Video: Instagram make-up and drag beauty

Drag make-up is a costume. Even Duchess Katherine has been sporting Scouse (drag) eyebrows, very heavy like a Sharpie or permanent marker (often in black). What photographs well (2D) looks atrocious in person (3D).

There’s nothing wrong with makeup. Makup is largely medicinal nowadays (anti-aging, anti-pollution, SPF) as in, everybody should be wearing product on their faces. The first makeup was also medicinal to prevent sun damage etc as well, and Roman men used to wear mercury, merlot-tinted lipstick before women adopted it (same with heels from butchers, corsets to support the posture while wearing armour). Dandies made makeup seem feminine by associating it with the decandent (and, let’s be honest, poofy) French court*.

Briefly, let me explain the little-known female trolling.

Female trolling is commonly finding a girl with an ugly face (mostly bone structure) or bad makeup and clothes, telling her those things look ‘sexy/stunning/gorgeous’ and then watching her repeat them.

Most women don’t know this.

It’s the social media equivalent of So you agree? You think you’re really pretty?
Bear this in mind the next time you read ‘delusional’ girls of 4 (most 10-scale is neck-down sexual dimorphism) lowering herself to a 2 because she is gushing and accepting compliments like she’s an 8. Deep down, I think they know, because if you gently try to correct them, they shoot the messenger. They just want to be popular, they just want to make friends, and will sadly humiliate themselves dressing like a slapper to do it.

It’s like the pretty girls befriending one true uggo to make themselves look better in photos. Nowadays they befriend transgenders to look more feminine. Yes, it’s cruel and bitchy. Men do it too, they befriend one weaselly guy to look more attractive.

Eyebrows overdone detract from the other more subtle features of the face. Drag needs to be all ‘bold’, all strong, all oddly masculine with its cack-handed approach (men don’t have our gentle touch). They perceive beauty as porn stars. Like heterosexual men, they cannot perceive what specifically about a woman makes her attractive. We’re not ‘cheating‘, anymore than washing cheats them out of smelling our pheromones, it’s a flaw of the male visual perception, encouraged by evolution not to be fussy if it means reproducing. It’s an overall effect, so overwhelmed by the visual stimuli as they are, by being male and viewing a female face, that they try to imitate that intensity with crayon makeup (drawing it all on like painting entirely new features, all ‘bold’, all over). Same with vibrant hair, it detracts. You can accurately judge someone’s attractiveness based on bone structure, which cannot be faked (contouring is an attempt to mimic female orbital spaces, which cannot be altered surgically for FFS). With natural colour hair (their own), their skin tone looks best and colour seasons are based on this fact. However, some people are so boring or so attractive they can pull off unnatural colours, both are signals; the former, to get a vital second look, and the latter, to get less attention. Yes, less sexual attention. They already get too much.

By clothes, masculine clothes on the female figure make or break it (think supermodels), like Karlie Kloss. She proves that if you’re gamine, feminine and youthful enough on the face, you can pull stupid poses without looking ugly (because you retain childish innocence in your features and it looks ‘fun’) and you can wear a simple white shirt and blue jeans and look better with your figure (that shows through like a pane of glass) than other women wearing a wedding dress.

Grace Kelly contoured with two shades of powder. You can look feminine with the Hollywood techniques the drag performers actually adopted. Max Factor was the first to do the really heavy pancake look. There’s disturbingly no opposite, women who want to look more beautiful and femme (than sexy, high testosterone). There’s no opposite to contouring, but peaches and cream complexions look close, the English Rose look. It needs to be so soft and gentle in application it wouldn’t film well for Youtube videos, so they never catch on, (2D, 3D point). As for ‘men can’t wear makeup’, many successful men do. They just choose their colours (see my article on British girl makeup) very well and blend. I would say men are fast catching up to women in skincare and this includes makeup. Makeup doesn’t mean prostitute, that’s an old French idea based on rouge, it means you don’t want skin cancer and premature lines. One or two ‘strong’ features at a time e.g. cheekbones, jawline, or clear mascara, lip balm. Everyone needs concealer. Everyone. Tired? Concealer? Date? Concealer. Job interview? Concealer. Notice the guy who gets promotion always has amazing skin… almost, too flawless? Women don’t care as long as you don’t look feminine.

*Personally, I like the TV show Versailles, but facts is facts. Straight men don’t want to signal homosexuality.

The most disturbing aspect? We’re being trained to accept men as the beauty standard of women.
Where’s the feminist upset over Barbie? This would be the ultimate expression of Patriarchy, treading on our territory. They want to take what is exclusively feminine, like their property.
Men have taken away in ‘fun, expressive, artistic’ makeup culture the one thing we had left, by evolution – our beauty.

I disagree. A man will never be better at being a woman, than a woman.

Meanwhile, insulting chav makeup, which uses less product, is socially acceptable. Chavs haven’t the social power to mob you.

Why is Gamergate succeeding in taking down the pretentious SJWs where others have failed?

Serious question.

The longer you contemplate, the stranger it appears.

I had a brainwave about it. It was a productive brainwave.

What defines the Social Justice Warrior Princesses and their downtrodden White Knights?

Narcissism. A psychological void which arguably makes its holder inferior to the healthy. They are full of angst (perpetual self-hatred machines), they rage against imagined foes (paranoia directed outward) and their inability to deal with the world as it is makes them a force for Thanatos, the destructive impulse. They do not build themselves up, Libidinal, because they cannot. They are chronic children, incapable of adult recovery from the shocks and obstacles of life. They flake and flip-flop because they have no true core self. They seek to make the world angry and make the world feel the pain they are constantly barraged with. The actions – of a troll.

These sorry creatures cannot get anywhere materially unless by permission. Political campaigning and niche activisms seek said permission from those with power, to give it away. For the feels.

What defines the serious, hardcore gamer of internet lore?

...Narcissism. They need to be someone else, someone fictional, to feel like a complete person, because there is a void. The troll section really made it click and they work for the lolz. Their enemies are RPG figments instead of a conservative on Twitter. However, unlike the SJWs, gamers have more than no life filled with rallies and talks and other ‘social justice’ engagements. They have a fictional life. Its goal is simple: WIN, at all costs. They will not stop. They are the Terminators of the internet. This is why no one can beat 4chan.

In short, the feminists are losing because they have taken on their own counterpart, another component of the narcissistic demographic (including many of their fellow Millennials). It wasn’t any specific technique of Gamergate which conferred victory, although I’m sure those helped, it was fighting a campfire with dragonfire.


Are feminists trolls?

Serious question. The more I contemplate the prospect the likelier it seems.

Waiting to see what they can get away with? Pushing the boundaries of decency with their vulgarity? Here’s the latest.

Think of the stereotype of trolling - white straight male aka Patriarchy. Did they appropriate the term?
Feminists feed on attention. Ignore the hive, even online, and they sting themselves in rage. This is why they seek out argument beyond “safe spaces”. Maybe they’re a subtype of troll, like concern trolls. Their own definition certainly fits their behaviour.

Their push for ‘visibility’ is desperate and transparent.