LogFAQs > #876480254

DorkLink posted...

but don't insinuate that everyone else is obligated to like it just because we enjoy other "artificial" things.

I said no such thing. Ever. I do not care what you do or don't like.

You said there was a fine line between "fashion" and "artificial beauty". I asked some questions about where that line is. You said something about permanence. I asked why permanence, by pointing to two identical outcomes of different beauty procedures - one permanent, one not. It's not splitting hairs if we can establish that the line is at permanence. But instead of arguing that, you flee out the back door by saying it's "splitting hairs". It's not exactly splitting hairs to answer the whole fucking question from the start. It just turned out we needed to go down a few levels before we could go back up to the top and address the core issue.

If I'm insinuating anything, it's not one what other's preferences should be (because lord knows mine are weird enough that I wouldn't inflict them on anyone) but on dropping the pretense of "fakeness" having any importance.

You know what "looks fake" to me? Everything. Using enough makeup to achieve that 'no makeup' look is its own form of Supernormal Stimulus. Anything we can do to change our looks, from the way we style our hair, to the clothes we put on, to the implants we put in our bodies are intended to convey a certain constructed image. To criticize someone for one aspect of that construct, simply for being a construction is extremely naive.

It's also somewhat hypocritical, yes. Contradictory might be a better word since it lacks the moral judgment (and I'm not making a moral judgment). Because unless you walk out of your home naked, without combing you're hair, then you're doing it too. You have your own constructed images* . It's just a question of degree. Some people keep it to a minimal degree, and there's some people that get breast implants and full body tattoos. Now, you can object to the degree it's being taken to when someone gets implants. You can object to where something falls on the spectrum. I have no argument with that. I have an issue with the basis of criticism.




*(even if that image only says, "I'm only wearing this so I won't get arrested/kicked out of the McDonalds while I'm waiting for my cheeseburger". But I consider that more a practical concern, which I already said I'm not talking about. Our social taboos may be artificial, but when there's animals out there that will capture you for not following them, it becomes a practical matter. It's hard to pick up your Big Mac from jail)

P.S.

When I say "natural beauty". I mean what I think most people mean. I don't mean what I mean by it.
---

This album is not available to the public.
Even if it were, you wouldn't wanna listen to it!