Thursday, January 26, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
Leanin' like a Satanic chola
Lauren decided she'd finally had enough of the plebeians in her Stickam chats continually asking her to do a makeup video on her "daily routine"... even though 98% of her Stickam sessions consist of her applying more makeup over her makeup, like so:
So, she deigned to create and upload a nearly 14 minute long video of herself applying her "usual face". In this video, not only does she not explain anything she does, but she doesn't even bother to list any of the products she used. But that's not why this video is getting so much criticism.
She posted the makeup video on her blog, along with the claim that she wasn't wearing any makeup at the beginning of the video "except for tinted moisturizer".
Let's start with a screenshot of 2 seconds into the video, where she allegedly is wearing only the aforementioned tinted moisturizer.
Something not look right? Let's have a closer look.
No makeup, eh Lauren? Sure looks like eyeliner to me! And apparently everyone else with functioning eyes.
Here's another screenshot about 30 seconds in where she "starts" applying powder, and although she has not started doing eye makeup on video yet, her lower lid and inner corners are visibly lined.
Aside from the fact that she clearly started the video already wearing foundation... no one's eyes are naturally lined in black like that. Her viewers instantly noticed (how could anyone not, though?) and started commenting on it. She completely denied (and continues to deny) it:
A few lonely Felice stans tried to defend her, which she naturally ate up and continued to insist she was not wearing any makeup except for "tinted moisturizer" at the beginning of the video while deleting the comments that questioned this claim.
And then there's this shining beacon of intelligence:
I'm not sure who is more irritating: the intellectually-challenged fans who blindly accept everything she does and defend her no matter what, or Lauren herself for behaving like a proud, delusional child while lying about something quite trivial.
The comments questioning Lauren continued to pour in as she tried to keep up by deleting and gushing over her twisted idea that these comments were somehow meant as compliments. Notice how she slips up on her lie (accidentally'd her whole lie?) that she wasn't wearing any eye makeup at the beginning of the video, but admits she was wearing mascara in the comments below.
The video was posted to efagz, where it was further analyzed and, of course, debunked. Not long after she posted the video, comments like this started appearing in droves and were popping up at the top of the comment page due to so many efagz members positively rating them (hilarious, IMO):
This caused Lauren to go on a typically Felice-like deleting/banning spree, and also for the rating of the video to go down drastically (lulz).
She ended up disabling ratings due to the rapid decline of her positive rating. From efagz as well as Youtube:
But she insisted (and apparently still is in the Youtube comments!) that she still wasn't wearing eye makeup at the start.
Someone tried to make an excuse for her, and she decided "Yeah, sounds good, I'll just go with that."
Enjoy some screen caps of Lauren's informative replies to makeup inquiries and clear, helpful angles that show us all what she is actually doing.
It seems she didn't want us to actually SEE her working her mascara magic on her eyelashes. After finishing her eyeshadow (which seemed to take some time just to pick up any pigment onto her brush), finishing her liner and hastily applying a little mascara to her upper lashes, she stares at the camera for a moment, then turns to look for something. Take note of the time in the lower left corner in the 3rd image down.
BAM! Instant spider legs at 9:55, two seconds later!
HA! While we're correcting others, Lauren...
Just thought you should know that "technically" it's moisturizer. Or even moisturiser, since you're in the UK. ;)
Why wouldn't she actually do her lashes on video, though? Why cut out that very important piece? I'm guessing it's because she's so insecure, she just can't stand the thought of looking unattractive for a few seconds while she does the open-mouthed maneuver that ALL women do when applying mascara to the lower lashes. Or maybe she cut out the piece of the video where she put on individual false lashes, and wants everyone to think she has naturally long, clumpy lashes. Hard to say.
The last 30 seconds or so are really embarrassing to watch. Lauren seemed especially pleased with herself after applying several layers of black lipstick, and proceeded to spend the last half-minute of the video doing what she's best at: playing with her hair and staring smugly at herself in her webcam.
All donesies! What an enthralling and educational makeup video, where Lauren started out with a full face of makeup, denied it and banned everyone who called her out, cut out nearly all of the important application parts, and didn't tell anyone what products she used. The thing is, making such a useless makeup video wouldn't be such a big deal if Lauren didn't INSIST on lying about something so trivial, something anyone can see for themselves, and deleting/banning those who dared to question such a pointless lie.
Another screen cap of an older video where she also claimed she wasn't wearing any makeup... and yet I spy foundation and eyeliner, again. Less eyeliner, but if you look at her upper eyelids, it's pretty obvious, and there are remnants of eyeliner on her lower lids, too. This last image is probably the closest we've seen to Lauren ACTUALLY not wearing makeup, and of course, she's covering her face.
If you're that insecure, don't claim to not be wearing makeup WHEN YOU CLEARLY FUCKING ARE. Your grainy webcam can't protect you and more importantly, not everyone is as dumb as you like to think they are, Lauren!
The following was posted on Tumblr, and I found it to be quite apt:
Thursday, January 19, 2012
To view the NSFW version, click here.
"In general, this kind of cultural appropriation is really disrespectful and offensive because it trivializes something sacred. But adding sexualization to the mix takes it from disrespectful to downright dangerous because Native American women are sexually victimized at rates far higher than women of every other ethnic group in the United States:
- Over 1 in 3 Native American women will be raped at least once. They are 2.5 times more likely to be raped than women of any other ethnic group.
- During those rapes, Native American women are 20% more likely to be battered, injured, or assaulted with a weapon than any other ethnic group. (At least 90% are battered, 50% sustain serious injuries, and 35% are assaulted with a weapon.)
- 17% of Native women are victims of stalking, compared to the 4.5-8% among other ethnic groups. Native stalking victims are at least 1.5 times more likely to be raped or killed than women of other ethnic groups.
- Native American women are the only group more likely to be raped by a stranger than by someone they know. (Typically, women are 73% more likely to be raped by someone they know. Native women are raped by strangers 70% of the time.)
- Native American women are the only ethnic group more likely to be raped by someone of a different race. 86% of rapes perpetrated against Native women are committed by non-Natives (70% being perpetrated by whites).
- Until a new law was passed a year and a half ago, that meant 86% of rapists were untouchable because tribal authorities had no jurisdiction over non-Native defendants and federal authorities almost always decline to prosecute rapes.
- Under the new law, though, tribal courts can only impose a maximum sentence of 3 years. The average rape sentence for assaults against women of other ethnic groups is 11.8 years.
There’s an obvious pattern of intense victimization and injustice there, and I think objectification plays a large, steady part in that especially due to our society’s ingrained colonial attitudes. I think anything that furthers those attitudes—even with non-malicious intentions—puts Native American people, especially women, at risk."
Lauren had been talking about wanting to do a topless photoshoot for months. She teamed up with photographer Alexandra Cameron, organized the meeting via Twitter, and set out to a field down the street from her flat on an especially frigid 5 degree morning.
I would like to point out that Lauren did this for free... in the middle of January. As an "artistic nude". Even if one were to somehow disregard the extremely troubling statistics outlined above, as an artist myself, I find nothing redeeming about a freezing, malnourished girl sitting slackjawed and topless in a field, wearing nothing but little-girlish white panties, a Native American headdress (she's British...) and her trademark glazed, vacuous stare. In my opinion, she honestly looks like a kidnapping victim who was just stripped in a remote field and forced to don the headdress just for lulz before being murdered. What was she hoping to accomplish by doing this? It certainly isn't art, in any form. Aside from being yet another derivation of so many Tumblr-ready photoshoots, it is, at best, kitsch. At worst, it is the most insidious kind of objectification... the kind that transcends cultural values by brandishing a stunning lack of awareness. It's almost gleeful ignorance. It fetishizes the very oppression explained above, and furthers the idea that Native American women are somehow less human and thus are highly susceptible to being raped and killed.
I do not think that that was her goal with this shoot (although I'm not sure what her goal was, exactly, aside from "Look at my tits!"), but considering that she has high visibility online, it seems like a very poorly executed decision, especially since the majority of her followers are girls and women who suffer from EDs and want to emulate her. It almost seems like Lauren was so desperate to get naked for the internet under the pretense of it being "art" that she didn't really care about how insensitive, distasteful and ridiculous the end result was. This is also coming from the same girl who always said she would never pose topless and did not respect those who do. How quick she is to change her tune when she decides she needs more attention...
For clarification, I am not against women choosing to be photographed nude. I support anyone who makes that choice for themselves, as I think it is so important for human beings to have the choice to do what they wish with their bodies, as long as it doesn't hurt others. I do, however, think that there is a definite line between what qualifies as artistic nude photography and, well, pornography. It is interesting and incredibly sad that someone like Lauren, who claims to be an artist, would stoop to doing something so tasteless and offensive to her fellow women as well as to her own dwindling image, just to get validation from strangers on the internet.