Tuesday, November 07, 2006

just make up and a good hair dresser

from a news site:

Today's External Woman -Paint & Illusion...Or Reality?

This photo was taken at a competition in June.

The competition was between 9 women who had to  have makeovers, where they had every possible beauty treatment available to them over a period of time.

Look at the before and after photos...top to bottom.


Conclusion  - there are no homely women, only poor women...... if you only have the money....

9 comments:

Niha said...

They look like dolls, all of them alike... Pretty disgusting sight, as they are not supposed to be dolls, but "average" women turned into beautiful women.

jsan said...

They look like dolls, all of them alike...

got absolutely no problem with that*cackles evily*

Dark said...

They look less like dolls and more like tacky southern girls.

Seriously... what is the architypical look of a doll? I thought it was that gal (shown on earlier blog entry whose name I can't recall) who reworked herself to look like a living full scale Barbie?

But maybe Barbie does look like a southern chick... no?

Bradley said...

Umm, ok, to clear things up, and hopefully drag things back in a more upbeat direction:

--You do realize that *dolls* are by definition supposed to be a sort of idealized and perfected version of a person, right? *lol* Sorry to be Mr. Well Duh here, but yeah, to the extent that a makeover *makes* a woman look more artificial, idealized, iconic and perfected *after a certain style*, yep, it will make her look like a doll.

--Has anyone actually been to a toy department of a big store lately and compared the dolls *you collect* to the ones *you play with*? Here's a hint...

For the most part, dolls that are made to be played with, as opposed to sitting on a shelf in the unopened box, they *generally* tend to have more of a "made up" look to them. Call it the "Bratz factor" if you must, but the main folks who play with dolls (the *young* young ladies) generally tend to gravitate towards the ones who look "grown up", which in their minds generally means "made up".

--Keep in mind that *very* few dolls are made by hand anymore, even the collector stuff on your "home shopping television" channels tends to be made by the hundreds at a time.

Dolls these days are implicitly mass produced. They are at some level *going* to have an alikeness to them. Only *part of this* is unintentional though....

--And the other part? A reflection of the *style* of the human artisan who "made the doll" or in this case "dolled up" the ladies. If one person, or even a small, close-kint *team* of less than half a dozen people were responsible for these "makeovers", then yes, there is going to be one general "style" in effect, and if that style is "Jersey Girl" or "Southern Belle", then that style will show in all the ladies.

I mean, really, some of this is a complaint about the tastes of the *artist* and the nature of *art*. Do we piss and moan that Leonardo Da Vinci's work looks all "samey-samey"? *rofl* I should hope not. =))

--Who says Southern Belles can't be dolls? *lol* One of my earliest influences, aside from being exposed to _Barbarella_ at the age of eight years, was _Gone With the Wind_, wherein I got clued in to corsets and BIG poofy dresses...

So if anything, the stylist didn't go *far enough* IMHO. *lol*

Ok, I'll stop now, sorry to be annoying.... :)

Dark said...

The sticking point in your definition is "idealized and perfected version of a person".

So if you take some very attractive female... let's say Penelope Cruz... she is not "perfect" and "idealized" enough? or is she and does she then look like a doll?

My sense is that the look needs to be sort of an overdone caricature of a female... long thin legs... wears tall heels... tiny beehive waist... medium to large stand up breasts (like the silicone implants)... long thin neck... long thin fingers with long nails and red polish... small face... with large widely separated eyes, tiny nose, smallish mouth with pouty lips, long wavy locks... flawless skin... no piercings or tattoos! Make up which is obvious and covers her entire face.

Now I could be completely wrong, but that is what comes to my mind.

Now a latex doll would be more or look the same in a skin color full body suit and might be wearing a realistic female mask/hood and wig... nothing of the real women would be visible. She is completely enclosed.

Now whether she can move her face mask as a real person would be the next "thing" and I think she should not be able to.. sort of a fixed featured face with no animation what so ever... except perhaps eyelids (like those children's doll).

The comes the whole issue of Ds and "sexualizing" the doll as part of a relationship obviously Ds where she is owned and probably used as a sex doll. She sort of does nothing except what her owner tells her/wants/ expects... for his amusement... sexual and otherwise.

Sounds like something fun no? I would like to get my hands on a doll and see what the experience is like... don't mean literally...

Bradley said...

Well...um, Dark, I don't think we are disagreeing here, note in the same paragraph I use words like "iconic" and "artificial" too. :) So in the sense of those words, nope, Penelope Cruz *isn't* a doll because she still looks like a real woman (not artificial) and not like a "pretty object" (not really "iconic" per se, in the sense of being a feminine object...this one is more subtle, and yes, blondes do have a *slight* advantage here in the sense that they have the whole "blonde bombshell" mythos to tap into when seeking to become a feminine object more than an *individual*).

I think instead, we just need to agree that each of us has a different boundary between "person" and "object", and that some of us prefer more intense levels of objectification (to some senses) than others.

I mean, for me, for example, the tight and shinies don't *always* have to be latex....the rubber thing *to Me* is secondary to shaping the doll's behavior, in terms of speech and movement. I am as interested, if not more interested, in changing the way the would-be-doll walks, talks and moves....

Not that I am putting anyone down, I am just noting that dolling is a broad fetish and can mean different nuances for different people. Some folks just don't see how *makeup* relates to dolling for example, while others feel much the same about hoods and masks....*for Me*, it doesn't matter so much which method is preferred, just so long as the lady in question *does* get to experience her facial features changing and becoming more like those of a pretty object (and less like those of an individual).

I hope that makes some sense, and thanks for your time! :)

Dark said...

I think the "thing" about a human doll fetish has to revolve around the female becoming unhumanlike in her look.

A doll is a model of a human... looks like one, but lacks some of the normal features... and instead there is an attempt to exaggerate and accentuate things like beehive figure... wiglike looking hair which does NOT look natural and soft and flowing... for example... almost clownlike make up to exaggerate the features of the face.

Dolls don't move... and they don't talk. They are inanimate objects... models of some sort of idealized female... usually aimed to look like 20 yrs old... passed adolescence, like a single girl on the "make".. dolled up (clothes) to look sexy.

As far as I am concerned the talking and movement are simply projections of how... perhaps a robot might move... speak. If she were to be as animated as a living female who would look like a girl in a "get up"... costume.. almost halloweenlike.

If you overlay the doll as object... and intersect that with the blow up sex doll of latex or plastic and place her in a Ds context you get what is the doll as fetish.

It's not enough to be just ideal beautiful... you need to be made to look UNreal and artificial. To me this means a full face mask where the doll's features can't move like a human.. a frozen expression... like a doll.

I like the idea of a tight fitting skin of latex or plastic to emphasize the artificial object like reference to an actual plastic/rubber doll.

The fetish object... ie fetish clothes... stilettos... etc are kinky but not the essence of a doll in my mind.

I like the idea of two or more identical dolls together to further make them look like made objects and not "individual" woman.. despite the fact that women are tending to look so similar.

Hair color has to be an artificial one too... blond works because most blonds are dyed any way... oranges work too... not the real color of red hair.

But I am a male and this is my conception of what a doll would be like... I wonder what the females who have a doll fetish conceive of.

The Allen Jones sculptures start to look like dolls to me, but slightly too realistic in the face.

Bradley said...

Dark. I was going to let this one slide. :) But the longer it was on my mind, the more it irritated me. You said:

"Dolls don't move... and they don't talk. They are inanimate objects... models of some sort of idealized female... usually aimed to look like 20 yrs old... passed adolescence, like a single girl on the "make".. dolled up (clothes) to look sexy."

And yes, that is literally true, and also, in my *humble* opinion here, *willfully obtuse and argumentative*.

Check out the fine print under the title of the Doll's Realm Blog *itself* please. Notice the phrase is (emphasis mine) LIVING Doll. :) As in, yes, somewhat objectified, but also still ALIVE.

*lol* As in able to interact with you and *respond* to your attention. :) I mean, I cannot believe I have to bring *that one* up, last time I had to tell someone this it was back in what, 2000? 2001? Something like that.

Look. I'm sorry if I hit a raw nerve or offended or anything, it seems I clearly interfered with the purity of your vision or something....but yeah, I think maybe (and keep in mind how obsessive *I* can get, ok, when I say this) you're taking things a bit too literally here? Maybe? *lol*

I mean, I kind of thought the whole point of the fetish was that *both* parties, doll and doll-maker, were in this to have good clean *sexy* fun in a more serene, happy and innocent way than what is usual for BDSM and/or fetish stuff.

But I admit I could be wrong, that it could well be all about the power thing or whatnot....as per usual in the *rest* of the sexual universe, at least as it stands online. :)

Either way, all of this is just my humble opinion, coming from seven years of occasional experience because occasional, online play is all I seem to be able to *get*. So yeah, maybe I'm biased or something.

My apologies. :)

Dark said...

Bradley,

I am not saying I am correct of incorrect in my comments about what a doll fetish is all about.

Obviously it is about a human relationship, despite the fiction where so many of the dolls literally become objects and almost inhuman.

There are also no hard and fast definitions I suppose and each person has their own "take" on what a living doll is.

I have seen a whole segment of female maskers... usually M2F, and most of these faces are not "moving" like a human would and for all practical purpose could be rigid plastic and not rubber... the eyebrows and lips look painted on etc... not like real flesh... the natori mask however is remarkable like like, but I don't know if it moves...

Wanting to be a doll does not in itself imply a Ds relationship... but it sure seems to be at least a fetish... and almost all fetishes relationships tends toward "power exchange" or Ds with the doll being the submissive... because of the association with the doll as "object".

This also leads into the idea of the owner.. as in owner of a slave and so on.. doll maker as dominant and master. But it should be noted, that Asudem, for example, is someone who is making herself into a doll in her conception of what it is. Presumably if this leads to a relationship she (or others who do it this way) will find a partner who accepts the doll more or less in the image she has created.

There are also many M2F dolls and as a sex doll, this would imply some sort of homosexuality... even though on the surface the doll IS female, it really is a male's fantasy to BE a female doll. Some of the well known M2F dolls belong to fem doms! One doll I know is into the whole transformation from their maleness into femaleness... which is really nothing to do with a "doll"... and more gender bending.

Heck, I don't pretend to understand the whole thing and was only trying to bring into focus the definition of a living doll fetish. I would like to hear from more dolls on this.