Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- lb:aesthetics.wiki [2025-10-22 19:38:55] – [Evaluation] Realized I forgot to finish a sentence. ninjasr
+++ lb:aesthetics.wiki [2025-10-22 20:00:03] (current) – [Trivilinks] Just a small addition. ninjasr
@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 There's always an emphasis on criticizing anything that "reinforces traditional gender roles and stereotypes" and then absolutely no problem with encouraging things like casual sex (labelled as 'sex-positive' of course).
-This is basically all that I really wanted to mention. Though keep in mind that I dislike the aesthetics wiki for a few more reasons besides bias. Such as them defining aesthetics at all, possible over-categorization (and anachronistic categorization) and an //under//-categorization (there are waaaay more types of gyaru than just //one//).
+**Actually**, I realized/remembered what it was that initially motivated me to write this: [[https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Cottagecore|Cottagecore]], which is probably one of the most unhinged articles I've seen.\\
+You can read it yourself of course, but the gist of it is that it started as an ‘aesthetic’ that was popular among the [[lb:SocJus|LGBT]],((:fn:>There's also the fact they use ‘LGBTQ+’ which is only used by adherents of SocJus. It is one of the more obvious linguistic tics.))((:fn:>Though I realized that there are even more blatant signs of this with the use of ‘women-loving-women’ and ‘nonbinary-loving-women’ instead of the use of the term ‘lesbian’, which makes way more sense.)) but it has since been co-opted by groups like the [[https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Tradwife|Tradwives]]. I don't really care for either group, but it's obviously super biased yet again.\\
+The criticism section also mentions ‘Lesbian Desexualization’ which is something I wasn't even aware of as a concept prior to this.\\
+And, obviously, colonialism and eurocentrism.
+This is basically all that I really wanted to mention. Though keep in mind that I dislike the aesthetics wiki for a few more reasons besides bias. Such as them defining aesthetics at all, possible over-categorization (and anachronistic categorization) and an //under//-categorization (there are waaaay more types of gyaru than just //one//).\\
+Another thing is...I guess they're best described as ‘phantom movements’? A lot of what's on the aesthetics wiki doesn't really seem to actually exist in real-life as a distinct aesthetic movement. Instead, it's more like they're documenting //internet trends// that //appear like aesthetic movements//.\\
+Basically...how can we be sure that these aesthetic movements actually exist outside of the confines of obsessed bloggers and terminally-online people who simply stitch together random images and videos that look vaguely related?\\
+I'm implying they need to touch grass because it's difficult to judge whether a movement exists or not based on social media posts.\\
+Though I'm //not// saying that //none// of the ‘aesthetics’ they describe don't exist as movements or subcultures or whatever (gyaru undeniably exist), just that I get the impression a lot of them //don't//.
 ===== Trivilinks =====
-  * [[https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Aesthetics_Wiki]]
+  * [[https://aesthetics.fandom.com/wiki/Aesthetics_Wiki|Aesthetics Wiki]]
+  * A good source of reference images but that's about it.