posted
Hello, people. I'd like you to watch this video from youtube and comment. Considering it was made by highschoolers, it's very good.
P.S. About the "doll test". It was also conducted here in Brazil some three years ago. The results weren't much different either.
Posts: 1785 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, I did not watch the entire video. I watched about four fifths of it before I figured it was becoming redundant and I had already decided I didn't understand it at all.
Maybe, not being from the US, it's because I really can't completely understand the whole racial/social context that this video is talking about. Maybe that's a reality that doesn't exist here, or maybe just one that I've never been conscious of. Therefore I can only speak about my own personal perceptions and tastes. Personally, even though there are shades of skin colour that I find more attractive than others, it generally doesn't have anything to do with how dark or light they are. I find the really super-dark black skin extremely attractive. Then again, all the other shades in-between can be very attractive too. Depends on who's wearing it.
Also, as a general rule independant of race or colour, I prefer "natural" beauty. I dislike makeup in general, unless it's very subtle, and I don't like hair that looks too cared for. As far as black women go, I very much dislike what I perceive as efforts to look white, that is hair that is straightened, died blonde or some other such thing. I think the natural look (what they called the "African" look in the video) to be much more appealing.
Basically, I think for me the general rule is everyone looks more attractive when they're not trying to be something they're not. Maybe I'm an exception to the rule, but I don't think so. But like I implied at the beginning of this post, I realize this video was done in a racial and social context that seems totally foreign to me, so I really don't understand it at all.
EDIT: About the doll test, it does seem troubling, but perhaps one shouldn't jump to conclusions. There are people (myself being one of them) that are naturally fascinated by and attracted to people who are obviously different than themselves in some way. Perhaps this can account for some of the results (though admittedly, it still doesn't look good).
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note that you're really reacting to an extreme. You're probably ok with someone whose teeth has been modified by modern dentistry to avoid teeth loss or had braces in their childhood or fluoride in the tapwater, who has modern vaccines to avoid the crippling effects of polio or other disfiguring diseases, and who has modern diets to thank for avoiding problems with low vitamin C, and so forth.
In short, its not so much that you prefer "natural" beauty, but that you prefer the "average artificial beauty with no further cosmetic modifications". But that would be much less catchy Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, there is a huge difference between things that are done for health benefits vs. merely cosmetic. Everything you mentioned, even teeth straightening, has health benefits. Wearing lipstick, bleaching your skin, and dyeing or straightening your hair and other things done to artificially enhance some beauty ideal are in a totally different ballpark.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its not quite that clear though. The medical benefits of straight teeth via braces are non-trivial, however, there is still a clear cosmetic benefit with many people choosing it for that reason. What about contact lenses? Clearly cosmetic compared to eyeglasses, but then what is "natural"? Eyeglasses or wandering around with poor eyesight?
What about trimming your fingernails? Maybe some medical benefit, but many people trim (or keep long nails) purely for cosmetic purposes. But few would discriminate against it on the basis of trimming your nails not being "natural" enough.
What about shampoo and conditioner? Health benefit from fewer parasites, but much of the motivation to using it (for women) is to have healthier looking hair, lack of dandruff, or fewer split ends... things that would be perfectly at home in a natural environment.
In the end, it doesn't even matter whether something has side medical benefits or not. The point is we all look very different from our "natural"-selves and thus one has to say something more than that they prefer "natural" beauty because none of us are really natural looking.
Your distinction of health-benefits vs. cosmetic, is a step in the right direction, but not clear enough due to the grey areas.
Edit to add: There is also the related issue of jewellery, piercings, etc. At what point does external adornment (which most would consider "natural enough") become internal and not natural? Many are comfortable with earrings, but not tongue piercings for that very reason. Why this strange distinction?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
