Deborah Harrell wrote:
>
> --- Jon Gabriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Behalf Of Deborah Harrell
> > > --- Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
> > > > Jan Coffey wrote:
> > > > >--- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(Is the flamewar over? Good.)
> > > Perish that thought! Although I think there *is*
> > > something to lipstick as a signaler, otherwise
> > we'd just use neutral chapstick...
I think that a lot of cosmetics started out as ways
to look healthy, and then got sidetracked. Red lips, smooth
pink nails, shiny hair all are signs of health.
> Thought Experiment: Picture a gorgeous, sexy woman,
> hair tumbling wildly about her face, looking at you
> through sultry, lowered eyelids...she draws a deep,
> slow breath through parted vermilion lips...
>
> Now, if her lips are bright purple, or ...
No big deal, once one is used to it. The first
time you see it, it would look odd and distracting.
The thing I like is how some looks were good because
they showed status. Being pale was good, years ago when
commoners would be tanned from outside work. Then factories
came, the common crowd were pasty, and a tan was what looked
good. When getting enough food is hard, plump looks good.
But now it's not a good look...
---David
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
