when the issue in question is something that people are all aware of. Same with going commando for men's health charities
If you want to do a breast/testicular cancer awareness campaign, do a "check your breasts / balls" campaign.
But ultimately no point in getting het up that it does basically nothing for anyone in need.
I thought it was like the ones that those celebrities did for Children in Need
dont even seem to be mentioning the breast cancer awareness bit.
pointless, but harmless and not something i can bring myself to get angry at
i cant help but think that for some people on my facebook at least its an excuse for them to post a picture fishing for compliments on how good they look without makeup.;
(might have accidentally this'll it though)
Everyone needs a bit of validation sometimes, but I think there's something a bit unhealthy about continually seeking it. Which is what you sometimes get with selfies.
I think relying on any one thing for validation can be unhealthy. Facebook is full of this: "look at my children / choice of holiday destination / car / house / taste in music and culture / food", so it's not a dig at selfies, per se.
As Au Revoir Simone said, only you can make you happy.
But we are complex human beings. Boasting about your amazing vinyl collecton on DiS might also be added into your list. Horses for courses. What I can't bear (and I'm not saying you are doing this) is sneering at people for what they have to do to bolster their own personal self esteem. because it is just that- personal to them, and unless causing them mental illness or dependancy issues, probably not all that 'unhealthy' to them.
there's a real edge to a lot of the criticism that has made my skin crawl. Far far more of it than you'd ever get for pink ribbons, and nastier and different to "lol movember bellends". Not lumping you in with that, CCB.
Also can I just have a bit of a scream about how "selfies" seem to have become such A Thing when people have been doing it and not making A Thing out of it for years ok good.
I wasn't intending to be sneering or nasty. I know you acknowledge that in your posts, PO/FC :)
selfies without make up for validation, fine, selfies without make up for validation whilst trying to enforce that it's really for cancer, not fine at all.
not a lot of people know that
he was talking about his job in the upselling thread and seemed fine.
I didn't notice the account at all until it popped up to complain about the mods in the deletion thread. Weird one.
and I wasn't complaining about the mods, I just wanted clarification over if and when they can delete threads.
it's an excuse for people to post more egotistical selfies, and a bit 'wacky', while masquerading as doing something for a good cause.
Any photo must also be accompanied by some self disparaging comments, then also added to by their friends with "no u look gorge hun" type comments while they make some half-arsed attempt to bat away any compliments, which in turn of course encourages more.
but the above seems incredibly ugly. what the hell do you care?
That and most of the people doing it are dickheads.
No, leave it up babez u look gr8
for someone who doesn't care.
Which is why I hardly put anything up on there
posting inflammatory comments on an internet messageboard is super attention-seeky too.
Maybe because it's something that is affected me personally recently, but I also doubt you'll find many people with cancer posting these pictures, because you know, it doesn't do anything to help anything.
have had people close to us die from cancer and we all find it a bit... I don't know. It's not insulting because I know a fair lot of these people doing it have their heart in the right place but all the people I've seen do it are the ones who take vain selfies of themselves every other day so it seems like the only difference this time is they've slapped a cancer hashtag on it.
It just seems a little in poor taste for those who seem to be doing it for an excuse to take more overly-filtered instagram selifes.
who are genuinely doing it for cancer (had people post with signs, hashtags and links about donating to cancer research and information on checking yourself) I respect them because it's clear they're not just taking ANOTHER selfie with no make up.
Quite a number have popped up on my feed with no mention of cancer. I guess it's like the neck nomination (I didn't even know that was cancer until someone mentioned it in this thread).
I just don't want to purpose of all this to get swept away by people who just want to scrub off their make up and show everyone their face for comments/attention.
if people wanna post pictures of themselves where they've got to control how they look, it's not necessarily "egotistical". maybe a bit insecure but then there's nothing wrong with feeling insecure about how you look. if it gives them more confidence then good for them. weird how much people react against selfies and "fishing for compliments", as if everyone should be totally demure and modest all the time and not try to feel good about themselves. why is it so different because you're the photographer? is it so different from people who get mega dolled up to go out dancing and spend half their night posing for photos? (also fine).
the only thing that annoys me about this is that 1. I can't see any actual connection to breast cancer and, like most charity awareness raising thing - ahhhem movember - it has nothing obvious to do with that cancer. 2. the idea that going without make-up is a better, more natural reflection of beauty.
everyone just back the fuck up
rather than it's impact on the human being?
Or am I just being a massive cynic?
I think the correct extent of cynicism is probably just that it came out of some meeting where people were fairly desperate for a gimmick to hook their campaign around.
but then someone's self-image, self-esteem, body confidence etc. are still part of them as a "human being".
people obviously think going without makeup' is slightly 'daring' or least a challenge or a sacrifice. like loads of other things that people do for charity or 'good causes'.
and runs specifically as fundraising activity.
Movember isn't solely an awareness organisation- it's also a fundraising and research one.
things that are "solely an awareness organisation"
That the thing being used as awareness for the cancer doesn't really relate to that cancer at all. It's like someone said, "I want an excuse to look like a total fucking penis because wearing a moustache *ironically* isn't my thing. I know why don't I tack some spurious feel-good bullshit onto the end of it?"
And it turns out tonnes of men are actually fucking awful penises who really really want to wear a stupid fucking moustache so now it's a registered charity dohicky...
"the only thing that annoys me about this is that 1. I can't see any actual connection to breast cancer "
thats the thing that most people are finding annoying about it isn't it?
all the other gratuitous cancer 'awareness-raising' stuff. like movember or wearing a pink ribbon or a rubber bangle.
As are the ribbons and bangles.
you're still wearing/doing something to show you've supported a cause. those people don't just donate money then keep that to themselves - it's also a public display of support and commitment to a cause (and 'awareness raising').
and encourage more people to buy ribbons/ daffodils/ bangles, thus raising more money for the cause.
is to get more people "talking about it" and all that stuff. I just don't see why this 'campaign' not necessarily being about fundraising means it has less of a connection to breast cancer than e.g. growing a moustache has to testicular cancer (which is what this subsubthread is about). one is about raising awareness (good aim). another is about raising awareness and also funds (good aims). both involve something visual which is totally unconnected to cancer.
that there might be mnoire than one purpose. Indeed I said 'one of its purposes'. You'll be wel aware that charities cannot survive without donations and unless they are *purely* informatoin disseminaton vehicles, which very few are, then raising cash will always be one of their main purposes. You are cleverer than this so much as it pains me to say it, I can only agree with CG that you're being deliberately obtuse on this.
Jordan_2229424524 took issue with something I said. I explained what I think.
I didn't say that you thought there was more than one purpose. I think you've still missed my point. I don't think charities shouldn't use these 'visual' things like bangles and all that to raise money, I totally get why they do that, duh. But I don't see more/less of a connection with cancer. When so much of the criticism of the selfie thing seems to be "wtf does this have to do with cancer??", it's a fair point to make.
come on, man.
and yet opened it at work anyway
but hair growth and naked faced vulnerability are both broadly recognised, common heuristics for cancer treatment and patients
perhaps the same people?
the first thread i searched for seems to have similar sentiments? and i've heard a lot of people say the same, and had them say it to me when i was fundraising.
for me there's a nastier edge to the "urgh look at this attention-seeking wimmins" criticism than the "urgh dickhead LADs" shit that we give the movember types, as well as more of an insinuation that they're just doing it to make themselves look good.
But granted, this is a tough place to claim nobody gives movember any shit!
think criticism of both campaigns/movements/whatevers are equally pointless though.
what bothers me more is that Movember bitching is "look at these dickhead LADs being plums", which is a bit mean as they're raising money for charity, but that's about all. Whereas this stuff seems to range from either just straight-up trashing women's looks to at best chewing them out for being "vain" or "attention seeking" which for a range of reasons I find nastier.
but if you have then i get your point, aye.
If I go into a movember thread on DiS from the past I can all but guarantee you'll have been at the forefront of giving everyone shit. If I'm wrong, fair dos and I'll buy you a lobster to say sorry.
I don't specifically remember bitching about movember but its certainly something I could have done
I will take the lobster though (not from Big Easy it was well overdone and rubbery)
somehow the immense levels of shit one charity effort gets every year was somehow more justified than the shit given to the one currently littering over everyone's feeds right now?
Perhaps I read that wrong. I just think, in general, that people having a moan about any charity efforts *should just fuck off*
Ultimately I agree that giving people shit for charity efforts is bad form. I do feel that what we're seeing here is nastier than the movember stuff. I'd feel comfortable having a bit of a moan about how bellendy some MB efforts are, though I don't really think they are terrible humans and have donated money to people's mb campaigns.
OK I think that should sufficiently suck the fun out of everything
And yeah okay, I can see why it's nasty in what the underlying criticism seems to be. Especially since, really, you see this bollocks of CLICK LIKE TO HATE AIDS stuff every day and no one kicks up. Notable enough that women posting minus makeup causes some real cryfests.
I don't see that at all? The Movember thing I find attention seeking, 'whacky' and annoying too but at least it actually does some good in raising money.
Which is insane because in his night-shift job as Dave Miliband's stunt double his political savvy is significantly less impressive.
in a selfie such a big deal? there are plenty of photos of me online with no makeup on, so I'm a bit baffled really.
Also not sure how it raises awareness- surely everyone knows about breast cancer. Maybe posting a video of you doing a self examniation would be brave and vaguely helpful, but looking at my tired coupon- probably not going to cause any great awareness breakthroughs.
1. In addition to seeing quite a few of these seflies on my feed today, I have also seen a few people posting patronising rants like 'what has this got to do with cancer, you're all sheeple. No make up selfie = useless in the fight against cancer. Ranting about people who do no make-up selfies= equally useless in the fight against cancer. Both sides are just playing a role in the same useless game.
2. to follow, I need to go and vom. BRB.
and we've just made it worse :(
so, my next poiunt. I am more put out/ perturbed/ puzzed/ other things that begin with P that it assume sthat all women will find this a massive challenge. Some people who are never seen without makeup undoubtedly will, but that makes me sad that the default poisition is that our esteem and body image is dependant on that.
Right, I really am going to vom now. BRB.
then presumably the 'message' is to raise awareness about examination. I was actually discussing this last night as at dinner we were seated next to a table of oncologists who confirmed to me what I had been told by my own doctor (and which I still refuse to believe- I still do self exam at least once a month). But here it is- the evidence shows that the only thing that routine breast self examination achieves is unnecessary biopsy. It doesn't increase chance of survival at all, just increased level of biopsies. Big studies apparently support this statement. there do seem to be mixed messages about what you're meant to do and I don't know anymore.
awareness and fundraising drives, because a lot of them do run off the back of slight misinformation. It's arguable done for the greater good but the simple truth is that we will never beat cancer, and one of the reason cancer rates (and cancer-related mortality rates) continue to climb is that we're actually getting pretty good at detecting and treating it.
Bold statement (even allowing for nuance of opinion as to what `beating cancer` actually means).
I worked for 13 months in cancer research and my feeling when I came away from it was 'we will never beat cancer'. It's such a heterogeneous disease with so many different causes, and it's basically just a consequence of having cells that are able to self replicate.
I think DK's statement should be amended to 'we will never beat cancer until we invent tiny robots that can move freely through our organs identifying and destroying nascent tumours'.
CANCER ZAPPING SQUAD, ASSEMBLE
based on the facts of what cancer is, which you have rightly defined. But, who knows. Think of the advances in medical science over the last 100 years... even in the last 10 years in treating AIDS. Remarkable things happen.
But yeah, totally get the feeling of deflation when faced with the enormity of the task.
researchers who are really passionate and dedicated to the cause. A lot of them work most weekends for no extra pay. In the face of the fact that most prospective cancer drugs don't get anywhere close to market too. Great bunch o' lads/lasses.
is the talk of 'fighting', 'beating', 'battling' cancer. it's a medical condition, why can't we be objective and scientific when it comes to our discussions about it rather than referring to it as some crusading enemy that must be crushed.
if you've ever watched a cancer patient go through chemo and radio, it is a fucking fight to the death (or not). make no mistake about that. I don't think it's very fair to expect people to be unemotive about this kind of thing when it affects so many (although I do have some sympathy for your view!)
1. Don't want to 'fight'
2. Aren't able to 'fight'
3. Don't win the 'fight'
It suggests that beating cancer is due to being 'strong' and I don't think that's in any way true, or fair.
In general however I've got no issue with patients viewing something as horrendous as cancer and the treatments they might choose to have as a fight or battle.
However as a medical researcher I get really annoyed with charities and the government referring to "we want to beat cancer", "your money will help us cure cancer" etc etc... we need to take small, incremental steps towards improving the wellbeing of people with all medical conditions - rather than exploiting people out of fear to cough up cash on the promise of it 'going to find a cure'. I have a lot of issues with medical "charities" but I'll leave that for another day.
you get annoyed with charities using language such as `we want to beat cancer` even though that messaging helps actually generate more money to fund the research that you do? Interesting.
People aren't exploited out of fear, in these instances. People WANT to give money to help find `a cure for cancer` (however loosely and flawedly that is defined) and I don't think that charities are being disingenuous, as a rule, for raising money off the back of that messaging.
however it's probably true that all funding is indirectly influenced by the awareness campaigns run by charities.
Cancer get's priority funding (and even gets an 'inefficient' allocation of funding in the NHS (see the Cancer Drugs Fund)) because it's a vote winner, at the expense of other conditions or areas where research can have a big benefit.
People WANT to give money to find a 'cure' because they DON'T WANT to die from cancer, or see friends and family suffer. However societal preferences (from dozens of massive studies) for the ways in which people would choose to be treated or 'experience' the end of life are very different from the messages that people with a vested interest (charities, David Cameron, pharma etc) portray when it comes to 'fighting' cancer and living for as long as possible.
I think this is getting a bit removed from the point I was originally trying to make, which is that I think it's trite to say to people that having cancer is a fight (for many they will view it like that and that's fine) because not everyone wants to or can fight, and it can imply to a great many people that don't 'win the fight' that it's due to a lack of strength - or a lack of research/medical resources (and all the issues that come from pumping loads of toxic drugs into people with little hope of any improvement of quality or quantity of life).
Plenty of points to be made about causes being deserving of funding etc. Cancer absolutely cleans up but would the amount of money spent on it be better spent elsewhere? Probably. For instance it's getting to the stage now where it's literally only money that's stopping researchers getting to a `cure` for most forms of hearing loss and deafness. From what I've heard within the medical community is is very much `when` and not `if` effective treatments for hearing loss will be given a route to market. I mean - that's incredible. Incredible. And it's literally money which is stopping it from happening sooner.
So, yeah, plenty of debate as to whether or not cancer deserves the funding it gets vs. the effectiveness of the overall mission etc.
mild to severe hearling loss
and, in turn, emotive language has been used in campaigns around it. Because that's how the public speak about it.
Fundraising campaigns don't work on an `objective and scientific` level alone. They work on an emotional one. CRUK's recent campaigns have actually been pretty good at doing both - i.e. using the emotive language whilst also using stats to back it up (e.g. because of research x% more people survive x cancer owing to advances in x treatment).
Understand it can rankle at times, but there's a reason for its use.
I just think it's trite and misleading.
Also, the 'deaths avoided' stats really need to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
As a general rule though - it's what the public understand and it's what works.
And yep - fully believing of the fact that there are some pretty ropey stats used in support of claims. That isn't to say that research hasn't had some belting gains in treating patients though. Finding a way to put it for the public to understand is a challenge.
I think you're right in that it's what the public understands, but sadly I think it forces a message that 'active' medical care for old people with advanced cancer is the only option.
instead of hiding behind mealy-mouthed language like "urgh, fishing for compliments".
Means you automatically think they're ugly too. Great to know
It has reminded me I need to get a family history cancer clinic checkup though :(
Some odd comments in this thread re:
`Well everyone knows about breast cancer so why raise awareness of it`
Two things: a) breast cancer is very visible partly off the back of decades of very well managed public health awareness raising campaigns through a variety of methods. So, y'know, they work. b) maintenance of awareness raised is just as important as raising the initial awareness amongst the public in the first place.
Not denying that there's probably more causes and cancers that are worth raising awareness of that need the airtime (skin for instance) but, y'know, breast cancer's an emotive topic and one which permeates public discourse so... y'know.
the campagn hasn't really been well managed. In the 90s it was all about checking your tits regularly when we are now learning that NO WE ARE TO STOP BEING HYSTERICAL because all the tit-checking campaign has done is have tens of thousands of women running to the breast clinic for unecessary biopsies on common fatty lumps. I'd actually say the campaign is in a state of flux.
Anyway, I won't be doing the selfie, but I won't be criticising anybody who does because i'm not a cunt.
agree with that - there's a difference between `the information/awareness being raised needs to be of better quality` and `the information/awareness doesn't need to be raised because everyone knows about it` (which is what my first point was). But, yes, absolutely. Awareness raising isn't always a good thing in and of itself.
Also, is that actually true?? Whilst there will have been an upsurge in women panicking about lypomas which turn out to be completely benign, isn't the line from the medical world to ALWAYS get any irregularity checked out? Sure it causes inefficiencies but inefficiencies > deaths... Also, I remember a few years ago Dr. Christian doing a campaign which showed (to me) that there are still a lot of women who don't know how to examine their breasts fully and properly so... still seems a bit of work to be done.
tl;dr as always but, yes, fully agree that better QUALITY of information being out there is always good.
but they are essentially a nonsense. I don't think it's fair to accuse anyone participating of willfully seeking attention or being egotistical, but that isn't to say that they aren't buying in to a phenomena that is broadly attention-seeking and egotistical.
it makes them feel better about themselves and/or it makes them feel good in the eyes of others.
Any campaign that exploits this for wider charitable benefit is fine by me
if most people doing this would also post a link to a breast cancer charity.
were different from "fundraising" campaigns
maybe you could knock up an email or something
This does neither of us any good
cancer of them old breasticles
from last year. Don't agree with premise entirely as at the very least it does spread awareness on a superficial level but can't help but feel that participating in such things is more or less self-serving in that it requires little to no effort on the part of the individual to actually engage with the highlighted cause.
though by checking i have found out someone i went to primary school with is now an Australian papparazzo currently stalking Mick Jagger
about the pointlessness of 'raising awareness' comparing it to someone seeing someone get hurt then telling other people that someone is hurt rather than doing something to actually help. but he makes it funny and there are swears. i sort of agree.
I mean unless you have data that awareness campaigns are actually useless.
don't agree with much or anything that he says but that isn't really the point
There's also a lot of dismissive comments about the effectiveness of awareness ITT.
From my experience of doing stuff at uni, awareness campaigns can lay the building blocks for people to come more active.
Essentially, there's this thing called "Spectrum of Allies" and the philosophy of that is you have active allies and active opponents, and in the middle you have neutrals. The point of awareness campaigns is to target the neutrals who otherwise wouldn't have thought about doing something before, rather than just making them aware of something they're already fully aware of.
Cancer Research UK have received over 50,000 text donations from this and the website traffic has increased 400%. So it's not all just nonsensical attention seeking.
where people changed their profile picture for awareness of child abuse or something like that.
Anyway, I posted something all self-righteous like "fuck this, I'm not changing my pic to a cartoon. I'll set up a DD with the NSPCC instead".
So maybe these campaigns work in that they spur people into action by the medium of pissing them off!
that i'm bummed that people don't like doug stanhope.
my girlfriend has had cancer many times over the years and survived against the odds - she currently has the all clear i'm pleased to say. she feels campaigns like this are patronising and self-satisfied and have very little effect in terms of helping people with cancer. so there we are.
might there be a bit of "well if i do this trivial thing i don't have to do anything real" about it?
it's hard to argue with El's numbers just upthread though.
* 50,000 texts in what period of time?
* what is the usual number for that period of time?
* what amount are these donations in comparison to the typical average?
* bit weird its exactly 50,000
there you go.
also a text donation doesn't provide data on the reason for that donation
just an awareness one.
Text BEAT to 70099 to donate £3 from your mobile.
I've not seen a Campaign code/name for this make-up thing. Seems hard to prove how donations have been affect from this campaign/awareness thing (whatever you want to call it).
someone needs fired.
but feel free to go full Moker here, it's obvs impossible to prove one way or the other without insder knowledge.
and now we're getting loads. The 50k+ is just from today, which I can assure you is a lot more than usual and there is nothing else out there that could be behind this increase. If this one bit of "nonsense" means we have more money to spend on beating cancer then it's pretty laughable and a bit pathetic to be cynical about it really.
fidel is wrong in some way here, i'm just not sure which.
I just know that we've got tens of thousands more donations than usual and it's almost certainly because of this. If you want to trawl the internet and find out which other massive social media trends the CRUK donation number is appearing in right now then be my guest.
can we trust his opinion?
Things like this and Dryathlon and Movember etc engage people who wouldn't usually align with any kind of cause, in these cases that's beating cancer. While I don't doubt slacktivism is a thing and people do it just for attention or to feel they've made a difference with minimal effort, you do also end up with loads of people who DO engage and end up supporting a cause they might never have otherwise.
also sort of struck by the realisation that all the people saying "lol look at these people just doing a thing to feel better about themselves" are pretty clearly doing this to feel better about themselves, no? *moker face*
...and you are saying that about those people because...?
(which I'm sure is the same reason you asked me that question ;) )
people being cynical
eltham pointing out cynicism is misplaced.
people still being cynical
let me know when antelope points it out.
but it sounds like a pretty stupid idea really
but then there are lots of stupid ideas so
i retract my statement
good work make up less selfie takers!
Pretty incredible. And people are donating to other charities too. DiS really misses the mark sometimes eh.
but I think the overwhelming majority (To be fair I've only seen 4 or 5 and they have all done this) are posting pictures with links and text numbers, which can only be good, right?
All this super horrible cynicism that we should all feel terrible about because there's been a massive spike in text donations to Cancer Research UK in the last day or so ... How much is the super horrible cynicism specifically the reason that people have been donating?
All anecdotal innit, but yesterday morning I had maybe a dozen people in my feed posting makeup-less selfies. Literally no mention of donations.
A few hours later, my feed was full of people decrying the pointlessness of posting selfies, posting links to ways to donate or articles that did the same.
A little while later, and my feed had a fair few people posting selfies and then mentioning donations.
I'd happily wager that super horrible cynicism was at the root of loads of donations, and likely shamed a fair few people into donating themselves.
That's what it keeps coming back to.
Just defending my right to be a cynical splash whenever the hell I want
(I'm doing this now if anyone wants to shove a few quid in the tin)
I think a lot of those doing it early on were the types that had to be the first to jump on board the new social networking craze without really thinking about what it was for. I guess they got it out there, at least.
Some people I know who are always caked in make-up look much more attractive without it.
but there wouldn't have been anything to be cynical about in the first place if people hadn't started doing it.
I think it's wonderful- the cog of nauseating earnestness greased by the wheel of monotonous cynicism. That's team work.
but there's a lot work been done to say that the more obnoxious and "boastful" people are in sharing information about what they've donated, the more other people in turn donate, no?
I'm a big believer in the fundraising power of shame.
where fundraisers massively increased donations by say "on our last call, [name] donated [highamount], now what can we put you down for?"
I will never, ever give money to a company that tries to guilt me with a talking fucking puppy though.
for cancer compared to like, strokes and heart attacks?
Not for the purposes of starting an argument, just because it's sort of weird and interesting. Please note, I have no figures to back anything up, so don't ask.
Post a picture of yourself mast ... Actually, just give them the money.
there could be a cure to work towards for cancer?
just wanted to keep all the dickheads tied up in this thread for a bit longer
Cancer as a disease is always mutating. You can stop it in its tracks but it will often come back.
Stroke, e.g., doesn't have a cure as such, but there are pioneering new techniques in development just now which can reverse the effects completely or almost completely in a great many cases, to restore motor function and other functoins which can be lost if not treated. More funding is needed for these though.
or taking photos of themselves for whatever reason. Or whether they wear make-up or not. Or whether people feel insecure without make-up or not.
What is really pissing me off today is seeing men posting 'You all look so beautiful without make-up girls! You don't need make-up anyway, you look much better without it.' I even saw some guy on my Facebook saying 'I think make-up often aggravates the skin problems it is intended to cover up.' FUCK RIGHT OFF. I choose to wear make-up to decorate my face. I like to co-ordinate sparkly eyeshadow colours with my outfit each day. Wearing make-up makes me feel smart and ready for the day. I often go out without it but I don't feel as fancy then. I appreciate that people wear it or not wear it for a whole variety of reasons, and that everyone has personal preferences about make-up styles they like to look at, but I don't need some dickhead implying (One Direction-style) that I'd look much more beautiful without make-up and I just need to stop feeling insecure.
obviously it's cool for people to compliment underneath the photos and tell the person in the picture that they look nice! But to write Facebook statuses telling 'women' as a group that they look better without make-up and they should all wear less of it is top level bellendery.
People aren't instantly recognising Simpsons quotes
if I've seen guntrip post them a million times on here! I've seen an average amount of Simpsons episodes I reckon, but don't know many quotes.
I was sort of thinking the other day about how it would pan out in some alternate universe where guys wore makeup. Clearly we'd have massively geeky what-car style magazine that exhaustively listed and ranked all current types/brands of makeup, magazine shows dedicated to it, etc etc.
I'm just the most fun sometimes huh
a lot of nerdery about matt finishes and the like! And chemical composition analysis.
BAM! 15 MEN'S LIPSTICKS THAT HELP YOU LIFT
SMASH! TOP 10 MAN FOUNDATIONS THAT ENHANCE YOUR BEARD
BOOM! COCK ENHANCING CONCEALERS THAT WILL HAVE YOU JIZZING OVER NINE HEDGES
I agree though. Anything meaning charities get money is on the whole is good. And this cleverly plays up to people's need to seek validation, to show off on Facebook (so many women clearly posting the best of 25 selfies in different poses and lighting where it's "oh I just snapped myself and posted it" so it kinda defeats the object in the first place). But of course, it does also mean it's undeniably irritating.
It's almost as bad as all those "what game of thrones / planet / peep show character / total twat are you?" quizzes that people are taking then sharing on FB.
The comments from men in my feed (I sooo need to do a friends clear out0 have been distinctly either
1. what you say above. Smarmy and patroning. or
2. making reference to the fact they hadn't realised how many swamp hogs they had amongst their female friends- 'GET IT BACK ON GIRLS, YA HOWLERS' is what one particular dick said. Amusingly, he got called out by his mum on the comments thread, who said 'Paul, this is rich coming from you as I remember shortly after giving birth to you, the midvies were trying to push you back inside.' OWNED By yer maw.
that's amazing :DDD
You always get one or two attention-starved jokers trying to start their own, which fizzles out in a couple of days?
Over the last couple of days I've seen 'ballnominate' (get your scrotums out for testicular cancer awareness or something) and a 'socks on cocks' one (cue lardy tosspot naked apart from eponymous sock). I should really stop going on FB at work.
Irish relatives FUCKING LOVE this kind of shit
is this extra revenue because, given they have annual donations of about £500m, a £1m day isn't unusual
in terms of purely unsolicited donations from the public. Most of CRUK's money comes from a combination of Race for Life, money left by people in their will, grants and direct debits. The idea that charities just receive millions every day by people calling/texting in is a nonsense.
That and the bloke here who works for CRUK has mentioned upthread that it's `extra` income so... there you go.
save for a sock.
please god, no.
I for one will be donating.
(a fairly large friend of mine who is covered in ridiculous tattoos), the second one was just some guy showing off.
were just buff gym-bod guys showing off.
also men with makeup on.
I don't have an issue with them or the 'campaign' but it feels a bit pressurey(?) to nominate people to give to charity.
I'm not stingy but i'm quite targetted in how I spend the money I put aside for charities and I hate feeling pushed into it. I haven't donated anything because I already give to this charity. I might make a spontaneous donatoin to another one instead, and at least feel like i have a degree of self determination left.
...this thing hasn't come from a particular charity. Fuck knows where it's come from. But I've seen CRUK, Breast Cancer Care and Breakthrough all using social media to encourage donations to their causes...
I guess that people have been mostly tagging CRUK in their posts is because they're the biggest ones I suppose.
I know. it was nice that CRUK posted some thank yous on FB. They must have been like WTF?
I'll maybe do one to marie curie, which is the palliative charity. They looked after my grandma.
which you have a personal connection with/affectation for is always a wise move :)
then leave a comment saying "Wow you're so much more beautiful without makeup #truebeauty"
when i actually do go without makeup, people say stuff like "you look tired" "are you ill?" etc.
also hate the assumption that women only wear make-up to look good for men/other people. even if i'm just sitting in my house eating doughnuts all day I prefer to have make-up on cause it makes me feel better. in the same way I wear clothes that I like FOR ME.
is that a thing?
it's crap seeing so many people telling you you shouldn't do something you enjoy.
its kinda how I feel. not annoyed at specific people or anything but the general attitude seems to be like "LOOK you don't need makeup after all!" as if I was only wearing it for pleasing other people or something.
you can where whatever the fuck you like on your own face, for whatever reason you like.
Not sure if that helps or not but, y'know.
That cool with you?
Nothing as incisive as disregarding the context something was said in to made a meaningless point. But inkeeping with the spirit of this thread, if it makes you feel better then you do whatever you like fella :)
really having to restrain myself from arguing with guys on Facebook telling women they're being conned by the make-up industry and that they should stop wearing it because it's a waste of money.
Re your first bit - my sister didn't wear make-up to work once because she was a bit tired after a festival, and she got sent home sick because she 'looked ill and pale' :D Good trick.
maybe ginger boys should start using a bit of slap?
*mental image: Tim Minchin*
ok forget that
just really different. sometimes I do think I look good without makeup but it's quite unusual. normally after getting a lot of sleep/exercise/couple of whiskeys.
appaz exercise and sleep helps but grumblegrumblegrumble
srsly, tightens everythign and reduces dark circles too.
wonder how pricey anusol is compared to these
and will shrink bags, but not circles.
Why would the make-up make you feel better? Is it not more comfortable to not wear it?
Some people even feel naked/vulnerable without it - it's about the decision of the person wearing it - no one else.
If someone has the confidence to roll out of bed, feel fabulous and face the day - that's great! But if someone else feels better after doing their hair and putting on make-up then that's great too.
I don't like lazing about in PJs when around the house, not even if I'm not going out. I guess it's similar to that. Speaking as a former teenage goth though, wearing make-up is quite physically uncomfortable...
I wouldn't wear it if it was!
My skin is red and has some spot scarring so it creates a nice even base and makes me look a nice healthy glowing colour rarther than very pale, all my red marks making me think I look crap (others may disagree but its my face) so if I think I look good, I feel 100 x better about myself...therefore more confident to talk to people etc.
It just changes your whole look! Its AMAZING. Some days I can have minimal eyes, some days I can have big eyes, some days my lips can look pale and thin, other days my lips can look beesting and colourful. It just has the ability to make me feel....pretty. I don't think i'm repulsive without make up and I 100% would and do go out the house without it on, but I don't feel myself around people I vaguely know without it on.
Its not more comfortable to go without it imo. Without make up, my skin is so dry and ew. I use a tinted moisturizer which helps hydrate my skin all day so it doesnt' get dry.
I don't HAVE to do my hair but I fucking LOVE doing my hair and having amazing hair makes me feel amazing.
Just feel better about myself having 'done' it.
whilst having to work around a beard?
asking for a friend.
just under the cheekbone, sweeping up gradually onto it and then a highlighter just above the countour of the cheekbone. then you kind of 'puff' a natural rosy shade with a big brush right onto the apple of your cheeks, then blend. It will look so cute with a beard.
See what U made me do?
I wanna look good 4 U
I always comb my hair
I wanna make it good 4 U
If I wear a dress
He will never call
So I'll wear much less
I guess I'll wear my camisole
Smoke a cigarette
I'm not ready yet
Smoke a cigarette
I'm not ready yet
went over how they wouldn't do it because they would 'look rough/dead/etc' and then both went through their friends on fb who had done it to show how bad people looked without make up.
I do not fit in here.
people are doing it in a vogue shoot kind of way, as in they still have a bit of foundation and some lip gloss but not the full bang
also a lot of moody lighting and waaaaaaaaaaaay too much 'loungewear'
Exmples of extreme cheating I have seen:
Holding a small pet up in front of your face
Wearing big glasses
dim light/ instagrma sepia shot
definite hint of tinted mnioisturiser and smudges of eyeliner on the vast majority.
Which is relaly all the moer depressing, because don't cheat at it if you're going to do it. the only plausible reasons for cheating are:
1. you wnat to take part but are super insecrure about doing it honestly or
2. you are a fucking narcissist who wnats people to go- omg you are still so pretty without makeup.
Thank god the fad has raised so much money because i still find every other thing about it completely depressing.
this can never be reiterated too many times
i wear pretty minimal/'natural'-looking makeup, to the extent that some people don't realise i even wear makeup, but i also feel exceptionally unattractive without it (even moreso now that i've seen how hot all my fbook friends look without makeup obv). above and beyond the general reasons of self-confidence etc discussed upthread, which i fully agree with, i want to acknowledge that there is also actually the fact that i want to get laid once in a while, and quite frankly i 100% refuse to believe that any of those 'GURLS U R SO PRETTIER NATURELLL' dudes would actually find me more attractive without makeup (whether i would want them to: different question). what they *actually* prefer is not makeupless faces. what they actually prefer is a) women who happen to be blessed with beautiful faces and good skin (because obviously), and b) women who manage to create the illusion of being blessed with beautiful faces and good skin WITHOUT making the grave mistake of ruining the illusion by being too obvious about all that boring girly beauty work that they have to put in to achieve that illusion. put the work in, but we don't wanna know about it.
but yeah basically i don't think there's anything inherently wrong with using makeup to make your face look a bit nicer EVEN IF one of the main reasons is to appeal to the sex of your preference. the problem is that it's only women who feel the need to/are expected to do so. there are definitely plenty of men who could look hotter with a bit of makeup.
Saying 'I'm doing it for me' is fine, like I said I used to be partial to a swipe of eyeshadow, but it does kind of gloss over the machinations of the beauty industry and the historical pressure for women to spend lots of time on personal grooming for societal acceptance, that you'd imagine modern women would prefer to be free of the shackles of. No?
those things are all important and deserve to be addressed, but the general point is that dudes going 'BUT YOU'RE ALL SO LOVELY WITHOUT MAKEUP' - when most of the time, what they realistically mean is 'i personally prefer women blessed with stunning natural beauty/i personally prefer my women in makeup that is not too obvious to the naked eye' - isn't particularly helpful or liberating
with an article i wrote years ago BECAUSE IT IS ENTIRELY RELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2011/12/in_defence_of_fake
don't stalk me plz
i mean i think its possible that men are just saying it to try to positively reinforce others, however misguided the way they do it might be? im not sure in the context of this 'movement' a man saying something like your quote (which people of 'both' sexes are writing on facebook) equates to them meaning theyre more sexually attracted to a woman when they dont wear make up. i could be well off the mark of course..
i'm going partly off stuff that's been mentioned in this thread - i absolutely don't think there's anything wrong with anyone giving individual compliments to people who've posted the selfies; i'm talking about wide sweeping pronouncements like (to quote nice_squirrel above) 'You all look so beautiful without make-up girls! You don't need make-up anyway, you look much better without it.'
(presumably partly because they themselves intend to continue wearing makeup so it would be a pretty hypocritical thing to say) - maybe you have, idk. i agree it's probably generally intended as well-meaning 'positive reinforcement' but i also think that in practical terms it's unhelpful and patronising. saying 'you look much better without it' is very directly putting it in terms of being more attracted to women - not one individual woman, ALL women - when they 'don't' wear makeup, which again as i've mentioned is probably largely bullshit; i'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say that the majority of those participating in this thing aren't the girls who have skin problems or other facial issues that they're deeply insecure about, and to make a false pronouncement about ALL WOMEN 'not needing' makeup isn't dead helpful for those of us who actually *would* be considered unattractive by those same people making the pronouncements
in regards to be it patronising. i dont agree with you completely on how negative you view the intent, nor it necessarily always being false, but i can appreciate how it could read and i dont have the experience of those statements being directed at me. my sentences go on for too long
being against the ridiculous capitalist machine that is the beauty industry per se, and make-up itself as a product.
As a matter of sexual fact, we all preen for the opposite sex in one way or another. Before makeup was around,. women would pinch their cheeks to increase the blood flow and bite their lips to make them swell and redded. (both being signs of sexual arousal in women and sublinial preening triggers.) Now make-up has moved on to fashion as well as sexual preening, and just as you might decide you want to dye your hair lilac (not known to bring the msle of the species running towardsd your ovum) you might decide that you like bright coral lips- a fashion statement which makes your face look bold, but not necessarily designed to mimic seduction, not being a natural shade.
I am a bit hungover and in a rush, but does that make any sense?
Feeling a certain way isn't really DOING something.
"Don't tell me what to do" comes across as railing against being ordered around, which the twat young boy's sign isn't doing.
even manages to make me irritated by his shit grammar which really don't care about in non-'formal' situations
too late to moker?
"What is true for animals may not hold for humans. This makes all of the billions of dollars spent on research virtually worthless because most cancer experiments are ran on animal models."
Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
It just gets more ridiculous as it goes along. And the comments underneath...
And I've seen a lot of the internet....
Like posting a photo of yourself without makeup is something to admire. My sister 'nominated' me for this and I just directed her towards all of the pictures I've ever been tagged in.
I didn't get nominated (people probably sense my seething resentment/I HAVE NAE PALS), however, like you, I don't wear makeup unless it's for a night out/special occasion and I rarely take 'selfies' (even hate the word) so this whole exercise seemed a bit patronising for the many women out there who don't wear makeup all the time/need a reason to photograph themselves without it.
Cock in a sock pic for testicular cancer. My brother just posted his (horrific) and nominated me. No chance in hell, pal.
quite enjoyed ^that
people have been accidentally adopting polar bears texting 'bear' instead of 'beat'