Famous lookalikes.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Now why should I trust you to know more about women than I do Quill?
Being one myself (unlike yourself) I KNOW why women (the majority) like to dress up and wear make up....and sorry to dampen your enthusiasm to look for ulterior motives, but we do it to look and feel good about ourselves.

There can be side effects in looking so damn fabulous, but if it draws men to us thus giving us power in that way, that says more about the men than the women.

The knowledge is not limited to women, but to mankind.  So neither of us are gender-qualified experts.

You mention attraction of men, and that brings up sex.  Researchers have found that sexual attraction in men is direct and spontaneous...hence they are visual.  But for women, the attractor is to be desired:

Daniel Bergner wrote:Marta Meana brings up [one element of female sexuality], and which I think is very compelling, is this idea that the feeling of being desired is a very powerful one, a very electrical one. And I think at least at the fantasy level, that sense of being wanted, and being wanted beyond the man’s self-control is also really powerful.

This, the female sexuality, is more complex in that it necessarily involves the cognitive presence of an "other" person, who is needed to be the admirer.  Hence female porn takes the form of Harlequin novels, and not just pictures.  Female fantasy goes more by scripts, than simple visual queues.

This is probably an adaptive feature built into women for self-preservation, plus it dovetails with their need to attract a mate for procreation.  To accomplish their needs women become manipulative, in the sense that a scriptwriter becomes manipulative.  Women use their attractiveness.  But the goal is not just abstract attractiveness; to get it done, women must get "beyond the man’s self-control".  That's a need for power.  Men have the strength factor, but women need the attraction factor to really get the job done.  And by that, I mean POWER (manipulation of others).

So, a woman who dresses to the nines is looking for power.

Syl wrote:I think you are over thinking it.

Syl wrote:Basic instincts date back to when men dragged women into their caves to mate with, and whilst the woman looked for a strong man to mate with to have strong children the  man would sow his seeds as often as he could with as much variety as he could....probably because there is strength and power in numbers and he wanted as many in his clan as possible.

Nowadays society has changed but those basic instincts are still there buried beneath all the polite niceties that ensure people get the chance to cop off.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

  I totally agree.  It's been my observation in life that when women get dressed up and all sexy, they are not looking for admiration or love...they're looking for POWER.  

Are they heck.....women (most of them anyway) just like to get dressed up and made up...
it's not a power thing, it's part of the ritual of going out.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:

Are they heck.....women (most of them anyway) just like to get dressed up and made up...
it's not a power thing, it's part of the ritual of going out.

It is.
FACT!
Power dressing is a thing.
Granted those ridiculous shoulder pads are long gone. 

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I think you are over thinking it.

It's not me...those words are straight out of the psychology literature.

Syl wrote:Basic instincts date back to when men dragged women into their caves to mate with, and whilst the woman looked for a strong man to mate with to have strong children the  man would sow his seeds as often as he could with as much variety as he could....probably because there is strength and power in numbers and he wanted as many in his clan as possible.

Nowadays society has changed but those basic instincts are still there buried beneath all the polite niceties that ensure people get the chance to cop off.

I see you are agreeing with me.  But we take it beyond merely, men want perpetual sex and women want a beast of burden.  Delving more closely into it, women are not immediate and visual as are men.  They seek to be assured that they are desired.  They find they are empowered when they achieve that end.  So with that goal in mind, they seek to be attractive, and thus empowered.

Any way you cut it, they are seeking to win, because that way lies power...power with men, power in competition with women, and power in all relationships.  That's what success means in Darwin's terms.  

Tommy Monk wrote:

Or my personal favourite...

Syl wrote:As for the dress and makeup....I think many woman can scare men when they look as if they are striving for perfection...(think Alexis Carrington in Dynasty) all red lips, high heels  and shoulder pads can be a bit intimidating to men.
Beautiful women will often complain men don't approach them.

It's been said on this thread and I agree, men seem to show more appreciation for women who don't make as much effort  rather than when she strives for perfection, so if a woman really used her looks for power.... she would bin the makeup and embrace the natural look.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:As for the dress and makeup....I think many woman can scare men when they look as if they are striving for perfection...(think Alexis Carrington in Dynasty) all red lips, high heels  and shoulder pads can be a bit intimidating to men.
Beautiful women will often complain men don't approach them.

It's been said on this thread and I agree, men seem to show more appreciation for women who don't make as much effort  rather than when she strives for perfection, so if a woman really used her looks for power.... she would bin the makeup and embrace the natural look.

Totally agree. I don't do the whole plastered make up look. Mascara always, lipstick most days, but not a big bright red. Gotta save that for a private audience or to make a statement.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It's not me...those words are straight out of the psychology literature.



I see you are agreeing with me.  But we take it beyond merely, men want perpetual sex and women want a beast of burden.  Delving more closely into it, women are not immediate and visual as are men.  They seek to be assured that they are desired.  They find they are empowered when they achieve that end.  So with that goal in mind, they seek to be attractive, and thus empowered.

Any way you cut it, they are seeking to win, because that way lies power...power with men, power in competition with women, and power in all relationships.  That's what success means in Darwin's terms.  

Everyone wants to be loved and desired...women AND men.
You keep quoting others to mask what YOU are thinking.

Do you think women are either dainty little flowers waiting to be plucked by  big strong men who will adore them forever....or do you imagine women are all strong powerful ball breakers who use make up as war paint to ensnare weak willed men??

The truth is they are the extremes, and MOST modern women are neither....they just like to wear nice clothes and make up.  

Tracy Clark-Flory wrote:At one point in the book, researcher Marta Meana shows you a pair of joke control panels — one with an on-off switch, the other with tons of knobs. These were meant to represent male and female desire. Is female sexuality really that much more complicated that male sexuality?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

HUMANS are not instinctive/"instinctual" animals...

The desire to reproduce is not a genuine "instinct", but rather it is a basic biological urge..
IT IS one of the basic definitions of being alive..

SYL doesn't know shite about science, of any kind...
She is simply following her base urge to be a dickhead..        

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Everyone wants to be loved and desired...women AND men.
You keep quoting others to mask what YOU are thinking.

Do you think women are either dainty little flowers waiting to be plucked by  big strong men who will adore them forever....or do you imagine women are all strong powerful ball breakers who use make up as war paint to ensnare weak willed men??

The truth is they are the extremes, and MOST modern women are neither....they just like to wear nice clothes and make up.  

I'm quoting the words of others because they have done a lot more, and better thinking about the subject that have you.  And, BTW, why am I so important to you?  It's the theories of Daniel Bergner and Marta Meana that are confronting you.

The subject transcends your facile notions of "dainty little flowers" and "powerful ball breakers".  The theories of Bergner and Meana have dynamics, which you fail to grasp.  The female "will to be desired" is not a personification, but an instinct that takes many different forms in outward appearances.  Address yourself to that, and not your cartoon characters.

The 'will to be desired' places significance on an 'other' in the picture.  This means that women have need of a role and a script, because there needs to be a medium by which to express feminine motives.  Tracy Clark-Flory writes of Meana:

Tracy Clark-Flory wrote:At one point in the book, researcher Marta Meana shows you a pair of joke control panels — one with an on-off switch, the other with tons of knobs. These were meant to represent male and female desire. Is female sexuality really that much more complicated that male sexuality?

The 'love story' is perhaps the oldest and simplest of expressions of female desire, because it deals with the female need for desire.  Quite often it has a happy ending ("...and they lived happily ever after"), and sometimes it takes a tragic twist (For Whom the Bell Tolls).  The standard TV sitcom is a pejorative form of this format, inevitably ending with a feminine victory amid the stumbling, fumbling foibles of the male counterpart.  It is a comic play on female empowerment.

This is the same empowerment that we witness being sought in the way women act, including the way they dress.  Just as costumes and makeup would be props in a play, they are props in the scripts of women's lives.

nicko wrote:Talking about make up,      I used to love that pale pink lipstick on a sun tanned face, is that bad?

nicko wrote:Talking about make up,      I used to love that pale pink lipstick on a sun tanned face, is that bad?

Syl wrote:If I wanted the views of the literary greats or professional writers I wouldn't be discussing anything with you at all Quill.

This is a forum, where hopefully people share their own opinions and views.....you entered the thread so I was polite enough to read and answer your posts...that's the interest I am showing, nothing more nothing less.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:If I wanted the views of the literary greats or professional writers I wouldn't be discussing anything with you at all Quill.

This is a forum, where hopefully people share their own opinions and views.....you entered the thread so I was polite enough to read and answer your posts...that's the interest I am showing, nothing more nothing less.

I really don't care about you, Syl...nor your bony arse or ante-gum chin.  Stop trying to lecture people on what they should write.  I would prefer you not "read and answer" my posts because, frankly, I've never know you at add anything of value to any discussion.

Has anyone posted these two?

eddie wrote:What's an "ante-chin gum"? I googled it bit found nothing!

Syl wrote:

Jules wrote:

It is.
FACT!
Power dressing is a thing.
Granted those ridiculous shoulder pads are long gone. 

Shouting FACT doesn't make it so.
In any case you have misread what I said. Dressing nicely and applying make up is what most women do because they want to look and feel nice. I do it to please myself....as I suspect do most women.

Power dressing is another thing altogether.....and imo most women who dress this way do it because their job requires them to.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:If I wanted the views of the literary greats or professional writers I wouldn't be discussing anything with you at all Quill.

This is a forum, where hopefully people share their own opinions and views.....you entered the thread so I was polite enough to read and answer your posts...that's the interest I am showing, nothing more nothing less.

I really don't care about you, Syl...nor your bony arse or ante-gum chin.  Stop trying to lecture people on what they should write.  I would prefer you not "read and answer" my posts because, frankly, I've never know you at add anything of value to any discussion.

Has anyone posted these two?

nicko wrote:Talking about make up,      I used to love that pale pink lipstick on a sun tanned face, is that bad?

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:

Shouting FACT doesn't make it so.
In any case you have misread what I said. Dressing nicely and applying make up is what most women do because they want to look and feel nice. I do it to please myself....as I suspect do most women.

Power dressing is another thing altogether.....and imo most women who dress this way do it because their job requires them to.

The caplocks was for only emphasis, not shouting.  Only one word was caplocked and that is usually my limit.

I'm a long way behind those  who routinely use the upper case in their posts, sometimes for full sentences.

The term 'power dressing' was coined for a reason, it's not a myth.

Beauty aids (in its many guises) confer power in the boardroom and bedroom.

This is why some feminists refuse the whole high heel, lipstick, big hair thing.

But hey it all boils down to opinion and personal preferences, we all do our own thing,  no hard and fast rules.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Or my personal favourite...

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I really don't care about you, Syl...nor your bony arse or ante-gum chin.  Stop trying to lecture people on what they should write.  I would prefer you not "read and answer" my posts because, frankly, I've never know you at add anything of value to any discussion.

Has anyone posted these two?

Odd that since I joined here you have gone out of your way to communicate by answering in depth my threads and posts then.
So....I translate the above to mean "She has sussed out what a phony I am".....

eddie wrote:What's an "ante-chin gum"? I googled it bit found nothing!

Wiki wrote:med·i·cal
ˈmedək(ə)l/
adjective
of or relating to the science of medicine, or to the treatment of illness and injuries.
"a medical center"
of or relating to conditions requiring medical but not surgical treatment.
"he was transferred for further treatment to a medical ward"

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Odd that since I joined here you have gone out of your way to communicate by answering in depth my threads and posts then.
So....I translate the above to mean "She has sussed out what a phony I am".....

I answer many if not most posts "in depth".  It's not always about you.  While you are a groomer, looking to curry favor of others; I am an analyzer, looking for deeper meaning or cause in things.  

The real difference is that you are one of those who all too quickly turns any difference into a personal assault.  Perhaps you ought to look into that "in depth".

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:



I answer many if not most posts "in depth".  It's not always about you.  While you are a groomer, looking to curry favor of others; I am an analyzer, looking for deeper meaning or cause in things.  

The real difference is that you are one of those who all too quickly turns any difference into a personal assault.  Perhaps you ought to look into that "in depth".

A groomer?
I don't curry favour with anyone....take me or leave me.

Syl wrote:You don't analyse....you bore with endless pseudo intellectual  waffle.
I enjoy differences, you are the one who turned various exchanges into personal insults not me...something has rattled your cage, perhaps you ought to look into that 'in depth' .

Original Quill wrote:

Wiki wrote:med·i·cal
ˈmedək(ə)l/
adjective
of or relating to the science of medicine, or to the treatment of illness and injuries.
"a medical center"
of or relating to conditions requiring medical but not surgical treatment.
"he was transferred for further treatment to a medical ward"

Wiki wrote:wi·ki
ˈwikē/
noun
a website that allows collaborative editing of its content and structure by its users.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

A groomer?
I don't curry favour with anyone....take me or leave me.

Yes you do.  From a superficial nod on a thread about a cute dog, to a gathering with your tag-teamers, you are always building your alliances.  That is your main purpose here. I enjoy your chatty small talk at times, but when you gather for a growl you can be quite vicious.  And you don't build that in a day...I see you grooming others for gang warfare all the time.

I admit that a lot of my posts are about boring subjects and can be far too tedious.  But they are meant for people who are interested.  Others should skip them.  Some posters like "in-depth" discussions, others put them aside.

Syl wrote:You don't analyse....you bore with endless pseudo intellectual  waffle.
I enjoy differences, you are the one who turned various exchanges into personal insults not me...something has rattled your cage, perhaps you ought to look into that 'in depth' .

See?  You are on a rant right now.  This whole conversation started about an innocent topic of psychology....perhaps boring, but no acrimony.  But you've turned it into a rant, because I presume you don't like the subject and me.

Perhaps you might take a look at a thread about "Trump throws Latino voters under the bus...", in the US Politics section, and see how to avoid turning a discussion into acrimony.  You sure are not talking about psychology now.

Syl wrote:I find the psychology of humans to be very interesting, I'm not an expert and don't pretend to be, but when discussing certain aspects of behaviour I prefer to discuss it with people who are offering their OWN opinions not forever falling back on literary works of distinction....which I think is what started your huff off in the first place.

Syl wrote:If I wanted the views of the literary greats or professional writers I wouldn't be discussing anything with you at all Quill.

This is a forum, where hopefully people share their own opinions and views.....you entered the thread so I was polite enough to read and answer your posts...that's the interest I am showing, nothing more nothing less.

Syl wrote:Odd that since I joined here you have gone out of your way to communicate by answering in depth my threads and posts then.
So....I translate the above to mean "She has sussed out what a phony I am".....

Jules wrote:I'm new here and I like both of you,  Syl and Quill. It looks more like a personality clash between you two, than serious acrimony. I hope you both resolve your differences eventually. x

Syl wrote:Just to refresh Quills memory....these are comments he has made on this one thread alone of accusing me of 'grooming' other posters.
I object to this as it's 100% untrue.
He is of course entitled to his opinion, so as he is so convinced I would like to know which  posters I am luring into my wicked web.  

While you are a groomer.....

I see you grooming others for gang warfare all the time.

you are always building your alliances. That is your main purpose here.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Just to refresh Quills memory....these are comments he has made on this one thread alone of accusing me of 'grooming' other posters.
I object to this as it's 100% untrue.
He is of course entitled to his opinion, so as he is so convinced I would like to know which  posters I am luring into my wicked web.  

While you are a groomer.....

I see you grooming others for gang warfare all the time.

you are always building your alliances. That is your main purpose here.

Any questions?  

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Now why should I trust you to know more about women than I do Quill?
Being one myself (unlike yourself) I KNOW why women (the majority) like to dress up and wear make up....and sorry to dampen your enthusiasm to look for ulterior motives, but we do it to look and feel good about ourselves.

There can be side effects in looking so damn fabulous, but if it draws men to us thus giving us power in that way, that says more about the men than the women.

The knowledge is not limited to women, but to mankind.  So neither of us are gender-qualified experts.

You mention attraction of men, and that brings up sex.  Researchers have found that sexual attraction in men is direct and spontaneous...hence they are visual.  But for women, the attractor is to be desired:

Daniel Bergner wrote:Marta Meana brings up [one element of female sexuality], and which I think is very compelling, is this idea that the feeling of being desired is a very powerful one, a very electrical one. And I think at least at the fantasy level, that sense of being wanted, and being wanted beyond the man’s self-control is also really powerful.

This, the female sexuality, is more complex in that it necessarily involves the cognitive presence of an "other" person, who is needed to be the admirer.  Hence female porn takes the form of Harlequin novels, and not just pictures.  Female fantasy goes more by scripts, than simple visual queues.

This is probably an adaptive feature built into women for self-preservation, plus it dovetails with their need to attract a mate for procreation.  To accomplish their needs women become manipulative, in the sense that a scriptwriter becomes manipulative.  Women use their attractiveness.  But the goal is not just abstract attractiveness; to get it done, women must get "beyond the man’s self-control".  That's a need for power.  Men have the strength factor, but women need the attraction factor to really get the job done.  And by that, I mean POWER (manipulation of others).

So, a woman who dresses to the nines is looking for power.