> -------------------------
> Thanks. BTW, I agree it's important, as our old elementary school report
> cards used to put it (archaically), to be "neat in person and dress". We
> just like the natural look better on both women and men, especially as
> we age. But the use of cosmetics is just a matter of personal
> preference, and the issue, such as it is, pales in comparison (no pun
> intended) to the truly disturbing ones raised by Levy.
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
I don't see the clear delineation here between the use of cosmetics and (say) Britney Spears sexing it up. In each case, people are oriented toward the impression they're making on others ("I want them to think I'm attractive/sexy/desirable"). In each case, the impression management is determined by social standards (e.g., women should/shouldn't shave their underarms; they should/shouldn't flash their breasts). --A number of important political questions emerge here: When does a behavior to provoke a favorable reaction from another person become "disturbing"? Who gets to decide what is disturbing? How is this common-sense definition of disturbing behavior linked to gender stereotypes (e.g., overt sexuality in women has been "improper" since at least the Victorian era: good girls don't act like that!)?
That said, Madonna still creeps me out (sorry Doug!).
Miles