No makeup selfie.

whatlliwear

As someone who has close relatives & friends that have battled cancer I think it's a really great way of raising a few bob for a great cause. At first I thought it was a load of rubbish until I saw how much money was being donated. I personally don't care what the ceo earns as the care my friends & family received & the help they got from amazing charity organisations such as this one was simply amazing.

Lisha

I rarely wear make up. Only if going out which is a very rare occur occurance these days.
I'm meeting a few friends later for a chat and a (much needed) giggle and as I've been busy with kids and chilling playing with phone I've decided not to bother putting on make up.
So if I get nominated for the 'no makeup selfie' I'm tempted to a a 'makeup selfie'

But as much as they trend made me roll my eyes initially, all I can say now Is 'fair focks' . A huge amount of money has been raised. Which has to be a good thing.

Once I saw that people were donating money I donated too. I have not been nominated yet and hopefully I'll avoid it.

I don't really like 'nominating' crazes in general but again it's hard to fault it now that so much money has been raised.

Rhotheta

Obliq wrote: »

That doesn't make you shallow or vain mate, just insecure (if you don't mind me saying so). Like a lot of women, we've been taught that we're only "worth it" if we put products all over our face and hair. It's actually very unfunny how deeply ingrained it is for many of us now. Fair play for posting that.

At some point though you have to take responsibility and not allow yourself to be brainwashed to think your "worth"comes from wearing make up.

Friend of mine summed it up pretty well when she put up her selfie:

"The ‘no makeup selfie’ craze seems like narcissism masked as charity. But narcisissism masked as charity is surely better than just plain old narcissism?!"

Once the money is raised, that's the important thing really.

As for the "cock on a sock" thing, apparently a lot of those pics have been taken off Facebook and the owner of the page banned due to people complaining. This pisses me off a lot more than any narcissism or perceived social pressure. Who is honestly that sad that they complain about lads doing some silly photos to raise money for cancer? The whole point of the photos is that their bits are covered during them, it's not like they're shoving an erect penis in your face. Sure, they're still a little NSFW but you shouldn't be on Facebook during work anyway! I'm sure those pics won't scar anybody for life. :mad:

Salty

Rhotheta wrote: »

At some point though you have to take responsibility and not allow yourself to be brainwashed to think your "worth"comes from wearing make up.

I don't think anyone actually thinks like this though. On a personal level, I wear make-up almost every day because I have hyperpigmentation from bad acne in my teens. Hardly surprising I would wear make-up to cover it up! I can still go to college or whatever without it on, I'm not that insecure about it anymore and it's improved a lot recently, but I would hate to think that people see me with my make-up on and assume I've be "brainwashed" or that I've some crippling insecurity about my appearance. I enjoy wearing it and buying it.

Christ, can people not do or wear things just because they like to anymore!?:rolleyes:

Czarcasm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Friend of mine summed it up pretty well when she put up her selfie:

"The ‘no makeup selfie’ craze seems like narcissism masked as charity. But narcisissism masked as charity is surely better than just plain old narcissism?!"

Once the money is raised, that's the important thing really.

I'd see that differently though. In fact I'd see it as no different to those charity advertisements that try to tug at the heartstrings and guilt people into giving. That's not charity, and the only difference between those advertisements and social media is that nobody takes any notice if you change the channel to skip the advertisement, but on social media all your friends are expecting you'll contribute because they did, and even nominating you to contribute just because they did, just like the way you're the worst cnut in the world if you don't like and share their chain mail posts "to show you care".

As for the "cock on a sock" thing, apparently a lot of those pics have been taken off Facebook and the owner of the page banned due to people complaining. This pisses me off a lot more than any narcissism or perceived social pressure.Who is honestly that sad that they complain about lads doing some silly photos to raise money for cancer? The whole point of the photos is that their bits are covered during them, it's not like they're shoving an erect penis in your face. Sure, they're still a little NSFW but you shouldn't be on Facebook during work anyway! I'm sure those pics won't scar anybody for life. :mad:

It comes under Facebook's Community Standards Policy -

Nudity and Pornography


Facebook has a strict policy against the sharing of pornographic content and any explicitly sexual content where a minor is involved. We also impose limitations on the display of nudity. We aspire to respect people’s right to share content of personal importance, whether those are photos of a sculpture like Michelangelo's David or family photos of a child breastfeeding.

This is also why they don't allow naked breasts on Facebook, a controversy which raged for a long time over women being allowed to share photos of themselves breastfeeding their children. Much less to do with NSFW and more to do with the fact that nudity doesn't go down too well in some cultures, so what might seem harmless to you or I, wouldn't be harmless or respectful in another culture.

Piliger

sinead88 wrote: »

What are people's opinions on this makeup-less selfie trend on facebook, supposedly to raise awareness for cancer? Personally, I think it's totally redundant. It has nothing to do with cancer whatsoever, and does nothing to help those affected by it. If anything, it's slightly offensive as it almost equates going through cancer with your facebook friends just seeing you without makeup on. Also, everyone is really quite aware of cancer already so a donation would be much more beneficial. It just seems like narcissistic fishing for likes and validation to me. I'm genuinely surprised that it's caught on.

Having read all of the thread I am yet again reminded how fast some kids, barely out of short trousers, are to mock anything and everything they don't understand.

Firstly there have been drinking games for centuries, maybe even millenia. Neknomination is just another 21st century version. Nothing new. No one has re-invented the wheel. It's harmless for people with a brain. For stupid people, it's just another excuse to be stupid.

The narcissism thing is a mind bender. I mean WTF does that mean anyway ? We have 10k runs for charity. We have 1,000 other wacky and fun charity events raising money for cancer research and cancer awareness. Are they all compared with the 'experience of having cancer' as some kind of dumb comparison ? So what the hell is this about comparing makeup free selfies with having cancer !! No. It's a pile of horse sh1t is what it is.

The reason we have had such astonishing progress in fighting all kinds of cancer over recent decades is directly linked to the increased awareness of the importance of research and to the scale of money raised for research. It is directly as a result of world wide 'stunts' of all kinds, that that this progress has been made. To mock them is to stick a post-it on one's forehead with 'stupid' written on it.

Many women use makeup as armour, as a veil, against society. They start wearing it as young 13 or 14 year olds and have persuaded themselves that they will look like ghouls if they are seen without it and are physically incapable of venturing outside without it. Many women spend the greater part of an HOUR putting on makeup every single morning before anyone sees them. And that is not an exaggeration. It is really tragic and very sad really. However that is another day's discussion.

So volunteering to publish a selfie without makeup can actually be a very brave and courageous thing to do ! I see no reason whatsoever not to say well done ! nice ! And to mock them is really just a stupid and very ignorant thing to do.

To the smart arse who trashes every charity for the salary of their execs - s/he needs to cop on. There are many many cancer research organisations and charities that do not have those kinds of high paid officials. There are many research organisations where every penny goes straight into research. Individuals taking part in this campaign are free to chose better organisations if they choose. I find it quite comical to find the very same kids who attack others for generalising about 'young people', then themselves generalising about all charities.

blue onion

Obliq wrote: »

. Like a lot of women, we've been taught that we're only "worth it" if we put products all over our face

I've often had egg on my face
I prefer the self portrait to the selfie but it does take a bit more time

Rhotheta

Piliger wrote: »

Having read all of the thread I am yet again reminded how fast some kids, barely out of short trousers, are to mock anything and everything they don't understand.

Firstly there have been drinking games for centuries, maybe even millenia. Neknomination is just another 21st century version. Nothing new. No one has re-invented the wheel. It's harmless for people with a brain. For stupid people, it's just another excuse to be stupid.

The narcissism thing is a mind bender. I mean WTF does that mean anyway ? We have 10k runs for charity. We have 1,000 other wacky and fun charity events raising money for cancer research and cancer awareness. Are they all compared with the 'experience of having cancer' as some kind of dumb comparison ? So what the hell is this about comparing makeup free selfies with having cancer !! No. It's a pile of horse sh1t is what it is.

The reason we have had such astonishing progress in fighting all kinds of cancer over recent decades is directly linked to the increased awareness of the importance of research and to the scale of money raised for research. It is directly as a result of world wide 'stunts' of all kinds, that that this progress has been made. To mock them is to stick a post-it on one's forehead with 'stupid' written on it.

Many women use makeup as armour, as a veil, against society. They start wearing it as young 13 or 14 year olds and have persuaded themselves that they will look like ghouls if they are seen without it and are physically incapable of venturing outside without it. Many women spend the greater part of an HOUR putting on makeup every single morning before anyone sees them. And that is not an exaggeration. It is really tragic and very sad really. However that is another day's discussion.

So volunteering to publish a selfie without makeup can actually be a very brave and courageous thing to do ! I see no reason whatsoever not to say well done ! nice ! And to mock them is really just a stupid and very ignorant thing to do.

To the smart arse who trashes every charity for the salary of their execs - s/he needs to cop on. There are many many cancer research organisations and charities that do not have those kinds of high paid officials. There are many research organisations where every penny goes straight into research. Individuals taking part in this campaign are free to chose better organisations if they choose. I find it quite comical to find the very same kids who attack others for generalising about 'young people', then themselves generalising about all charities.

Can you elaborate on the astonishing progress that has been made in the last few decades?

It's my uunderstanding that your chance of surviving cancer hasn't improved much since the 1950's, it will take longer to kill you now due to improvements in medicine but you still have a similar chance of dying from a diagnosis of cancer.

lukesmom

Rhotheta wrote: »

Can you elaborate on the astonishing progress that has been made in the last few decades?

It's my uunderstanding that your chance of surviving cancer hasn't improved much since the 1950's, it will take longer to kill you now due to improvements in medicine but you still have a similar chance of dying from a diagnosis of cancer.

Not true. Your chances of surviving cancer has improved a lot for certain types of cancer. There are better and more technologically advanced methods of screening so earlier diagnosis, earlier treatment = better chance of survival.

Obliq

Yellowblackbird wrote: »

If that premis is untrue (you're only worth it if you put products...) then how could someone 'teach' you different.
It's either true or it's not.

Well, I think we teach ourselves that it's not true. We're not only "worth it" if we look good - given time (in my case, I started thinking this in my late 20's) we value other aspects of ourselves much more, such as friendships and feeling confident that we like ourselves the way we are (confidence in appearance is probably the last to achieve ). As you build confidence, it's just less of a big deal to just be yourself, warts and all!

Rhotheta wrote: »

At some point though you have to take responsibility and not allow yourself to be brainwashed to think your "worth"comes from wearing make up.

Well, yes and no. Look at the way women are in the media. I was just off-computer, on safari in the sitting room and watching The Voice. It occurred to me that I'd bloody love to see Kylie with no makeup on for a whole entire show, never mind just in a selfie (she did actually suggest going on as Charlie in the next episode). It takes a whole lot for a woman to go up against the kind of idealism that female "beauty" has always publicly generated. Oh god, don't get me started on the masks that most of those "poor misfortunates in the public eye" put on tonight on that show....

_meehan_ wrote: »

I don't think anyone actually thinks like this though. On a personal level, I wear make-up almost every day because I have hyperpigmentation from bad acne in my teens. Hardly surprising I would wear make-up to cover it up! I can still go to college or whatever without it on, I'm not that insecure about it anymore and it's improved a lot recently, but I would hate to think that people see me with my make-up on and assume I've be "brainwashed" or that I've some crippling insecurity about my appearance. I enjoy wearing it and buying it.

Christ, can people not do or wear things just because they like to anymore!?:rolleyes:

No, hardly surprising at all! It's a crying effing shame that this desperate level of perfection is being set by forces beyond our control. We subscribe to it because none of us are perfect, and we want to be as perfect as possible appearance wise because we are TAUGHT that it's the greatest measure of what other people find attractive about us. Which is utter bollix of course, especially as you get older.

I don't look at other women with make up on and think brainwashed at all. I see women in varying degrees of comfort and confidence about themselves. I know exactly where it's coming from cos I feel it all the time too.

I want to ask you something Meehan - do you think men who had the same skin condition as you did when in their teens have a harder/easier struggle to feel their appearance is acceptable to everyone? I'm interested to know what sort of a challenge men might encounter without the recourse to makeup that we have...also, taking into balance that women NEVER appear on telly without the thick layer of slap, and men only get a dusting of powder (although you can spot the lippy at this stage )

Obliq

Piliger, I don't often agree with you, but kudos this time. I've struggled with this one over the last few days, and have genuinely become more charitable *see what I did there?* about the no-make-up selfies. You're broadening my mind people! Damn you :eek:

Piliger

Rhotheta wrote: »

Can you elaborate on the astonishing progress that has been made in the last few decades?

It's my uunderstanding that your chance of surviving cancer hasn't improved much since the 1950's, it will take longer to kill you now due to improvements in medicine but you still have a similar chance of dying from a diagnosis of cancer.

How can you not be aware of this kind of thing when you post to a thread like this ?

Stavros Murphy

I awaiting the full frontal nudie no make-up selfie campaign in support of erectile dysfunction and homelessness. That'll make enduring facebook worthwhile.

Piliger

Obliq wrote: »

Piliger, I don't often agree with you, but kudos this time. I've struggled with this one over the last few days, and have genuinely become more charitable *see what I did there?* about the no-make-up selfies. You're broadening my mind people! Damn you :eek:

We all have our blind spots We will resume normal service soon

Legs.Eleven

Piliger wrote: »

Having read all of the thread I am yet again reminded how fast some kids, barely out of short trousers, are to mock anything and everything they don't understand.

Firstly there have been drinking games for centuries, maybe even millenia. Neknomination is just another 21st century version. Nothing new. No one has re-invented the wheel. It's harmless for people with a brain. For stupid people, it's just another excuse to be stupid.

The narcissism thing is a mind bender. I mean WTF does that mean anyway ? We have 10k runs for charity. We have 1,000 other wacky and fun charity events raising money for cancer research and cancer awareness. Are they all compared with the 'experience of having cancer' as some kind of dumb comparison ? So what the hell is this about comparing makeup free selfies with having cancer !! No. It's a pile of horse sh1t is what it is.

The reason we have had such astonishing progress in fighting all kinds of cancer over recent decades is directly linked to the increased awareness of the importance of research and to the scale of money raised for research. It is directly as a result of world wide 'stunts' of all kinds, that that this progress has been made. To mock them is to stick a post-it on one's forehead with 'stupid' written on it.

Many women use makeup as armour, as a veil, against society. They start wearing it as young 13 or 14 year olds and have persuaded themselves that they will look like ghouls if they are seen without it and are physically incapable of venturing outside without it. Many women spend the greater part of an HOUR putting on makeup every single morning before anyone sees them. And that is not an exaggeration. It is really tragic and very sad really. However that is another day's discussion.

So volunteering to publish a selfie without makeup can actually be a very brave and courageous thing to do ! I see no reason whatsoever not to say well done ! nice ! And to mock them is really just a stupid and very ignorant thing to do.

To the smart arse who trashes every charity for the salary of their execs - s/he needs to cop on. There are many many cancer research organisations and charities that do not have those kinds of high paid officials. There are many research organisations where every penny goes straight into research. Individuals taking part in this campaign are free to chose better organisations if they choose. I find it quite comical to find the very same kids who attack others for generalising about 'young people', then themselves generalising about all charities.

I don't think I've ever agreed with anything you've ever said....'till now!


/end of thread as far as I'm concerned.

Rhotheta

lukesmom wrote: »

Not true. Your chances of surviving cancer has improved a lot for certain types of cancer. There are better and more technologically advanced methods of screening so earlier diagnosis, earlier treatment = better chance of survival.

Yes there has been improvements since 1950 but if you look at the data the improvement isn't very good considering the vast sums of money that's been invested over the last 60 years or so.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/war_on_cancer_a_progress_report_for_skeptics/

Piliger

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I don't think I've ever agreed with anything you've ever said....'till now!

Hey steady on ! ... I'm more used to getting infracted ! (maybe they might remove a few from my record (?) )

Czarcasm

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'd see that differently though. In fact I'd see it as no different to those charity advertisements that try to tug at the heartstrings and guilt people into giving. That's not charity, and the only difference between those advertisements and social media is that nobody takes any notice if you change the channel to skip the advertisement, but on social media all your friends are expecting you'll contribute because they did, and even nominating you to contribute just because they did, just like the way you're the worst cnut in the world if you don't like and share their chain mail posts "to show you care".

Hmm personally I wouldn't see it quite as emotionally manipulative as the ads on TV but I do take your point.

It comes under Facebook's Community Standards Policy -



This is also why they don't allow naked breasts on Facebook, a controversy which raged for a long time over women being allowed to share photos of themselves breastfeeding their children. Much less to do with NSFW and more to do with the fact that nudity doesn't go down too well in some cultures, so what might seem harmless to you or I, wouldn't be harmless or respectful in another culture.

Surely it's not really sexually explicit if the "sexual" bits are covered up anyway? Ok, they do say something about "limitations on display of nudity" but isn't that a very vague thing to state? How "limiting" are limitations? Imo really there's not a whole lot of difference between a man wearing a sock and one wearing a speedo.

Then again, society's attitudes to nudity in general baffle me a bit anyway.

Galwayguy35

I see some of my friends on FB doing this, a good cause and fair play to them, just kinda think it puts the person they nominate on the spot when they name them and not everyone might be comfortable doing it and might feel under pressure when they have been nominated.

Rhotheta

Piliger wrote: »

How can you not be aware of this kind of thing when you post to a thread like this ?

The fact that the death rate is dropping doesn't prove that our understanding of cancer is much better, people are now more aware of cancer and how important early detection is ( hence why awareness campaigns have been so important), but our actually understanding of cancer is surprisingly bad considering the investment. Our actual ability to save a person's life given x circumstances hasn't improved by very much.

Menas

Rhotheta wrote: »

The fact that the death rate is dropping doesn't prove that our understanding of cancer is much better, people are now more aware of cancer and how important early detection is ( hence why awareness campaigns have been so important), but our actually understanding of cancer is surprisingly bad considering the investment. Our actual ability to save a person's life given x circumstances hasn't improved by very much.

So the death rate is dropping but our ability to save a victims' life has not changed?

Rhotheta

Trigger Happy wrote: »

So the death rate is dropping but our ability to save a victims' life has not changed?

It's a lot easier to save a life the earlier cancer is detected, cancer is generally detected earlier now. I said our ability to save a person's life has improved but not by much.

Dubl07

Rhotheta wrote: »

It's a lot easier to save a life the earlier cancer is detected, cancer is generally detected earlier now. I said our ability to save a person's life has improved but not by much.

Our ability to keep a person alive for a more extended period using expensive drugs and other treatments has improved. The benefits of doing so and the quality of the lives of the individual men and women are open to debate.

Salty

Obliq wrote: »

No, hardly surprising at all! It's a crying effing shame that this desperate level of perfection is being set by forces beyond our control. We subscribe to it because none of us are perfect, and we want to be as perfect as possible appearance wise because we are TAUGHT that it's the greatest measure of what other people find attractive about us. Which is utter bollix of course, especially as you get older.

I don't look at other women with make up on and think brainwashed at all. I see women in varying degrees of comfort and confidence about themselves. I know exactly where it's coming from cos I feel it all the time too.

I want to ask you something Meehan - do you think men who had the same skin condition as you did when in their teens have a harder/easier struggle to feel their appearance is acceptable to everyone? I'm interested to know what sort of a challenge men might encounter without the recourse to makeup that we have...also, taking into balance that women NEVER appear on telly without the thick layer of slap, and men only get a dusting of powder (although you can spot the lippy at this stage )

I agree that society and the media projects a certain level of expectation of perfection from women and it has an influence. Although I very vividly remember at 13 and 14 years old when my acne really took hold that it wasn't perfect pictures of celebs that made me long for a flawless complexion, it was the gorgeous skin of my bare-faced peers that really drove me to it. There was maybe 4 or 5 of us in my year of 90 that had "bad" skin - the rest were had clear skin, the envy was unreal. I remember being so hard on myself at the time. I'm much happier now at 21 than I ever was from the ages of 13 - 16!

Ya know, just from my observations about guys with the same afflictions, it would seem they are not judged at all to the same extent! I didn't go to a mixed school so I can't say for certain, but I think with guys their personality may come into it more. A shy guy who develops acne may retreat even more into himself, whereas a guy who is a bit more "sociable", has a lot of friends, has a social hobby such as sport etc won't be affected in the same way. My younger brother developed acne late in comparison to me, around 16/17. It bugs him, but he carries on as normal and doesn't really care. He could have the biggest spot ever in the middle of his face and he would still pose for a picture - he doesn't let it get in the way. There are hardly any pictures of me from the ages of 13 - 16, I was too self-conscious!

I think in general, men do not face the same challenges women do in this context. That said, I am completely open to a male poster to come back and challenge me on this, it would be really interesting!

It doesn't really bother me. Initially it did, because I associated it with the "say a random colour (which is actually your bra colour) for 'breast cancer awareness'" or the "I like it in the office" which was apparently similar. However, with most of the ones I've seen on my feed, the woman in question has made a donation so that can only be a good thing.

Also, they all looked grand without makeup.

Obliq

_meehan_ wrote: »

I agree that society and the media projects a certain level of expectation of perfection from women and it has an influence. Although I very vividly remember at 13 and 14 years old when my acne really took hold that it wasn't perfect pictures of celebs that made me long for a flawless complexion, it was the gorgeous skin of my bare-faced peers that really drove me to it. There was maybe 4 or 5 of us in my year of 90 that had "bad" skin - the rest were had clear skin, the envy was unreal. I remember being so hard on myself at the time. I'm much happier now at 21 than I ever was from the ages of 13 - 16!

Ya know, just from my observations about guys with the same afflictions, it would seem they are not judged at all to the same extent! I didn't go to a mixed school so I can't say for certain, but I think with guys their personality may come into it more. A shy guy who develops acne may retreat even more into himself, whereas a guy who is a bit more "sociable", has a lot of friends, has a social hobby such as sport etc won't be affected in the same way. My younger brother developed acne late in comparison to me, around 16/17. It bugs him, but he carries on as normal and doesn't really care. He could have the biggest spot ever in the middle of his face and he would still pose for a picture - he doesn't let it get in the way. There are hardly any pictures of me from the ages of 13 - 16, I was too self-conscious!

I think in general, men do not face the same challenges women do in this context. That said, I am completely open to a male poster to come back and challenge me on this, it would be really interesting!

This IS so interesting. And I'm actually stunned now that the no make up selfies have opened this debate. What a massive can of worms! Excellent :cool:

It's becoming fairly clear now to me that there are questions arising from this about appearance, and how concerning it is, and how concerning it SHOULD be. Men have escaped (until recent years) the utter fiasco that is having to put on make up, and as a consequence have had to survive under their own emotional steam in the kind of skin they were granted. For better or worse, as they say.

I'll have to come back to this tomorrow....gotta go now, but ta for the reply. This is the most in depth and civilised debate I've ever seen on AH

Un Croissant

Pet Selfies are now a thing.

Czarcasm

_meehan_ wrote: »

I think in general, men do not face the same challenges women do in this context. That said, I am completely open to a male poster to come back and challenge me on this, it would be really interesting!

In my experience anyway you'd be fairly spot on (no pun intended), but guys tend to focus more on other guys behaviour or their personality, whereas again, only in my experience, girls will focus more on other girls physical appearance.

I had woeful blackheads as a teenager, and I was so self conscious about them that I borrowed my old man's one double sided razor (no such thing as a safety razor 20 odd years ago) and tried to shave them off, that didn't work but nearly cut my face to ribbons, so I took a nailbrush to my face and took off the top layer of skin at least (clearly not very bright idea), and it still didn't work. If it hadn't been for my mother coming in and catching me tearing the face off myself, jesus knows what I'd have done next!

My blackheads though weren't nearly as bad as some lads that had far more serious cases of acne, but while they didn't get teased for it either, I'm fairly sure behind closed doors I'm sure they were just as insecure about it as I was.

The girls I knew though were vicious, I mean very catty to each other, and wouldn't hold back on commenting on each other's physical appearance. It was definitely, and even now still is, much more competitive among girls competing with each other about their physical appearance whereas for guys it's more competitive in terms of their personality.

arse..biscuits

So the "men wearing make up selfie" has started