Very thought-provoking. I'm not entirely sure I agree with all of the author's points, but...
I don't care for the author's style and rhetoric much, or how exaggerated some claims are (make-up four times more addicting than drugs? Yeah, tell that to a heroine addict). However, I enjoyed how he revealed the power play of make-up and the battle terminology of attractive women. It makes me interested in the etymology of those phrases.
I think those points taken together really demonstrate how women have/continue to use their beauty and sexuality and subversively to undermine patriarchal power structures.
Personally, I only wear make-up for special occasions with my husband because, admittedly, I do feel sexier on a date if I go through all that beautifying stuff first
I can take the author's main gist and think about it, but the comments really set my teeth on edge. Generalisation, much??
Interestingly, having always been a tomboy-type, I never dedicated time to learning make up application. Never saw the point of hours of time wasted.
Since going primal, I've stripped back a lot of "unnecessaries" - not always deliberately - and I'm getting to that point of "This is ME - take it or leave it". That includes mad hair, tattoos, muddy boots, big boobs, and an aversion to high heels.
I do use make up randomly - usually a dash of powder and some mascara (I like my eyes).
I've always felt bad for people afraid to pop out for 5 minutes without "the full face". I think that's insecurity rather than psychoactive substances though...
interesting, i like the tribal angle.
i bet our sister grokettes were experimenting with earth colours, clays and charcoals to paint themselves, absolutely for sure.
it's like he quoted in the article, some women you can tell financial status etc.
i'll bet there was a similar system in the tribes, perhaps the young, unmarried virgins went paint free, then hierarchically the paint became more and more elborate depending on your role within the society?
Join our UK/ROI Primal group here! http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...php?groupid=67
Give me a poke on facebook http://www.facebook.com/#!/pistepals
**Remember to tell me your forum name so I know who you are!**
I really think it's ridiculous.
+1I've always felt bad for people afraid to pop out for 5 minutes without "the full face". I think that's insecurity rather than psychoactive substances though..
See that title, people? Yes, the word is "addictive," not "addicting."
Also, Grumpy Caveman, before you go pointing out subtle differences in word choice with a condescending tone...according to Mirriam Webster, addictive means "causing of or characterized by addiction" and addictive means "to cause addiction to a substance"
So while you may think the connotations are vastly different, the denotations are almost identical.