My Unfair Lady – Makeovers, Cosmetic Surgery And Other Tricks
March 29, 2007
“Putting $50,000 into your kitchen leads to a better kitchen. Putting $50,000 into your face does not necessarily lead to a better face. This is because your face is not a kitchen.
To judge the success of your plastic surgery, stand outside. If people try to chase you off of a cliff with pitchforks, consider finding another plastic surgeon and getting a second opinion.” Great cosmetic surgery advice for women from Brian Sack the Banterist.
Brothers meet Jocelyne Wildenstein. Also known as the “Cat Woman” and the “Bride of Wildenstein.” This woman has spent thousands of dollars in plastic surgery transforming her face to resemble that of a cat’s. She has a 66,000-acre ranch in Kenya and loves cheetahs and lynxes. She has endured many long hours under the knife to create her jutting cheekbones, teardrop-shaped eyes and oversized lips to resemble her true love… cats.
Born in Switzerland on August 5, 1940, Wildenstein, soon to be 67, moved to Manhattan in the late ’70s with her then-husband, art-collector and billionaire Alec Wildenstein. They have two grown children together. When Alec was found in a compromising position with a 19-year-old model, she was granted a divorce in 1999
She cried “s****l abandonment” and won a hefty settlement. But the tabloids were cruel, and branded her with a variety of catty monikers.
It’s not certain how many plastic surgeries Wildenstein has had.
But let’s get serious for a few minutes. Sam Fryman from his classic work “A Men’s Liberation Guide to Women” carves it out and puts a proper face on it all. (Pun intended).
In the well known musical and movie, My Fair Lady, Rex Harrison in the guise of Professor Henry Higgins, an English dialect and phonetics expert who claims to tell a person’s birthplace in any district of London to within a few streets merely from their accent, makes a bet with a gentlemen friend that he can take a common flower girl and coach her in speech, dress and manners and pass her off as a genuine “lady” in high society.
On the subject of the concept of the term “lady” we are reminded of the very old joke that it is now put to you contains a rather deeper psychological truth than we may have imagined at first hearing:
ACCUSATIVE QUESTIONER: Who was that lady I saw you with last night?
SOBER REPLY: That was no lady, that was my wife!
That is, to be crystal clear about the meaning here, the man’s friend who doesn’t know her regards her as “a lady” and the man himself who does know her, by now we presume thinks that the best description of her would be in quite other terms.
Again, we should observe that what we may have previously regarded as valueless “trivia” such as the above “wise-guy” joke, is based upon the reality of the direct experiences and knowledge of its creator.
That is, we find the truth of life is better understood and documented by the typically formally uneducated “comedian”, rather than by the academically qualified psychologist and “researcher” who is forced to put his or her thoughts in a straitjacket of pre-existing conventions, which more often than not obscure the real truth.
We see in the media all the time, that “new research” has proven some glaringly obvious fact, such as most women want babies, or on the other hand, something we know to be equally glaringly untrue, such as TV does not influence people, and it is high time this kind of bogus “academic research” particularly in the psychological field, was dismissed for the nonsensical feministic propaganda tool it usually is, and that we refuse to accept anything we cannot see or verify for ourselves with our own real life experiences and common sense.
Of course, the movie and musical, which was incidentally based on Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw’s work Pygmalion, was really a whitewash and con too, in the sense that the “flower girl” part of Eliza Doolittle was played by possibly the most high class and refined actress in Hollywood history, Audrey Hepburn, who more appropriately went on to star in Breakfast at Tiffany’s.
So we see that in actual fact we had a very posh and classy girl, Audrey Hepburn, not wholly successfully pretending to be common, whereas the movie was trying to persuade us of the exact opposite – that a common girl can be turned into a lady.
We put it to you that the whole of Western society in particular, is currently engaged in this sham effort, and that in a sense, this is a deception that has been put on men since time immemorial.
Esther Vilar, in the classic 1972 work, The Manipulated Man, points out that a bald naked man and a bald naked, makeup-less woman are in many cases not such very different beings physically to look at, particularly as far as the face is concerned.
One of the few truly educational things that pornography in general and Internet pornography in particular, has proven conclusively, is that most people, including women, look an awful lot more attractive with their clothes on.
For that very reason, women spend billions on seductive clothing, shoes, underwear, cosmetics, make-up and now surgery in an effort to create a ravishing beauty out of what was often previously a very plain looking or even arguably ugly woman.
The trouble is well identified by the brief conversation Jim Carrey has with his young son in the movie Liar, Liar, in which he plays a lawyer who is for a whole day cursed into being able to speak only the truth, caused by a wish this son had made blowing out the candles on a birthday cake that came true – a concept incidentally which must be horrifying to any number of real lawyers around the world:
YOUNG SON (PUZZLED): But my teacher said that real beauty is on the inside?
JIM CARREY AS “WISE DAD”: No son – that’s just something ugly people say.
Thus if a woman is born with less than what seems her “fair share” of physical attributes identified as “desirable” or “beautiful”, why shouldn’t she be able to use “every trick in the book” to enable her to compete with the more glamorous “naturally endowed” woman?
Well, it is put to you that – right at this very moment in time – there are any number of good reasons.
For example, any kind of surgery is generally a very costly procedure. When there are so many starving millions in the world, and other people needy of much more important operations which are “a matter of life and death”, can all this fabulous expenditure and operating theatre time really be justified?
Since this then means that many millions of old people who are unable to walk or see properly wait long period of years perhaps for hip replacements or cataract operations, so that some insecure young girl can buy herself a pair of 36Ds, or alternatively some ageing woman who refuses to grow old gracefully can have her face pulled as tight as the Joker in Batman, and thereby often look equally ridiculous.
Another issue is that because except following birth defect, accidents or war injuries, this kind of surgery, due to its typical substantial costs, is largely the privilege of the wealthy and rich.
So that is to say, if your are a poor man or woman, to put the finishing touch on you good luck, you can be ugly as well, under the healthcare provisions of this merciless class ridden and wealth worshipping society.
This phenomenon also shows itself in terms of dental care, so that the rich can have a gleaming white smile, and quite often the poor cannot many times even get the essential dental treatment they need.
That is not to say that there should never be any use of cosmetic surgery, in extreme cases, or after accidents for example, but that somewhere along the line, someone with sense has got to say stop, because there is no real need.
The obsession of course with “getting something done” is being intensified manifold by the as usual endless and hypnotic TV features on the subject, and series like Nip and Tuck, starring British actress, Joely Richardson, who it is put to you would have done better to have used her acting skills to draw attention to more humanely important issues like her campaigning mother, Vanessa Redgrave.
We liked her however in Loch Ness, with wonderful Gullivers’ Travels actor Ted Danson, so we forgive her this time.
The irony is of course, that as usual, the classiest and most beautiful actresses like Ms Richardson who don’t actually themselves need any, are used in such dramas to sell us the message cosmetic surgery is good.
Undoubtedly however, the program makers would deny that they are showing anything but a balanced view of the industry, exploring all “the issues”, as they like to say when justifying their exploitation of our fears and primitive emotions.
But it is of course like doing a documentary on g******g or any other vice – it doesn’t deter anyone except the self-controlled who probably wouldn’t have done it any way, but rather encourages the manipulable and insecure less well-endowed women into paying gold to get them ther’ hills.
Despite the risks, like their implants blowing up inside them in a high altitude air flight, as usual, the punters always imagine the bad luck won’t happen to them.
Again, we see there are two motives behind all this, which are the usual ones governing our current world – capitalistic and feministic.
Ignoring the financial side of this however, it is clear that the feminist authorities are supportive of this unprecedented widespread use of cosmetic surgery on the grounds it is “empowering women.”
And there is no doubt about it, it is empowering some women, but it is argued here, that is very much at the expense of other women, and also of men.
If we look at many of the leading actresses and other celebrities now, we see that huge numbers of them have had it done, and many have had it done so surreptitiously and quietly, that even their colleagues and rivals in the celebrity sphere may be unaware.
For example, if we look at famous Austin Powers actress, Liz Hurley, without making any specific allegations one way or the other, her appearance now is so significantly different than when her acting career began, she appears to be not even the same person.
The point was that she was still a pretty, natural looking girl, in her early career before she likely made the “alterations”, but now she is we see cosmetically transformed into a goddess.
Without going to the dreary lengths of assassinating actresses and celebrities one by one, it is suggested to the reader, that by checking out a range of photos of these celebrities from earlier in their careers, we will see many examples of women who were really very plain indeed but have managed to pass themselves off as “glamour pusses” and icons, using these cosmetic surgery and “makeover” techniques.
We are not saying that women should not “make the best of themselves.”
But what we are saying, is that once this “masking” of a woman’s natural attributes goes beyond a certain point, it becomes not only extravagant, wasteful and ridiculous, but downright dishonest.
That is to say, a boy or man is attracted to a girl or woman on the basis that she looks pretty or attractive – because biologically speaking, he is trying to choose a partner to mate with who has the genetic features he desires to produce the best quality offspring with.
He picks her because he wants attractive children.
On the issue of whether she has brains or not, he can tell by talking to her, and possibly what job she has, or other talents, but his primary method of selection is currently based on what he sees.
But what we are now seeing is women who are not naturally beautiful, are learning to look like they are via these sophisticated cosmetic surgery and makeover techniques.
Every man should be warned, that even without surgery, the results of transformation by restyling hair, makeup and clothes, are frequently astonishing, and thus quite possibly what he is seeing in the apparently “glamorous” woman he has just met is in the genetic sense, not real.
Thus a man who has a child to such a visually “remastered” woman, who appears beautiful to him, may well be shocked to see the child is very plain or average, by comparison.
That is, all these techniques are really being used to deceive men.
It is therefore suggested to men that they take the opportunity to see this girl or woman they are idolising without make up, with her hair up in a bun, so they can see the shape of her head and facial features properly, and in some kind of clothes and shoes that allow him to determine her true height and shape.
It is further suggested that he see some old photographs of her, over a period of years previously, to be assured that what he is seeing is a “genetic reality.” If such old photographs, proceeding from even when she was a child, seem to be non-existent, or somehow “cannot be found”, this would seem to give genuine grounds for suspicion, as a typical attractive and therefore photogenic girl will usually have plenty.
Does this kind of “secret service” mission seem unfair or harsh on the less photogenic and conventionally attractive girl?
We do not think so, because the principle in life must be each to his own.
That is, if society is properly organised, we will all find someone on our own level of intelligence and good looks to pair off with.
But a woman who uses surgery to alter her genetic characteristics, is really deceiving a man, in making him think that she is a true beauty who will therefore produce beautiful children for him, when she likely won’t.
A lady might argue however, that say she is relatively flat-chested, she would feel more confident with larger breasts.
Apart from the dangers of this kind of surgery, many of which for all we know may still be unknown, an observation should be pointed out to women in general who would seek this route.
Though not universally true, there seems to be a tendency for the more intelligent and higher, more refined classes of women – for example the aforementioned Audrey Hepburn – to be smaller in the chest.
The kind of pendulous cartoon-like breasts we see on stars like Marilyn Monroe or many of the “page three” type girls (in the UK, there is a tradition of would-be celebrity girls posing topless on page three of certain national newspapers) seem to be frequently lacking in the more refined type of girl, especially one who is of a higher intelligence and sensitivity.
We certainly do not see the Carry On movie, Barbara Windsor type chests on the few girls and women who make it to university professor stage very often, do we, unless they are generally overweight?
It is further suggested to you that there may be an evolutionary basis for this.
That is to say, that the more evolved women are becoming less animal, and this shows in that the seriously big hips and bosoms seem to be the definite prerogative of the lower classes of women in general.
Whether or not this is true, which only a detailed and correctly oriented and executed research survey would show, what is certainly the case, is that if a man is in love with a woman, he will not be deterred by her lack of large bosom, because quite apart from anything else, large breasts tend to hypnotically attract the constant glances of other men, which though he may feel proud in the beginning of such attention, on the whole, in the long term he is not going to appreciate.
It is also to say, that a girl without a stunningly beautiful face may need such a generous endowment to attract men at all, whereas the pretty girl, whose sharpness of face often reflects her sharpness of mind, doesn’t need anything more to attract a man, as for example flat chested nude scene actresses like Sylvia Kristel of Emanuelle fame proved amongst others.
This also is why the deceit of major cosmetic surgery – i.e. that which restructures the whole face – seems to be an unacceptable fraud.
We after all even recognise and judge others – their inner selves – by their faces, and so this kind of permanent “masquerade” these ladies are indulging in is really attempting to deceive us as to who and what they really are.
Not only that, it is creating a paranoid competition amongst women themselves, “upping the ante” all the time, so that they are forced to battle one another by buying more and more “attributes” to tick as many of the boxes of desirability as possible, in their competition with other women for attention, jobs and men.
It seems however, that a high proportion of these surgeries go wrong, partly because the “divine artist” or ageless force of Nature, who made the human face, possesses an understanding and subtlety that perhaps only great artists like Leonardo da Vinci or Rembrandt ever get near, and most mere surgeons sadly lack.
It should also be pointed out that a piece of research anyone can easily carry out, walking down any major city street will reveal that a remarkable number of well educated, successful and attractive men do not choose beauty queens as either girlfriends or wives.
As already hinted at, most men do not want the hassle of having a beauty on their arm, who attracts too many admiring and jealous stares, and even occasionally confrontations with some envious and not very high-minded man who may accost the couple in some public place, such as a bar.
If women looked at the reality of this fact – that quite often stunning looks are no barrier to getting a suitable man, who is often seeking other qualities not always found in “a princess” – they might then stop needlessly obsessing on their appearances, and spend their precious time on developing themselves in other ways – for example by expanding and educating their minds.
For instance, a man who gets ill will be much more grateful for the presence of a lady who has the skills of a trained doctor or nurse than some dizzy beauty, who may not even be able to successfully apply a bandage or sticking plaster without nearly killing her man.
As we have already said, we are not here in the business of naming names and pointing fingers, and Liz Hurley was only mentioned as someone who was adequately attractive before any surgery she may or may not have had.
But as things stand, The Isley Brothers’ question – Who’s that lady? – is really taking on a new and literal meaning to men that was not anticipated at the time of its first airing.
Not only that, we see again that this is yet another arena of battle between men and women in which the fair lady doesn’t play fair.
That is – although there are huge stores and sections of stores in every town that sell the growing mountains of female cosmetic and “beauty products”, we men are mocked for our efforts to try to “pretty ourselves up” or roll back the hands of time.
Our efforts are very much limited to how we dress and style our hair, and the latter is somewhat of a problem for the growing number of bald men in society, many of whom are getting bald ever earlier than Nature might have planned, likely due to the undue stress that the modern feministic man-repressing society places them under.
For example, on this issue, balding men who comb over their hair to cover it up, as for example Clock Orange author Anthony Burgess used to do quite shamelessly, are derided for being false, and assured they should just accept Nature as it is and “learn to live with it.”
Of course, if women went bald naturally, as men start to do at age thirty, forty or fifty, we would no doubt see a very different perspective on the same issue, but anything bad that happens to men – well, they just have to learn to live it and face hard realities – just the opposite we see of every shamelessly evasive and reality-denying attitude and behaviour that women carry out when applied to their own appearance.
Even minor applications of cosmetics by men such as that to darken greying hair are mocked by women, and sadly we might point out, as usual also by our “comrades in arms” – other men.
If a man’s god-given born facial features are not so great, or are fading with age, he can use no eyeliner, nor foundation, nor lip gloss, nor pluck his eyebrows and pencil in some false ones, or any of the other compendium of tricks that women employ.
It has to be admitted however, that many men do improve with age, in a way that many women do not, such as the ruggedly handsome Pink Floyd song writer Roger Waters, who has now transformed into being something of a Wild West hero type, as compared to his early days as a somewhat awkward looking and arty youth.
There is however, equally no reason, why women should not age well, if they also concentrate on their character, which will shine through their ageing features, rather than trying to re-impose a little girl prettiness on themselves which simply does not fit with advancing years and mature age.
Both women and men should accept that older age, is the time to principally develop their minds and enrich their inner life, rather than to attempt to wage a futile and vain battle with Nature’s irreversible plans.
We should also note, as pointed out in relation to the kundalini theories of yoga as interpreted by Gopi Krishna, that moderation in all things would seem to be a far more reliable route to rejuvenation and reduced ageing for both men and women, than whole legions of so called “beauty products” could reliable ensure.
It is suggested also, that perhaps women should in general reduce their use of makeup to a bare minimum, as it is yet just another avenue of producing a fake reality to a man which enhances a desire that he doesn’t need.
For example, painting bright red on lips and fingernails and toes seems to have a sexually exciting effect, which surely must originate from some deeply embedded instinctive urge, perhaps just as we find red colours of meat desirable, due to their connection with flesh and blood.
Another theory on this, is that some species of monkeys or apes show bright red parts on their s****l anatomy during the mating process, so this power of red painted on the female body may be a “throwback” to such a former evolutionary era.
Men should be aware that all these tactics which are not part of a woman’s natural appearance, that are unceasingly explored and created by the fashion and cosmetic industries, are designed to hypnotically control him – to excite his desire for a woman unduly or whom he might not otherwise have even desired at all based on her natural beauty alone.
Women are allowed by current society to wear these elaborate masks, whereas men are not – women have to be allowed to see men exactly as they are – which is clearly another one of these many “double-standards” biased unfairly against men.
But both men and women should be aware that the morning after when perhaps the clothes are discarded and the makeup is faded away, they are both going to see one another as they really are.
And if neither then likes what they see, particularly the man, that relationship is unlikely to last.
So it is put to men that they should be careful to try to assess any woman in the real world he meets in terms of what lies beneath this glossy and superficial mask, she so carefully constructs each day before ever she leaves her house, and that women consider, that by using such masks, they are in fact creating a deceit which sooner or later will be found out to their cost.
It is also put to men that with very few exceptions, they are really indulging in a fantasy of the women before their eyes, rather than seeing the woman as she really is, which would leave them a whole lot less excited and sober in their behaviour towards her and women in general.
Wouldn’t it be better, we submit to men, to find a woman who you love as she really is, and to women we say, wouldn’t it be best to stop putting on all these extravagant disguises and find a man who will love you as you really are?
Modern society is very much built around this obsession with female beauty, which as they say is really only skin deep, and surely would be a far better place, if we concentrated our efforts in admiring and encouraging far less this superficial beauty of body, and looked far deeper to the beauty of the heart.
Source: Chapter Twenty-five – My Unfair Lady – Makeovers, Cosmetic Surgery and other tricks – A Men’s Liberation Guide to Women: Revised and enlarged 4th edition by Sam Fryman