An Argument Against Makeup

  • Thread starter Thread starter XJ9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
XJ9 said:
Some argue that wearing makeup is a sin because it is an attempt to improve upon God’s creation.
Click to expand...
Clowns put on makeup to make people laugh.
When people dress for Halloween, some put makeup on as a part of their costume.
Actors/actresses put on makeup as part of a show and/or performance.
Some little bit of makeup for a bride to wear to her wedding to emphasize her beauty (i.e. some complimentary accentuation to what God has made.)

Makeup in itself is not a sin, no less someone cutting their finger nails. Or getting their hair cut. Or beard trimmed.

If you use makeup to deceive a person, or thus hide your identity. Say someone robbing a bank, or using makeup to go undetected to get in somewhere for some nefarious crime. The use of makeup is therefore wrong. For the intentions are for evil and ill. But then the sin would be to deceive, and to steal. And the makeup was the corroborated affect of it. But not the other way around, being the sin itself.
 
Last edited:
I feel like there’s enormous variation in makeup–everything from coverup (which is the most I normally use, just to even out skin tone) to drag queen makeup.

It doesn’t make sense to treat these things as being exactly the same. I’d say that at least 50% of the point of makeup is to camouflage naturally occurring flaws rather than to inflame lust.

(Although if any of the anti-makeup ladies used to use it to inflame lust, than I suppose it’s for the best that you stopped.)
 
And if indeed they adorn themselves with this intention of provoking others to lust, they sin mortally; whereas if they do so from frivolity, or from vanity for the sake of ostentation, it is not always mortal, but sometimes venial.
Click to expand...
I would like to know your reasoning for how this statement, in summary, amounts to:
Arkansan said:
It is a sin for unmarried women.
Click to expand...
There seem to be many caveats here that your statement glosses over.
 
Last edited:
Actually, he said they would sometimes be committing venial sin, which is a relevant qualification I think we should consider. For starters, maybe we should talk about what that even means.
 
“Cyprian is speaking of women painting themselves: this is a kind of falsification, which cannot be devoid of sin. Wherefore Augustine says (Ep. ccxlv ad Possid.): “To dye oneself with paints in order to have a rosier or a paler complexion is a lying counterfeit. I doubt whether even their husbands are willing to be deceived by it, by whom alone” (i.e. the husbands) “are they to be permitted, but not ordered, to adorn themselves.””

Bolding mine.

The only caveat is for covering up defects.
 
Last edited:
2 daughters int he beauty industry here. It’s fine.
Beauty professionals take great care to make people look natural and NOT overly made up.
 
He says they would be committing sin if done for the two reasons I mentioned: frivolity or for the sake of being ostentatious. I didn’t say everyone who wears makeup is sinning.
 
Ah, I see.

There is a distinction between adornments and face makeup being made here that I did not account for.
 
Yes. But Aquinas (and Augustine among others) distinguishes between makeup and other adornments.
 
You know, I thought that, too, but reading the text, it appears to me that Thomas is making a distinction between the two.

(This is probably why modern legal documents clearly define their terms at the outset of a contract.)
 
I guess all I could really fall back on at this point is that I disagree with Aquinas’s analysis.

His argumentation in Objection 2 seems to center on the fact that face makeup is deceptive. I find that assumption hard to accept.

For starters, it’s difficult to label as a deception something which everyone knows about. Women don’t hide the fact they wear makeup. It seems truer to the concept of a “lying counterfeit” to, you know, go to some lengths to conceal the lie, not tell everyone about it.

But what do I know?
 
Last edited:
Lemme look at my makeup drawer…

…anyone who thinks I naturally have bright purple lips and gold eyelids needs to check in with reality again.
 
The deception is when it’s taken off, the person looks different…sometimes so different it’s like another person. Most people I know have under eye circles (which are usually genetic) slight discoloration in skin, less than perfectly full eyebrows. It’s not bad. It’s just what is natural and common on the face of a person. Filling all that in makes it deceptive because it’s exaggerating what you don’t have. Yes even bright lipstick or eyeshadow is deceptive because its naturally not apart of your face.
 
Women and young women in particular like to look nice.
Where’s the sin in that?
I saw a video of myself yesterday and I was upset at how bad I looked yesterday.
Going to take more care to fix up before leaving the house.
I think it’s best not to frighten the children when you’re out and about, 🤣

Deception, meh
I’m protecting your eyes 😜
 
Arkansan said:
Yes, quoting Augustine, Aquinas holds that the use of make-up by unmarried women is sinful, though he adds that it is only mortally sinful in specific conditions, and is justifiable to disguise an injury. This all being distinguished from adornments in general.

I’m not sure what you’re not understanding?
Click to expand...
I think Augustine was addressing Roman culture at that time when he considered makeup sinful. I don’t think we can apply the same restrictions on unmarried women today on the basis of how the Roman’s viewed cosmetics.

“Cosmetics, first used in Ancient Rome for ritual purposes,[1] were part of daily life for women, especially prostitutes and the wealthy”

"Despite exaggerating their makeup to make it appear in the poor lighting of the time, women still wanted to appear natural as a sign of chastity. Artificiality denoted a desire to be seductive, which made men question for whom exactly a woman was trying to appear attractive. This was why men generally viewed the use of cosmetics as deceitful and manipulative.[11] Vestal Virgins did not don makeup because they were supposed to look holy and chaste. "

“Of all the surviving texts mentioning cosmetics (all written by men) Ovid is alone in his approval of their use. The consensus was that women who used cosmetics in excess were immoral and deceptive and were practicing a form of witchcraft.”

“Pure white skin, a demarcation of the leisure class, was the most important feature of Roman beauty.[7] Native Roman women weren’t naturally fair-skinned and spent their time outside with oils on their faces, requiring whitening makeup to fit their model of beauty.”

“Although Romans esteemed pale faces, a light pink on the cheeks was considered to be attractive, signifying good health. Plutarch wrote that too much rouge made a woman look showy, while Martial mocked women, believing that rouge was in danger of melting in the sun.”

“Cosmetics, and especially their overuse, were commonly associated with prostitutes, both being regarded as immoral and seductive. The Latin word lenocinium actually meant both “prostitution” and “makeup”. Due to their low income, prostitutes tended to use cheaper cosmetics, which emitted rather foul odors.[30] This, combined with the strong, exotic scents used to cover up the stench, made brothels smell especially rank. As prostitutes aged, with their income dependent on their appearance, they opted for more copious amounts of makeup. Courtesans often received cosmetics and perfumes as gifts or partial payment.”

I’m pretty sure most unmarried women in our culture aren’t donning makeup to signal they are sexually promiscuous or are open for business as prostitutes. I think the general principle that Aquinas stated about the intention of the user would determine it’s sinfulness. Cosmetics don’t have the same social meaning today that they did in Rome and it’s provinces, which is where the Bishop Possidius was writing to Augustine from when he was looking for advice for his flock.

 
Last edited:
Intent matters.

From the page you cited:
And if indeed they adorn themselves with this intention of provoking others to lust, they sin mortally; whereas if they do so from frivolity, or from vanity for the sake of ostentation, it is not always mortal, but sometimes venial.

I don’t know any women who wear makeup with the intention of provoking men to lust. A few might do so out of vanity or frivolity, but I would argue that is fairly uncommon. Most just consider it a matter of good grooming and putting their best selves forward.
 
Last edited:
I also have to note that there are work places that require cosmetics on female employees.


Qantas apparently has a beauty school for their new recruits.

“I haven’t walked onto a Hollywood movie set, I’m at the Qantas “glam” training for its newly recruited flight attendants. This is where cabin crew go to look so good, to learn the tricks of the in-flight trade — where the length of your ponytail is as important as the shade of your lip colour.”

Qantas requires mascara and lip color.

Ever wonder why women with certain jobs always have on noticeable makeup? It may be corporate policy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top