Maybe you're not as enlightened as you think you are

A long time ago, a male friend explained with a fine mixture of gravity and self-congratulation that he preferred to date women who did not wear makeup.  He found them "more attractive" -- because they were more honest, feminist, and free -- than women who wore mascara, lipstick, and the like.

After a brief foray into the realm of women who wear makeup so well that you do not notice it, we lost ourselves in the thicket of eyebrow dying, eyeliner tatoos, and of course hair coloring.

It wasn't until years later that I realized what he was really saying was, he was most attracted to women with good skin, large eyes, and full lips.

Right.

Comments

[MissPinkKate]

Men like that are one of my BIGGEST PET PEEVES.

[j]

Very funny and very true. Made me laugh out loud!

[Sandra]

Reminds me a little of a guy I knew who fancied himself a feminist. He thought women should keep their own name after marriage and said he wasnt going to LET his future, hypothetical wife use his name.

[stefan]

Sorry, I think there's something here I'm not getting.

Yes, so a 'no make-up' preference is often a preference for attractive young women, good skin and all. I'd suggest that this version of the 'no makeup' preference falls into the same category as 'young attractive woman' preference.

Many people, especially if they match young (<25 years old), match (also) on looks, with some idiosyncracies for what is seen as good looking. Getting included or excluded from being datable purely by looks is a bit odd, but in combination with other factors is pretty normal. Looks matter for who dates and marries whom, and its hard to imagine a world in which looks don't play an important role (though worlds in which they play less of a role than they do in the US today are clearly imaginable).

So again, I'm probably not getting something here. Is it simply that wearing makeup is one way to (marginally) subvert male preference for looks, and the no makeup rule undercuts this?

Admitidly, I'm someone who tends towards no makeup preferences, but it's not something I'd actually per se put much weight on (and makeup clearly is useful or even 'close to necessary' in glaring or bad lighting).

Still, I have the sneaking feeling I'm missing something here....

[leo]

The critique, I think, is not aimed at those who find a certain face or age group attractive but at those who purport to love the 'natural' and 'free' when what they might really be after is a specific facial structure (big eyes and lips) or age group (young). The posting seems to suggest that we might interrogate just how those opposed to make-up actually imagine the 'natural' woman would or should look ... and whether all versions of nature (including wrinkled, tired, blemished, et al.) would fit with their terminology.

[Emma Jane]

I'm late to this (as always), but two things strike me (that have probably already been done to death elsewhere):

1. I totally perceive the claimed "preference" as being about lifestyle and class. But I went from living someplace where wearing no makeup and not highlighting my hair was a status marker, to someplace where it gets me kicked out of car dealerships with a snotty "Maybe your parents can co-sign?" (I'm not making that up. Now I make sure to at least wear and/or carry serious leather goods when I need to be seen as professional off-campus.)

2. Do you really think makeup (by which I mean makeup, not plastic surgery, not a sleep-and-exercise program) makes people look significantly better, in the real world, with arbitrary lighting and no Photoshop? Sure, careful foundation work can even out skin tone, but it doesn't make crevasses go away. And eyes and lips with makeup look like eyes and lips with makeup, not like bigger eyes and lips.

[erinberry]

LOL - Yeah, so basically he likes women who are so naturally beautiful that they don't need any make-up. How unique!