplace on planet earth. [Keep in mind, Novaseeker’s scale defines a “6” as a woman who is average in body and above average in face or average in face and above average in body — a woman who is average in both is a “5” and a woman who is above average in both is a “7”]. This is because the women here, most of whom are rather on the driven and ambitious side, are in many cases pursuing the hard/toned/firm body type, and so they get their bodies into the above average level and keep them there. The faces are average or below in many cases (although we do have 7s, just no more than anywhere else, because facial beauty is fundamentally undemocratic), but the bodies are above average, solidly so, and so they are 6s. Tons of “physique 6s” in DC metro.

    Liked by 6 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Young men now show more extremes too. Fat, stick arm wimps or jacked freaks.

      The female body induces more sexual arousal. A pretty face tends to produce warmer feelings. The body is more democratic in that sexual feelings are more base and easier to induce.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Rock Kitaro says:

        I think the difference it that men, at least with the examples you provided, don’t necessarily hide or deceive their appearance. If a man’s fat, it’s reasonable to assume he either over eats or isn’t active enough. That’s not deceptive. Unlike, makeup…

        No…I take that back. Back when I weighed 378lbs, I did wear this oversize blue utility vest everyday to hide my man-boobs. But even then, I don’t think I was fooling anyone, tricking them into thinking I’m at my peak physical condition lolololol

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Yep and men aren’t delusional – no fat man thinks he looks good – but fat women are amazing and like to show you their jelly rolls and wildebeest butt.

        Liked by 5 people

      • lastholdout says:

        @cameron

        “Yep and men aren’t delusional – no fat man thinks he looks good – but fat women are amazing and like to show you their jelly rolls and wildebeest butt.”

        LOL! Do you mean the hairy-chested not-so-fit man with the gold chains draping across his chest doesn’t exist any more?! Are you saying the roles have changed? The “jelly rolls and wildebeest butt” has replaced the hairy-chested not-so-fit man with the gold chains? LOL

        Liked by 1 person

    • anonymous_ng says:

      Also, a change in facial looks is mostly only possible via surgery which can go badly(Meg Ryan) and is hard to deny. Whereas body mods can happen via drugs while pretending that the results are because of hard work and discipline.

      There is an entire cottage industry of people making videos opining whether this person or that person has created their physique naturally or used drugs of some kind.

      Lastly, the soft filter that removes the texture of the skin also removes the wrinkles and turns an attractive woman stunning.

      Liked by 3 people

    • thedeti says:

      “But it’s like virtually everything else in our culture. The low-end is proliferating and getting worse, but the high end is consolidating and getting better, and everything is becoming more divided.”

      This is a really good point and it’s one that everyone, men and women, Christian and secular, really should take into consideration. There really is no middle ground anymore. If you are not high end, you are low end. Average will not get you there, no matter who you are. It’s high end or bust. There is no keeping up or doing fine. There is getting ahead or left behind. There is resounding success or abject failure. There is no staying afloat – there is swimming like Michael Phelps, or drowning.

      This is why everyone is talking about the “top 20%” and “bottom 80%”. If you’re not a top dog, you’re “everyone else”, and it’s just not good enough to be “everyone else”. Everyone has to do something to distinguish themselves, separate themselves from the pack, so as to get whatever they can.

      Even as recently as the early 1990s when I started my professional career, it used to be that “good enough” really was good enough. Not mediocre, but “just above average” or “above average”. If you were “average”, you married, worked, and had a family. If you were above average, you married pretty well, worked a good job that paid well, and had the family you pretty much wanted. You could work well, advance some but not as much as the top guys, and make more money but not like the top guys. Men could do this without doing a lot of self reflection, self critical analysis, changing up what they did, or evaluating their physiques or physical appearances. The vast majority of men of my generation and slightly older could do things pretty much the ways they had always done them, and do just fine. Better than fine in a lot of cases.

      Average women married OK and had their husbands and families. They usually worked. Above average women had more options. They could marry pretty well and probably have an option to be housewives if they wanted to, for a while. They could live comfortable middle class to upper middle class lives. (This, after riding the carousel for varying lengths of time too.) Women could do this without doing a lot of working out or self improvement. They didn’t have to be “hot” or even “pretty”. That helped, but it wasn’t necessary. They didn’t have to be thin or in shape. They could be soft and even flabby and chubby, and they would do just fine. Better than fine in a lot of cases.

      That just is not the case anymore. Not at all.

      Women are ahead of the curve on this, mostly because of the feminist life script, and also our reality TV, celebrity, and social media culture. There are a lot, and I mean a LOT, more attractive women in middle age than there were in 1980-1990. Pretty women and hot women, over age 35 and well into their 40s. That is proliferating across the board demographically – race, SES, employment status, marital status.

      Men have to keep up in some way. So men will just have to do something to distinguish themselves to get noticed and fight for a spot in the top 20%, or even just top 30%. Maybe they look really good. Maybe they develop Game. Maybe it’s professional distinction or an artistic talent. Maybe they work really hard, have a lot of money, or are in fantastic physical shape. Maybe they have exceptional sartorial style. Maybe they develop an expertise in a super exclusive or heretofore unknown niche, and they are like one of 3 experts in the world. (Your distinction, however, cannot be video games or a typically nerdy eccentric hobby like collecting obscure items or anything having to do with railroading or prehistoric extinct animals.) And whatever your job/career is, get really, really good at it and work hard at it. Because if you’re really really good at it, you will always have a job.

      Women are distinguishing themselves more and more through their most valuable asset – their bodies. Men have to distinguish themselves, and fortunately have more ways and avenues than women in which to do that. But, importantly, men have to start doing that. They have to start getting way better than average at something. Or, get left behind. That’s just how life is now, folks. Just how it is.

      Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        If your chosen distinction is video games, you better be good enough to make a comfortable living at it. You better be popular enough to have a You Tube channel or video platform with enough subscribers and sponsors to make a profit at it. If you do video games, you ain’t s**t unless it has made you rich, famous, or both.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Even those kinds of guys … the guys who are twitch “stars” for their various games … don’t really do very well. There have been a number of relatively high profile (in the gaming world) harassment and so on kinds of things that women have tossed at those guys, some of them resulting in a couple of the “pro” players in “professional gaming guilds” being tossed due to pressure from “the community”. It’s long been known that women who are into gaming are extremely difficult to attract as a girlfriend or similar because they are vastly outnumbered by men and get attention because of that constantly and, for any of them that are actually physically attractive .. surprise, surprise, but she dates Chad from the football team (who thinks her gaming hobby is “cute” but doesn’t play games himself) just like any other girl does, and sees you, the geeky young man she chats with on her headset when she is gaming, her fellow gamer, as just that … a de-sexualized fellow gamer.

        It’s no wonder that the gaming community seems to produce a disproportionate number of “trans women” among young males, really.

        Gaming is best avoided, period. Take the time you spend gaming and spend it on virtually anything else and it is more helpful for you in life than spending it on gaming — and not just with women. Gaming is just a big black hole. Avoid it.

        Liked by 5 people

      • thedeti says:

        “Take the time you spend gaming and spend it on virtually anything else and it is more helpful for you in life.”

        There are thousands on thousands of women who can barely make ends meet every month. They still go to the gym, get their hair done, and spend $150 a pop on mani/pedis. These are women who are constantly in danger of the power getting shut off and they still gotta get leg day in and their nails done. It is THAT important to them.

        So men have to find something that distinguishes themselves.

        Liked by 5 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        “Women are ahead of the curve on this, mostly because of the feminist life script, and also our reality TV, celebrity, and social media culture. There are a lot, and I mean a LOT, more attractive women in middle age than there were in 1980-1990. Pretty women and hot women, over age 35 and well into their 40s. That is proliferating across the board demographically – race, SES, employment status, marital status.”

        Yes. It’s one of the main trends currently — many more attractive/hot women in the 35-50 range … even into the mid-50s really, but the numbers get a lot thinner after 50 today … we will see if that continues once the women who are now 45-50 enter their 50s and whether the max age of “hotness” keeps creeping up or not.

        Nevertheless it’s a dramatic shift. There were always women at these ages who were “well maintained”, so to speak. That isn’t new. But what’s new is that there are more of them than there were and the standard has moved up from “well maintained” to “hot” by means of muscle toning/resistance training/yoga, on the one hand, and much better diet on the other, and much less vice (much less smoking and drinking) … and in some cases surgery to alleviate facial or breast aging effects. The effect has been dramatic at these ages, and the men aren’t improving at these ages at all as far as I can tell, as compared to where men were at these ages 20 years ago. Now, granted, men at these ages had an advantage over women at these ages, in general, 20 years ago, but that’s now not only gone but it has flipped for everyone but the outlier men, such that women now have the advantage at these ages as well.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        What I find most interesting about the explosion of hot women over 35 is that these women recognize where their true values lie: Their physical appearances. Face, body, in good shape. To put crudely, so that their bodies can be offered up to men, hopefully in exchange for attention, money, resources, and commitment. (Enter the OASIS.)

        They’re not overly concerned with their jobs or earning money. Most of them aren’t really concerned with professional or academic distinction, or at getting really really good at something. They care less about making a lot of money or achieving professional prestige, than they are with looking good for as long as they can. They want to excel at looking good. For them, this is where excellence truly matters.

        Sure, there is a small niche of women who are achieving professional distinction and earning a lot of money, and more and more they also are at peak physical shape and top physical appearance. These are some of the most self actualized women on the planet – except of course for reproductive capacity. The fact remains that what is paramount for almost all women is that they are looksmaxed and in top physical condition, for as long as they possibly can.

        These women can see, clearly, that women are valued most for their physical appearances – which informs how they can compete with each other and how they can get the best quality men. Remember that women’s place in the social status realm is the caliber and quality of man she can attract and keep. How do you get and keep a high value man? By being, and exhibiting, the kinds of femininity that those men want: Hot. Pretty. In shape. Good looking. Nice. Cooperative. Domestically skilled. But mostly – it’s how good she looks that informs her value and status.

        These women are recognizing deep down that they aren’t attracting and keeping attractive men with their jobs or professional acumen or intelligence. They’re figuring out, very slowly, that the ability to go toe to toe with a man does not attract and keep high value men. Bringing home the bacon and frying it up in the pan a la Enjoli didn’t last, now did it? They figured out quite soon there would probably be no one there to fry up all that bacon for.

        Women, at least, are figuring it out – look as good as you can for as long as you can because that’s their real, true value.

        Liked by 7 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        I think that’s right.

        I also think it’s a proxy for status among women. So that even if they aren’t in the hunt for a man, per se, they want to look like they would be very effective in that hunt all the same, and women compare themselves to each other in this way as well. Looks matter to other women as a means of hierarchy and status.

        It’s also about “self-esteem” to some extent as well. Women like getting looked at, especially if they are the kind of woman who has grown accustomed to noticing men noticing her, and they don’t want to let go of that … it’s very deflating to let go of that from a self-esteem perspective if you are the kind of woman who is used to it and who has built some her self-esteem around it. So you bend over backwards to keep generating the noticing from men, and it’s even more of a self-esteem boost if it comes from younger men (say men in their 20s when you are in your mid-40s).

        It’s all of these things rolled in together, I think, that is driving it, which is why it has become such a significant trend overall.

        Liked by 7 people

      • “I hate that I get cat-called when I walk down the street.”

        Six months later …

        “I hate that I don’t get any cat-calls when I walk down the street. Waaaaah!”

        True story, bro.

        Liked by 10 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Top 20 is turning into the top 5

        Liked by 4 people

    • Jack says:

      @novaseeker,
      Not sure I understand how you’re using the word “democratic” to describe looks. My impression of it is something like “what is common becomes the rule”. But this doesn’t really make sense, because the standard for beauty (as seen in all the makeup and photoediting) is not common at all, and that which is common is rather debased.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        No, I was using “democratic” to denote “accessible to the masses”, while “aristocratic” is not. Genetics is an aristocracy. Gym-toned bodies are democratic in that everyone can get one.

        Facial beauty is not democratic, it is is an aristocracy. Makeup and photos close the gap but not entirely, and in real life much of the photo stuff is removed (lighting, context, angles, filters), so the gap widens again and it gets more aristocratic.

        Body beauty is more democratic — put in your time at the gym, guard what goes into your mouth, pay a surgeon and you can have a body that rivals the fittest (as a woman). So it’s more democratic and less aristocratic than facial beauty is.

        Liked by 5 people

    • SFC Ton says:

      An objection will be immediately raised around this point: this is nuts, women are more obese than ever!! Yes, that’s true. But it’s like virtually everything else in our culture. The low-end is proliferating and getting worse, but the high end is consolidating and getting better, and everything is becoming more divided.
      ……

      True at every level and on every issue

      Liked by 4 people

      • farmlegend says:

        I would say that around the middle of the bell curve, American women are much less attractive than they were 70 years ago, owing entirely to obesity. The average adult woman in the early 1950’s weighed in at 125 pounds, versus today’s 165-170.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Rock Kitaro says:

        and it does seem like the media and popular opinion are doing their damnest to trick the mass of men into finding the beauty in obesity. Honestly, it used to work on me. The problem is, there’s a slippery slope between well toned and thick,….and cellulite laden obesity. Which is why I feel sorry for those who buy into the notion that “all bodies are beautiful” and “body positivity”…because so many seem like they’re just a couple of donuts away from flat out disgusting, sad to say. And WORSE…even when they are thick and desirable, they’re still just wanting to “have fun” and settle down later…which kind of defeats the purpose of beauty, in my opinion. It’s to attract a mate. Too many squander that gift of beauty until it’s no longer there, and then…suddenly they’re looking to settle down.

        Liked by 6 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I see a fair number of young girls (in short shorts) who already have visible cellulite – what are they going to look like in their 40s if you marry them?

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        “The problem is, there’s a slippery slope between well toned and thick,….and cellulite laden obesity.”

        The issue is that the look — thick (i.e., shapely in a pronounced way and not slender) is really hard to maintain. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to maintain that look. Here’s an example of someone who has that “look”, and looks great with that look, but even at her young age (23) she works on her body like a full time job (which it basically is for her):

        View this post on Instagram A post shared by Kylie 🤍 (@kyliejenner)

        //www.instagram.com/embed.js

        Now that’s not my own preferred physique in a woman — I prefer slender women, very much so. But she has the thick thing down — but keeping it down requires an extraordinary amount of effort even for a woman of her young age and genetic gifts.

        It’s just not remotely feasible for an average woman who has average genes and doesn’t have a job description that consists, more or less, solely of: look hot.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I can’t see the picture – assume it’s a “stacked” chick.

        You mentioned I have a “low bar” attraction. I would say I don’t care about body type as much. Obesity isn’t attractive and I don’t like tall/big-boned but I don’t really care about “stacked hour-glass-shaped-big-boobs” vs say, a petite chick with small boobs, less curves. My body preferences are less strong.

        It’s the face I find primarily attractive, eyes, etc. given that a girl isn’t obese or Amazon. I suspect caring a lot more about face than body is a beta thing. It’s the face you fall in love with IMO.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Cameron — I think I used the wrong code — it should be viewable here: https://www.instagram.com/p/CNAydRfnx5Q/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “The issue is that the look — thick (i.e., shapely in a pronounced way and not slender) is really hard to maintain. It takes a tremendous amount of effort to maintain that look.”

        Thin waist/prominent a$$ is just a genetics, mostly, in my opinion, augmented with surgery. That specific look usually cannot be achieved unless you are genetically blessed with it.

        Like

  3. Do women still say, “I’m not ready yet, I still have to put my face on.”?

    That make-up remover app should twisted a bunch of panties didn’t it?

    There are several clown-show level women at work who wear so much make-up that they are complete strangers on Zoom if they forget to turn their cameras off if they haven’t put their masks on yet.

    I generally agree with Nova’s scale. Better than a 6 has to have better than average face and body. 5 is just “meh”. Plain-ish face is not a huge problem for me. Add long hair and a smile = good enough.

    No fat chicks!!!

    Liked by 4 people

  4. rontomlinson2 says:

    Perhaps there is something wrong with me: I rate every woman on the left as more attractive. Yes, even number 7 on the left is less unattractive than on the right because her face is more honest, less mask-like. It has potential.

    No doubt I would have thought differently as a young man. And there’s another problem with these assessments because in photos the spiritual component of attraction isn’t always obvious. Partly because they’re stills but also because being attractive includes some attraction to the viewer and she can only see the photographer. Love is specific between individuals. OK, she might be attracted to the photographer. But women who try to love many are called unpleasant names. What a paradox! Any woman capable of being genuinely attractive to a large audience is ipso facto unattractive.

    Liked by 2 people

    • You’re waaaaaay over-thinking this.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Rock Kitaro says:

        LOL, there’s nothing wrong with him overthinking it. Sounds like a deep theory if one has time to consider it.

        Like

      • lastholdout says:

        In the purest sense of 1 Peter 3:3-4, he’s right. Why would a woman place herself in a marketplace to be viewed as merchandise? Wimmenz complain of being objectified while they make themselves up to be something they are not by artificial means. And its okay because men like it and other women are willing to compete. It places value on exactly what 1 Peter 3:3-4 cautions.

        Like

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Ron,the main problem is all these women would say to every man they come across to”just be yourself&honesty is sexy” or something similar!But are they doing the same?Love?Thats what these women look like their after,or something else?When men like I&kentucky hunter build up our muscles,what does these women tell us?Something about we’re on steroids &just be yourself or not?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      “…being attractive includes some attraction to the viewer.”

      That’s …. a very minority report perspective. If it were not, the girls on Instagram, in the movies and so on would not be considered “attractive” by the men viewing them, because they certainly aren’t attracted to such men.

      Liked by 5 people

    • thedeti says:

      Don’t confuse or conflate “attraction” with “love”. As women have demonstrated to us over the past 50 or so years, those are two very different animals.

      Liked by 5 people

    • Jack says:

      Rontomlinson wrote,

      “…being attractive includes some attraction to the viewer and she can only see the photographer. Love is specific between individuals. OK, she might be attracted to the photographer.”

      Ron is talking about a contextual nuance that is seldom observed, but yet, which has been a powerful influence in art history. In times past, it took weeks, months, or even years to create a painting or a sculpture. During this time, the artist and the subject would become very familiar with each other, especially if the subject was nude and/or of the lower class (which many of them were).

      Just imagine a pretty young girl, sitting in the nude, and there is a young, handsome male artist scrutinizing every detail of her body and capturing it in a work of art. The thrill of sexual attention is unsurpassed.

      There have been many paintings made of women with the “look of love” on their face. Famous examples include the Mona Lisa by Da Vinci, Girl with a Pearl Earring by Vermeer, and The Nude Maja, by Goya. It is speculated that this is because the artist and subject had romantic/sexual relations.

      Liked by 3 people

      • rontomlinson2 says:

        Jack — That’s interesting & I just took another look at the Mona Lisa.

        Maybe I’m conflating attractiveness with objective beauty or something abstruse like that. I do think that these made-up women are trying to attract men and also that real attraction is inherently interactive. Where no interaction is possible what is being elicited is some kind of fantasy projection from the viewer, e.g. the viewer has to be able to imagine a personal encounter with her.

        Whatever the reason there remains something repulsive about people who try too hard to be attractive. Plus it’s a short step from eyelash extensions to tattoos!

        A few times I’ve seen a young woman, typically pale, mid-20s, who had a beautiful but neutral face: whose character development seemed to be on a knife edge. She could go either way, towards heaven or hell. Perhaps these were examples of objective beauty.

        Liked by 4 people

  5. Rock Kitaro says:

    Topics like these encourage me when I hear people pushing social ideologies like “All Bodies are Beautiful”. Because even if everyone’s beautiful, even there, there is no equality. I remember talking to the fellas a few years back, rating women in the workplace (as we often did) and we’d break out into these huge debates because a woman who was a 10 to me, was a 5 to someone else, and someone else’s 10 was a 6 to me.

    I think subconsciously, even women know that there are those who are more beautiful than others, which is why they use make up to compete. But like the Bible verses pointed out in the post, I think it really does show a person’s heart when it comes to the kind of people they’re competing for.

    Kind of off-topic, but it reminds me of a recent debate where the woman was like, “it’s not fair that men can cheat but if a woman does it, she’s bad.” It’s like…not all men cheat. And EVEN IF the men you’re thinking of did cheat, it’s still wrong. It shows the wickedness of your own heart when you want to get away with doing what’s wrong just because you see others who “seemingly” get away with it.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      The thing about the cheating is this: it’s in women’s power to change that, if they want to do so. In other words, they could react to men having cheated in the way that men react to women having cheated … and some women do. It’s just that across the board, women don’t react as negatively generally as men do, just as they don’t react as negatively to sexual histories as men do, on average. Women can change both of those things if they wish to do so … but instead of doing that, they whine about men revising their own standards … which many men have already done in women’s favor in these areas anyway.

      As it is in many of these areas (beauty standards, fashion standards, double standard regarding sex etc), women have it in their own power to change a good deal of these things by changing their own standards and behaviors vis-a-vis each other … but they don’t do that and instead complain about us.

      Liked by 6 people

    • info says:

      If every woman is a 10 in terms of bodily and facial beauty from genetics. Then attractiveness will increase the importance of character more often.

      Like

  6. feeriker says:

    Deti says:

    “This is why everyone is talking about the “top 20%” and “bottom 80%”. If you’re not a top dog, you’re “everyone else”, and it’s just not good enough to be “everyone else”. Everyone has to do something to distinguish themselves, separate themselves from the pack, so as to get whatever they can.”

    The things is, there are far more people in the bottom 80 percent than the top 20 percent and you just can’t ignore a majority, not for the long term. That’s a strategy that never works. It’s mathematically impossible.

    rontomlinson2 says:

    “Perhaps there is something wrong with me: I rate every woman on the left as more attractive. Yes, even number 7 on the left is less unattractive than on the right because her face is more honest, less mask-like. It has potential.”

    I 100 percent agree with you. I have always liked women without made-up faces. Makeup just does NOT do it for me. There’s just something inherently fake and deceptive about it that triggers a dislike in me. I tell my wife all the time that I prefer her without makeup (she’s 51 years old, but looks easily 20 years younger, even on a bad day). Yes, she’s beautiful with makeup, but I still think she looks better without it – even if the tiny crow’s feet around the edges of her eyes are showing (the only vague hint of her true age).

    I don’t know why some of us prefer this in women. Maybe we value truth about all else, and we find truth strangely alluring?

    Liked by 7 people

  7. locustsplease says:

    Then after all this costume they put on they think im a 8-10! I only deserve the best. Men cant fake 6’3″. Making 6 figures takes a lot more work than putting on clothes and makeup.

    Liked by 4 people

  8. Lexet Blog says:

    Irony is that modern women spend hours putting on makeup, so they can wear it at work, only to come home and wipe it off before their SO gets home.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Heels and fitted skirt for work vs. flip-flops and baggy sweatpants at home.

      Liked by 6 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Yes. They will say that this is to comply with corporate dress codes, but that’s mostly bunk.

        When my employer went to all business casual, there was pretty much almost -zero-change in how women dressed, other than some switched from office attire to painted-on jeans and leggings and the like … none of them actually went “casual” in terms of clothing that is comfortable rather than sexually revealing. This is also reflected in how women like to look when they are at the gym — almost all prefer sexy workout gear and not comfortable gear. It’s clearly being displayed, no question, but they will deny until they are blue in the face that it’s about being displayed so as to maintain a semblance of the “moral high ground”, if only in their own eyes.

        Liked by 9 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Nova that’s how it is at my company. We were business casual which meant skin tight pants made out of business suit gray materials and heels. Now were covid casual which means skin tight jeans and stretch pants – I guess if you’re an @$$ man you’ll delight. No it’s not for comfort.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I see it everyday.

        Liked by 3 people

  9. redpillboomer says:

    Interesting post, and coincidentally, I was perusing Facebook just before reading this blog post and saw something related to this. It was a clip from an outdoor rock concert back in the 70s with Lynyrd Skynyrd jamming out Free Bird. The camera panned the big crowd frequently and there were a lot of young women in my age range (at that time), late teens and early twenties, as might be expected. Here’s what caught my attention, how pretty they all looked just being their natural selves. Very few were wearing make-up, and if they were, it was very light make-up. There was also nary a tattoo in sight. They all had long or fairly long hair that looked very natural, no hair coloring, hair extensions or anything like it. Here’s the kicker, I didn’t see a fatty in the bunch, not a single one. Not saying there were no land whales at the concert at all, however the part of the crowd the camera panned over and over again (and it was a sizeable part of the front rows going about 10-15 rows deep), ALL the women had nice hip-to-waist ratios. It was a summer concert so most of them were wearing shorts and a halter top or something similar to it.

    It also reminded me of something I read awhile back that the Mr. PUA himself, Roosh V (pre-conversion Roosh), said in some re-posted blog post, it might have been Dalrock, can’t remember where I saw it exactly. Roosh came across a clip of teenage girls from an early seventies dance party. He said he was so mesmerized by the girls and how incredibly HOT they looked in a sexy, wholesome way, that he couldn’t stop watching.He watched it over and over again I recall him saying. I checked the link out and saw what he was referring to. The girls/young women (late teens/early twenties) were dressed in nice party dresses, nylons, heels or boots, sexily gyrating to the music, but without any slutty mannerisms. Their hair was done up nicely, piled high on their head or hanging loosely on their shoulders/back and the make-up was light or very attractively applied to their eyes (sorry, being a guy I don’t know what that is called in the world of make-up-just like how it looks). I thought, yes, that’s how it was way back in the day. What struck me was Roosh seemed suddenly, incredibly disenchanted and disgusted with the look and ways of the modern day women he’d been bedding as a PUA. I just found the whole thing interesting and in a way insightful.

    Liked by 4 people

    • lastholdout says:

      @RPB
      I’m surprised there aren’t more responses to your comment. Things changed very quickly after the 70’s. It began with the big hair and disco of the 80’s, make-up, slutty dress, then tattoos. I may just be a reminiscent old man but being a teenager in the 70’s were certainly better days. Wimmen were not as wound up in themselves.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Elspeth says:

    @Nova:

    https://beyondarchetype.com/kylie-jenners-plastic-surgery-timeline/

    That’s surgical. It caught my attention because that’s more or less what I looked like 25 years ago. It wasn’t a normal thing for women who were not either Latina or black to look like that. There was the occasional Raquel Welch, but even she was fairly slender in the hips and butt by comparison. So when I saw who was featured in that IG I thought, “There’s no way that’s her natural physique.”

    I guess that underscores your overall point. Fantasy in makeup and photography, with a bit of plastic surgery on the side. The sad thing about it all is that God gifted every nation of women with certain assets that are unique to, and most attractive on, them. But as is common to human nature, we all want what someone else has. Whether that’s bigger butts, straighter hair, skinnier noses, or wider eyes, too many women are turning themselves into mere shadows of what they have the potential to be naturally if they’d just work what God gave them.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      Yes I know — she has always denied surgery, but it would be impossible for her to look like she does without quite a bit of it. She also owns a makeup line, and is a heavy makeup user (her normal face is google-able, and it’s pretty but it doesn’t look like her “pro” face). But she basically checks all the boxes from the post.

      So, yes, the main point is that the entire look is … fake. It isn’t natural, and it isn’t achievable by a “normal” woman. But that isn’t material, because the “look” is what is important, and it is what is being marketed and spread throughout the culture.

      Again, I am working on a post about the Kardashian phenomenon, because I think they neatly pull together many trends we have seen over the past 15 or so years, and have at the same time been an engine of some of them as well. It’s fascinating, really, and that particular one is only one of them (although as far as I can tell, Kylie Jenner (even though she isn’t actually a Kardashian lol) … is kind of like the “uber”-Kardashian, the one who exemplifies them more than any of the other ones, including Kim K.

      Liked by 3 people

      • “Yes I know — she has always denied surgery, but it would be impossible for her to look like she does without quite a bit of it.”

        She HAS to deny surgery. Saying she’s had surgery means admitting that she isn’t that special and without that she’s nothing.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        “She HAS to deny surgery. Saying she’s had surgery means admitting that she isn’t that special and without that she’s nothing.”

        Yes, especially at that age. It’s one thing for a woman in her late 40s or 50s to get some work to stave off aging — as untasteful as that is to many, it isn’t saying that the woman was “broken out of the box”. For a woman in her late teens/early 20s to be radically altered as she has been is a totally different thing. It’s approaching something like being a curated/designed human, from a physical perspective, for most of one’s life, which makes sense given the transgender era we live in (i.e., if trans can alter their bodies just because they wanna, why can’t women?).

        Liked by 2 people

  11. Elspeth says:

    “It isn’t natural, and it isn’t achievable by a “normal” woman.”

    Eh. It’s fake on her. It’s natural on some women.

    It certainly is not maintainable over time, without a near constant obsession with it. The problem is that a lot of women don’t recognize that this is the result of surgical tinkering and think if they just do enough squats and sit-ups, they can look like that.

    Looking forward to your Kardashian expose.

    Liked by 1 person

    • anonymous_ng says:

      @Elspeth, beyond even the necessary work and dedication, beyond the surgeries, no one wants to talk about genetics, and how the Instagram models, Tik-Tok stars etc., are the genetic 0.0001%

      Recently, a video popped up on the sidebar in YT that led to this video illustrating just how big a gap there is between a bottom of the list NBA player and guys that are much much better than your average Joe.

      To my thinking, this is the same thing as the difference between your famous Insta-thot and your average woman. Sure, she could stand to hit the gym and tighten up her diet, but even with drugs and surgery, most aren’t going to look like the ones making all the money.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Only idiots think they can play with the pros or even anywhere close to the pro-level.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        Pretty sure those insta-thots can’t compete with their own photo images in real life.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        I was on the Transformers set years ago. Even made up for the movie, in person Megan Fox looked about like the average girl I went to high school with.

        Liked by 2 people

      • anonymous_ng says:

        @Kentucky HH, true, I expected that, but I was surprised at how easily the retired NBA player handled the guy who was a starter for Syracuse and the guy who had played professionally in Australia.

        @Liz, those are excellent points too.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Elspeth says:

      I just saw something at Patriactionary, and it got me to thinking. Here’s the tweet:

      The notion that my young self, in that old photo, is part of some genetic .0001% is pretty laughable. Even at almost 50, I still have a small waist relative to my top and bottom. Nothing like young me (5 kids and 25 years later!), but still. The running joke on the rare occasion that I get on my husband’s nerves is, “You’re lucky you look like a Coke bottle or you’d be outta here.”

      I don’t think I was unusual back in the day. Matter of fact, I know I wasn’t. The reality is that we’ve all gotten so used to the meme of fat black women, that the woman the Commodores described as a “Brick House” in the 1970s is all but forgotten. So an average (or slightly above average) woman has become “not natural”, because our health is so piss poor culture wide.

      Now we’re pretending that black women can’t be fit at all because “racism!”, much less possess a physique that is natural to a good many of us. Or that American women shouldn’t have to lose weight because unrealistic expectations or worse, “misogyny!”. All the while, we celebrate women who, though already attractive, resort to surgical procedures to look like caricatures of their natural selves.

      I honestly don’t know anyone (nor their daughters) who follow the Kardashians or feel they are worth emulating. I know I run in a self-selected circle, but that reality gives me hope. I don’t know if I agree that they impact culture any more than would a circus side show. I think things like “Wild” or “Eat Pray Love” are far worse. Most women aren’t wearing 3 layers of makeup because most can’t be bothered. And most aren’t putting in gym time or dieting consistently, because they can’t be bothered.

      The make-up fantasy is mostly just for show and targeted attention for certain audiences, whether it’s IG or a very specific man.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Novaseeker says:

      Even setting fantasies is very culturally impactful.

      To be honest, the idea that people with hundreds of millions of Instagram followers, and who are cashing in to the tune of having at least 2 of the 5 sisters being billionaires at this point, are not having a massive cultural impact, just because you do not see it in your own circles, is …. not credible, to be charitable. But it’s common for Christians. Many Christians always seem to be the last to recognize the power of trends that are actually moving the culture, because they do not see them reflected in the same way in their own micro-environment until they have so inundated the broader culture as to make any further resistance to them irrelevant. This has happened time and again with Christians and the cultural trends that have come in waves in the wake of the sexual revolution.

      I agree that things like EPL have also had a massive cultural impact, but to dismiss the impact of the Kardashians because the way they peddle fantasy to women in the culture is different, and has not penetrated your specific circles, is to dismiss some fairly objective criteria that measure their incredible cultural reach. And no small part of that power has arisen, frankly, due to many people simply dismissing the impact out of hand.

      Liked by 3 people

  12. Pingback: Descriptors of Beauty and Attractiveness | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s