Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



jfpbookworm ([info]jfpbookworm) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2004-05-10 07:33:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
OMG UR A FEMUHNIST U MUST BE TEH UGLEE!!!!111!!!
jsl32 writes:

why do so many posters who complain about the emphasis society places on looking a certain way to be attractive often use highly flattering cam shots as their user icons? surely one wouldn't feel a pressing need to use lighting and angle to disguise presumed flaws in appearance.

by the same token, why do so many larger women use as their icons shots that disguise their true figure?


Lots of responses, but the wank hasn't erupted yet. Waiting for the original poster to return, at which time I suspect there will either be a frenzy of wank or a deleted post.


(Post a new comment)

my hed iz pasteded on yay!
[info]mydruthers
2004-05-10 04:43 pm UTC (link)
Eh, I think it's an interesting point. It does seem like a kind of contradiction to post about how society degrades women, etc etc, and then use an (photoshop) enhanced photo of oneself in makeup to represent oneself.

By that as it may, this debate reminds me a lot of Teh Crystal Wank. "OMG my hed iz pasteded on yay!" and possibly "My skinny iz pasteded on yay!"

(Reply to this)


[info]phosfate
2004-05-10 05:21 pm UTC (link)
So...people who use self-portrait icons should light their pictures from underneath, as though they're telling ghost stories? They should put their faces on their scanners to make extreme close-ups of their eye boogers? Do Gil Kane under-the-nostrils shots? What?

(Reply to this)

Uh huh.
[info]llama_treats
2004-05-10 08:09 pm UTC (link)
Because we all know, at any given time, that we try to make ourselves look like crap. As a matter of fact, I don't even bother to change out of my pyjamas (you know, the ones I've spilled curry down the front of) before I leave the house on any given day. And the makeup/beauty aid industry? They're definitely on their way out of business, yessirree. And, just to slam it to "the man", I've started to refrain from brushing my teeth, as well, and the three I have left are mighty purdy.

(Reply to this)


[info]sarajayechan
2004-05-10 09:37 pm UTC (link)
"why do so many posters who complain about the emphasis society places on looking a certain way to be attractive often use highly flattering cam shots as their user icons? surely one wouldn't feel a pressing need to use lighting and angle to disguise presumed flaws in appearance."

Umm, maybe because they liked the shot as a whole and thought it'd be a good icon?

Seriously. Why is it always one way or the other? Can't a person care about their looks while also thinking society is dumb to judge you based on them? Cause, it's human nature to wanna look presentable at best.

(Reply to this)


[info]crickets
2004-05-11 05:41 am UTC (link)
There's nothing wrong with wanting to look your best. I think using flattering lighting to take a nice photo makes a lot more sense than starving yourself to look like Kate Moss, but maybe that's just me.

(Reply to this)


[info]ririka
2004-05-11 02:54 pm UTC (link)
If she'd been talking about people who said they didn't care about the emphasis society places on looks, then she'd have a point. Those who complain about this emphasis often do care about it and find it a problem.

(Reply to this)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map