As you can see from the photo, below, that I snapped at London’s Fenwick department store yesterday, the hype of supposed miracle wrinkle potion Creme de la Mer is not letting up. And why would it, when there are women like the one who told the Sunday Telegraph’s Elizabeth Day that she spends £850 per week – that’s $1700 US – on the cream so that she can rub it over her whole body?
This is, clearly, madness. But what is even more mad is that people are so gullible. People tell themselves that if it did not work, the government would not let it be sold. Yet another instance of people relying on the state to do the critical thinking they should be doing for themselves. Sure, all that is lost in this case is a lot of cash, but it never stops frightening me that people are so eager to give up responsibility for their own choices. Of course, cosmetics are not the only area of peoples’ lives where they actually want to be freed from engaging their brains, but it is the one that concerns us here.
Day’s article tells us that the British Advertising Standards Authority – the main body that is supposed to “protect” consumers from cosmetic products (in the US, that’s the Food and Drug Administration) – last week “heavily criticised” cosmetics firm Estée Lauder for:
suggesting that it could “melt away the fatty look of cellulite” when, in fact, the ASA said that the company had not proved the product’s efficacy at removing cellulite.
But reducing the appearance of something and actually removing it are two different things. The fact is that – as beauty editor Kathleen Baird-Murray writes in How to Be Beautiful:
Many ordinary moisturisers will puff up the skin temporarily enough to ‘diminish the appearance of fine lines,’ so to prove that they are more effective than ordinary moisturisers, many anti-ageing creams will have undergone comparative testing. In other words, they will improve skin texture more than most, but they don’t actually claim to remove wrinkles for ever – it’s we who assume this because we’re paying a lot of money…
Further, the Advertising Standards Authority holds that if a cream causes actual physiological changes to the skin – such as real, permanent removal of wrinkles – then it is medicine and needs to be regulated as such.
One sad claim in Day’s article comes from a London PR person, Barbara Dodds, who says:
When one cream doesn’t work, I move on to another one in case that does. I probably spend about £100 a month on various products. I live in hope that the next one is actually going to get rid of my cellulite or my wrinkles and increase my self-esteem – but it never does.
In which case, Barbara Dodds is a fool, and it is up to her to curb her reckless and ridiculous buying habits. I am all for shouting it from the rooftops if a product does not work, but a lowering of expectations is clearly in order for far too many women. Fine, spend £850 per week on Creme de la Mer, but don’t come crying to the nanny state when it doesn’t turn you into Heidi Klum.
Cross-posted from beauty blog Jack & Hill
I don’t think it’s suggested anywhere that anyone is actually proposing this.
It’s entirely free-market “foolishness in spades,” proving yet again, in case anyone need further evidence, that (a) and fool and her money are easily parted and (b) no-one ever went bust underestimating the intelligence of the buying public.
EG
Euan, take it from a woman–the bint who’s spending £850 per week on that cream isn’t doing it because she expects to look like her same old self (or Dame Thora Hird, or even Lauren Hutton) as a result.
I don’t think it’s suggested anywhere that anyone is actually proposing this.
And they say Brits do irony …!
Good post Jackie. I think if there were anything positive about feminism then it would handle this insane obsession with looks.
Of course, I know why women do this, even if I don’t understand why they believe it actually works. Then again, I don’t understand why so many men think it is sensible to by an over-priced, under-reliable and utterly impractical 160mph sports car in a land of narrow, congested streets and camera enforced speed limits.
Perhaps the explanation is the same in each case, the advertising promises something that any rational person knows is utter bilge – “this cream rejuvenates your skin” when skin is actually a layer of dead cells and thus even in theory incapable of rejuvenation without first undergoing reanimation, or “this car lets you enjoy the open road” when the only “open” road is the short stretch of driveway in front of one’s house, all the rest being crammed with the other 29,999,999 cars packed into this small island.
It’s an illusion, but an entirely free market one. It just amazes me that any member of the supposedly informed and sophisticated buying public actually falls for it.
As for the regulatory aspects, the ASA is not analogous to the FDA in this respect. More relevant bodies are the Medicines Control Agency and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.
We do, but only where it actually exists.
EG
People tell themselves that if it did not work, the government would not let it be sold. Yet another instance of people relying on the state to do the critical thinking they should be doing for themselves.
Huh? Where do they tell themselves this? Honestly, snake-oil has been around long enough for most people to realize that government regulation isn’t a sine qua non for people to act foolishly. Its not a necessary condition in other words.
Of course spending lots of money on expensive cosmetics makes you look better. That is why very rich women look so much better than the boot-faced, knackerd old hags staggering about on council estates.
For myself, I have the body of a 20 year old…… but if the police should ever find out where it is hidden I’ll be in real trouble.
Perhaps we should invent a cream which, when rubbed on the forehead, makes us more intelligent.
Euan is right, fools and their money are easily parted. But so what? Each to their own. If people want to lash out gazillions on cosmetics, or insanely fast sports cars, it is none of my business to stop them. Better to have the vanity of money than the vanity of power over other people. I’ll take nutty women spending money on cosmetics over our modern puritan bores any time.
Jonathan – Agreed.
Paul is also right. Middle aged rich women have better skin than middle age women on “benefits”.
And, as mentioned above, this isn’t just a woman thing. Men equally know damn’ fine that when they buy the newest, sleekest high-performance Mercedes sports convertible, it does not come with a bikini-clad blonde and an empty mountain road.
The difference between the skin of rich old women and poor old women is not because the poor old ones had cosmetic regimes lacking in cost–it is more likely because they had none to speak of, as well as probably more time spent out in the sun.
As for the “So what?” aspect, I think some of you are missing the point, which is not that some women like to waste money, but that the state is taking it upon itself to intervene even in this insignificant matter–and getting it wrong. No shock there, but I had no idea it was so bad.
Does she flirt about like a bar of soap if anyone tries to grab her?
Verity,
Men do know that a Merc convertible doesn’y come with a bikini clad beauty and an open road but we are much more likely to end up with those with a Merc than a VW
Men equally know damn’ fine that when they buy the newest, sleekest high-performance Mercedes sports convertible, it does not come with a bikini-clad blonde and an empty mountain road.”
It does if you’re a successful EU politician…
I used to be in the food supplement business in the UK, where if you made a medicinal claim for your products, even if it was true, the Advertising Standards “Authority” jumped all over you.
Now I see Benecol advertising that several of their products reduces Cholesterol, I wonder if they have taken out a product licence to allow this?
Heinz have advertised baked beans as being benificial for human hearts, as I remember the Advertising Standard Authority morons attitude baked beans will soon only be available on prescription 🙂
(By the by Euan I own a Subaru capable of, maybe, 140mph, but I live in a Country without speed limits!).
Paul writes:
“Now I see Benecol advertising that several of their products reduces Cholesterol, I wonder if they have taken out a product licence to allow this?”
They are probably relying on the staggering level of ignorance about cholesterol, not least the myth subscribed to by most GPs (and not a few self-styled specialists) that dietry cholesterol makes much more that a damn’s difference to blood levels.
But yes, I completely agree, some of the contemporary claims being made for the health benefits of various foods are absurd and would once have been proscribed.
Mike – Funny!
Alissa – “The difference between the skin of rich old women and poor old women is not because the poor old ones had cosmetic regimes lacking in cost– it is more likely because they had none to speak of, as well as probably more time spent out in the sun.” Wha’?
Rich women (we’re speaking of middle aged women, not old women, BTW) spend far more time in the sun than women with a modest income! The days of the agricultural worker toiling away in the fields are long, long over … Nowadays, the modest income employee is going to be working in a call centre or a fast food chain or in a supermarket. Not a lot of sunshine.
Rich people lie in the sun by their pools, they lie in the sun on decks of boats (not necessarily a yacht – just an outboard …), they go skiing … they spend a lot of time out in the sun – all of which involves lavish use of skincare products.
People of extremely modest income spend a lot of time indoors, including their leisure time, much of which is spent watching tv.
OTOH, people like Boots replicate those formulas and sell them cheap, which speaks for the motivation of the user, as well. Middle aged women with a comfortable income level are more likely to follow through on a schedule than a lower income person who expects instant results. Interesting, though …
but it never stops frightening me that people are so eager to give up responsibility for their own choices It never stops frightening me how effective this particular excuse is with liberatarians. Come on, if you can spend this kind of dough on cosmetics…
Paul, do you really think that’s the reason (or a reason) such women look younger? (I’m not wanting to suggest it’s an absurd view – but I don’t strain to think of factors that probably matter more).
By saying that if you advertise something you aren’t allowed to lie about what it can do? How is this intervening and getting it wrong?
Then men are really dumb. You’re more likely to get the bikini-clad bimbette with a Benz (assuming you actually want someone who is attracted principally to your bank balance, that is), but the road is congested whatever car you drive.
EG
Paul, do you really think that’s the reason (or a reason) such women look younger? (I’m not wanting to suggest it’s an absurd view – but I don’t strain to think of factors that probably matter more).
It is one of the significant advantages that rich women have over poor women in looking better. Diet is perhaps more important but cosmetics and associated beauty treatments are probably more important than such things as smoking, work, sunlight exposure and stress.
Advertising works, funnily enough. Bombard women with an image that youthfulness is paramount and they will buy anything that even hints at preserving this state. I have an aunt who spends vast amounts of money on these sorts of creams. None seem to do what they are supposed to though….
Caveat emptor ad infinitum. ( I think I’ve just used up my latin vocabulary ).
If these products smell good, come with a price tag that sets you apart from the rest and throw in a little placebo effect, chances are you’ll be happier when using them. And happy people simply look better, as a rule.
Robert John Kaper – True. And self-confident people look better, too.
I think some of the men commenting here must have had some rejections from women and ascribed it not to the fact that the woman just didn’t fancy them, but that they weren’t driving a costly enough car. There are, and always have been, some sharks out there who circle wealthy men, but most gals just fall in love with a guy – for whatever reason. Funny and kind usually counts for much more than a fat wallet. Most women aren’t whores.
Verity, such naivete.
I think its true that most women just fall in love with a guy, but all too many women make damn sure that they won’t fall in love with someone who is beneath their station.
Consciously or not, they evaluate and filter out the guys who don’t seem to have the necessary amount of boodle. They don’t even date them, so it is unlikely they will fall in love with them.
One of my colleagues won’t date a guy unless he drives a Mercedes. She’s quite open about it. This being Dallas, she is hardly alone.
I mean, c’mon, how often does a woman from a well-off neighborhood move into a blue collar neighborhood after marriage? I know that all of my acquaintances from tony neighborhoods married people from equally posh addresses.
Most women aren’t whores, but they are very, very practical.
R C Dean – The great divide – the difference between the perceptions of men and women.
Of course, there are always women who want to be on a rich man’s arm. And it is true that a woman might be genuinely very attracted to a rich man – epecially if he is self-made – because he is a winner. In other words, it’s not just the money – it’s the fact that he has been out in the world fighting and he has won.
That aside, most middle class women are not going to fall in love with a car mechanic, because for the most part, she would be bored. Her intellectual and educational horizons, and her life experience, will be much broader and she would find his interests and expectations very restricting. We all have certain social expectations and we choose our friends in the same manner — in the main, people like us. I have read that the higher our self-esteem, the more likely we are to fall in love with someone who even looks a bit like us.
Re your friend with the Mercedes fixation, I worked with a woman like that in Houston. I have no other reason to remember her except for that one fact. She was upwardly mobile blue collar yet with no education and she wasn’t very bright. Her only route out of the working class was to get a man with money.
OTOH, I hate sports cars because they’re clumsy to get in and out of.
R C Dean – BTW, do not have the temerity to tell me I am being naive about my own sex. You are not gifted with some special insight into the motivations of women. No matter how convinced you are, you do not know “what women really want”. I am sorry to be so harsh when I hold your posts in such high regard, but that antediluvian attitude has to go. It’s impertinent, arrogant and fatuous.
Very well put, R C Dean.
What this rather reminds me of is those women who boast that they’ve been told to lose weight if they hope to attract a man, but they refuse on grounds something like “I want him to like me for who I am, not because I’m some Barbie doll”. Sexual attraction is obviously not sufficient for a man to fall in love with a woman, but it’s almost inconceivable it could happen without it. To expect to be loved despite its absence is like expecting a building to stay up despite the absence of supporting walls.
This is just a male side of the same coin. Women naturally look to men for financial support. Even if they’re as rich as Jane Fonda, that instinct comes through and they often marry a richer-still Ted Turner. Talking entirely in terms of the car they drive really is pushing things, but the underlying principle is exactly right: if you think only ‘whores’ and ‘someone principally attracted to your bank balance’ care deeply about the financial circumstances of men they date, you just don’t understand biology very well.
And why should it be any different? If you think that you on your own are so damn dandy that you shouldn’t have to make an effort for others or provide them anything beyond your own conversation for the opposite sex to fall head over heels, you really ought to – as they say – ‘get over yourself’ and join the real world, not the world of American chat shows.
Rich women marry rich men because they don’t want to be taken advantage of. And they have a lifestyle in common.
That was the only part of your comment that I understood. The rest read like a personal rant very much tailored to your own circumstances.
Verity, sorry – I may have ranted at the end there, but it certainly wasn’t at you. What I’ve seen of your comments at this site leads me to think they are among the very best. I think basically this sort of thinking is symptomatic of a ‘self-love’ culture that is unwilling to admit personal error or the need for improvement: so if you’re overweight, it’s not you who should deal with it, but your lover, and so on. I don’t think it’s confident and a sign of mental strength to refuse to change oneself in any way for another person: I think it’s egomania. Something tells me you’re not such an airy-fairy liberal yourself, though, and would agree with me on this.
I’m not sure why you misunderstood anything, though. Basically, men are biologically inclined to find pretty women attractive, and it’s kidding oneself to think otherwise. Equally, women are biologically inclined to find capable ‘providers’ attractive, and it’s kidding oneself to think only ‘whores’ would care what sort of car a man drives.
“That was the only part of your comment that I understood. The rest read like a personal rant very much tailored to your own circumstances.”
oohhh! it’s getting hot in here isn’t it?!
I have to agree with RCD, although Verity also makes a good point in her next to the last comment.
And, BTW, if “whores” means prostitutes, I don’t consider it an insult.
Um, Verity, I meant the comment before that one…This thing is moving fast:-)
Peter – Thanks.
Yes, of course men are attracted to pretty women. This has been proved over several million years. That’s why, to get back to the original comment, women are prepared to spend a lot of money making themselves look their very best and most attractive.
Women are indeed attracted to men who can provide. I wouldn’t argue with that, either. What I am irritated about is all this being transferred onto sports cars, which is strictly a male fantasy. (Yes, yes, I’m sure one or two of you will leap onto the keyboard and say you happen to know a woman who loves sports cars; but by and large, they’re uncomfortable and they’re hard to get in and out of, especially if one’s wearing a skirt and high heels.)
I’m objecting to some male commenters telling me that women really fancy men who drive sports cars. By and large we do not. It is a male fantasy. They like sports cars so they think it must be a universal infatuation. Between one man driving a Lexus and one man driving a sports car, I will bet the Lexus man will get the most admiring looks. One just knows that someone fixated on sports cars is very self-involved and image conscious. (I exclude the heavenly, wildly adorable Jeremy Clarkson from this rant. He is in a little category all of his own.)
“Men equally know damn’ fine that when they buy the newest, sleekest high-performance Mercedes sports convertible, it does not come with a bikini-clad blonde and an empty mountain road.”
Not immediately… but inevitably.
Kim, Kim, Kim – you rat.
I maintain that men who like sports cars are self-involved and are busy thinking of how they look to other people. The only people who admire them are other self-involved men.
Oddly enough my girlfriend has been spending the last 5 weeks applying expensive rejuvinating cream to one half of her face and standard aqueous cream to the other.
Annoyingly, the fancy cream is visibly more effective.
This reasonbly solid evidence in no way changes my opinion of rejuvinating creams as basically snake oil.
If you want you skin to look young, then don’t smoke, keep out of the sun, eat vitamin E, and don’t smile or laugh much. Alternatively, have fun and get over it.
Peter – This “I want to be loved for myself, not for being slender and pretty; that’s all so superficial” also manifests itself in men. As in, “As far as I’m concerned, women can just take me the way I am.” (Don’t hang on by your fingernails – which could do with clipping, by the way.) This sad little pensée inevitably – like women who want to “be loved for themselves” – normally emanates from men with millions of fat globules distributed around bodies clad in Big Guy polyester drapery. You are correct about the type and I agree with you.