The Kingdom of Pretty Must Be Taken By Storm

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
merciless, bitchy, rabble-rousy rundown of the current state of beauty research here:

http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=135758

the long & the short of it is: america is turning into an sessile tribe of fat morlocks worshipping a hated pantheon of professionally good-looking people. kick in yr tv! take back yr culture and dress a little nice once in a while, fukkerz!! we are hardwired to hate the ugly and toss our family in a ditch if it'll get us some bed-time with anything with white teeth under the age of 23, but this is america, we gotta try!!

seriously, this article hits so many reliably raw ilx nerve endings, plz read.

geoff (gcannon), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 07:58 (twenty years ago)

"looksism"

this is how nazi germany started

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 08:03 (twenty years ago)

i think we should all work towards being professionally good-looking.

N_RQ, Tuesday, 9 August 2005 08:06 (twenty years ago)

America’s weight problem is one dimension of what seems to be a broader-based national flight from presentability...

Dressing to manifest disregard for society—think of the loose, baggy hipsters in American high schools—broadcasts self-determination by flaunting the needlessness of having to impress anybody else...

...we as a culture have engaged in a kind of aesthetic outsourcing, transferring the job of looking good—of providing the desired supply of physical beauty—to the specialists known as “celebrities,� who can afford to devote much more time and energy to the task. Offloading the chore of looking great onto a small, gifted corps of professionals saves the rest of us a lot of trouble and expense, even if it has opened a yawning aesthetic gulf between the average person (who is fat) and the average model or movie star (who is lean and toned within an inch of his or her life).

...

But what’s needed is a much more radical democratization of physical beauty, a democratization we can achieve not by changing the definition of beauty but by changing ourselves. Looking nice is something we need to take back from the elites and make once again a broadly shared, everyday attribute, as it once was when people were much less likely to be fat and much more likely to dress decently in public. Good looks are not just an endowment, and the un-American attitude that looks are immune to self-improvement only breeds the kind of fatalism that is blessedly out of character in America.

geoff (gcannon), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 08:06 (twenty years ago)

Offloading the chore of looking great onto a small, gifted corps of professionals...

http://www.popcultmag.com/criticalmass/movies/2001/zoolander.jpg

robster (robster), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 08:08 (twenty years ago)

I think I look pretty good for 62, all things considered.

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 08:09 (twenty years ago)

'i hear a lot of words like "firm abs" and "amazingly chiselled features", and that's like a vanity i can't afford'

N_RQ, Tuesday, 9 August 2005 08:11 (twenty years ago)

you can get amazingly chiselled features for about a fiver down the wrong end of the portobello road on a sunday.

Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 08:12 (twenty years ago)

gff vs mitch 4 who bites aldaily.com more

3, Tuesday, 9 August 2005 08:15 (twenty years ago)

q1. assuming akst's position, is zoolander revolutionary, or reactionary? answer as succinctly but convincingly\

xpost no really i had the wilson center website bookmarked like in 02

geoff (gcannon), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 08:16 (twenty years ago)

and good morning

geoff (gcannon), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 08:16 (twenty years ago)

i'm so disappointed in this thread!

geoff (gcannon), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 16:10 (twenty years ago)

You won't be for long. Once I get done with this long-ass article I'm about to critique it from a sociological standpoint in ways that will make yr head spin!

matlewis (matlewis), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 16:40 (twenty years ago)

The researchers add that more symmetrical men have handsomer faces, more sex partners, and their first sexual experience at an earlier age, and they get to sex more quickly with a new romantic partner. “Moreover,” they tell us, “men’s symmetry predicts a relatively high frequency of their sexual partners’ copulatory orgasms.”

haha what??

tokyo nursery school: afternoon session (rosemary), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 16:57 (twenty years ago)

At long last, someone has written The Widespread Presentability Manifesto!

Aimless (Aimless), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 17:00 (twenty years ago)

i dont understand why dressing nice (more professional/formal) is necessarily "better" than dressing casually

another geek wishing it was the old-timey days when men wore hard leather shoes and women wore them stockings with the seam up the back!!

Homosexual II (Homosexual II), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 17:11 (twenty years ago)

The part of this that really got to me was all the money folks are spending on things like plastic surgery, botox, etc etc. There are lots of reasons why people aren't as healthy now as they once were, and instead of attacking those reasons, people are just trying to fix the symptoms that show (acne, obesity, etc etc).

On the other hand, whoever wrote this is clinging to this traditional view of how people should look and dress, what gives?

matlewis (matlewis), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 17:19 (twenty years ago)

Clearly, now is the time for 1-piece silver jumpsuits for all. This uniform will fix all our problems. The future is now!

rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 17:21 (twenty years ago)

"Vee haff vays of making you presentable. Ha ha. You shall be pleeced to vair DIS!" [hurls silver jumpsuit at the victim]

Aimless (Aimless), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 17:30 (twenty years ago)

Oh I dunno, I get with the "people should dress up more" program, but then I live in NYC. Dressing in a specific fashion for an activity makes a distinction between that activity and any other -- it's a form of ritual, you could say, that divides our time & delineates different spheres. Makes "special" things continue to feel that way, like dressing for dinner, which can also be construed as a courtesy to the other folks attending dinner, or going to the opera/ballet/theater, where these days you can apparently see people in warm-up suits & holey jeans, much to the dismay of my boss.

The flip-side is that when you purposefully dress down -- esp. way WAY down -- for something, it feels kind of illicit and can be taken to express all kinds of flippancy, contempt, haste, whatever, depending on how it's done. Good times!

All that said, I am without a doubt guilty of going to the corner sto' in my PJs.

Laurel, Tuesday, 9 August 2005 17:34 (twenty years ago)

Hmmm, I should add that in a lot of ways I think the practice of dressing for particular functions is also a Trapping of Leisure, ie you have the korrect attire & accessories for a wide variety of occasions and enough free time to change into them. Not sure how this plays out, haven't thought it all through yet.

Laurel, Tuesday, 9 August 2005 17:38 (twenty years ago)

Sorry, sorry, this is the last post for a while. Just to say that, while I love a good dressing down once a while for the reasons given above, it's a conscious decision (unless I'm in the middle of cleaning/fix-it project and have run to the grocery for supplies), not sheer lack of attention. When people ONLY dress "down", all the time, it's not a decision any more, it's sheer laziness and lack of imagination, which to my mind is a much less forgiveable state.

Also: "dressing down" not to be confused with "dressing casually but with my own particular flair/style", which is at least evidence of intelligence and creativity, if not necessarily consistent taste!

Laurel, Tuesday, 9 August 2005 17:43 (twenty years ago)

Laurel otm re: variety and the ability to have decisions to make in the first place. I almost pathologically cannot wear the same thing "out" at night as I have worn during the day, nor can I wear sweats/tights other than at home or the gym - there are times and places and criteria for all (and not in a neurotic, controlling way, I'd argue). It's kinda wtf, but I also enjoy the choices I have.
That is, I am both for and against silver jumpsuits.

rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 17:51 (twenty years ago)

Geoff, you are more accurate than you maybe even realize. I guess the purposely dissheveled go one way because it makes their hatred for the beautiful more emotionally charged. There's an undercurrent of S/M in many pockets of the U.S. I do think there are far too many people in this country who tend toward obsessive / compulsive behavior, and who alternate between narcissism (or plain arrogance) and self-loathing. If you want to understand American culture, the best place to start is with the psychology of familial abuse.

You know what's nutty is where - in these glossy magazines, celebrities are ridiculed for going to the market in sweatpants. As if it is their job to never have any sort of personal life.

So, somebody saw someone in "pajamas" buying milk at the corner store. If anything, the fact that it troubles them so much is proof of their weakness. And underneath all of this is an obsession with morality. Morality, as opposed to ethics or conscience or any of those concepts. The underlying message is "you're NEVER trying hard enough," and what is that? It's Calvinism.

Land Ho (dymaxia), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 17:51 (twenty years ago)

Matlewis OTM about the cosmetic surgery bit.

I think this Daniel guy is trying to send a message to his significant other!

Kittens Licking Cakes (coco), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 17:55 (twenty years ago)

(do i really openly bite aldaily all that much? i thought i'd stopped since it sort of sucks these days)

jermaine (jnoble), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 17:55 (twenty years ago)

I mean, it's no one's damned business how "creative" someone is in their fashion. They don't exist for you. People aren't all on show for a bunch of arrogant pampered fuckers in New York. And as for "distinguishing between events" and "rituals", well there's the reason the rest of the country hates the East Coast. It's your fucking unacknowledged religious dogma. Dress how you fucking want, but asserting that how someone dresses is a sign of "character" is fucking oppressive, "correcting" hateful bullshit, no matter what smug liberalism you cloak it in.

Land Ho (dymaxia), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 17:57 (twenty years ago)


Listen, "Lauren", why did you change your name from "warmleatherette", anyway. Oh ha ha, so funny. Excuse me for not knowing your bitchy little "gaslighting" code.

Good thing (or is it a bad thing)? for you I survived the "accident".

Land Ho (dymaxia), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 18:05 (twenty years ago)

Yes, fine, I was being a little bit superior but your vehemence is like saying you've never participated in or enjoyed any activity that benefited from codes of dress or conduct. Which is just silly. Even eating your favorite foods loses its charm if ALWAYS done alone, in front of the television and out of the cooking pots with no preparation or care for any aspect of the experience.

And I have NO IDEA what the lauren/warmleatherette thing is about. Nothing to do with me, pal.

Laurel, Tuesday, 9 August 2005 18:15 (twenty years ago)

fuck clothes, it's time to get nekkid y'all!

latebloomer (latebloomer), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 18:18 (twenty years ago)

But we are on show! (Foucault sayz!) And people do judge based on appearances. It's fucked on many levels and we should rise above it, but not all of it is hateful or Calvinistic. Sometimes a Chanel is just a Chanel. (Or a really good knock-off.)
xpost

rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 18:21 (twenty years ago)

*ahem* LaureL and LaureN are two different people.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 18:21 (twenty years ago)

I'd also like to say, following up on tokyorosemary's quote:
sperm-retaining orgasms

this is very very funny to me. It makes me think of electropop album/song titles, like, "Sperm-retaining Orgasms for the Symmetically Enhanced"

k thnx.

rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 18:44 (twenty years ago)

whoop, SymmetRically, obv. Too much laughing = typos.

rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Tuesday, 9 August 2005 18:45 (twenty years ago)

i've never seen anyone go from completely OTMFM (about calvinism) to stark raving bonkers in only three posts

it's kind of impressive! (in a paranoid schizophrenic sort of way)

ringu, Tuesday, 9 August 2005 18:48 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.