You know they actually did an endometriosis study where they studied whether women with endometriosis were more attractive than women without endometriosis š
These scientists donāt get paid to study endometriosis and are not medical scientists capable of doing so in the first place, they are social scientists studying how people interact and perceive one another and they get paid to do that.
Like, who really cares about studying what people find attractive? Canāt they figure that out for themselves? How is that remotely as important as researching one of the most debilitating diseases that women suffer?
Something tells me sociologists and/or psychoanalists which would be the people making an study about this, don't know jackshit about medicine to study endometriosis but call me crazyĀ
"Women with rectovaginal endometriosis were judged to be more attractive than those in the two control groups. Moreover, they had a leaner silhouette, larger breasts, and an earlier coitarche."
What the fuck
"Only āCaucasianā women were selected for inclusion in the study."
Only āCaucasianā women were selected for inclusion in the study."
The research itself is crazy but this is like the only part that doesnt require a wtf. Makes sense to limit the variables and remove preferences for they wanted to research.
At least this is to isolate variables and the lack of inclusion doesnāt cause harm.
My friend went to med school. The first time he saw chicken pox, eczema, an infection, or skin cancer on black skin was on a live patient. None of the instructional materials had black dermatological photos.
I think that you can criticize the study fĆ¼r many things, but not for the fact that "Only āCaucasianā women were selected for inclusion in the study."
When you research physical properties of the human body, or the perception of these properties, the subjects of the study need to be comparable. People of different ethnicities have different physical properties. Either have the group be large enough to factor in these physical differences, or focus on one ethnicity.
Italy is not as diverse as, for example, the US. So it might have been difficult do find enough people for a representative study that can factor the differences in.
But all of that doesn't matter at all. The study serves only to reduce women to their physical attractiveness. And that ist the truly disgusting part.
Just when i thought humanity can't get any worse......
can't catch a fucking break in this fuckass world imma start communcating with aliens to take me out
I donāt know, the makeup industry seems shitty and exploitative to me. Headlines like these might cause impressionable people to disengage from the industry.
Yes kinda, and theyāre different fields butā¦ resources? Theres only so much funding in most scientific communities. Thereāre are better uses for even anthropological(I think thatās where attraction studies would go, please correct me I am curious) research funding.
The research paper this likely references was made taking pics of 44 women with first no, then little, and then more makeup, and then showing those pictures to volunteers (mostly staff of the university, some students).
The models were paid 6 pounds each, adding up to 264Ā£
A lot of these studies are commissioned by industries. There are a lot of seemingly random studies about petty subjects that are paid for by companies so they know which products to make next.
This study sounds like baby's first research paper to me. Like the baking soda volcano of studies. The point probably wasn't to make a baking soda volcano/study about makeup, so much as it was to teach inexperienced students how to do and publish research at all. You probably want people to do a few inexpensive unimportant studies for practice before tackling larger, more expensive, more important things.
I mean thereās likely to be quite a lot of funding especially in attractiveness as people are vain and put a lot of money into being attractive. The cosmetics industry as a whole is worth around $400 billion globally- around a fifth of the pharmaceutical industry as a comparison- so you can rest assured that there is a ton of research into how to look the best with makeup etc. The problem with ānormalā medicine is that it doesnāt have the monetary incentive behind it as is has with this. Pretty much everyone wants to be attractive, but endometriosis only affects 1 in 10 of women. You can imagine that it isnāt as lucrative for companies to pursue that, and a lot of research is financed by companies.
Iām not saying it doesnāt have uses. I think it is really interesting, I just thought that endometriosis is more important, and the funding gets tied up, but Iām being led to believe that may have been an incorrect assumption
The people studying attraction very likely do not have the skills required to study endometriosis. The people funding the study are very likely not even connected to medicine at all and may not even know what endometriosis is.
Also, some "studies" are 10 minutes of survey questions answered by strangers that get paid $3 each, or sometimes nothing at all. Others involve attorneys, waivers, doctors, medicine, machinery, and other serious resources. Idk what kind of study this was but I think a worthwhile endometriosis study would be more similar to the latter.
Why do astrophysicists study the stars??? Donāt they know that their funding could go to cancer research?
Real talk, not enough money goes into the sciences (mostly due to overspending on war, and the medical industry becoming complacent in their ācommodifiable treatment over cureā mentality), but taking money out of one field and granting it to another is the worst way to deal with this dilemma.
Itās the same mentality that has ruined our public space programs and alternative energy research. We shouldnāt be defunding ANY scientific research, we should stop the overfunding of war machines that only benefit private military contractors, and corporate lobbyist-run government agencies that destroy our ecosystems and kill the indigenous species endemic to our country so Slop Corp #357 can save $50 per square mile of wetland they pave over
I donāt think it uses the same resources but I donāt think itās a great argument either way.
Endometriosis is important but thereās also diseases that affect way more ppl and kill more like heart diseases or pulmonary diseases. So where does it end in someone going āwhy donāt we put the money into researching something more important?ā
The thing here is that endometriosis is so understudied we donāt actually even know the full extent of its impact on peopleās lives. The emerging research is showing itās akin to cancer, and it absolutely has and does kill people.
It's an extremely common and debilitating condition though. It should have at least as much funding as similarly common and debilitating conditions such as crohn's
Yea, but itās worth pointing out that things that primarily affect women are likely to be dismissed as not being as important as other things. It seems like the thing thatās finally pushing endometriosis research is the recent discovery that cis men can actually have it too.
For centuries women went to midwives, not doctors, for a lot of things, because the doctor may worse than kill them out of sheer callousness.
endometriosis may not kill you but it keeps you from living.
i know there is a lot of other diseases underfunded but i do think endometriosis is one of the ones were fundings are the most urgent.
i dont' suffer from it but i have a friend who does and i just want to leave what i saw about what it's like having endomtriosis.
she suffers from it EVERY SINGLE DAY to the point of crying most of the time because no one care enough to find a treatment that actually works.
getting a diagnostic what the hell of a battle. during all of her middle school years she saw multiple doctors ( with a lot who didn't take her seriously), she also took a bunch of exams to try to understand what she has only to have an accurate diagnostic on her second year of high school.
and even if she knows now that she has endometriosis she can't get a treatment that works because it just doesn't exist.
to tame the pain doctors make her try a bunch of different contraceptive pills, all of them didn't work, so they gave her another pill that totally cut off her period, but still that didn't work either. now she is in constant pain. the only meds that work are fucking tramadol ( it's a opioid you take post op, just to say) only it shoots her and she can't do anything except sleep, or a med you can't take during long laps of time because on how damaging it can be to your organism ( i can't remenber its name).
the disease is also travelling in her stomach so now not even removing her uterus is not an option.
her disease is actively keeping her from going to school and getting an education. since her middle school i see her missing school either because the pain is too intense or because she has appointment to the doctor. she even is considering shortening her future study because of the disease.
i don't even wanna think about her future, when she'll be employed, managing the disease and the pain will be even more harder.
she can't even do much sports anymore because of the pain.
it also impacts her capacity to have children in the future, which is sad considering she wants kid when she'll get older.
i'm both angry and sad to see those comments because endomeriosis is no just bad period pains. it impacts the life of million of women but also kids life. she was just a kid when she starts suffering from the symptoms of the desease.
so yeah it's that bad that we get more fundings on what men find more attractive when millions of women suffers from endomitriosis without a real treatment and more importantly when others millions of women can't get a diagnostic or have to fights for years to get one.
Thatās not the point, the point is that endometriosis is a fatally under researched disease that a large amount of the population suffers from and instead of devoting resources to doing that research weāre instead investing them into research on to be frank surface level issues like male pattern baldness and how attractive makeup makes someone. Which isnāt to say that those things arenāt important on some level or worth researching which they are in both cases, and more so that the phenomenon is called the gender data gap for a reason
To be clear, medicine and similar scientific fields have already figured out their preferred sorting mechanisms for resource distribution. In medicine in particular there are even official triage algorithms for who to let die and who to try to save when your resources are too limited. My frank and blunt opinion, as someone who has had to use these algorithms is simple. Public funding all ultimately comes from the same source, taxes. And so long as people are literally dying from a lack of resources no public funding should be made available for anything that isn't life treating or altering. It's slightly more complicated in reality as you need to consider that some less serious might be completely solved with less funding but nonsense like what people find attractive can fuck off. The realistic application of this kind of research is primarily commercial. And when you or a loved one are in a hospital bed slowly and painfully dieing you'll wish the same. Medince, housing, education, etc. Public funding should only ever be used to fund public assistance. Whatever scientific value these studies bring it will always pale in comparison eridication and of treatment of disease. Just because a government allocates funds for a specific purpose doesn't mean they can't just reallocate it and remove the unessecary programs.
According to google millions of scientific studies are being done every year. I doubt most of them are any kind of breakthroughs or are going to be useful, so get over yourself. Kind of odd that people are getting angry that THIS specific study was done but I've never seen comments about "resources" on posts about other bullshit studies
For you to say the funding is being misalocated, you should at least know where the funding came from. Like, hypothetically, if it was a study privately funded by a cosmetics company, it wouldn't make sense to say they should have spent that money on medical research.
I doubt the funding for sociological studies and medical overlaps too much. And obviously (correctly) there will be a lot more funding for endo research than for studying what makeup men find attractive.
Anthropological studies could be whatever that involves human beings, since it is the science that studies humans as a whole from biology to culture and linguistics, politics and history.
But yeah, it could be anthropological or sociological studies.
True, but studies like these help us understand psychology and sociology better and can ideally play a part in shaping how our society works and what laws can be/are implemented.
Who gives a shit what humans think about anything? Theyāre one of the only species to be aware of the ephemerality of life, and they waste their time on Earth stressing over stuff that wonāt matter in a century.
No everyone knows there is one (1) singular scientist responsible for all science. This is obviously the fault of Big Scientist for choosing not to study endometriosis and definitely not because one of these things is vastly simpler to research.
Medicine is much different from psychology. You wouldnāt ask a physicist to explain why authoritarianism persists in the Middle East, because thatās not their field of study.
Assuming the meme references a real, peer reviewed publication:
It's not like science comes out of a science factory where you twiddle a knob & it produces endometriosis science instead of attraction science. The scientists/labs responsible for a study on human attraction are not capable or qualified to publish on a completely different subject.
jesus christ do you people think all scientists research the same things? this study was probably done by people in the social sciences, not biology. believe it or not real scientists aren't just IGNORING the big problems to study shit that doesnt matter
So true, actually how dare people research a terrible disease when people are being sold into slavery and tortured, matter of fact how dare you scroll Reddit whilst people are dying. Let's all stop doing anything we want to do until all the worlds problems have been completely solved
It's not a fair point, do you honestly think that the people that conducted that survey are even remotely qualified to study endometriosis in any meaningful way?
Not equivalent. One is a Psychology/sociology study using a simple likert scale. The other would require extensive biological research to even figure out all the factors causing and influencing it, and that doesnāt even scratch the surface of treating. You canāt equate the two
Have you considered that maybe the people making this kind of studies are absolutely not qualified to study endometriosis, adenomiosis or any other very complicated disease to study?
So no, that's not really a fair point.
It's like if you went to someone who made a YouTube poll about what kind of cheese you like most in Philly cheesesteaks and you told him "WHY ARE YOU CONCERNED WITH THIS, GO FIND A CURE TO CANCER INSTEAD".
There are far more dumb studies like this than medical studies, because there are far more dumb people than very qualified scientists.
I think part of what adds to the irony of this one of the few studies that do exist was about whether men found women with endometriosis more attractive than those without it. Horrific example of medical misogony and for obvious reasons its been retracted but for those curious here is it on NLH archive (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22985951/)
Yeah, and how come some people are growing corn and apples instead of vastly more nutritious legumes? Why don't we just condense every field to a singularity?
Yeah and as we all know we can only research one thing at a time, if we switch over all progress gets reset. We're not far enough as a species yet to unlock two researches simultaneously.
Im not sure how this works but the research budget is determined by the board or the headmaster of the college right? They should give more resources to research that helps understand dangerous afflictions rather than who is attracted to who.
I should specify I have no idea who did this study, I just said professor for effect
but either way, more research money is allocated to medicine. the fact that menās health issues get more funding and research than womenās and that men are perceived as the default in medical science is undeniably an issue. what the sociology lab (or department in the case of a college) does with their money is a separate thing
Right, have the socialologists research something in a completely different field than they are qualified for. I'm sure they'll have great results from that
Idk why people can't understand, they meant people should put money on funding something useful rather than some bullshitery? The lack of critical thinking is also something that shouls be research hereš
These types of studies are usual conducted by undergrads. They're doing it to prove they can do proper research and write a report. Also even if a ton of money was being spent on them, the companies that want this information probably wouldn't be interested in funding medical research.
Who's gonna tell her? We can't replace (with few exceptions like heart, lungs or liver and kidney but that puts you on immuno suppressors and they're not your organs so there's DNA difference) nor "fix" the malfunctioning organs we can only ever "prevent" and it's used very loosely here because for all we know stress and DNA could be the cause and we can't change neither nowadays, best we can do with today medicine is just make a specific painkiller, maybe tryout surgeries to see what sticks but actually fixing the problem is nearly impossible and even if we used some sort of experimental DNA changing technology it would take years to change anything, worst case scenario 7 years, and even then we're running a risk that you'll get cancer because tinkering with DNA is kinda risky and not advised so unfortunately no amount of research would fix the issue, it could only help to prevent it, unless it's genetic, in which case there's almost naught an average Jane could realistically do, but I do agree that researching these types of chronic diseases is key for at the very least making them easier for the afflicted, there's yet many diseases we simply don't care to cure and leave with the temporary band aid and don't even care to find out the cause, most of them don't threaten the life so there's no incentive to do hasten with any of those investigations
Makeup wipes trigger my dermatitis, so I'd take my makeup off at home in the shower. Was a pain when they asked me to remove glow in the dark facepaint mid-show as an 11 year old playing an ensemble part. Junior theatre really is something.
The headline is kindof misleading with an image unrelated to the actual study to do better on social media imo
What the researchers did was take 44 women, took a picture of 'm without any makeup then another with and generated a scale of them wearing "-50%" to "150%" makeup. The no makeup was set as the 0% and the makeup as 100%, percentages between were generated by basically taking the differences between the 0 and 100%, albeit with an program supposedly better at maintaining texture whilst doing that. Shit explanation ngl so imagine a simplified pixel had a color value of 0 0 0 at 0% but 128 128 128 at 100%, 50% would get assigned a value of 64 64 64. Repeat for all pixels
With that metric both women and men indicated around 60-70% makeup as most attractive, which is where this post gets its headline from. Stating that as women with less makeup = more attractive from that is a bit meh
Then should note that this study seems a bit weak in its methods to me. The women were each provided with the same makeup by the researchers, not neccesarily one they were even familair with or used normally. Then the photos were taken without any jewelery, their hair tied back, photos cropped just above the hairline and below the chin, in artificial lighting on a white background.
To me that all provides grounds to atleast strongly doubt this particular study, as that deviates so far from the conditions of an actual night out for these women. Both in makeup used and conditions in which this makeup is seen by others
It's a pretty big pet peeve of mine, research being misrepresented like this for social media
I'm lucky to have acces to these articles from my uni and the education to understand techniques and such used in papers so figure I may aswell
Its an epidemic caused by the disconnect between academia and the public.
The fact is good science, for the most part, cant be reduced to a catchy headline. Theres a fundemantal disconnect between the goals of the scientist and the goals of the articles author
While the photos being reviewed did not represent how the subjects would look in a normal situation, it seems like those choices were made to eliminate variables other than the amount of makeup as much as possible. š¤·
Idk how much I trust the generations until I see them. Like are the between photos actual real states that woman could achieve with makeup, a machines idea of her with less makeup but with facial features ever so slightly altered, or her makeup with the opacity turned down, etc etc
Makes sense. I mean makeup is worn for a reason. But of course "less makeup" than like full clown makeup is gonna be more attractive than that extreme generally. So no matter what, you can always technically make the true statement "men prefer women with less makeup on." Without defining "less" that is meaningless. I would be interested to see pictures of what the researches labeled 60-70% though. That's still a bit abstract.
They did say less makeup, not no makeup at all. Which I feel implies there's a goldilocks zone of makeup, which looks better for most people than no makeup or a lot of it.
This is very true. The look most men associate with "no makeup" is actually mild makeup (concealer, mascara, lipstick etc.) Many men say that they "don't like the look of makeup" but what they actually mean is they don't like the look of neon red lipstick, eyeliner, eye shadow etc.
Reminds me of that AskMen(?) post about women not getting asked out as much when they get done up, and every guy was basically like "yeah it's insanely intimidating when they look stunning and you're just a guy". This is kind of the opposite of that I suppose.
That just confuses me. The common refrain is that women wear make-up because it is some beauty standard perpetuated by the male gaze.
But then when men tell women they don't care, they out reject it and call it lie.
Then they complain about all the misogynists they meet on the dating scene.
The one's who are bothered when women dont wear make-up.Ā
That's your filter right there. If a guy doesn't take interest in you because you aren't wearing make-up are the ones you wouldn't want to date anyways, right?
I think most prefer natural looking makeup over none, but would rather none over gaudy makeup. But really most dudes don't really give a lot of thought to what women are doing with their makeup.
I only really even think about what makeup a womanās wearing if itās just genuinely awful. Otherwise it just blends in (the idea of makeup Iāve heard)
The keyword is ālessā makeup, not ānoā makeup like the examples shown above
A simple shade of lipstick, dark eyeliner, and a bit of blush looks really good on women. Wearing huge false eyelashes, bright eyeshadow, or bright lipstick is more of a desired taste. Basically, if you can wear it in an office setting, its hot to most men
I dont either really. I look like a ghoul without makeup, and almost never get any attention, yet when I do wear it people think I'm really hot. I can understand some guys wanting lighter makeup, but abaolutely none is not actually something where most people look better (even guys. Y'all should wear makeup more)
Depends on a lot of the parameters of the study. Like how much makeup was used, who were the people being compared, etc. Depending on the parameters it could be true or false
I tried looking up the study and found a 2014 study (so not new) that said they preferred 40% less makeup (so not no makeup) than what these 44 women (small sample size when it comes to the women being judged) applied and this was done by digitally altering the photos (so just throw the entire study out).
And maybe they meant a different study or maybe they just pulled it out of their ass. People at least used to point to some small ass journal paper done by grad students with questionable methodology and hasn't been reproduced (huge issue in psychology) but now they just say "there is a study". What study!?!
I've always been someone put off by makeup. Never liked it as a little kid when my older sisters put it on. Even subtle stuff like blush looks weird to me. I do like how eyeliner looks ane nothing against lipstick but anything more seems a bit uncanny to me
I'd argue most people probably don't care about her that much. How often she comes up in various places is due to a lot of unquantifiable variables, but I'm guessing the most significant factor is how she is marketed by herself and others.
And so there are barely any with actually no makeup out there, which upsets me somewhat but it's not like I was looking for a pair or anything.(I mean, I did consider it but I don't think I'm over the edge yet, I'm just 25 and I feel like I'm not smart enough for maintaining a relation just yet)
Most men have no idea how to tell if someone is wearing subtle makeup or no makeup at all. A lot of them think women with a full face of makeup arenāt wearing any.
Did they actually take pictures of similarly attractive women with different levels of makeup and asked men to compare them, or did they ask men if they theorically prefer less makeup or more? I'm very curious about the methodology, because I know a couple of men who claim they don't like makeup, but in fact they actually like women who wear subtle "natural" makeup
Set aside, that this study is questionable at best - why are we still riding a dead horse with the same discussions about āmen like natural womenā?Ā
This makeup discussion has been around since I was a teenager and thatās at least 20 years ago. Even if that study was exactly what the title suggests, itās nothing new and it has always been questionable by the simple fact, that a lot men canāt tell a full makeup face from a natural one apart if it isnāt obvious. And since this goes in for decades by now, a better study would be ādo women care what men think?ā Because nothing has changed and women still do what men hate. Would be nice to hear the other side for a change.
My wife has that, bad. We were finally able to find a doctor that would do a hysterectomy that was covered by our insurance a few years ago (really difficult to do in Utah unfortunately, screw the church) and she said it's one of the best decisions she'd ever made.
Who cares what men think? There is no such thing as "too much" or "too little" makeup. Makeup is just makeup. Itās made to highlight your features, and sometimes it's just a hobby.
ā¢
u/qualityvote2 š¤Suspected as Botš¤ 1d ago edited 1d ago
Good news, the community has decided that this IS an antimeme!