![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
imomusWhen it comes to human faces, I have two marked preferences: I prefer feminine faces to masculine ones, and I prefer women without makeup to women with.
Here's a shot from the BBC Sex ID test which told me I preferred feminine faces. I selected the face on the left as more attractive. And here's a Daily Mail feature entitled "Would you dare to go bare?" which shows women before and after makeup. In every single case, I prefer the before picture.
And -- although I was once paid by a cosmetics commercial to write a song for Kahimi Karie that went "Put some makeup on your face / Make this world a better place" -- I actually couldn't agree less with "Joe" in this Times feature entitled "Giving your makeup a makeover": "I think that all women should wear a little makeup. There is no such thing as an ugly woman, only a lazy one. My wife has a demanding job as a lawyer and has three children under the age of four and still manages to make an effort." Ugly women are only lazy ones -- women who haven't worked hard on their makeup? What preposterous misogyny!
In English we don't really have a positive word ("lazy" doesn't count) for a woman who doesn't wear makeup. In Japan, they do. The word is suppin: a fresh-faced, makeup-free woman. I think all the women I've ever dated have been suppin women. I'm not used to kissing lipstick. It would just feel wrong. The girls I find attractive are girls like this American Apparel ad girl (I think she's Mexican):
I'm not quite sure where my preferences come from. Maybe it's some kind of puritanism. "My [Pakistani] father went mad if he saw even a hint of mascara. Freedom for my friends at university meant trying drugs and drinking. For me, it meant lipstick," says Saira Khan, describing an Islamic fundamentalist upbringing probably not too different from the fundamentalist Calvinist upbringing my father had in Scotland. Then again, maybe it's just good taste.
One thing's for sure. The women spending £1000 a year on cosmetics are wasting a great deal of money if they think all men like it. We don't (although the men making and selling the stuff -- Mr Max Factor, for instance -- must love it).
I asked Hisae if she was wearing any makeup. "No," she said, as if I were crazy even to ask. So who, in Japan, wears makeup? Mostly, H told me, people who work. If you turn up at work without makeup on, the boss is going to think you woke up late and didn't have time to paint your face. Also, some girls refuse to let their boyfriends see them bare-faced. They think that, without that mask, nobody will love them. They're wrong.
I suggest we strike a blow against the cosmetics industry, and against those bullying newspaper features that try to terrorize women into buying makeup. Here's the news: many men think you look much better without it. Those men -- like me! -- believe that a positively-charged word for bare-facedness needs to be introduced, perhaps a loan word from another language (since we don't have one). I suggest suppin.
Here's a shot from the BBC Sex ID test which told me I preferred feminine faces. I selected the face on the left as more attractive. And here's a Daily Mail feature entitled "Would you dare to go bare?" which shows women before and after makeup. In every single case, I prefer the before picture.And -- although I was once paid by a cosmetics commercial to write a song for Kahimi Karie that went "Put some makeup on your face / Make this world a better place" -- I actually couldn't agree less with "Joe" in this Times feature entitled "Giving your makeup a makeover": "I think that all women should wear a little makeup. There is no such thing as an ugly woman, only a lazy one. My wife has a demanding job as a lawyer and has three children under the age of four and still manages to make an effort." Ugly women are only lazy ones -- women who haven't worked hard on their makeup? What preposterous misogyny!
In English we don't really have a positive word ("lazy" doesn't count) for a woman who doesn't wear makeup. In Japan, they do. The word is suppin: a fresh-faced, makeup-free woman. I think all the women I've ever dated have been suppin women. I'm not used to kissing lipstick. It would just feel wrong. The girls I find attractive are girls like this American Apparel ad girl (I think she's Mexican):
I'm not quite sure where my preferences come from. Maybe it's some kind of puritanism. "My [Pakistani] father went mad if he saw even a hint of mascara. Freedom for my friends at university meant trying drugs and drinking. For me, it meant lipstick," says Saira Khan, describing an Islamic fundamentalist upbringing probably not too different from the fundamentalist Calvinist upbringing my father had in Scotland. Then again, maybe it's just good taste.
One thing's for sure. The women spending £1000 a year on cosmetics are wasting a great deal of money if they think all men like it. We don't (although the men making and selling the stuff -- Mr Max Factor, for instance -- must love it).I asked Hisae if she was wearing any makeup. "No," she said, as if I were crazy even to ask. So who, in Japan, wears makeup? Mostly, H told me, people who work. If you turn up at work without makeup on, the boss is going to think you woke up late and didn't have time to paint your face. Also, some girls refuse to let their boyfriends see them bare-faced. They think that, without that mask, nobody will love them. They're wrong.
I suggest we strike a blow against the cosmetics industry, and against those bullying newspaper features that try to terrorize women into buying makeup. Here's the news: many men think you look much better without it. Those men -- like me! -- believe that a positively-charged word for bare-facedness needs to be introduced, perhaps a loan word from another language (since we don't have one). I suggest suppin.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-18 10:15 pm (UTC)Since Sartorialist readers are generally a conservative bunch, the reaction (http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=17177804&postID=3551239435276732004&isPopup=true) is very mixed, running the gamut from "she looks homeless" and "just another hipster" to "a wonderful blend of youthful and conservative".
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-18 10:59 pm (UTC)To me that girl's ensemble is fairly ubiquitous and not very exciting. Cute and endearing on a girlish student, but clownish and sloppy on anyone over 24.
I much prefer this. (http://bp1.blogger.com/_qjpwnPW4c1o/R2kqxKdaHCI/AAAAAAAACu0/eY2raqVg6Rc/s1600-h/Colorist.jpg) It just feels more crisp and coherent.
This guy (http://bp0.blogger.com/_qjpwnPW4c1o/R1vvDLxvpHI/AAAAAAAACrc/Qp0hdsAqeC8/s1600-h/MoryColor.jpg) shows up a lot, and is always dead-on.
And this (http://bp0.blogger.com/_qjpwnPW4c1o/R4spradaHjI/AAAAAAAACy8/aOJpB8BLkPc/s1600-h/redflwr.jpg) however, is utter perfection. Poised and flamboyant. The rumpled collar is just the right touch on an otherwise controlled ensemble. Tailored within an inch of its life. Perfection can take on a freakish quality, sometimes.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-18 11:44 pm (UTC)Hmm, animal ears are a step too close to "twee" for comfort. The spectacle frames are not good. And the coat is a bit too crisply early-60s in its tailoring, a look which we last saw revived in the late 80s. I'm also not keen on the cargo pants.
This guy shows up a lot, and is always dead-on.
Ozwald Boateng (http://images.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=ozwald+boateng&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi&oi=property_suggestions&resnum=0&ct=property-revision&cd=1). No, I can't be having with this look. All the clothes are cut too small for the wearer, it looks like mod stuff in pastels crossed with riding gear. I find it spivvy-snobby, though the colours aren't bad.
And this however, is utter perfection.
That, my friend, is visual tone deafness. He looks like Moby visiting the county fete in a suit some sadist tailor has not only made uncomfortably tight at the crotch, but has deliberately removed the zip from. The buttonhole and handy combination is also ill-advised.
*ahem*
Date: 2008-01-19 12:50 am (UTC)and dressed like this more often:
Just my two cents.
Re: *ahem*
Date: 2008-01-19 01:21 am (UTC)Re: *ahem*
Date: 2008-01-19 01:25 am (UTC)Re: *ahem*
Date: 2008-01-19 01:58 am (UTC)No, no, no, horse blankets, dammit!
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-19 12:51 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-19 12:55 am (UTC)anxiety attack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKYDcAsahXY)
(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-19 06:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-01-19 01:13 am (UTC)JanPlaid.jpg (momus' first example):
1) Thick rimmed black glasses are done. They've been over for a long time. I can't take anyone wearing them seriously. They're like seeing someone who's into hiphop wearing really baggy pants - a stupid cliche.
2) Scarfs, gloves & hats are done, this is especially true for men. Every fucker out there is wearing a scarf, hat or gloves. It gives every outfit an "I've accessorised" look. Utter ubiquity + trying to hard = fail.
3) I have a real issue with blazers. I'm not talking about someone whos dressed up smartly wearing a blazer, that's perfectly acceptable. I'm talking about the casualisation of blazers, blazers put over everything; I've seen that look so many times here in London and its over. Blazers with badges are especially bad, blazers with screen printed designs on are terrible.
4) I cant get over her cardigan over a shirt over a dress thing. Throwing everything you own on isn't a great look. If it was up to me, I'd take away the bag, the glasses, the scarf, the blazer, and the shirt. You'd be left with a girl in a blue dress with a grey cardigan, the brown leggings and pink shoes I have no issue with.
Mister blue/purple (your first example Whimsy): The purple sweater and pink hanky are ruining this for me. It's too much, especially the neck. take away the hanky and put a grey shirt on him and It'd be better. But still, i'm with Momus; not my thing. When it comes to suits I like traditional colours; browns, earthy greens, greys. Traditional is best with suits.
"colorist.jpg": Her animal ears hat... it's a little too twee. I have a cat hat in neon orange. I've worn it once on a really cold day here in london, everyone was looking at me and I got a lot of grinning and smiles from people in the street. Its a hell of a lot of fun to wear, especially because I'm a stocky, 5'11", masculine bearded guy who (ive been told) looks a bit intimidating. I couldnt wear anything like that seriously though. When it comes to "animal hats", the only thing I think looks good seriously is the Ushanka -- my father brought me one back from russia made of rabbit fur and I still wear it. The rest of her outfit I hate -- the cargo pants, the gloves and scarf, the jacket look "over-revived" as pointed out by momus.
Morycolor.jpeg: Theres something about this guys outfit that doesnt sit well with me. I cant even put my finger on it.
mister "utter perfection": The glasses are a little too slick and "acessorized", the flower and hanky arent helping. I just cant get over that guys head. It's an overworked outfit and its not working for him. He's not pulling it together. The look is too contemporized.
Plaid-ism
Date: 2008-01-19 01:38 am (UTC)Re: Plaid-ism
Date: 2008-01-19 01:54 am (UTC)I think the interest in plaid isnt about a revival of grunge, i think its popularity stems around the fact it's a)retro/vintage and b)its a backlash to "tshirt culture" whilst still being casual.
Plaid shirts have now reached the timeless status jeans have, without the mainstream ubiquity.