February 8, 2010 AD
My blog is now three years old. As far as the last year of blogging, I liked getting my own domain (go PHP!), the content, and unloading a lot of thoughts that were hanging around for a while—but the overall experience has gotten less rewarding with each passing year.
Onto the post though, is it just me, or are men gradually taking more cues from women in their appearance? I’ve touched on this before, but some examples that are gaining momentum in my generation are:
- men who shave their bodies
- men who shape their eyebrows
- men who get fake tans.
In Western society at least, these practices were (once) womanly. The causes for this vary, so to start I’ll blame it on my old scapegoat of TV. Pretty much monkey see, monkey do.
Back in the ’70s, I wonder if the only men with shaven bodies were bodybuilders at competitions. As an example, I got the impression that men saw chest hair was once something to be proud of. Even in the ’90s when I was in school, there was this guy in my class who had the three buttons on his polo shirt unbuttoned—to which another guy in my class said to him “showing off your [non-existent] chest hair are ya?”
I can think of a few men who have apparently started shaping their eyebrows recently. It’s not because they are metrosexual or anything, I think it’s because their female family members/friends/spouses coerce them into it.
And another man I know started playing football, which required him to wear shorts as the uniform. He was conscious of his pale legs, so he bought some fake tan solution and put it on before each match.
In some cases, it’s as though women have reasoned that they’ve done it, so their men should do it too—but that doesn’t strike me as terribly logical or rational.
While these might be fads, I think there are women who like it when men take certain appearance cues from them, but I don’t know if I’d go for that type. To them, I’d ask why I should look gradually but increasingly like a woman in order to impress one.
February 4, 2010 AD
I heard someone say that if everyone thought the same way then life would be boring. I don’t think that reasoning is particularly effective; it implies that entertainment is of ultimate importance.
But let’s go with the idea that people thinking differently is a good thing. One time I was having lunch with a group of people, where one woman (who has a stunning daughter) was lamenting how her daughter’s long hair was always falling out around the bathroom sink and shower.
I think others around the table were indifferent towards that lamentation, but when I heard it, I thought to myself, “we shouldn’t be criticising her, we should all be praising her because of her long hair.”
I don’t think that sentiment would have gone down well with the crowd though. I’m not saying that hair around the bathroom sink is pleasant or anything, but I saw it from the archaeological expedition angle; this is evidence of a house occupied by a beautiful feminine woman.
And that exposes the maxim; people would be unaccustomed to that angle, but someone once said that if everyone thought the same way then life would be boring, wouldn’t it? I once heard a woman say that men would do well to look past women’s faults; OK then, now I’m doing it on this. It also reminds me of that saying, that if you complain about your job—be thankful that you even have a job, because there are other people who don’t. So let’s continue that; if you live in a house where there’s long hair is in the sink—be thankful that you live with a femme instead of a butch or androgynous woman. I just hope the hair wasn’t falling out in big clumps.
January 31, 2010 AD
A workmate of mine got married three or four years ago and his wife gave birth to their first child a year or two ago. When the baby was a few weeks old, all three of them paid a visit to our workplace.
In scenes like that there’s usually a crowd of 10 or so people standing around the visitors and there’s the usual questions about how they’ve adapted to family life and so on. Someone asked how the parents fared with their sleep patterns, and the wife mentioned how her husband would get woken up by the slightest movements and noises from the baby.
One woman in that group—who is middle aged, never married, and childless—responded with her formulaic “what is it with men and [insert phenomenon here]” question in a whiny tone. Interestingly, she’s keen to get married herself, but I’ve never heard her say anything positive about men. It’s almost as though her formula is to put down all men and hope that the women nearby validate her opinion. On this occasion, she asked in front of everyone why is it that men can’t deal with newborn babies. Upon hearing that, three other women (all childless) turned around to look at me (as though I were supposed to answer it on behalf of men).
I wasn’t qualified to answer (since I didn’t have a baby); I could have answered back with my own formula of, “what is it with childless women who act like armchair mothers?” I also could have named a mother in that workplace who criticised another childless woman behind her back for acting like she knew the difficulties of raising newborns. Instead, I held my tongue and looked right back at them.
In a refreshing change, one mother later admitted that to me she also got woken up by the slightest noises from her baby, even when it wasn’t sleeping in the same room. I respect women when they are honest like that.
January 27, 2010 AD
I assume they exist only in the movies, but I always thought that kissing booths at carnivals were funny and entertaining.
From the times I saw it, the woman was always beautiful and there were always average-looking men lining up who would love that chance to embrace someone out of their league—I think it would have really boosted their self-esteem. To put it in the other direction though, there was that episode in The Simpsons where Homer had a flashback of his life, which included his experience at a kissing booth. I think the kisses cost a dollar, so when he handed it over, he leant forward for the kiss—but the girl in the booth slapped him in the face. Taken aback, he said something like, “can I at least have my dollar back?”, only to get slapped again.
If I saw a kissing booth in real life, part of me would consider it—for about half a second. While kissing has good physical value, at the end of the day it has to mean something…otherwise it’s a bit mechanical. It’s like when I saw in the Guinness Book of Records of the couple that had the world record for the longest kiss. All well and good if it means something, but if it’s just to break the record (but the relationship falls apart a few months later), I wouldn’t be into that. I also wonder whether one long kiss is better than many shorter kisses…or whether they both have their place.
But back to the kissing booth, I’m not sure how many women would actually sit in a booth to do it. I think some women would think of it as degrading. The interesting thing is if they turned the tables and the kissing booths were manned by men. I think a lot more men would volunteer for it…but would women pay for it?
January 23, 2010 AD
Wow, I never knew about the Comstock laws. They were American federal laws which made abortion, pornography and contraception illegal in the second half of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century. Instantly I think of how certain feminists would be upset with banning abortion and contraception, but not pornography. Then again, with feminism allying itself with existentialism, there are certain feminists who would oppose a federal ban on pornography too…
I’m not surprised with pornography and abortion being illegal back then, but I didn’t realise that contraception was illegal too; I assumed the main reason that contraception wasn’t the done thing was due to social norms and technological ineffectiveness—not statutes. On that, I’m a little surprised how Prohibition was repealed in the early 1930s, but the Comstock laws continued. I guess it showed where society’s priorities were at the time (or perhaps, which lobby groups were more effective).
Part of the reason the Comstock laws were either struck out or whittled away over the 20th century were because they were seen to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. I’ve read of conservative Americans who love their Constitution, but at times it seems they treat it as superior to the Bible, and I don’t quite understand that (it again shows where people’s priorities lie). If the Constitution of any given country overrides the Bible, then that’s tipping a hat to a secular type of nationalism, which I wouldn’t support. I could push secular types of nationalism to their logical conclusion and play the guilt by association card, but it would be counterproductive to admit one’s own use of a logical fallacy.
