My girlfriend has shit taste in clothes and essentially just dresses like a very commonplace softgrunge tumblr girl...

okay this made me laugh

you're on a fashion board

it's a stupid board

why am i here

I want to discuss makeup with someone.

My ex (along with every other female I associate with) seem to use makeup as some sort of anchor to reality. Every outfit, every day's itinerary, every shift seems to somehow find an association with makeup. My ex even took up a wageslave job at Ulta for "them discountz".

From an advertiser's perspective, makeup is incredible. The packaging, marketing, store displays, and social media presence behind these products are unrivaled. Look at Twitter. Memes about X's new Y edition blush is fireemoji.

Don't get me wrong, I love seeing a girl with good makeup but 90% of women don't understand the actual science behind makeup and facial aesthetics.

Is it all just a huge scam or what the fuck is going on that makes this business so profitable. I want articles, sources, academic journals. I seriously want to incorporate this into my senior thesis, it fascinates me.

well yeah it is and I feel like that level of vanity must be damaging to your soul...but that doesn't mean you should stop someone from doing what they like. and, yeah, like said. high fashion is similarly stupid and vain.

i'm not saying I'M into that garbage. I'm saying, this girl sounds dumb enough to buy into it and it'd be a more reasonable compromise. the only makeup I use is a $6 liquid eyeliner and a YSL lipstick some rich chinese girl dropped at my workplace.

> I want articles, sources, academic journals.

And I am 100% sure that this shit is easy af to find without having someone on Veeky Forums doing your senior thesis research for you.

I just did a quick search in my uni's journal article online database, and hundreds of peer review articles fell out just for sociology. I didn't even bother searching under marketing sections.

>Is it all just a huge scam
Yes.

There are girls who just watch beauty "gurus" on youtube and instagram all day, buy the makeup they recommend and either never wear it, never wear it out of the house, or have no idea how to use it even if they did want to wear it.

>I'm saying, this girl sounds dumb enough to buy into it and it'd be a more reasonable compromise
I feel like that's kind of missing the point

we get this idea fed into us all the time that the natural unaltered state of the human body is somehow undesirable, which crosses over both sexes with makeup, hair products, deodorants, etc to where women think its some kind of crime to go out without makeup (i'm too ugly, my eyebrows are too thin, etc etc) and men think its some kind of crime to go out without new AXE BRAND MANLY MEN CIGAR BACON DEODORANT AND COLOGNE

I think its important for a grown woman or man to be able to realize what a shit show it is and not be so blindly subject to advertising and marketing schemes, its a personality issue not a matter of "hobby"

you can be into makeup and beauty care as long as you're a smart consumer and health-conscious about not ruining your skin, and as long as you have stable self-esteem and are doing to express yourself (like clothes) rather than to "fix" yourself

Veeky Forums's opinion is the only thing that matters. Y'all redpilled right? My main thing is that these makeup companies are giants and will do ANYTHING to stay afloat and grow the company as well as the profits. I'm excited to see how the marketing of makeup will transition into making it a more "mandatory" asset.

The YouTube culture of makeup is also terrifying to me. You know some very young women are basing their life around these gurus. Look at tinder for five minutes and I guarantee half the women on there learned their "signature wingz" from the same tutorial.

I'm not trying to sound paranoid or crazy about this stuff but when you see a woman for over a year that is all about this shit it really gives you an interesting perspective. I almost feel bad that they "have" to do this but it seems like they like it??

Comparing the youtube makup culture to the same sort of meme/comedy/video game culture you find for males helps to put it into context.

The same way you get girls buying makeup they don't know how to use or really don't need, you get guys who buy professional quality headsets and gaming keyboards just because they see someone they idolize using the same product.

To an outsider, they're both equally retarded and unappealing. But the people in those worlds are, I think, fairly sincere about their interests.

It's almost as if you're the real retard.

This is the worst excuse you could possibly invent for not having a source.

inconceivable

I like how you think. I really think there's something to be said about this type of consumerism in general. I mean we're on a board where people can somehow justify spending $3k to go F U L L R I C K but in my eyes that's way more justifiable than spending $40 on a palette that you don't know how to use. I hate sounding like some college liberal but as I grow older and see the habits and lives of people around me, it's easy to criticize.

>do my work for me
>"no"
>hahaha u couldnt do it anyway ;)))

I mean, the beauty guru youtube shit feels like the inevitable conclusion of online shopping, especially for women. They watch someone demo and praise a product, then they buy that product, then they can get on their social media and parrot what they heard the guru saying; all without getting out of their chair.

It's a lot like golf too. Old men can buy the same clubs as their idols and golf the same courses and talk about the same techniques, sure, but there are some men who just watch golf and buy clubs and products and read the magazines and never do anything other than putt into a coffee cup.

Proving your point is your work, not mine.

you will never make it anywhere in the academic world, sorry user. you're too retarded and entitled. good luck with that thesis, you'll need it.

I'm not even the person you replied to, just calling you out for your obvious bullshit.
If proving what you said is so easy then why not do it? You could easily shut my mouth that way, but instead you decided to throw a tanuntrum and resort to name calling.
Please don't talk about things you know nothing about.

I'm not even the same post, lol

see

So?

>you will never make it anywhere in the academic world
good

ITT: delusional hypocrites

everything that has been said here about girls and makeup culture can be said about guys and sneaker/fashion culture

>it's vapid, it's hollow, people waste their lives watching youtube gurus and buying whatever they say and then never wearing it outside the house it's marketing genius how are they so stupid to fall for it

or video games, or cars (beyond econoboxes), or xyz.

ultimately, if it's not food it's a veblen-good. even then, if it's not nutritional gruel, it's a veblen-good.

pointing the finger at others for status-obsession is a convenient way to escape analyzing your own.

You got the wrong person buddy. I made the reply about the thesis (which was mostly a joke, anything that intrigues me gets labeled as a senior thesis) but you've been replying to a different person.

I understand it's very easy to get caught criticizing consumerism only to find yourself guilty of it in a different essence (see my FULLRICK comment). I just think makeup is a crazy culture because of the temporary physical alterations it provides. It's not that deep or anything but think about the millions of eyes gawking at some bitch on YouTube telling them how to look and then all those eyes shuffling out the door to the nearest Ulta (side note: does that name unnerve anyone else? ULTA. IT'S THE ONLY PLACE TO FIX YOUR SHIT). It seems a bit more scripted than buying fashion pieces or housewares from Pier 1, especially because makeup is disposable (like toothpaste).

Anyways everything is fucked and subscription services will define our life in five years so I'm pretty impartial about this whole mess.

corporate-built makeup culture is significantly harmful to society. it is damaging the environment, to your personal health, and causes or promotes many psychological issues in women in order to sell more products.

sneakers and fashion culture aren't as damaging in their effects. video games even less so. and cars have a functional use, unlike makeup which is an artificially created need.

for the record, I do think people obsessed with those things are as pathetic as people obsessed with makeup. but makeup is a whole other level of harm, much more than just "wasting money"

Agree or disagree that makeup is just more affordable plastic surgery? It's definitely the gateway drug to a nose job and lip injections.

The same can't really be said for clothes and fashion in general, or most other hobbies. The very foundation (pun) of makeup is changing/augmenting/concealing what you look like. Everyone wears clothes, but only some people care about how those clothes look. Meanwhile, most people can happily go their whole lives without wearing makeup, so it definitely takes a certain type of person.

>sneakers and fashion culture aren't as damaging in their effects.

actually, they are.

>damaging the environment
check
>promotes health and psychological issues
check

>video games even less so
there's actually quite a bit of psychological research about the mental health effects of video games

>cars have a functional use
econoboxes do. which is why i specifically noted econoboxes as the exception. beyond that, they're veblen goods.

mate you didn't even read what you quoted
>aren't as damaging
>AS damaging

I never said those things don't harm the environment or promote health issues but its not nearly as widespread and pervasive as makeup. and sneakers, clothes, and cars, whether you want to admit it or not are things which are NECESSARY. do you need $5000 sneakers? of course not. but they still serve a functional purpose, unlike makeup.

I agree with you completely. Makeup is a trap that women fall into. It's been made worse with millennial neo-liberal ideas regarding sex and "body image," the very idea that a woman wears makeup for herself and not for the benefit of anyone else is the definition of vanity and facile self obsession.

>as damaging

okay, what are the specific metrics that you are using to measure environmental damage?

do you actually have figures for those metrics that show that the makeup industry is significantly more damaging than the clothing industry? or are you just talking vaguely out of your sphincter?

makeup can serve multiple functional purposes. it can allow someone to be unselfconsciously productive. in the most extreme example, say you are a burn victim and you can't go outside without people gawking or maybe even bothering or harassing you about how you look. you could use makeup to mitigate this outcome and go about your day and work less inhibited. or if you are making a movie and you need a specific character to look a certain way, makeup can be your functional tool used to achieve this outcome.

sneakers, clothes, and cars are not, in fact, NECESSARY as you claim. we lived for hundreds of thousands of years without them. do they make life a bit nicer to have? sure. but the same could be said for makeup.

veblen-chan, please calm down! I know you just read the article about veblen goods and want to show off, but please stop fighting!

sick rebuttal

Wat
I thought makeup blocks out the sun

the makeup industry produces toxic byproducts, and often times the products themselves are toxic when reintroduced into the environment (e.g. thrown away). clothes and sneakers can be harmful when it comes to plastics and dyes, but it's not poisonous per se. I'm too lazy to look up sources, believe me or don't

>makeup can serve multiple functional purposes [...]
no, makeup cannot cover up severe burns. I don't know where you get that idea. in fact its actively avoided because the tissue can be sensitive and dried out easily.

you have a distorted view of what is functional. clothes and shoes have been consistently utilized throughout human society, because they are useful to survival. they protect your feet and keep your body warm. cars aren't directly necessary for survival, but they serve a functional use in transportation which may or may not be necessary to make a living. clothes, shoes, and cars solve REAL problems: harm to feet, exposure to cold, and transportation. problems which have existed consistently throughout human history, and which we have developed solutions to.

makeup is a solution to a manufactured problem: that the natural state of the human face is not beautiful enough. whether it be to attract mates, or to be successful in life... the idea that you cannot be a functional member of society without buying their chemical product is vicious. and it's never been seen on such a scale as it is today, things like that were usually reserved for the upper classes. they've made $5 foundation and eyeliner a priority for people who can barely afford to eat.

>you have a distorted view of what is functional. clothes and shoes have been consistently utilized throughout human society, because they are useful to survival. they protect your feet and keep your body warm.

yeah the new adidas tubular stan smock lite yezzy doom 3.9 is definitely about keeping your feet warm and protected

if shoes and clothes were truly just about function, we wouldn't have closets full of them or special interest image boards dedicated to them. we would have one or two outfits made of the warmest, sturdiest stuff and we wouldn't think twice about any of it. this is demonstrably not the case.

furthermore, if it's about usefulness for survival, as you claim, then makeup is actually incredibly functional. it gives the wearer an advantage in sex-selection, which increases the survivability their bloodline.

>the idea that you cannot be a functional member of society without buying their chemical product is vicious.

well, okay, all products are chemical products. literally everything in the universe except the vaccuum of space between matter is made up of chemicals.

also, with the environmental impact of clothing and sneakers, it's not just about plastics and dyes. it's also about the enormous scale of production. the farming techniques, the factory emissions. you may think that the industry of makeup production is large, but it will never be as large as the industry of clothing production. this is because while many humans wear makeup, almost all humans wear clothes.

the clothing industry is severely harmful to the environment. believe me or don't, you can look up your own sources.

DICK

you are absolutely right. I have no idea what he's on about, seems to just be trying to prove a point.

I can see both points of view in a way but makeup is absolutely a manufactured problem. Look at some of the first advertisements made for makeup. The predatory tactics advertising agencies used to get women to buy makeup were absolutely successful, however detrimental to the femme psyche.

I get what you're saying but be real here. Fashion is a hobby, a creative extension of something necessary. You can say makeup is a hobby but like I said, look back 60 years and look into the tactics used to assert makeup as an everyday part of life.

And duh everything is broken down to chemicals, but makeup is literal concentrated chemicals that you apply to your skin. Makeup can't even grow bacteria because it's so chemically sterile, right?

>Fashion is a hobby, a creative extension of something necessary

okay but you're missing the point. it's the creative extension of something functional, sure, but it's not the creative extension of something that is necessary.

functional =/= necessary

it is not necessary to have clothes. see where I already addressed this.

both fashion and makeup are hobbies, yes, and both creative to an extent, yes. but neither stem from something that is totally necessary. you've merely deluded yourself into thinking that one has while the other has not.

holy shit mate, you have some poor logic. or maybe you aren't reading or understanding my posts.

just because shoes have evolved to serve extraneous purposes like prestige or beauty doesn't mean they aren't still, at their root, functional items. I never said "shoes and clothes are strictly utilitarian items which serve no other purpose". all I'm saying is that makeup is different because it doesn't have an underlying human need, like all shoes do. ALL SHOES. yes, even adidas tubular smock yeezy whatever the fuck keep your feet warm and protect them. if they didn't, they wouldn't be shoes.

>makeup is actually incredibly functional. it gives the wearer an advantage in sex-selection, which increases the survivability their bloodline.
this argument is flawed on so many levels

>well, okay, all products are chemical products. literally everything in the universe except the vaccuum of space between matter is made up of chemicals.
okay, now I can see you just have autism.

I'm going to stop arguing with you now because its exhausting

>all I'm saying is that makeup is different because it doesn't have an underlying human need, like all shoes do.

function =/= need

shoes have an underlying function. that function is not necessary. it is nice, but it is not necessary. re: humans surviving for innumerable years without them.

you have merely made the case that historically shoes have a purpose. you have not shown that this purpose is necessary, nor have you dealt with the counter-evidence that it is not in fact necessary, ie that people have survived without shoes and that they continue to do so.

please l2 read.

actually my point was that makeup is more harmful than clothes and shoes, and provides less (nothing) in return. I think you are the one who needs to learn to read. that fact that you're so caught up in semantics and detached from your original point you made in the first post, shows you really have nothing more to say.

cheers

you literally can't determine what anyone is trying to say without semantics. being "caught up in semantics" is good. it means you are going for clarity and precision.

vague statements are generally not useful. "x is worse than y" is not very useful.

what is useful is determining what "worse" means in the context of x and y. this is what we have been doing thus far.

"makeup is worse than clothes/shoes"

why? what makes it worse?

"it's harmful to the environment and has psychological and social effects too"

clothing and shoe production are also harmful to the environment, likely moreso than makeup. they also effect psychology and social norms.

"yeah but clothes are necessary"

no they're not, people survive without them

"yeah but clothes keep you warm, that makes them necessary at their root"

again, not necessary. people survive without them. they might serve a function, but that function is not necessary

"you're just too caught up in semantics"

lol

nice imaginary conversation, if only you had actually read the posts you're attempting to represent

also lay off the return key, lad

it's called a summary.

which critical point of yours did i neglect to include in the summary? please enlighten.

Provide a source for people surviving without clothes please. Homeless, thirdworld, or otherwise, everyone needs clothes.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_clothing_and_textiles

clothes were invented 170,000 years ago. modern humans have been around for over 200,000 years.

that's at least 30,000 years of running around naked, which is way more time than all of recorded (ie post-invention-of-writing) history.

this goes into the millions of years if you count our other homo genus relatives, who are upwards of 99% genetically similar to homo sapiens.

another example would be 24/7 nudists.

in some indigenous communities, it is common to only wear a loincloth. while this is clothing, it does not really offer any true protection from exposure as has been suggested about the purpose of clothing itt

There are people who have been raised by animals who seem to survive quite well despite the lack of clothing, and don't even seem bothered by extreme weather like snow, coldness, etc. Obviously there are human limits, but people are quite hardy by nature.

>tfw no gf

This is actually a real good analysis and has hit home - thanks.