Why do some people (is this mostly women?) apparently think that wearing glasses will or would make them less attractive? I just don't get it. To me it's like saying... that you're less intelligent when it rains, or that you get less sunburned on days with an R in them. Huh.
(Obviously the glasses should go with your looks but that's true of anything you wear.)
Update:
Bron says:
"Men don't make passes at women who wear glasses", from Gentlemen prefer Blondes, I think.
The Big Sleep, Humphrey Bogart, has a scene with a women in glasses; she removes them, and almost as a "wolf" whistle, he says"well, hello!"
Hangover from the 40s, 50s. Fashion. Like dyeing gray hair.
Indeed. Actually, a thing occur to me: glasses today are much more "nicer" than just a couple of decades ago. My current glasses are a bit stronger than my first pair, but they are compact and discreet, and they weigh just eleven grams! I think that's a marvel of engineering. My first pair weighed at least three times that. Sure, I paid a bit extra for titanium frames and thin lenses, but despite that they were also cheaper than my first set twenty years ago, and that's even before considering inflation.
What I meant to say was that traditionally glasses were bulkier and perhaps not pretty, and often did indeed hide your face a bit, so that makes the phenomenon a bit easier to understand.
20 comments:
"Men don't make passes at women who wear glasses", from Gentlemen prefer Blondes, I think.
The Big Sleep, Humphrey Bogart, has a scene with a women in glasses; she removes them, and almost as a "wolf" whistle, he says"well, hello!"
Hangover from the 40s, 50s. Fashion. Like dyeing gray hair.
word V for the day: oplasms ... what?
I actually find (small, round) glasses on girls to be sexy.
Here's a challenge/idea, do a domai special on girls with glasses.
Would love to, but I guess this confirms it: I *think* I have only seen *two* sets amongst over five thousand, where the model used glasses. And both were clearly with the glasses as a prop.
'I *think* I have only seen *two* sets amongst over five thousand, where the model used glasses'.
Possibly a very valid reason that has nothing to do with how a girl looks ... glasses can be a bloody nightmare (to the photographer) if worn by a model, particularly if flash is used, which is often the case, even outdoors ... reflections of the photographer or flash (multi flash in a studio!)are not the most attractive aspect of anyones face, and the option is to bugger about and tilt the lenses if necessary for every shot ... and consequently, out of the window goes any chance of spontaneity. It also compromises shooting angles, and the angle at which a face can be posed.
The only real workable solution was to remove the lenses from the frames ... but that more or less reduced the glasses to the status of a prop.
Yeah, good point.
I usually find women to be more attractive when they wear glasses. It depends on the style, of course.
Why do some people (is this mostly women?) apparently think that wearing glasses will or would make them less attractive? I just don't get it.
Wearing glasses won't make someone more or less attractive. The pain of wearing them, though...well if you have the money, why not LASIK? It's worth it. I'll definitely be dying it when I go gray, too.
Laser surgery?
Sounded appealing when I thought they did not actually have to cut anything with scalpels. But then I saw a documentary, and it was a butcher show. Almost made me hurl. Nobody is doing that to my friggin eye unless it's direly necessary!
Something not often mentioned (I wonder why not?)is that even after successful surgery, its still often necessary to wear glasses, perhaps for reading / watching the TV, or alternatively for distance work! ... much of the surgery produces a compromise: better than you are now, but still way off 20:20 vision!
So ... pay for the surgery (and risk), and STILL need glasses? Sounds like a no-brainer to me!
Titanium frames and thin lenses? Hey, just like mine!
And I've had them for a few years now.
I found out that "rimless" is actually less seamless than today's very thin rims. I really don't like these fixtures OVER the lenses themselves. Like, SO not elegant, hello?
Titanium's KEWL: you need very little of it, and it dispenses you of the need for spring hinges. My optician showed me his, saying: "I once SAT on them by mistake, and they barely even had to be straightened a little."
The "biggest" annoyance, is that you need to get used to practically not FEELING their weight. And to trust that, well adjusted, they WON'T constantly be falling forward from the weight of the lenses overcoming that of the branches.
One out of 4 persons today (in a reasonably industrialized country) wear glasses. One out of two after the age of presbytia. Are all of these automayically UGLY?
Not to mention the overweight, the notably thin, the tall, the short, the dark complexions, the pale untanned, the not very busty, the non-blonde, the foreign-born...
"Chute, Sarge, these fashion stereotypes leave precious little choice!
- You said it, private, now close your eyes and JUMP!
- I'll say hi to your motheeeeeeeerrrrrrrr......."
"Laser surgery? [...] Nobody is doing that to my friggin eye unless it's direly necessary!"
The intrinsic surgical risk is never ZERO, even if procedures today have become VERY safe. I've attended a conference on eye surgery.
Not only am I comfortable with my specs now that hazardous ACTUAL GLASS is a thing of the long-gone past, but actually, I like the added feeling of SAFETY they give me. If a window shatters very close to my face, I am constantly wearing protection against the possible shards. Or sand projections. Lots of unpleasant stuff.
And since I'm not into boxing...
Anyway, any eye surgery is disadvised if you're into boxing. The eyes are already fragile enough to these violent blows as it is. Surgical modification doesn't help.
Pro sport overall is too violent on the body. But boxing? It's CHASING after trouble! Running behind the bull with a cattle prod aimed at its "bulls". Sure, you MIGHT escape the deal unharmed...
Philocalist said...
"even after successful surgery, its still often necessary to wear glasses, perhaps for reading / watching the TV, or alternatively for distance work! ... much of the surgery produces a compromise: better than you are now, but still way off 20:20 vision!
So ... pay for the surgery (and risk), and STILL need glasses? Sounds like a no-brainer to me!"
Exactly! I interviewed a SLOUGH of patients w/a doctor that I was also interviewing and almost all of them were MISERABLE w/the affects!! Of course, that was about 10 years ago but...I STILL read about peeps having halos from oncoming traffic lights. MISERABLE!! I would not feel very confident that my driver's license wouldn't become restricted to "daytime driving only" with nonsense like that! And...yes...the risk, the finality, the permanency of it all. Not worth it to this gurl! :-(
Sure, the risk is never zero, but it can be so close to it that for all practical purposes it is zero. How many things in life would we attempt if we needed the risk to actually be zero?
Something not often mentioned (I wonder why not?)is that even after successful surgery, its still often necessary to wear glasses, perhaps for reading / watching the TV, or alternatively for distance work! ... much of the surgery produces a compromise: better than you are now, but still way off 20:20 vision!
So ... pay for the surgery (and risk), and STILL need glasses? Sounds like a no-brainer to me!
You wonder why? I'll tell you: Because it's not true. Your information is at best outdated. Maybe this was true when laser surgery was in its infancy.
No one would get it done if the result was "still way off 20:20 vision!" (Never mind that 20/20 isn't "perfect" vision anyway. These days 20/20 can be virtually guaranteed, and a minority of people get even better than that.)
Sounded appealing when I thought they did not actually have to cut anything with scalpels. But then I saw a documentary, and it was a butcher show.
This is also very outdated. How old was this documentary? I would have thought Europeans would have access to the most up-to-date technology. They don't cut with scalpels. Unless you mean a laser scalpel, which is not guided by the surgeon's hand. No butcher show. The computer-guided laser cuts a flap, which is moved out of the way, another laser does its job, and the flap is replaced. The scarring is visible only under magnification (and is only on the white part anyway, so it couldn't ever possibly affect vision). The procedure takes at most five minutes. It's painless.
Really, what I can't understand is why people who should know better (even a doctor!) believe these fairy stories when "the truth is out there" as Mulder said.
Exactly! I interviewed a SLOUGH of patients w/a doctor that I was also interviewing and almost all of them were MISERABLE w/the affects!!
Yeah, right.
Of course, that was about 10 years ago
I'm shocked.
but...I STILL read about peeps having halos from oncoming traffic lights. MISERABLE!!
A very small minority get that.
I would not feel very confident that my driver's license wouldn't become restricted to "daytime driving only" with nonsense like that!
What, really? I would feel very confident that wouldn't happen because this is not something they test for anyway.
And...yes...the risk, the finality, the permanency of it all. Not worth it to this gurl!
The risk is for practical purposes nil, and the permanency is therefore a good thing. It's pretty clear that you guys are all basing your opinions on information - or I should say hearsay - that is at least 10 years old.
'You wonder why? I'll tell you: Because it's not true. Your information is at best outdated. Maybe this was true when laser surgery was in its infancy.'
Bollocks! ... to use a quaint English term. I've no idea where you get your information; probably the same place as most other people, i.e. via whatever happens to be your chosen media, at which point you seem happy to blindly accept what you are told, and then continue that propogation in ignorance, right or wrong.
UNFORTUNATELY (in this case) I speak from experience, NOT from listening or reading what the opinions of others may say.
Within the last 2 years I have personally experienced 3 people who are well known to me (one, my own brother!)complain about the poor end result of this surgery.
In the case of my brother, he used to need glasses for middle to distance work ... driving, or when he was fishing. Following surgery, this range of vision HAS improved ... at the immediate expense of closer vision. With immediate effect he had to have new glasses made up that would allow close-up vision for reading, using a computer, or even watching TV ... and driving can now be somthing of a compromise: way beyond the bonnet he is ok ..... but the dashboard can be quite blurred.
Another friend reports quite graphic halos around any point light source at night-time ... great fun while driving, and instance number 3 is quite similar.
She's a senior manageress within a nightclub / entertainment chain and spends a LOT of time in dark clubs with bright lights ... and frequently reports effects like a kaleidoscope ... without involving alcohol.
You sound way too much like one of these eye 'surgeons' trying to justify the compromises and problems caused by the work, that are never mentioned prior to the work being paid for!
Just to even out the results a bit, my wife and I both had it done five years ago. Both good outcomes. Neither need glasses for anything. Acing the glasses has been the best thing ever for photography.
@Acing the glasses has been the best thing ever for photography'.
I'm curious why you would say that Rich, in what way(s)?
The doctor takes slight offense, Dave.
[Apologies in advance for the big multi-part post.]
If you check again, I said two things:
- Surgical risk is always present, and NOT "infinitely small". I'll stand by that affirmation. It was taught to me by the many surgeons I have worked with in the Operating Room and following the patients. If YOUR informations are from published articles, your sources are likely to be biased for commercial motives. Come on, really, tell me: what interest would a DOCTOR have in encouraging you to AVOID surgery? Surely no selfish motives!
- I also said that an operated eye is usually left more fragile than an untouched one (which is already a highly delicate and vulnerable structure). I also maintain that statement. Again, there's clearly no money in it for me, since I don't sell eyeglasses.
You can choose to believe the selfless guy who advises you and your family every day (and for free on this blog, might I add), or the people who have millions invested in highly-publicized "modern procedures".
Mind you, I never said eye surgery today was significantly dangerous. But I'd say it's more hazardous than taking the stairs. So, all I'm saying, is "mind your step".
Actually, there is one very appropriate indication for eye surgery: unusual or intense vision problems, requiring complicated and/or big lenses. In these cases, mostly, you can expect the correction to not be perfect, but to greatly reduce your problem and allow you to live with glasses thinner than bottle butts. Your vision will also suffer far less warping from the unavoidable optical effects of external lenses.
Bottom line: the doctor never said "do not have eye surgery". What I said, apart from serious and informed data ethically mandatory as part of the patient's information (I never, ever bullshit my patients or "omit stuff" that could be meaningful to them), is "do NOT, ever, have ANY surgery done for FUTILE motives". That's when a non-nil risk automatically becomes "still too much".
You know, every Neurologist is "allowed" a quota of hospital beds for long-term comatose patients. They do need special care, but it's got to remain reasonable and not interfere with the right for other patients to be treated too. Hence the quota. Pragmatic management. (I know it's not ideal, but it's... realistic in the real world.) :-(
I've seen such a patient. Since the woman was not conscious -and would never be, I reckon-, she would have no objection to helping train the medical students in gynaecological examination. All completely respectful and ethical, but in some societies, it's near-impossible to find volunteers who wouldn't feel embarrassed. Anyway, we were also informed of the woman's story: she ended up like this after one of those rare but UNPREDICTABLE "anaesthesia accidents". General anaesthesia always bears some risk. The ransom of surgery's immense benefits.
So, what procedure did that poor lady undergo, that she never woke up from, in the absence of any medical error? (And I can assure you this isn't merely "the official version".) A fucking gallstone removal! One of the dumbest, simplest operations. There was no possible reason for anything to go wrong... except the risk I keep telling you people about.
[cont'd]
That risk is WAY smaller than that of complications in case you NEED an operation and don't undergo it. Maybe ten thousand times smaller. A simple, dumb hernia in your ballsack? It can suddenly get complicated and kill you, you NEED the surgery, operating hernias saves countless lives every MONTH. But... boob implants? (Not to mention the side effects of the prostheses themselves!) Sabotaging your natural beauty because "it's trendy"? Or modifying your eyes because "eyeglasses are geeky"? I say NO, FUTILE.
Both my parents have had surgery under general anaesthesia for genuine yet light problems, more or less equivalent to a hernia. I was okay with it. Had they said they "wanted" a needless operation on a whim, I would've advised against it. I told both of them, beforehand, about that tiny but still real risk of surgery itself, be it with the world's best surgeons. I told them all I've just repeated here.
All of you out there, by all means, feel free to heed my advice or disregard it. You DO have that ABSOLUTE freedom. It's your call, always. (Heck, it's YOUR hide!) But if you try to rationalize it by calling me uninformed or incompetent, I assure you, I will legitimately take offense.
Nobody questions my ethics, OR competence. When I say I'm sure, then I am, period.
If/when I'm NOT fully sure, I alwys say so. Either "let me check about that", or "Medicine still doesn't know". A braggart Dr B.S., I am not.
Latest, most recent data: the intrinsic risk of general anaesthesia is estimated around 1 death for 20,000 procedures. If you limit the figures to healthy patients (no special pathology increasing the risks), out of one million operations, 2 to 6 people will die. That's the figures from France, which OFFICIALLY has the world's #1 health system, according to the WHO.
Small risk, yes. But it's still there. Every doctor has probably seen in person at least one case like my gallstone lady. Because we must know.
How many people would play the lottery if there was nothing to win in it, and the stakes were one chance in 200,000 to DIE?
It is estimated that the risk is equivalent to that of driving a car for a year.
Well, I'll say this without hesitation, now, yesterday, and tomorrow: only drive when it's sensibly useful. That's what I do, always. Don't live in constant risk, of course, but don't take risks that are completely pointless, either. Or, if you do, don't pretend it wasn't YOUR own, full, informed choice. As a general rule. A 28 y/o guy recently died in France from a bungee jumping accident, in a professional setting. I call this a futile death. I'll bungee-jump without hesitation to leave a burning building. Not for the dumb thrill of knowing it CAN be fatal. Watching those people jump on 9/11 was not funny at all.
BTW, *local* anaesthesia is way safer. Unless you're allergic to the substance, have a heart arythmia, or the needle is dirty, you can go to the dentist's completely relaxed. (In fact, your dentist is sure to appreciate if you do that! :-)
[to be concluded]
[final part, whew!]
"I would feel very confident that wouldn't happen because this is not something they test for anyway."
You mean you would readily conceal such a problem, AND keep "legally" driving at night knowing you're unable to be a safe driver?
I'm not CLAIMING it. Simply asking.
Just because it is illegal doesn't always mean it's wrong.
Just because it is legal doesn't always mean it's right.
For a Christian to hold prayer in Saudi Arabia results in imprisonment. Converting from islam to another religion can get you executed in many parts of the Middle East. Some country in Africa just made it MANDATORY, under harsh penalties, to inform on homosexuals... for the police to arrest them and imprison or execute them. Even in the West, some things can be quite equivalent. Such as racial segregation laws, or jail for extra-marital sex.
The TRUE Law of God is in a sincere conscience. Not in ANY "rulebook". Rules are meant to be followed when your conscience is NOT ringing the alarm bell.
"[She] frequently reports effects like a kaleidoscope ... without involving alcohol."
Yeah, that really sounds like "great fun"... :-|
If you're into that sort of things!
I'd rather be swaying when I walk ONLY if I've had too much to drink.
Thanks for being the objective voice of reason, Philocalist. I like the way you write (and think).
Rich's testimony was ALSO interesting. OF COURSE not all procedures are disappointing.
That would make the choices too easy. There would be no further need for using your brain, if things were all black-and-white obvious.
Then again... that doesn't seem to deter some Lebanese people all around me! ):-P
Thanks Pascal, appreciated :-)
Great post too, always nice to see something considered and well argued with intelligence!
Post a Comment