As a teenager I wondered why women wore make-up, I concluded that that they wore it for themselves principally, for other women secondarily and not really for men.

I read recently that this view has come to acceptance. From this is seems odd that women do something to their appearance that has no effect on the opposite gender. As a heterosexual man I have learned that making some effort with my appearance does alter peoples behaviour towards me, i.e it provides social benefits for myself, so when I make an effort with my appearance it is purely for myself. Hence it makes sense to do this when going out to socialise or meeting important people at work. Really these functions are provided by dress, so why make up?

A couple of years ago I realised that I do like it when female friends of mine  put make up on. Because it is someone I know making themselves look different and projecting a different image. I’m usually amazed by what a good job they have done. To me then make up is only relevent when it’s people you know, people who you know what they look like ‘naturally’.

There is something else than women do. the majority of women shave their armpits, bleach moustaches etc. The ‘feminist’ argument that I grew up with was that women did this for men and hence they should not.

I define feminism as simply parity between the sexes. I am also happy to extend this to include that no-one should do something simply because the other gender desires it.

Personally I feel it doesn’t matter whether a woman shaves for armpits/legs or not, people can do it if they want to. But does it matter?

At some point in growing up we learn not to judge people by their appearance. However we have to come to terms with the fact that humans seem to be pre-engineered to make rapid judgements about people. For example if I  meet a lady and I notice that she has armpit hair, thoughts are triggered in my brain that bring back memories of thoughts about the subject. So for a split second I have set of pre-conceived ideas about this person. However these thoughts quickly pass. so it does matter, but only in influencing thoughts on an initial assessment of appearance. So, is there any difference when it comes to sexual attraction?

Sexual attraction is something that happens in that first split second of seeing someone. so all these initial triggered thoughts are there. If something in their appearance triggers a negative association (e.g. careful they might be some hardcore feminist and start screaming at me), that can stop the initial sexual attraction. Though a sexual attraction may still come about, but it will then depend on gathering information about the persons personality.

I often wonder if women and people of non-heterosexual persuasion have similar processes of sexual attraction. I find it wonderful that once I  decide that I like someone any imperfections that they have no longer matter, are not unattractive or trigger any negativity.

What make up can do is hide imperfections, so any initial negative thoughts don’t happen, positive relations are established and so when imperfections are revealed, they no longer matter. For a non-sexual relationship, the imperfections are known about, so don’t trigger any pre-engineered assessment.

1st blog

I’ve decided to give blogging a go. I  had a fear of expressing myself publicly which I feel I have no longer and why not?.


I like politics. I like politics when it’s theoretical and trying to work out how to make living on this planet better. A problem solving approach, which makes me feel happier.

Then there’s political reality and party politics. As an individual it’s very difficult to achieve anything on a large scale. Societies have created politicians to do the job of implementing ideas to make the world better. The problem is that politicians don’t actually do this. It seems what starts out as an intention to make things better or a really good idea, gets twisted by the political system into policies that seem to make matters worse. The need to appeal to artificially created groups of people, invented by statistical analysis  to ensure they can keep doing the job. This politics makes me angry and feel depressed.

Anger is a negative thing, it doesn’t do me or anyone else any good. Yet it can inspire me to do something, to try and get the politicians to listen to what people want, rather than what they produce. I feel it is also important to spend lots of time not being angry and more productive.

I’m on the mailing list of 38degrees , a campaign group, which sends out requests for help campaigning on various issues. What I have found strange is that the number of campaigns I support is in the high 90s percentage wise. Talking to people, it seems that the majority agree with the majority of what they say, so it seems undemocratic that these opinions seem to be ignored. Of course everything costs money, so politicians have to balance the books and try to keep taxes low, so people have some disposable income, so in implementation some ideas are less favoured.

So, why oh why, are some things done badly when they actually cost more than the alternative and lead to people being poorer. Why is keeping your job as a politician, someone who wants to make things better, mean they feel required to make things worse, merely to stay in the job and achieving the opposite of their intentions.

Opposites. Sometimes useful truths come from opposites. I once lived in a house with someone with the opposite view of a political system, myself being left wing and he right wing. We had a long chat about politics. In terms of the ideal society that should be aimed for, we were in complete agreement! What we disagreed about was how to get there, or rather how to treat people along the way.

I could go on for hours, but enough for today!