Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Unpopular Opinions.
Options
Comments
-
-
-
pickarooney wrote: »
Why bring in these points that have nothing to do with make-up other than to try and bump your observation from opinion/perceived wisdom to indisputable fact?
There are many people who appreciate a natural face. It's only a societal norm that really says otherwise. Why, by the same token, do men not look better with make-up?
Make-up goes back to the stone ages in fairness, many primitive cultures used it to beautify themselves, including men, but more men then would've used it to put fear in their prey or their enemies in war as opposed to beautifying themselves.
Even today you'll see cultures like the aborigines, amazonian tribes, hell even the army still use make up camouflage, and I hardly need mention the amount of men carrying concealer in one pocket and a chapstick in the other these days!
Not MY kind of thing personally, but there you go!
0 -
-
I do that with perfume - I suppose I'm just not that visually-oriented, and it's just as subjective.
Oh yeah, smell is an amazing power. I actually sometimes can recall memories or places in time more vividly just by smelling something. The memory is often stronger than a visual or verbal reminder! I think the associations remain forever.
Have you noticed how a perfume can smell differently on different people?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Well not usually FOR being white, although it can happen - e.g. in Zimbabwe. But I don't think it's true that it's not challenged.sbsquarepants wrote: »Are you suggesting that only non caucasions have ever been oppressed or enslaved?
I realise I come across as dismissive, but I just found the "expertise" by guys, who in fairness usually don't know much about make-up, to be disingenuous.pickarooney wrote: »Why bring in these points that have nothing to do with make-up other than to try and bump your observation from opinion/perceived wisdom to indisputable fact?
There are many people who appreciate a natural face. It's only a societal norm that really says otherwise.
Depends on what angle you think I'm coming from too. I do not think it's impossible for anyone to find a woman very attractive without any make-up; of course it can be the case. I can see how that would add to her attractiveness too as it's fairly refreshing. If a woman is happy enough with how she looks that she can go bare-faced at all times (extremely rare) well that kind of confidence and inner contentment can only be attractive. I think a small bit of well applied make-up would only make her look better and accentuate her best features, but I can understand a loving partner still preferring her not to wear make-up and let her natural beauty show (as well as not having to wait for her to put her face on :pac:).
But saying "Women look better without make-up" is very different to the above. Lots don't (including me) and I used the analogy you pointed out, because I think it's apt - i.e. saying make-up usually makes a woman look better is no different IMO to saying flattering clothes make her look better, or brushing her hair. It's pretty basic stuff. Often too, what appears bare-faced and very natural looking is actually a small bit of make-up.
There's the OTT crud shovelled on and there's bare-faced and a wide valley in between - some seem to think it can only be one or the other, or that all women who wear make-up (i.e. most of us) are shallow and vain, which is just daft, even if it's true in some cases. But across the board, you might as well say women who do their hair and wear well fitting clothes are shallow and vain. The ideal for lots of guys is a woman who looks good no matter what, without make-up (and that's understandable to a degree) but it's not reality most of the time, and they're kidding themselves to think they'd never go for a woman wearing make-up and always for a woman who never ever does (even if that is the ideal). I don't doubt that the latter can happen, but not in the majority of cases.
Yes, I'm sure you'd say that about the eye make-up of a woman you find attractive.Judging by the make-up discussion on the last few pages, this seems to be an unpopular opinion:
Eye make-up looks terrible.
It depends on the eye make-up. Clown/panda eyes don't look great usually, but more subtly applied make-up nearly always looks great.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I scrolled down around 3 or 4 posts before I got that and then had to scroll back up to thank itpickarooney wrote: »Is that some chapstick in your pocket?
No, it's my own.
0 -
Well not usually FOR being white, although it can happen - e.g. in Zimbabwe. But I don't think it's true that it's not challenged.
I realise I come across as dismissive, but I just found the "expertise" by guys, who in fairness usually don't know much about make-up, to be disingenuous.
Depends on what angle you think I'm coming from too. I do not think it's impossible for anyone to find a woman very attractive without any make-up; of course it can be the case. I can see how that would add to her attractiveness too as it's fairly refreshing. If a woman is happy enough with how she looks that she can go bare-faced at all times (extremely rare) well that kind of confidence and inner contentment can only be attractive. I think a small bit of well applied make-up would only make her look better and accentuate her best features, but I can understand a loving partner still preferring her not to wear make-up and let her natural beauty show (as well as not having to wait for her to put her face on :pac:).
But saying "Women look better without make-up" is very different to the above. Lots don't (including me) and I used the analogy you pointed out, because I think it's apt - i.e. saying make-up usually makes a woman look better is no different IMO to saying flattering clothes make her look better, or brushing her hair. It's pretty basic stuff. Often too, what appears bare-faced and very natural looking is actually a small bit of make-up.
There's the OTT crud shovelled on and there's bare-faced and a wide valley in between - some seem to think it can only be one or the other, or that all women who wear make-up (i.e. most of us) are shallow and vain, which is just daft, even if it's true in some cases. But across the board, you might as well say women who do their hair and wear well fitting clothes are shallow and vain. The ideal for lots of guys is a woman who looks good no matter what, without make-up (and that's understandable to a degree) but it's not reality most of the time, and they're kidding themselves to think they'd never go for a woman wearing make-up and always for a woman who never ever does (even if that is the ideal). I don't doubt that the latter can happen, but not in the majority of cases.
Yes, I'm sure you'd say that about the eye make-up of a woman you find attractive.
It depends on the eye make-up. Clown/panda eyes don't look great usually, but more subtly applied make-up nearly always looks great.
I think a lot of people are just thinking of fake bake and tan lines and blue eyeliner and whore lipstick when someone says "makeup"
I reeeeealy want to put up a before and after pic!!!!
0 -
-
Yeh it's like the "Fake tan just looks like fake tan" thing - no it doesn't if it's applied properly and lightly and it's a good quality brand and a shade that's suited to the skin; then it looks like she's not wearing fake tan but has a natural glow.OldNotWIse wrote: »I think a lot of people are just thinking of fake bake and tan lines and blue eyeliner and whore lipstick when someone says "makeup"
I reeeeealy want to put up a before and after pic!!!!
I couldn't be arsed using fake tan for my pale bod but friends of mine who are self conscious about their paleness are brilliant at making it look like they just caught a bit of sun.0 -
-
-
Hah, soccer did that years ago. And GAA is for people who drink only Guinness and eat only chips with ketchup.
Feck! The above is me to a tee, I'm a guinness drinker who will eat only chips with ketchup and puts only ketchup on my chips, none of that salt and vinegar nonsense that leaves you holding a soggy bag!
In saying that though I love rugby and hurling/camogie, can't hack gaelic football at all, I'd have about as much interest in it as I would soccer, though I'd sooner watch the Italian Serie A and Spanish La Liga games than the English Premiership games.
European soccer always seemed to me like putting on a display of skills, flair and teamwork that you just don't see in English soccer because English players (and even foreign players when they transfer in) are so wrapped up in themselves and playing tactics and talking money than they are in playing what SHOULD be a display of what is often referred to as "the beautiful game".0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement