TPM Online
 [Home] [Articles] [Café] [Games] [Portals] [Quotations] [Archive] [Potpourri]    [TPM Shop] [Link To Us!] [Feedback] [Contact Us ]

Peg's PolemicPeg's Polemic

Every month, philosopher Peg Tittle casts off the calm, measured and qualified style of her profession to deliver her opinionated and impassioned column, exclusively for the TPM philosophy café...

Number 36. To the Morons Who Wear Make-up

1. There's the ageism you're perpetuating: make-up is intended, to a large degree, to make one look younger. In many respects, younger is better, but in many respects, it isn't (and anyway, make-up merely gives you the appearance of being younger). True, at some point in time, being old is completely the pits, but hey, that's life, deal with it - without delusion or deception (or implied insult).

2. (a) If make-up were merely intended to (attempt to) make one beautiful, well, I suppose there's no harm in that - the world can always use a little more beauty. However, I despair at the pathetically low aesthetic standards in use if a blue eyelid is considered beautiful - let's at least see a glittering rainbow under the eyebrow arch! Further, I despair at the attention to beauty of skin if at the expense of beauty of character.

(b) However, make-up is intended as much, if not more, to (attempt to) make one sexually attractive. (To some extent, I suppose physical beauty is sexually attractive, but that suggests a very narrow definition of beauty: a dog running full-out is beautiful to behold but not, at least to me, in any way sexually attractive.) (It also suggests a very narrow definition of sexual attractiveness.) I'm thinking, for example, of reddened lips - what is that but an invitation to fellatio? Consider too the perfume (especially if musk rather than floral), and the earrings (earlobes as erogenous zones), and the bras that push up and pad - all are part of the woman's morning grooming routine, her 'getting ready' (that phrase itself begs the question 'Ready for what?') ('Sex!').

Now there's nothing wrong with being sexually attractive per se. But there is something wrong - something sick - about wanting to be bait (sexually attract-ive) all day long. Especially when those same women complain about the attention they receive for their sexual attractiveness - the looks, the comments, the invitations (can you say 'sexual harassment'?) Not only is there a serious self-esteem problem here, there's a serious consistency of thought problem here.

3. (a) Combine 1 with 2(a) and we see another problem: make-up endorses the '(only) young is beautiful' attitude.

(b) Combine 1 with 2(b): make-up endorses the '(only) young is sexually attractive' attitude.

(c) Add the shaved legs and armpits (and eyeliner, for that big baby doe-eyed look?) (how does mascara fit in here?), and we see we're not just talking 'young' as in 'twenty years old' but as in pre-pubescent (only pre-pubescents are hairless, have such smooth skin). And that's really disturbing - to establish/reinforce the sexual attractiveness of pre-pubescents.

Why is it (we think) men find young women, girls, sexually attractive? I doubt it's just the 'healthy for childbearing' thing. Because actually, it's not healthy for girls to bear children, and it's not even possible for pre-pubescents to do so. (And it's not like the men follow up in nine months to claim their progeny.) (But then I'm assuming rational behaviour here.)

I suspect it's the power thing. Men can have power over, feel superior to, children more easily than adults. So in addition to encouraging child sexual abuse, women who shave their legs and otherwise appear/act prepubescent are reinforcing the 'sex as power' instead of 'sex as pleasure' attitude (though of course I guess for many men power is pleasure).

4. Compounding all of this is the custom that only women wear make-up. Which reinforces the whole patriarchy thing: the women are sexual objects while the men are sexual subjects ('course, without make-up, and losing 20 pounds, and, well, major surgery, most men couldn't cut it as sexual objects anyway); the women are infantilized while the men are (apparently) adult; etc.

To comment on this Polemic, click here.

Click here to return to the Philosophy Café

Peg's Polemic will next be updated mid March 2004

Previous polemics

35. Calling for Ms. Goodbar
34. Speaking in Code
33. Vested Interests and Cancer
32. Pronatalism
31. Against the Rape Shield
30. Useless Humanities
29. The Olympians
28. Population Growth (i.e., rape)
27. Garbage
26. Hunting
25. I don't have a conscience
24. Marriage
23. An End to War
22. Demonstrations
21. Responsibility and Power
20. Seniority
19. Professional
18. Freedom to Fail, the Right to Succeed
17. Religion and Sex
16. The Absence of Imagination
15. Religion, Superstition and Habit
14. Death for Willy?
13. Bare Breasts - Objections and Replies
12. Grub Day at the Office
11. Fragrance Free or Shirtless
10. The Apartheid of Sex
9. Air Bands and Power Point
8. Gay Bashing
7. Profit and Loss - and Marbles
6. Androids
5. Visionary
4. Opinions, Judges and Juries
3. King of the Castle
2. 'People Skills'
1. On Suicide, Insurance and Dead Sugar Daddies

TPM Online is The Philosophers' Magazine on the net.
It is edited by Dr Jeremy Stangroom.
© The Philosophers' Magazine - 98 Mulgrave Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 6LZ
Tel/Fax +44 (0)20 8643 1504