For the uninformed: this is a direct response to a post saying that obtaining sex by deception is sexual assault. Which, y'know, it is.
No, makeup doesnt fucking count you unmitigated arsehole.
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2026
234 points (89.5% liked)
Brand New Sentence
399 readers
716 users here now
Showcasing the brazen and nouveau in English communication.
- Be cool to each other and follow the lemmy.today instance rules.
- Post title must be the sentence, or relevant portion of the sentence if it's very long.
- Link for context if possible.
- Tag NSFW where applicable.
- This instance has no rules against calls to violence, please don't report general wishes for violence. Direct implications of harm (i.e. I will shoot x person in the head) will be moderated at our discretion.
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
she’s gorgeous in both?
The makeup version looks hideous to me but that is my personal opinion. Very overdone.
I think she looks even prettier in the right photo Idk what the problem is
What a wild way to say you've never been with a woman before
DLSS 5 ON vs OFF lol
More like DLSS 5 OFF vs ON
Damn I hate it when I get seduced by women wearing makeup, it's the worst thing ever, I hope it doesn't happen this weekend.
Why else, throughout history, have women been blamed just for being attractive?
"No, I raped you! It's your fault for being sexy!"
calling the woman a female is a telltale sign its an incel.
Maybe it's cultural, but "woman" can sound "old" to some people, and "girl" can sound "young".
Some guys think its respectful to sidestep the whole issue and use an age neutral term, unaware of how it sounds.
From my personal experience, those who aims to be respectful just say woman.
This is why I can't talk to most men for more than a minute.
Conservatives will show you two pictures of a conventionally attractive person looking conventionally attractive, and then caption it some bs like "the age of men has fallen."
I am crazy or is she not way more attractive without the makeup?
My husband just said, "If you think the one on the right is not an attractive woman, maybe you're gay. Like, you should just be looking for dudes."
Maybe she's not your exact type, but surely we can all agree that she very much fits the bill for what a large majority of people would traditionally consider pretty.
I am personally not a fan of the highly-made-up trend, so I do think that she's more attractive without the makeup. But I also understand why people like wearing makeup, and it's her right to do it or not depending on her mood. I think anyone who can't tell that she's wearing makeup in the photo on the left is (a) lying or (b) a child.
Left looks like generic vapid bimbo, like what you would get if you typed 'vapid bimbo' in gen AI.
Right looks like a person.
Part of it is she's authentically smiling and joyful without the makeup instead of doing that forced neutral "Paris Hilton" kind of look with the make-up.
Turns out when people are happy and in a good mood they're more attractive. Who knew?
It's almost liberating to realize that beauty is not the same as attractiveness.
Someone can look below average, but have a shining, friendly personality that makes them attractive as hell!
No matter the gender, either- I'm not a particularly handsome man, but I can tell you that sparking joy works.
Attractiveness is subjective.
This is true. Attractiveeness is also mathematical. Symmetry and having average facial structures also play a role too.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Oh...yeah...that right pic is horrid. I'd be willing to take one for the team, though.
incels need to be stopped
Well, it's not like they're reproducing. Just give it a few years.
sadly it wont work like that
they wont have children and raise incels, but tw*tter will still raise incels from others' children
incelism is a social-media-borne disease to which people raised to be bigots are susceptible
Sadly, you're right. They reproduce asexually, like slime molds, and nuns.
imagining a tw*tter incel mitosis-ing
or giving birth to a miniature clone of itself
view more: next ›