Post: #1

Old story from 4 years ago, but apparently never posted on RVF.
I don't know anything about this female photographer so she may (or may not) have some sort of agenda that is anti-war or anti-masculine....but the photos are interesting regardless.

Quote:Photographer Lalage Snow photographed and interviewed members of 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland before they were sent to Afghanistan, after three months' service, and days after they returned home. Their faces show the toll that fighting in Afghanistan takes on our troops.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pictureg...istan.html

Quote:We Are The Not Dead
Created 12 Apr 2012
A series of portraits of British soldiers over a period of eight months, before, during and after their operational deployment in Afghanistan. The portraits are captioned with the thoughts and feelings of each individual. They speak of fear, being injured, losing a brother soldier, missing home, excitement, coming home, and what life is like on the frontline. As the body count of British servicemen killed or wounded rose and the political ramifications of the British army’s presence in Afghanistan became increasingly convoluted, more and more soldiers felt like they didn’t have a voice, or at least, weren’t being listened to. ‘We Are The Not Dead’ is an attempt at giving the brave young men and women the chance to speak.

Source: http://lalagesnow.photoshelter.com/galle...eT5QooYacY

Post: #2

Post: #3

Not implying anything but it seems during war men look the best, most sharp.

There seems to be a big potential for red pill analysis why that is so, but it's also terrifying.

Post: #4

Doesn't competition increase testosterone output in men? Of course, battle is competitive. I wonder if that might have something to do with the changes to their faces, besides aging?

Post: #5

Hard to really say anything about this. I don't think many real conclusions can be drawn on a sample size of three photos taken over months. It would have been better to get a photo every day, if you could do so without interfering with their warfighting duties---which is probably not possible.

Post: #6

(09-02-2016 08:36 AM)Mage Wrote:  Not implying anything but it seems during war men look the best, most sharp

A lot of folks lose weight (sometimes substantial amounts of weight due to the heat and generally physically demanding work tempo) while also building some muscle during deployments; especially if a gym and decent food is on-site. There isn't fuck all to do while off-duty so a lot people work out in their down time. Rinse and repeat for 6 of 12 months of a deployment and most people are gonna look a bit more fit. Lack of alcohol access probably plays a big factor too; especially with weight levels and skin quality.

However, the constant brutal sun exposure without sunscreen, stress, and long days will pre-maturely age the majority of people though in the end. How bad and how fast depends on a lot of factors.

Post: #7

(09-02-2016 08:36 AM)Mage Wrote:  Not implying anything but it seems during war men look the best, most sharp.

Agreed. I would hazard a guess and say that wartime and the associated camaraderie creates a greater sense of purpose / belonging - all a man really needs in this world.

Post: #8

(09-02-2016 09:04 AM)Windom Earle Wrote:  

(09-02-2016 08:36 AM)Mage Wrote:  Not implying anything but it seems during war men look the best, most sharp.

Agreed. I would hazard a guess and say that wartime and the associated camaraderie creates a greater sense of purpose / belonging - all a man really needs in this world.

I wouldn't discount the photographer using an artsier lense to really capture the moisture in their eyes. Different lenses make a world of difference in the quality of photos, and can make some "come alive"

I'd say this is more photography than anything, although diet would surely be a contributing factor. The before pics look like healthly bulking diets for lots of training while they appear leaner in the wartime photos. You don't got o war and get fat

Post: #9

(09-02-2016 08:36 AM)Mage Wrote:  Not implying anything but it seems during war men look the best, most sharp.

There seems to be a big potential for red pill analysis why that is so, but it's also terrifying.

No room to be slovenly sitting on your arse and look good for the ladies in town/city centres when you have people wanting to slit your throat not far away.

Post: #10

the look in their eyes definitely changed, at least for some of them. 1000 yard stare?

Post: #11

During war the look in every single soldier's eyes is just so profound, bright yet so dark at same time. I also notice that after war, their faces are so chiseled compared to before war.

Post: #12

Men do look best during war.

Perhaps Nietzsche was right:

"Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly"

Post: #13

(09-03-2016 01:30 PM)R_Niko Wrote:  the look in their eyes definitely changed, at least for some of them. 1000 yard stare?

It's not the 1000 yard stare, it is the look of determined aggression, predatory eyes aka how a hunter look. The physical act of squinting to focus better on a single point in the distance, which at the same allows less peripheral view, it is the look of the single object mind.





The opposite is big round eyes, those are the eyes of prey, of females looking around for the herd.

Look at a woman in a bar like this.

Post: #14

The first one, this picture here looks the most telling and dramatic of all of them. It looks almost like out of a movie, and the look of this man brings about thoughts of soldier of more legendary wars. To me he looks more like a WWII soldier than some kid that sat in a sandbowl in Afghanistan for 9 months. The look of a man who has seen some shit.

The first picture he looks soft, innocent, and unassuming. Hair styled and filled out baby face, he has the look of a boy who's just left the nest.

Second picture hen looks weathered. Eyes sunken in, dark circles, more piercing and weary. Hair is greasy and disheveled, facial hair scruff present. He almost looks concerned, maybe longing to go home.

The third picture his eyes pierce right through you. Scarred, more chiseled, cheeks sunken in, hair thinned and shorter. He looks serious. He looks like the innocence and childhood has been ripped from him and all that is left is a man. A man that has experienced hardships, struggles, isolation, and true danger. The look of a man that has experienced things that have forever changed him.

I would get this three-set framed and put on my wall to remind me everyday that its the hard times that truly shape us into who we are.

Post: #15

Heartiste wrote about this: The Soft Man, The Hard Man, The Cold Man.

"...what you are seeing here is evidence that a man can become more alpha or less alpha, in disposition and even in expression, when circumstances intrude and decisions, sometimes life or death, have to be made. Maybe a man can’t go from 100% beta to 100% alpha on a dime, but he can increase his alpha at the margins. And the margin is all the edge you need, whether the situation you are in is firing at a nest of insurgents or walking up to a girl and capturing her imagination for a night."

Heartiste also mentioned that Putin has "the hard eyes of a seasoned warrior."

Post: #16

Eyes look more vibrant in the wartime pictures. Very curious. Better photographer perhaps?

Post: #17

Theres an obvious lighting change between the pics no?

Their eyes in the during war pics are very bright/light. Has to be different lighting.

That said, they do look best in the during pics

Post: #18

It's not seeing war that changes the faces of these men.

It's coming back to the country you left and having to spend the next 15 years with everyone telling what you did, what you seen, and the friends you lost, was a political mistake.

It's enough to break any man.

Post: #19

Does anyone see any photoshopping here?

What about different lighting conditions? Pupil dilation?

Regardless, in war time the men look like they are on high alert.

Post: #20

Before: He ho hum.
During: Grit, whether they bargained for it or not. Seriousness.
After: Optimism now changed to skepticism and concern for humanity.

I've heard it said people join the military, especially a war-bound military for 3 reasons:
1) Because they're patriotic and love their country and want to defend it and its people.
2) They want the comraderie, self discipline, unity of being part of something greater then they are, and overall self improvement... most of the shit the armed forces put in their ads for recruitment.
3) Because they're genuinely mean-hearted sons a bitches who want to kill, enjoy the war itself, the killing, the carnage, just directed mostly towards the enemy. Truly mean ruthless bastardness.

To win a war with maximum efficiency I'm afraid, you need a lot more #3s, than #1s and #2s. The key is finding a way to turn off war-mode when #3s come home.
None of the men in these pictures seem to have that #3 in them based on their expressions.

Post: #21

Through my work I come into frequent contact with a lot of guys who've done plenty of killing in the line of duty. They look like normal blokes (well, they look like tough, no nonsense guys by and large, which is less and less normal I suppose). There's no thousand yard stare, no inner turmoil over the horrors of taking a human life, or any other things you may read about in war stories. These are literary conceits. The only real exception in the well adjusted is when it comes to thinking about dead friends, or horrifically injured friends. That's the only time I've seen the far away look, with the exception of those with PTSD.

As far as I can see the changes between the photos can all be explained by photographic techniques. They are all shot in tones intended to add drama to the texture of the image, and they are deliberately unsmiling to ensure the desired effect is achieved in the mind of the reader. The general position amongst the sharp end guys I know is, 'glad I'm out, but fuck me if it wasn't a lot of fun - I'd probably go back for one more round'.

If these had been shot with the guys smiling, and the photographer had used less of a greying filter, I don't believe you'd see much of a difference between the photos. Perhaps the one thing they would convey regardless is a greater sense of confidence between the before and afters, as young men do grow up fast in war zones, where they must often assume significant responsibility that belies their tender years.

Post: #22

Quote:If these had been shot with the guys smiling, and the photographer had used less of a greying filter, I don't believe you'd see much of a difference between the photos. Perhaps the one thing they would convey regardless is a greater sense of confidence between the before and afters, as young men do grow up fast in war zones, where they must often assume significant responsibility that belies their tender years.

Completely agree. One thing I've noticed recently is that the primary media narrative, especially in more liberal outlets, has shifted from "soldiers are heartless murderers" to "soldiers are helpless, psychologically-wounded creatures."

Before, we could feel superior to our soldiers because they're morally decrepit monsters. Now, we can feel superior to our soldiers because they're objects of pity, all afflicted with PTSD and constantly struggling with their inner guilt and turmoil.

Post: #23

...




BEFORE WAR












DURING WAR











AFTER WAR

Post: #24

Those guys look so British it gave me a craving for Worchester sauce.

Post: #25

I think it's easy to look at these photos and project meaning on them because they are already placed in a particular order. Look at them again and imagine how you would have perceived them if they were rearranged and you were told that was the proper sequence instead.

How would you read their expressions then?

Anyhow, there was an interesting guy, a war journalist named Sebastian Junger, interviewed in a Tim Ferriss podcast (http://fourhourworkweek.com/2016/05/22/s...-junger/). He talked about how some studies are beginning to suggest PTSD is not so much about what a man has seen and done as it is about losing the sense of belonging and male carmraderie that comes with war. Of being involved in a tribal unit, as is natural with humans, and then being put back into a society where you're pretty much left to your own devices.

To emphasize this point, he points out that PTSD doesn't correspond with greater trauma and often affects soldiers who never saw any action the most. It also tends to hit harder when you have less cohesion to help you face the trauma. For example, men who are part of elite units tend to experience less PTSD (I'm just relaying his points here - not trying to insult anyone who may have a more intimate experience with the residual effects of hard combat).

He also discusses how trauma isn't related to the level of danger you experience but rather to the level of control you have, so the more highly trained you are the less you are affected psychologically. A side note, but interesting nonetheless.

As LINUX suggests with his tongue-in-cheek comment, much of PTSD may be caused by the life you return to rather than what you left behind.

Beyond All Seas

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe.
To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes
frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Kipling