siduri comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 7 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (495)
Yeah, I blinked a bit at that too. In canon she can't be bothered to use hair product (even though she likes the effect on her frizzy hair) because it takes too much time to put on, so it seems probable that makeup is in the same category. I could maybe see a light lip gloss, if Hogwarts is dry and her lips tend to chap.
On the other hand, Emma Watson obviously wears makeup, so perhaps this is movieverse Hermione.
Lastly, I know this opinion makes me, like, ninety years old and Amish to boot, but twelve is too young for make-up.
I'm 16, female, atheist and don't wear make-up. There's nothing old-fashioned about it - it's just practical for the school years.
It's the notion that twelve is too young that I suspect is out-of-date, not the notion that makeup is generally impractical -- lots of women of all ages don't wear any. I don't in my everyday routine, although I do if I'm dressing up.
I agree. Isn't the primary purpose of make-up the attraction of a mate? I know many kids start experimenting around that age, but that kinda weirds me out.
She's already kissed a boy and gone on a date.
We have teenagers who've worn makeup since 14, but that's because they had the Kevyn Aucoin books and learnt it as a form of dressing up well. Aucoin's books are the books on how to do makeup well and should be regarded as standard texts on the subject.
It’s the “primary purpose” in the sense that it’s also the primary purpose of jewelry and pretty clothes. Which I kind of doubt in general, although of course it could be true in particular cases.