October 18th, 2004


Previous Entry Next Entry
05:58 pm - on makeovers for girls (boobies boobies boobies)...

(57 comments | Leave a comment)

 
on makeovers for girls (boobies boobies boobies)... - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile


Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

Wrestling
> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

Other
> 1KWFFH
> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr

Comments:


[User Picture]From: ouchfest Date: October 20th, 2004 - 09:45 am (Link)
I loathe clothing that shouldn't be worn during carpentry. I like comfort and utility, and that preference got tangled with what I find attractive on women. Ratha looks like she just played football or moved furniture, and George looks ready to curl up with a book or a beer.

I bet that I judge women by how they dress, and if a women places higher regard on looking conventionally eye-candyish rather than dressing efficiently for tasks, I assume that she is not the type of women I want to spend any time with. Women who dress in tshirts and jeans are more likely to be tolerable to converse with, and are therefor more likely sexual partner candidates. So, dishevelled tomboy == sexy, prom queen == useless and uninteresting.

I also dig scars.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 20th, 2004 - 11:54 am (Link)
Ok, you've done a good job of at least eloquently stating your argument here. I'm going to punch holes in it now, because its flawed in like a gazillion ways (I'm gonna give you 5). Don't take it personally:

1) you make the assumption that everyone finds the same clothing comfortable that you do. I took much care in making sure that the clothes that they got were comfortable for them, and I think they'd both agree that they are. Maverick Makeovers aside, It would still be flawed. Just because you find a t-shirt comfortable, that doesn't mean everyone does. With girls, one obvious thing to show this is bras. I know some women who find wearing bras to be an extreme inconvenience and quite uncomfortable. I know others who would never leave the house without them, because they find that uncomfortable. Some people like how gym shoes feel, some people hate them. Some women (and men) love the free feeling of a skirt, and some find them annoying. etc. etc. etc. So since you can never really gauge how the person is actually feeling about the outfit they're wearing, your basic premise becomes flawed.

2) Ratha did not just play football. George was was not going to be drinking. I wouldn't wear my wrestling clothes to work and I would wear my work clothes to wrestling. There are different outfits appropriate to different occasions. You may disagree here, I suppose. But I am the czar of fashion or something, and I'm sticking to that claim. If for no other reason, we obviously, at least anecodotally agree that clothing makes an impression on others. I expect me might also agree that it is usually better to create a favorable impression. While you can't please all the people all of the time, I would surmise that my theories on fashion will probably favorable affect more than yours, and therefore by the 80/20 rule is probably better to apply.

3) You state that you judge women by how they dress but state that you find women who dress simply to impress men to be unappealing. The breakdown of this argument as circular reasoning should be obvious. If they made a conscious effort to only wear t-shirts and jeans, then they'd essentially be doing what you were saying was unappealing in the first place.

4) Making the assumptions that someone is unintelligent because they are pretty or fashionable is an extremely chauvinistic and prejudicial thing to do. And frequently just wrong. If you do that, you're probably missing out. Ratha and George are exactly the same conversationalists in the later pictures as the first one. So your reasoning here is instantly flawed. The world simply doesn't map to the convenient premise you want it to here. At the very least, I am more interesting than just about anyone, and I'm damn pretty.

5) Ratha's scar is much more visible in the new clothes than it was in the first picture
[User Picture]From: ouchfest Date: October 20th, 2004 - 03:23 pm (Link)
I was just trying to explain my preference. I wasn't claiming some logically derived truth that everyone should apply. You can't (and aren't) tell me that my opinion is wrong, and I'm not doing that to anyone else. If you're trying to apply "reasoning" to this situation, I don't know what you'd do.

Also, I didn't say prom queens are not intelligent. I suggested that they are culturally different enough from me that I would not be interested in a conversation.

It's about culture and learning mechanisms, not logic or popular concensus.

I would reply more coherantly, but my linux workshop is starting.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 20th, 2004 - 04:45 pm (Link)
nope, I'm not at all trying to change your views on what's attractive. I have no problem with your opinions at all. Its the reasoning I was taking issue with.

If you'd simply said "t-shirts and sweatshirts are sexy" I would have said "ah, ok, if you think so, to each their own" or something like that. I might have made some small joke at your expense like I did with Jameel. But that's just cuz I'm an asshole. But given that you pointed out actual well thought out (which they were) rationales for that opinion, I felt justified in pointing out the holes in them.

Take for instance your most recent comment about prom queens. You're still implying a cultural difference, but I argue its imagined. Logically speaking, I would theorize that given equal effort, the vast majority of people would rather be attractive than not. Now, being attractive is not effortless. Simply put, one must bathe, take care of hygeine, and get dressed (regardless of the style they dress in). So some effort must be applied even to have the wet hair and t-shirt look. So the best your argument can really boil down to is you don't want someone who spends more effort on their appearance than they do on X, where X is whatever traits you do find attractive. For the sake of this argument. Lets say that X is playing pinball. Because pinball chicks are hot. Ok, so certainly if one just showers and puts on a t-shirt and jeans and heads to the arcade, then one has plenty of time to play pinball all day. If one feels the need to shave her legs, apply makeup and perfume and put together a well chosen outfit, that might take time out of her pinball day. Assuming that by simply looking at an outfit, you can tell how long it took the girl to get ready in the morning (an assumption which I also think is flawed) you'd be able to tell who spent more time getting ready and conversely which girl is most devoted to pinball.

But in the real world, there are more activities. You can't tell if the girl has more time to get ready because she's skimping on pinball or because she's skimping on sleep. Maybe she's a faster dresser. Maybe she works less hours. Maybe she just is more comfortable in skirts than pants, and being comfortable helps her pinball game. There are just too many variables. Throw in the fact that maybe it simply isn't any harder for her to wear clothes that are more fashionable and you've just got way to uncontrolled a scenario for your statement of reasoning to function.

Of course the other possibility is that maybe she really doesn't care about pinball but is still a wonderful person. I acknowledge taht given what the X really is, that may or may not be possible. So that's a harder issue to argue. You like the kind of people you like. Just like you find attractive what you find attractive. I may think you're wrong, but that's irrelevant.

Going back to the prom queen statement again, my point is that you have no idea whether they are culturally different or not. You are relying on a flawed stereotype that you have generated to make that judgement for you. Whether a girl is hotter in a t-shirt and jeans or dress and stockings is a personal view sure. But your rationales of culture just don't work. Take George for instance. She is either interesting or not. The clothes she was wearing might make you think she is hot or less hot, but they don't alter her culture at all. If you think she's hot wearing a sweatshirt, that's all well and good. Drool over her or whatever. She's very smart and very fun, and you could talk to her as such when she was dressed that way. But saying that you'd assume she was too culturally different than you because she was wearing a lacy blouse basically just means you've missed out on the same smart and fun person and it pretty much just makes you an idiot for falling for a stereotype. It would be just as wrong to assume a girl was bad in bed because she wears conservative clothing, or that someone was socially inept because they liked computers and wore glasses, or assuming they were uneducated because they were black.

Trust me, I know more about culture and popular consensus than most people. They are tied together almost hand in hand. Even your views on what you think is attractive are directly tied to that.
[User Picture]From: ouchfest Date: October 21st, 2004 - 04:14 am (Link)
You can't tell me that I'm wrong. I mentioned "learning" before to bring to the table that we learn over many experiences which appearances we can associate with which cultures and behaviors. You can't tell me what my experiences are. Chicks in tshirts and jeans are more likely to be interesting for me to talk to than dolled-up glamour jobs. Sterotypes are a great and adaptive methods of organizing information, and it's too bad that there's so much political rhetoric thrown around knocking them.

Depending on the environment, I can sometimes feel quite confident in assuming a black person's education level. My university is in the ghetto. If I'm on campus, black people I see are probably undergrads or employees; in my buildings, they're probably graduate students; if I walk off-campus, I know they didn't go to college and may not have graduated highschool. You can't tell me that I should look at a guy loitering in the ghetto and think "well, I can't make assumptions based on stereotypes, that guy could be a doctor."

If I saw Jameel on the street, I would think: "transformers tattoos, or black trenchcoat with clan pin == geek (my kind of person)." Appearance denotes personality. In an office context where people have to conform to dress codes, the information is no longer useful, but your pictures of Ratha and George were not office context. For purposes of determining sexiness I assumed that their clothing choices were their preference.

My closet is full of identical blue tshirts. I wear them with my blue jeans and my white socks.

This is an interesting thread, and I'd post more, but I have a Learning and Motivation exam to cram for.

I also hate makeup.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 09:05 am (Link)
again, I want to make it clear that I’m not arguing that your opinion is wrong. You think T-shirts and jeans are attractive. Fine. Not saying you that you don't actually think that, and in fact, I agree, sometimes jeans and t-shirts can be quite hot. Just other things can to.

What I dispute is the how you use cultural theory to support your claim. Your claim doesn't even really need support, its enough to just like something. People can agree or disagree as they see fit. With support, one can strengthen their claim, but in your case you actually weaken it.

You’re sort of right about stereotypes. Stereotypes come into being through the averaging of characteristics across a particular subculture. The Latinos are feisty. The French are rude. Black men have large penises. etc. But they aren't always true. I know Latinos who aren't feisty at all. I know an extremely nice and sweet french girl. And I'm a black guy and... ok, sometimes the stereotypes don't break down.

Still, the purpose of stereotypes is to give commonground as a jumping off point in interaction. Sometimes, its positive. Sometimes negative. Often its unfortunate, but that's part of the human condition. You’re right to assume that people learn based on prior experiences and adjust their mental model to match them, but you seem to hold more steadfast to those assumptions than is probably smart to do so. I can guarantee you that some of those black people in Oakland are college graduates. Jameel and I used to live in Oakland. I can guarantee you that George is just as interesting in her work clothes as she is the sweatshirt. (btw, I did specifically say that her clothes were for work, and even said she worked in a bank, so even your assumption about the function of the clothes was wrong to begin with). You make an assumption. But there's no guarantee of accuracy, as such, you have great opportunity to miss out on interesting people. Jameel didn't always have transformer tattoos. He doesn't always wear a trench coat. Your assumptions based on your personal experiences may not be accurate.

[continued...]
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 09:06 am (Link)
In fact, they aren’t accurate. That's the other problem with your argument. Lets say that you are only into geeky chicks. This may not be the smartest plan for seeking out relationships (and, you are probably actually more complex than that), but lets accept it as an postulate. For my definition of geek, I'm randomly picking the traits, "programs or services computers", "plays videogames" "plays roleplaying games" "would call herself as a geek when asked." Looking quickly at my friends list, there are about 67 women. Just guessing from what I know of each of them, I'd say 51 of them would probably identify themselves as geeks if you asked them. I'd say 34 of them make their living using computers. I'd say 31 of them like playing video games. I'd say 23 of them like RPGs. And 57 of them at least put some attention into following some fashion trend or another. For my tabulation I just used my best guesses, and if I wasn't sure, I erred on the side of no. For the fashion question, I used the basis of "I've personally seen this person work to create a look other than "jeans and a t-shirt, on at least a semi-normal, non-work requirement basis" or "I know for a fact that this person is at least trying to look cute/sexy/interesting/whatever, at least in their own view with the way they dress." Even then, I figure of the 10 I didn't count as caring, most of them probably do, I just wasn't sure. Nine women fell into all categories.

So by your logic, you’re assuming that 57 of the 67 women are uninteresting because they must not be geeks, but in reality, with 50 of them you'd be wrong. My point here is that you’re assigning a stereotype based on your own personal learning experience as opposed to cultural norms, and personal learning, though a standard for shaping the human experience, is innately flawed due to lack of sampling size. I could just as easily say "All men named Barry are assholes because everyone I ever met with that name was." but its not really a useful stereotype. Its too based on my flawed perception. I might also believe that "college graduates are generally more intelligent than high school dropouts." Probably not true for every case, but probably a safer assumption to make. And society will likely back me up due to a naturally larger sampling size. Your opinion is closer to the Barry statement than it is to the graduates statement.

Its like music. You’re welcome to like only experiemental techno from India. You’re welcome to think all other music is crap. You may come to that conclusion through any means. But not understanding that the majority of the rest of us like rock, hiphop or pop would just be ignorant. Saying why the specific sounds of Indian techno appeal to you is one thing. (your closet full of identical t-shirts) Explaining how all rock, hiphop and pop is vapid or devoid of real meaning because it lacks a sitar would be another (prom queen =useless and uninteresting). It doesn't show musical intelligence, or even validate tastes, it only shows a lack of understanding about diversity in music and culture (or a lack of understanding about women, and in particular prom queens)
From: ouchfest Date: October 21st, 2004 - 03:44 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 09:37 pm (Link)
From: ouchfest Date: October 22nd, 2004 - 06:33 pm (Link)
[User Picture]From: ouchfest Date: October 21st, 2004 - 03:31 pm (Link)
Dude, I don't live in Oakland. I go to school in Chester, PA. Various clinical research projects by my collegues and professors have shown that the people here do not go to college, nor even leave Chester. It has the worst school district in the state.

More importantly, my point was that evaluations can be made with a high probability of accuracy when based on appearance and context. Even in the absense of context, appearance becomes the only source of information, and should be used. Otherwise, no one would ever be able to make a judgement about anything because we would have to "there's still some information about it that I don't have" forever.

Sometimes we will make mistakes, sure. If I saw Ratha with makeup and clothes from the GAP, I wouldn't start a conversation with her, and I'd miss out. But the system works most of the time, and is more efficient than the alternative.
From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 09:11 pm (Link)
From: ouchfest Date: October 22nd, 2004 - 06:52 pm (Link)
From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 09:38 pm (Link)
From: (Anonymous) Date: October 20th, 2004 - 12:47 pm (Link)

dude...

you're going to ruin girls for the rest of us!

shiima
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 20th, 2004 - 12:52 pm (Link)

Re: dude...

yeah, that too...

heh...
[User Picture]From: sundaygray Date: October 21st, 2004 - 06:24 am (Link)

Re: dude...

I heart shiima.

and I also have 8,000 years of education in cultural theory.

which says I can bake cookies or do other womanly (or manly) "tasks" in a slip and bondage bracelets, and nothing else, should I want to do so.

{sticks out tongue}
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 06:29 am (Link)

Re: dude...

dammit! you've stayed over our house like at least a dozen times this year and not once have you done any baking in a slip and bondage bracelets. What's the deal, yo?


also... 8000 years of cultural theory education rules... it makes us better than everyone else. Never forget that. :-)
[User Picture]From: dariaphoebe Date: October 20th, 2004 - 05:42 pm (Link)
I bet that I judge women by how they dress, and if a women places higher regard on looking conventionally eye-candyish rather than dressing efficiently for tasks, I assume that she is not the type of women I want to spend any time with.

Efficiency is a mark of terrorists. Also, practicality sucks. If you let clothes be in the way of what you're doing, regardless of practicality, I mock your resourcefulness.

Seriously though, all those women you don't want to spend time with? Lots of other people anxiously waiting...
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2004 - 04:40 am (Link)
Or in other words... "It is better to look good than to feel good because when you look good and everyone is watching only then will you really and truly start to feel good so to look good is to feel good and I look MARVELOUS!!!"

and about the second point... Yes, absolutely. I often find it funny when people, especially geeks or other alternative types tend to have an active disdain for all things normal. Its as though to say, "the world disproves of me, so I will more actively disprove of them. HA HA!" That's all well and good, but sometimes you have to consider that if the vast majority of the world feel one thing is attractive, well, maybe there's something to it afterall. If you still reject it, no harm no foul. As you say, the rest of us will be more than happy to be attracted to it without you.
[User Picture]From: ouchfest Date: October 22nd, 2004 - 07:03 pm (Link)
It doesn't always end that way. If more people are attracted to something than there is of it, competition is higher. I'm quite happy with the available selection of unconventionally attractive (full-framed, not usually represented in magazines or on television) women while other guys hold out for the supermodels.

Your statement is pretty harsh. What if the vast majority of the world feels that you are unattractive? (yeah, well, just use your imagination) Would you still like to think "maybe there is something to it?"
 

• Go to Top
LiveJournal.com