I didn't really want to comment on this thread but I think I need to.
I have seen a lot of young ladies at my old trad community that were quite feminine, HOLY and lovely in their demeanor and actions, but I wish I had a dollar for every time they were passed over by young trad men in favor of the new attractive girl on the block .These young ladies would make wonderful wives and mothers, but they are usually never approached.They may be considered "plain", but never ugly! It's apparent that men are not necessarily looking for holiness as their primary trait in a spouse, but they are certainly looking for attractiveness, as implied even in this thread. I'm not a feminist but i find referring to trad women as numbers ("She's a 10- she's a five")a bit revolting and I'm surprised I'm even reading this here. Why don't you go get a veterinarian and have their teeth checked while you're at it? Not a lot of respect and dignity
The girls that are always ignored "get it". They know the score. Beauty is the #1 way to catch a prospective husband. Can you imagine the rejection/dejection some of these ladies feel? They are trying to do the right thing for God, but it's not enough for the guys. I'm sure many of them would like to get out of bed in the morning, shake their hair and naturally look like ( a young) Christie Brinkley, that's what (ALL) men want, but it's not happening for them. Funny, it's the men who place such a high price on beauty , and I'm not even blaming them for it- it's a natural response. But  then when young ladies try to compete for attention by applying a little make-up ( applied well it DOES improve your looks) it's a sin. I think this thread just proves the point on why some Trad women feel compelled to wear make-up especially if they are not 8 and 1/2's!!

The article linked below from the conciliar National Catholic Register, despite being tinged by a bit of personalism, still hits close to the mark, then sinks the dagger at the end, and definitively settles the issue:

A quote from Alphonsus Liguori's Theologia Moralis:

"[We] excuse from mortal sin those who because of a local custom expose their breasts, or use makeup, pigments or fake hair, so long as they are doing it only to appear more beautiful, not out of a lascivious motive, or with some other mortally sinful intent, or if there is a particular law prohibiting something in particular under pain of mortal sin. (Moral Theology, Book 2, Treatise 3, On Charity, Chapter 2.54)"

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/sspencer/cosmetics-and-the-objectification-of-women

First, regarding the NCR citation from St. Alphonsus:

The quotation can be found in Grant's English-language translation in Vol. I, p. 583.  However, it is not St. Alphonsus's own opinion, but his commentary on the opinion of Cajetan and Navarre.  He says their opinion is that "they seem to teach that they [those women described in the NCR quote] are only held under venial sin (but less probably), when in a particular case a fall is foreseen..." [i.e., by scandal].

So, what does St. Alphonsus himself actually hold to be the true position?

He gives the principle on p. 581:

"54.  A woman that probably foresees from her dress, even if it is suited to her state, that someone in particular is going to fall mortally, she is held to not wear it for a short time, or to flee the sight of such a man."

OK, so that is about immodest dress.  We are talking about makeup, so is the quote/principle still pertinent?

It would seem yes, because in the very next paragraph he cites the Salamancans, Cajetan, Trull, Paulus, and Navarre all appealing to the quote from St. Thomas Aquinas (from the first page of this thread), which discussed dress to please the husband, but also makeup to please him.

Alphonsus then opposes not only all their appeals to St. Thomas, but opposes St. Thomas himself, stating:

"Note, however, here what St. Thomas teaches in 2.2 qu 169, art. 2, where he says women desiring to please men from vanity only sin venally whenever they do it [Note that St. Alphonsus is saying that even St. Thomas believed this was venial sin].  But in his commentary on the first epistle to Timothy, chapter 2, the Angelic doctor so speaks: 'simple dress, with right intention, custom and condition of state preserved, is not a sin.  But with regard to make-up it is always a sin; for women are not permitted to be elegantly dressed except on account of men, and men refuse to be deceived, as a powdered woman would appear to him." (Vol. 1, p. 582)

In other words, St. Alphonsus is opposing the Salamancans, Cajetan, et al, by pointing out to them that although St. Thomas gives women some leeway in dress for their husbands, St. Thomas (and St. Alphonsus) do NOT do so in the case of makeup.

Alphonsus then quotes the opinions of still more doctors:

"Azor, Lessius, and Bonacina excuse them from mortal sin [not venial] who by the custom of the place uncover half the breast, or use powder, makeup, or wigs; provided that they only intend greater adornment of beauty, not wantonness for others, without any other end that would be mortal...Nevertheless, they add that the custom of uncovering their breast, or only lightly covering them iss a grave matter and a mortal sin where it is not introduced.  (p. 583)

Consequently (and keeping in mind that the popes have declared that anyone may be guided by the principles of St. Alphonsus's Theologia Moralis without fear), it seems that unless I have somehow misread Alphonsus, it seems that there is unanimity among the moralists that wearing makeup is at least venially sinful.

Hilarious to watch how people are trying to explain away very clear teachings. And then resort to nastiness when they're pinned into a corner about it.

Hi Claudel-
May I presume Claudel is your real name?  Care to provide your real full name?
If not, please silence yourself according to your own condemnation.