Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Members attacking me as a person for making a claim that I have basically proven with evidence (very little of which anyone has tried to debate). Personal offense or whatever the motive is does not excuse that. I'm not a woman's style expert (and never claimed to be), but I am a male who knows male style (a related animal) and I'm excellent at aesthetic judgments and very well-read on attractiveness. Maybe it's because I am naturally sensitive to beauty or lack thereof. Even if I react more strongly to these things than most people do, denying that "bangs don't look good" won't do you any good. I'm finally satisfied that I've learned and said enough about the dark hair/light skin problem, and I'm not that interested in the effects when other colors are involved. Somebody should research it.
Members attacking me as a person for making a claim that I have basically proven with evidence (very little of which anyone has tried to debate). Personal offense or whatever the motive is does not excuse that. I'm not a woman's style expert (and never claimed to be), but I am a male who knows male style (a related animal) and I'm excellent at aesthetic judgments and very well-read on attractiveness. Maybe it's because I am naturally sensitive to beauty or lack thereof. Even if I react more strongly to these things than most people do, denying that "bangs don't look good" won't do you any good. I'm finally satisfied that I've learned and said enough about the dark hair/light skin problem, and I'm not that interested in the effects when other colors are involved. Somebody should research it.
Oh, good gravy, you haven't "proven anything with evidence." That's why people haven't been debating your so called "evidence" - it's simply too ridiculous.
Do you have any idea how crazy it sounds to say that you're "excellent at aesthetic judgments and very well-read on attractiveness?" Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder, and I think that people on this thread have proven that when it comes to hair styles it's too individualistic to make blanket statements like "dark bangs don't look good on white women" and other such nonsense.
No research needed, by the way, for me (and apparently nearly everyone else on this stupid thread) to determine whether or not bangs look good - IN OUR OPINION - on some people. And by the way, I'm naturally sensitive to beauty or the lack thereof as well. Lots of folks are. Your opinions on beauty are just that - opinions - and simply can't be proven to be right or wrong, which is why you have rather spectacularly failed in that endeavor.
Beauty is not (significantly) in the eye of the beholder. Any researcher would laugh at the notion. People's idea of what they look like might be, but a warped self-image is common. I can't be bothered arguing over such things - it's like arguing whether the world is flat.
Beauty is not (significantly) in the eye of the beholder. Any researcher would laugh at the notion. People's idea of what they look like might be, but a warped self-image is common. I can't be bothered arguing over such things - it's like arguing whether the world is flat.
Sure, there is a bio basis of what we perceive as being physically attractive. Symmetry, for one, could indicate a healthier person (better immune system). This could go either for or against your argument though - A) straight bangs would make a face look more symmetrical or B) it could hide the a/symmetry of facial features underneath. Chemical signalling between humans also can have a big influence (being attracted to someone who you are most genetically compatible with via mhc/pheromones/etc) , but that's for an entirely different thread.
Those examples above can play a part in attraction, but that seems to have been put on the back burner nowadays. We have evolved and other things are also taken into consideration: way of dressing, ads/media dictating what 'attractive' is, trends, etc.
So, I guess, sure you both have a point. The way you presented your argument though is flawed. You made sweeping generalizations trying to prove something is fact when you should have used those points to support your opinion.
Beauty is not (significantly) in the eye of the beholder. Any researcher would laugh at the notion. People's idea of what they look like might be, but a warped self-image is common. I can't be bothered arguing over such things - it's like arguing whether the world is flat.
Or like arguing about whether or not bangs look good or bad ON EVERYONE.
You know, I work daily with a developmentally disabled young person with the ASD formerly labeled Asperger's Syndrome who spends a lot of time working himself up into a frantic lather over his insistence that his opinions are not, in fact, opinions, but FACTS (!), and that the opinions of others are not only mere opinions, but they are also WRONG, because only his opinions (er, "facts") are correct.
Sure, there is a bio basis of what we perceive as being physically attractive. Symmetry, for one, could indicate a healthier person (better immune system). This could go either for or against your argument though - A) straight bangs would make a face look more symmetrical or B) it could hide the a/symmetry of facial features underneath. Chemical signalling between humans also can have a big influence (being attracted to someone who you are most genetically compatible with via mhc/pheromones/etc) , but that's for an entirely different thread.
Those examples above can play a part in attraction, but that seems to have been put on the back burner nowadays. We have evolved and other things are also taken into consideration: way of dressing, ads/media dictating what 'attractive' is, trends, etc.
So, I guess, sure you both have a point. The way you presented your argument though is flawed. You made sweeping generalizations trying to prove something is fact when you should have used those points to support your opinion.
That's a rare thoughtful post in this thread. I still say it's fact, though, based on the principles I've cited. My opinion on symmetry and bangs is undecided, but I suspect that perfectly symmetrical hair in front is perceived as abnormal, because most people have noticeably naturally asymmetrical hair by a few decades into life. Uncanny valley, and why overly neat hairstyles can look like wigs. By the way, sometimes hairstyles with bangs look like wigs to me, and probably anyone will be turned off by a perceived wig.
Also, I've noticed that the positive talk about bangs in this thread by bangs defenders hasn't been very strong. Lots of "likes," but maybe no "loves." Not strongly conflicting with my original claim (that bangs don't (objectively) look good, although subjectively some people like them and they can hide objective physical flaws).
Last edited by goodheathen; 10-10-2013 at 10:18 PM..
That's a rare thoughtful post in this thread. I still say it's fact, though, based on the principles I've cited. My opinion on symmetry and bangs is undecided, but I suspect that perfectly symmetrical hair in front is perceived as abnormal, because most people have noticeably naturally asymmetrical hair by a few decades into life. Uncanny valley, and why overly neat hairstyles can look like wigs. By the way, sometimes hairstyles with bangs look like wigs to me, and probably anyone will be turned off by a perceived wig.
Also, I've noticed that the positive talk about bangs in this thread by bangs defenders hasn't been very strong. Lots of "likes," but maybe no "loves." Not strongly conflicting with my original claim (that bangs don't (objectively) look good, although subjectively some people like them and they can hide objective physical flaws).
Like I said earlier, your definition of bangs is much more narrow than the reality of bangs in the general population. What it sounds like you don't like is the extremely blunt cut of one style of bangs, on dark haired white women. Earlier I posted a pic of myself, definitely with bangs, and you said they "weren't really bangs" when in fact, they ARE bangs, just not symmetrical, blunt cut bangs. In fact, that style of bangs is very common (sort of side swept or choppy and asymmetrical but cut much shorter than the hair on the sides of the face). Maybe that's what's throwing people - your extremely narrow definition.
Not to mention your insistence that your opinion is a fact. I don't understand why you can't drop that and just admit that it's your OPINION rather than an objective fact. People would agree with you then - after all, you're entitled to your own opinion. It's your insistence that it's a general, objective fact that irritates people, especially people who like or LOVE bangs - when they even think about them.
Saying long side-swept bangs are bangs is like saying braids are curls. Probably technically true, but otherwise misleading. Yes, long side-swept bangs can look good (probably because they look natural and showcase long hair), but I doubt many people think of them when they think of "bangs." (Let's pretend there is no gray area between side-swept bangs and regular bangs, even though there's an almost infinite range of hairstyles.) Among other styles of bangs, they range from meh to uggh, and I expect agreement on that as viewed on third parties by most people, including the vast majority of men.
Now I get to take a random hair survey that landed in my email account this morning.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
