Laser Skin Resurfacing - $1,300-2,330
January 4, 2019 9:01 AM   Subscribe

The secret to great skin? Be rich. (The Atlantic)
posted by The Whelk (115 comments total) 32 users marked this as a favorite
 
Money is the best emollient.
posted by jadepearl at 9:12 AM on January 4, 2019 [6 favorites]


Yes, I find it hilarious to see articles that are all "how does [young/wealthy/famous person] get her [always a her!] skin so good" when the answers are obviously youth, luck and lots of money.

Left twitter rarely made me as annoyed as when I recently saw a tweet about how [a very wealthy celebrity in her fifties] looked like all women would look if only they were anti-racist and had good values. The tweeter pointed to, eg, Margaret Thatcher and various racist white women as "proof" that the natural state of politically virtuous mid-fifties womanhood is that of this celebrity. And then the pushback on Twitter wasn't "that is incredibly misogynist and also nonsense" but "this celebrity actually doesn't have very good politics!!"

I've been mad about it for days now. I didn't want to respond because I thought it would look like, eg, apologizing for racist white women and that helps no one, but it made me so mad. The tweet? By someone whose twitter handle suggested that they were a young man.
posted by Frowner at 9:13 AM on January 4, 2019 [42 favorites]


Personally I am just not on board with the idea of having body standards for things like pore size and skin gloss that are so high and inflexible as to inspire an arms race of who can spend the most money on "improving" their skin. Skin keeps bad stuff out and good stuff in. If your skin feels fine and does its job, that should be enough. It should require the expenditure of thousands of dollars for people with normal, healthy bodies to be able to literally feel comfortable in their own skin.

Like, if moisturizing makes your skin less itchy and helps it do its job, great. Sunscreen is also helpful for preventing burns and cancers. But as a society I would love it if we would just fucking accept what human skin looks like and agree that there's a significant range for what healthy skin looks like, and move on with our collective lives rather than feeling like we're unlovable unless we have someone go over our skin with some kind of laser machine.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:25 AM on January 4, 2019 [26 favorites]


IDK I just started moisturizing when I was 13. Maybe get a TIME MACHINE, PLEABS.
posted by Young Kullervo at 9:26 AM on January 4, 2019 [6 favorites]


The secret to great skin everything? Be rich.
posted by briank at 9:28 AM on January 4, 2019 [13 favorites]


I apologize if the above comment came off as shaming people who have undergone these procedures. I'm not trying to tell people what to do with their own bodies. I just feel like society is constantly telling people what to do with their own bodies, and that things like unrealistic skin standards are part of that. I'm not particularly old nor do I pay much attention to this stuff, but even I have noticed a significant ratcheting up of body standards around things like skin and hair over the course of my life, especially for women of course. It's not cool and I wish we could somehow dial it back as a culture and be more relaxed and accepting of what bodies look like without costly cosmetic interventions.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:29 AM on January 4, 2019 [7 favorites]


Rich people always gotta make themselves look different in a way that plebs can't yet afford to reliably emulate. As soon as perfect skin becomes affordable, they'll think of something else, and the magazines will be full of completely misleading hints for poor people about how to emulate the new rich-person look.

"You, too, can get the cosmic ray sunburn of the space tourist! Just break the glass on your microwave and stick your head in for 15-20 seconds. Don't keep it in there too long!"
posted by clawsoon at 9:30 AM on January 4, 2019 [22 favorites]


Having bad skin in particular is one of those things that I suspect people would be judging me over even if the world suddenly improved to the point where it was totally okay to be fat. But my skin's been improving a lot lately--thanks to about $100 a month in products and prescriptions. Putting those things and my lower-income background together really makes me realize, I spent so long just thinking I was cursed, but someone in my position who'd never been a free lunch kind of kid probably would have been seeing dermatologists since puberty first hit, and man I can't even imagine that? Like, I literally can't imagine being a person who went through my whole life without the acne.

This is one of those things where the judgment is really the social problem, but as an individual you can't fix that. Knowing that the rich are doing this much does help it feel less like I just failed to do the "easy" things that would have made my face socially acceptable.
posted by Sequence at 9:31 AM on January 4, 2019 [19 favorites]


A throughline here is the willful equation of beauty/youth with morality so that the observer doesn't have to take any responsibility. Rich people have good skin, good clothes, trim figures and long-lasting youth because they're good and poor people don't because they're bad; therefore society need not change. Women have good skin, etc, because they're good, or else they have skin problems and body fat because they're bad - therefore men don't need to think about their own entitlement, judgement, misogyny, etc.

Ugh, I just want James Tiptree's alien graduate students to come and take me away like the characters in "The Women Men Don't See".
posted by Frowner at 9:34 AM on January 4, 2019 [20 favorites]


"There's no reason the son of a doctor should ever have to have acne," my father used to say when I was in my teens.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:35 AM on January 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


Rich will do it.

A decade or more ago, during the the fraud trial of Conrad Black (British peer, former newspaper publisher, convicted felon, and author), there was a photo of Lord and Lady Black leaving the courtroom. I was in my mid-thirties at the time and was often taken to be a decade younger.

I observed in passing to one of my co-workers who was looking at the photo that Lady Black, Barbara Amiel, had attended my high school. Co-worker asked, “did you know her?” and I replied truthfully that Amiel had been there several years ahead of my father.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 9:38 AM on January 4, 2019 [11 favorites]


My three-month-old niece has the best complexion and I can’t figure out how she does it
posted by roger ackroyd at 9:39 AM on January 4, 2019 [18 favorites]


The apotheosis of this beauty equals virtue mindset from, of course, GOOP, the biggest grifter of all

I also wonder how much the average person is even aware of the many kinds of effective aesthetic products and services available to the rich? Like I’ve trained myself to notice the tell tale signs of laser resurfacing so I can pin point the rich people in the room.
posted by The Whelk at 9:42 AM on January 4, 2019 [10 favorites]


i don't want lasers on my skin, i want lasers implanted in my eyes so i can set people on fire.
posted by poffin boffin at 9:44 AM on January 4, 2019 [93 favorites]


This is why some older celebs look like they're aging backwards. As they get more sought after and reach a better pay grade, more expensive beauty treatments and products are available to them.
posted by 80 Cats in a Dog Suit at 9:44 AM on January 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


I am probably the "high earning" kind of person who could afford to pay for expensive facial care systems and look absolutely smashing but y'all I have a Nintendo Switch and that shit is way more fun.
posted by nikaspark at 9:53 AM on January 4, 2019 [26 favorites]


even I have noticed a significant ratcheting up of body standards around things like skin and hair over the course of my life

The one I notice all the time is teeth. Like, everybody on TV has these amazingly gleaming white teeth. It's sometimes startling to watch an old episode of a talk show or something, and see celebrities with normal tooth-colored teeth.
posted by Daily Alice at 10:02 AM on January 4, 2019 [35 favorites]


Ah the realization that being old is a sack of shit. And then worrying about how the sack looks rather than the shit it is full of.

My kingdom for functioning knees, no arthritis, a good nights sleep and a general decrease in pain. If the side effect of the magic treatment is 100X more wrinkles I am all in without a blink.
posted by srboisvert at 10:02 AM on January 4, 2019 [19 favorites]


The one I notice all the time is teeth. Like, everybody on TV has these amazingly gleaming white teeth. It's sometimes startling to watch an old episode of a talk show or something, and see celebrities with normal tooth-colored teeth.

British TV will make you feel better. They also have faces that can move and show expressions too.
posted by srboisvert at 10:04 AM on January 4, 2019 [31 favorites]


my favourite terrible personal choice celebs make is the horror known as the "brow lift" which is a botox procedure that makes the recipient look like a crazed bird of prey.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:05 AM on January 4, 2019 [13 favorites]


This is why some older celebs look like they're aging backwards.

That, and the bathing in the blood of the Innocent. It’s very therapeutic!
posted by GenjiandProust at 10:06 AM on January 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


I feel like this is true about every damn thing, though. Rich people have better skin because they can afford better skin care. They have better hair because they can afford good haircuts and professional dye jobs with highlights and lowlights, rather than the flat color you get from drugstore dye. They have straight teeth, and they can get their teeth whitened if they have coffee stains. They have better clothes, and they can afford professional tailoring. They can afford fancy Pilates classes to get a lean, sculpted body. They have time to go to Pilates class, because they can afford to hire someone to clean their houses and whatnot. There are all sorts of subtle ways in which money makes people look better.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:29 AM on January 4, 2019 [23 favorites]


There were so many ways in which I felt completely inferior and out of the loop when I was in college, with skin being one of the real biggies. And I cannot decide whether it would have been better or worse to know it was simply that I was poor, while most of my classmates were extremely wealthy. It may just have been differently awful.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 10:47 AM on January 4, 2019 [3 favorites]


I feel like this is true about every damn thing, though.

Right, and as far as personal beauty goes, I think it's well above many other things they can spend way more money on (like lobbying). The only thing is they should be slightly more honest about it (or/)and fashion writers should write more articles about the techniques that actually work.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:47 AM on January 4, 2019


They gonna need a big assed laser...
posted by Oyéah at 10:51 AM on January 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


My three-month-old niece has the best complexion and I can’t figure out how she does it

Amniotic fluid does wonders for your complexion!

Not everyone conflates beauty and virtue; Some of us fondly remember Dawn Davenport, of "Crime is beauty!" fame.
posted by TedW at 11:00 AM on January 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


Only anarchists are pretty. (Sorry, The Whelk.) (On the other hand, anarchists are categorically pretty, so you can come over to our side for a dramatic uptick in personal beauty.)
posted by Frowner at 11:08 AM on January 4, 2019 [8 favorites]


I have – if we're accepting conventional standards – terrible skin.

I've recently started experimenting with a skin care routine. Just simple things: currently, I'm using a cleanser, two daily moisturizers with hyaluronic acid (one for my face; another for non-face areas), and a retinol gel. I'm choosing unfancy, inexpensive products. (There seems to be no upper bound to the amount you can pay for skin products, if you're so inclined.)

I'm happy with the results so far. But I'm still a long way from the conventional ideal. And even this simple regimen requires a not-insignificant investment of money and time.

In order to find appropriate products, I've had to delve – for the first time – into the world of skincare blogs and product reviews. And, yeah – it's just taken for granted that any deviation from the airbrushed Hollywood ideal is a problem that needs to be corrected (by spending lots of money on skincare products and services, of course).

(The obsession with pore size, in particular, baffles me. It's skin! It's supposed to have pores! I can understand wanting to get rid of acne or eczema, but why would you want to make it look like something other than skin? Especially when all the science I can find says that shrinking pores is not an actual thing that can physiologically happen? And yet...after reading this stuff for a while, I started feeling a little bit insecure about my fucking pore size, of all things. So I stopped reading those particular articles.)

(There's also a tonnn of pseudoscience in the industry. As soon as I see the words "toxin" or "Ayurvedic", I close the tab. They've gotta include ever-more-rarefied magical ingredients to justify the insane price tags.)

During all of this, I've certainly asked myself: is this really necessary? Before, I kind of assumed that people with good skin just had lucky genes – but I've started to realize that, in many cases, they have good skin because they spend a lot of money and time on skincare. Very few people can achieve the ideal without a careful regimen of products.

TFA links to a Racked article that I read recently, mentioning its assertion that society attaches a moral valence to good or bad skin. I didn't know that was a thing. (As a dude, and therefore not a primary target of skincare marketing, I assume that my privilege has insulated me from this particular anxiety.) Does this notion ring familiar to other folks? Do people really draw an equivalence between good skin and good moral character?

tl;dr: The article ain't wrong.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 11:09 AM on January 4, 2019 [7 favorites]


The tweet? By someone whose twitter handle suggested that they were a young man.

Yeah, there is no excuse really for criticizing how people look, and women get the most attention no matter where they are on the political spectrum.

Anyway, I was just going to say that the biggest thing men and women can do to keep their skin healthy over time is to cover up. UV rays destroy the elasticity of the skin. This causes wrinkles. Perhaps this pure vanity, but I don't think I've ever seen my wife, who is from Japan, in a bathing suit at the beach in twenty-plus years. Beach attire is always a big hat, sunglasses, a thin cardigan, and if she's daring, capris pants. And plenty of suntan lotion.

I do none of these things and, as a result, my hands are getting wrinkly. I don't like it.

Another tip for skin care that nobody told me, a man, was the importance of using moisturizing cream. It helps prevent zits.
posted by JamesBay at 11:11 AM on January 4, 2019


The one I notice all the time is teeth. Like, everybody on TV has these amazingly gleaming white teeth.

Despite having been raised in relative affluence, come the revolution I can count on my teeth to prove me a pleb.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:11 AM on January 4, 2019 [12 favorites]


I feel like this is true about every damn thing, though. Rich people have better skin because they can afford better skin care. They have better hair because they can afford good haircuts and professional dye jobs with highlights and lowlights, rather than the flat color you get from drugstore dye. They have straight teeth, and they can get their teeth whitened if they have coffee stains. They have better clothes, and they can afford professional tailoring.

This is totally true, but I do think that some of these things have stronger social implications than others. "Bad" skin and teeth are much more quickly read as dirty/gross/unhygienic, things that are per se unprofessional in a way that poor and working class people often can't possibly get together the funds to actually fix. Not that it's good to judge on the clothing either, say, but the standards for just being employable are lower and you can temporarily look like you dress better with one outfit. I don't know, maybe it's just me, I feel like people now understand reasonably okay that someone interviewing for a $15/hour job won't have a $500 suit, but they will cut you very little slack for visible skin problems because it's perceived as both disgusting and easily fixable, so clearly it's a character flaw if you haven't solved it yet.

So it's not just that the rich spend a lot of money on it, really, I guess? It's that they spend a lot of money and then the media is like "oh, no, this is totally just what you get if you get enough sleep and maybe cut back on dairy products".
posted by Sequence at 11:17 AM on January 4, 2019 [6 favorites]


The obsession with pore size, in particular, baffles me. It's skin! It's supposed to have pores!
I honestly find this very confusing. I have no idea what size my pores are. I feel like, if I started paying attention to skin care, I would start hating aspects of my appearance that I now don't even realize exist. Like, here I am blissfully assuming my pores are fine, but the second that I start reading skincare blogs, I will realize that I should be spending $800 on cow placenta serums to make them smaller. And I'd rather just continue to be ignorant of my ugly pores, because I don't have $800 to spend on bovine placenta gel.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 11:18 AM on January 4, 2019 [5 favorites]


ArbitraryAndCapricious : I feel like this is true about every damn thing, though. Rich people have better skin because they can afford better skin care. They have better hair because they can afford good haircuts and professional dye jobs with highlights and lowlights, rather than the flat color you get from drugstore dye. They have straight teeth, and they can get their teeth whitened if they have coffee stains. They have better clothes, and they can afford professional tailoring. They can afford fancy Pilates classes to get a lean, sculpted body. They have time to go to Pilates class, because they can afford to hire someone to clean their houses and whatnot. There are all sorts of subtle ways in which money makes people look better.

Yep. But maybe they look better because we define the way that rich people look, no matter how they look in objective terms, as "looking better". At one point, having the perfect tan from lazing about on the French Riviera was something that only the rich could afford, and everyone agreed that they "looked better"... even though they were giving themselves skin cancer.
posted by clawsoon at 11:19 AM on January 4, 2019 [5 favorites]


Another tip for skin care that nobody told me, a man, was the importance of using moisturizing cream.

Eczema has made me a lifelong connoisseur of non-greasy, unscented moisturizing creams that are also woo and pseudoscience-free.

*scratches*
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 11:30 AM on January 4, 2019 [6 favorites]


Speaking of skin cancer, has anyone studied the long-term effect of lasering your pores?
posted by clawsoon at 11:34 AM on January 4, 2019 [1 favorite]


King's blood works wonders, I think? I mean, I've seen Melisandre naked, and for a 250-year-old she looks amazing.
posted by maxwelton at 11:46 AM on January 4, 2019 [7 favorites]


I think the modern obsession with perfect skin has just (partially) replaced thinness as a way to get women to hate themselves and spend lots of money. And similarly it works as a class signifier.

I use a lot of skincare products myself admittedly, but the level of obsession on beauty blogs or the skincare subreddit strikes me as psychologically unhealthy, especially for women who don't have the disposable income for microcurrent facials and $100 serums.
posted by noxperpetua at 11:58 AM on January 4, 2019 [9 favorites]


Ah, yes my lifelong plan of being a sun-avoiding spooky kid is finally paying off!

Also, drink plenty of water.
posted by loquacious at 11:59 AM on January 4, 2019 [6 favorites]


I do wish that the position of "actually, a lot of people definitely benefit, cosmetically and otherwise, from a moderate skin care routine, even if they can't spend $12,000 per year on it" did not tend to get completely obliterated from these kinds of conversations, though.

Skincare that reliably keeps my skin from painful breakouts and raw patches has been kind of a life-saver for me, and I literally did not know it existed until I was 32 -- at which point I could long have afforded the 40ish dollars per month it costs me.

I don't look like an airbrushed porcelain 20 year old, but my face and neck no longer burn constantly with angry zits and rashes. Vanity or no, it feels like an improvement, and I wish I had known about it sooner instead of assuming that such things were the sole province of the wealthy and genetically blessed.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 12:14 PM on January 4, 2019 [31 favorites]


The one I notice all the time is teeth. Like, everybody on TV has these amazingly gleaming white teeth. It's sometimes startling to watch an old episode of a talk show or something, and see celebrities with normal tooth-colored teeth.

One of the things that makes me laugh is that so many of these people have veneers. To attach veneers you have to grind down the teeth a bit. So all these celebrities actually have nubby little ground down teeth.

Imagining that makes me happy. I have problems.
posted by lumpenprole at 12:15 PM on January 4, 2019 [13 favorites]


My skin is practically molting I'm so flaky. This hits close to home. Definitely not rich.
posted by BrotherCaine at 12:17 PM on January 4, 2019 [3 favorites]



Despite having been raised in relative affluence, come the revolution I can count on my teeth to prove me a pleb.


I credit my weird teeth as one of the reasons I rarely get pegged as an American when traveling abroad, including/especially in the British Isles.

My relatively affluent, image-conscious parents paid good money for the braces I wore for three years to correct the gap between my front teeth, but it kept growing apart and I stopped wearing the retainer. This became a multi-decade family argument with my grandmother, who nearly threatened to disown me because I refused cosmetic dentistry (I like the gap! My teeth are otherwise healthy!) At 42, my teeth are quite healthy (knock on wood), but neither straight nor white, which sometimes confuses people, and occasionally alarms people (a date once told me he couldn't abide a girl without perfect teeth), but I don't mind.
posted by thivaia at 12:29 PM on January 4, 2019 [8 favorites]


I have "weird" teeth in that they're not straight or particularly white. I think it's dumb that my teeth are considered weird and bad - they're not overlapping each other, they don't cause me pain, they've always been modestly more robust than average, my gums are in good shape and the teeth themselves are while not bright white not dramatically discolored. There's nothing wrong with my teeth and I find it intensely annoying that I'm supposed to "fix" a nonexistent problem.

More, I find artificially perfect teeth to look a bit weird and creepy. I don't spend a lot of time staring at people's teeth, so it's not like I'm really judging the people around me, but sometimes I do notice it in photos and it looks strange.
posted by Frowner at 12:35 PM on January 4, 2019 [5 favorites]


"actually, a lot of people definitely benefit, cosmetically and otherwise, from a moderate skin care routine, even if they can't spend $12,000 per year on it" did not tend to get completely obliterated from these kinds of conversations, though.

Yeah, like, I wish I had been raised in the kind of family where I actually knew what things worked and what things didn't, because I would buy them. I hate my dark acne scars and pockmarks and I would be desperate to fix them if I could, but because this is a massive game I will never have the knowledge to know what will fix them and what would be a ripoff.
posted by corb at 12:52 PM on January 4, 2019 [3 favorites]


I also wonder how much the average person is even aware of the many kinds of effective aesthetic products and services available to the rich? Like I’ve trained myself to notice the tell tale signs of laser resurfacing so I can pin point the rich people in the room.

Which are?
posted by leotrotsky at 12:59 PM on January 4, 2019 [7 favorites]


I do wish that the position of "actually, a lot of people definitely benefit, cosmetically and otherwise, from a moderate skin care routine, even if they can't spend $12,000 per year on it" did not tend to get completely obliterated from these kinds of conversations, though.

Skincare that reliably keeps my skin from painful breakouts and raw patches has been kind of a life-saver for me, and I literally did not know it existed until I was 32 -- at which point I could long have afforded the 40ish dollars per month it costs me.

I don't look like an airbrushed porcelain 20 year old, but my face and neck no longer burn constantly with angry zits and rashes. Vanity or no, it feels like an improvement, and I wish I had known about it sooner instead of assuming that such things were the sole province of the wealthy and genetically blessed.


Spot on. I put on moisturizer so my skin doesn't itch or feel tight after I shower in the winter. I put on sunscreen so I don't get skin cancer. I use Retin-A because it does a zillion good things for your skin. I drink lots of water and eat lots of veggies because I feel better when I do. I'm not doing these things to get complements.

I went through high school with painful cystic back acne until my girlfriend said, "You don't need to live like this." And she was right. Accutane was a miracle and my life improved significantly as a result. Reducing external signs of good health (like good skin) to a pure class issue makes for a good jeremiad, but oversimplifies the topic in ways that aren't particularly helpful.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:08 PM on January 4, 2019 [6 favorites]


Which are?

It’s more noticibke on men cause they don’t typically wear makeup but, a lack of fine lines that someone thier age should have usually around the eyes, an all over pinkness that’s not gin blossoms or sun exposure, lack of even minor skin discoloration or freckles or even a little path of uneven coloration.

And I say this as someone whose two main hobbies are skincare and smashing capitalism, my entire routine probobly costs me 100$ a year and is a more then most men do but not nearly up there in how it can get, I think people should take care of thier skin as they would any body part - but the moral judgement in the media (espicslly media directed st woman! See that GOOP comment above) is that if you don’t have perfect skin then there’s something MORALLY WRONG with you and you’re just not doing all the right noble things like meditation and avoiding vice when in reality good comes from luck, a bottle, or a doctor’s office.
posted by The Whelk at 1:19 PM on January 4, 2019 [10 favorites]


I see the whole thing as very akin to “oh you’re not rich you must not have worked hard enough” being said by people whose parents bought them thier first house or whatever.

(If only the anarchists are pretty then if I sign on to the Libertarian Socialist Caucus can I at least be cute?)
posted by The Whelk at 1:22 PM on January 4, 2019


Alright, so spending $1300 on resurfacing my skin would make me (or require me to be) rich... Got it. Check.

Except, on THE SAME DAY, I'm told that all it takes is a mere $7000 (a day) to bathe *like* a rich person. At some hotel in Brooklyn, apparently. The tub is hewn from solid granite. By what I must assume are ancient Egyptians.

Anyway, can we come up with a consistent amount of money I must spend on frivolous and deeply stupid things in order to join this club? I hear they get to board the plane earlier and shit. I want in
posted by kleinsteradikaleminderheit at 1:25 PM on January 4, 2019


While we're on the subject of being more accommodating of skin imperfections, I would definitely like it if rosacea weren't so often referred to as "gin blossoms."
posted by asperity at 1:27 PM on January 4, 2019 [7 favorites]


While we're on the subject of being more accommodating of skin imperfections, I would definitely like it if rosacea weren't so often referred to as "gin blossoms."

An actual anecdote on this topic: I grew up believing that the kind of nose discoloration and swelling that can be caused by severe rosacea were in fact caused by drinking. I used to rent a tiny, adorable apartment from a wonderful, talented and generous man, and I always assumed him to be a Secret Drinker because of the state of his nose. I used to wonder how he managed to be so high-functioning and assumed that when he wasn't around for a protracted period it was because he was on a binge. It was not until years later when the first signs of the mild rosacea that runs in my family started to appear that research revealed how wrong I'd been. I try not to be a rude person and I recognize that alcoholism is an illness rather than a character flaw, so it wasn't like I'd been making pointed remarks or gossiping about it, but in retrospect I wish I'd known.
posted by Frowner at 1:39 PM on January 4, 2019 [10 favorites]


loquacious: "Ah, yes my lifelong plan of being a sun-avoiding spooky kid is finally paying off!"

I've found that it helps to live in a city that only sees the sun about 50 days a year.
posted by octothorpe at 1:42 PM on January 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


But what about the vampires?
posted by cazoo at 1:43 PM on January 4, 2019 [1 favorite]


Do people really draw an equivalence between good skin and good moral character?

I started noticing it in lazy/hackish fiction, where it's an obvious tell to show The Villain and sometimes dovetails with racism or at least ethnic jingoism. "Greasy", for instance. Yyyyeah, sit with that assumption for a second.
posted by cage and aquarium at 1:47 PM on January 4, 2019 [6 favorites]


"The facials at her New York spa start at $200, and more advanced services offer tightening and plumping via LED light bed or electric micro-current."

I'll bet most of these expensive 'advanced services' offer no more benefit than a good quality low cost moisturizer.

Here are two things that probably do the most to keep a model's skin looking young and beautiful as they age: Plastic surgery and Adobe Photoshop.
posted by eye of newt at 1:47 PM on January 4, 2019 [6 favorites]


An actual anecdote on this topic: I grew up believing that the kind of nose discoloration and swelling that can be caused by severe rosacea were in fact caused by drinking. I used to rent a tiny, adorable apartment from a wonderful, talented and generous man, and I always assumed him to be a Secret Drinker because of the state of his nose. I used to wonder how he managed to be so high-functioning and assumed that when he wasn't around for a protracted period it was because he was on a binge. It was not until years later when the first signs of the mild rosacea that runs in my family started to appear that research revealed how wrong I'd been.

Rhinophyma is no joke, and the surgery to correct it can be life-changing.
posted by leotrotsky at 1:47 PM on January 4, 2019


I try not to be a rude person and I recognize that alcoholism is an illness rather than a character flaw, so it wasn't like I'd been making pointed remarks or gossiping about it, but in retrospect I wish I'd known.

Yeah, it's a pretty common misconception and could use a bit more public education generally. It'd be super if I didn't have the nagging worry that my bosses and coworkers think I've been drinking to excess when I show up without makeup. (And makeup often makes it worse!)
posted by asperity at 1:52 PM on January 4, 2019 [3 favorites]


Money is the best emollient emolument.

FTFY.
;)
posted by Greg_Ace at 2:00 PM on January 4, 2019 [1 favorite]


I grew up believing that the kind of nose discoloration and swelling that can be caused by severe rosacea were in fact caused by drinking.

Crap, I'd been making that assumption up until today, so...
posted by BrotherCaine at 2:02 PM on January 4, 2019 [1 favorite]


Time to reread Moll Flanders. At least one scene turns on her demonstration that her lovely skin is not a cosmetic fraud, and the whole book is full of the assumptions people make about her morals and her class status based on her face.
posted by clew at 2:12 PM on January 4, 2019 [4 favorites]


The average woman who has resurfacing or injectables done is also a victim. That shit doesn't feel good. You do it to prevent loss of social capital. And lots of people borrow money to do it.
posted by JPD at 2:50 PM on January 4, 2019 [4 favorites]


One of the great things about aging is that the more wrinkly you become, the less clearly you can see yourself in the mirror.
posted by pangolin party at 3:00 PM on January 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


this Northern European pale skin of mine hates winter air

I can envision a problem there.
posted by leotrotsky at 4:27 PM on January 4, 2019


Fun facts: Babies have good skin because they have relatively tiny pores and rarely get oily. They don't spend anything for that!

It's amazing how different you can look if you don't use the cheapest products available, especially if you don't have stick straight hair. I wish I had known investing in slightly better conditioners (than yucky V05 oil and its equivalents) and other products would make me look more put together.

I think many of us who have had to experiment and spend a little more can put in less time to look good.
posted by Freecola at 4:29 PM on January 4, 2019


But what about the vampires?

Haven't you seen how they sparkle?

This article hit home because I'm now in my early 40s and suddenly after like 15 years where I feel like I had my skincare figured out and things were great, my skin is now completely freaking out again and it feels like each week I'm trying to solve a new problem. I'm blaming a combination of acute stress and probably perimenopause, but it's completely exhausting to try to figure out how to best remedy the problems without spending tons of money--if it's it's $20 here an there at the CVS--to figure it out. And thanks to good ol' American healthcare, I don't think I can see a dermatologist without shelling out even more $$.
posted by TwoStride at 4:33 PM on January 4, 2019 [1 favorite]


I've recently started dabbing a lotion I make up from equal parts by weight Epsom salts, bentonite clay and water onto pimples, random nicks and cuts and carelessly scratched-open insect bites, to dry them up and stop them turning nasty. I call it my magic mud. Works great, costs nearly nothing. Beats the hell out of the cellulitis I copped last summer before inventing this stuff. You're welcome.
posted by flabdablet at 5:02 PM on January 4, 2019 [3 favorites]


So I kind of disagree with the article's implication that the really bad thing is that we're all pretending that good skin is not about the money because rich people lie about their skin care.

Everyone already knew it's about the money.

That's exactly why we all have to do it, to some degree or another. If you're getting your face lasered so you can look "polished" (not poor, not old) enough to work in sales past 45 or whatever, you're 1) not doing it because a model said that you just need to drink more water and 2) not rich in any way that really matters.
posted by eeek at 6:55 PM on January 4, 2019


Being rich means you don’t have to work in the sun. That’s the biggest thing.
posted by seanmpuckett at 7:19 PM on January 4, 2019 [5 favorites]


63 posts in this thread and nobody’s ever heard of Makeup Artist’s Choice? Holy shit balls.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned in the past 25 years while being interested in skin care (which I pursued to deal with my persistent hormonal acne), it’s that all the shit on which rich people spend $1500 can actually be DIY for pennies on the dollar. Like, yeah, you can go to the dermatologist and get a series of 3 glycolic peels for $250. Or you can buy a 1oz bottle of 30% glycolic acid solution for $50 and give yourself two dozen peels. Practically everything on that site is very good quality, works really well, and is pretty dang affordable—and they frequently have 30% off sales.

You can spend $300 every 4 months on Botox, or you can go to Amazon and buy a box of Frownies for 20 bucks.

People tend to recommend Reddit’s r/skincareaddiction a lot, but personally I think the holy grail of all skin care forums is on this hole-in-the-wall website that’s had the same design for nearly 20 years and is the online channel for this tiny little spa on the West Coast: Essentialdayspa.com/forum. This forum is an absolute gold mine for not just product reviews, but for finding the most effective products and regimens for the least amount of money. There’s even a section for reverse-engineering the most expensive products and learning how to make it yourself! Including where to source the chemical compounds.

And that’s just United States efforts, Asian skin care is like an order of magnitude more advanced.

The real secret to success, though, isn’t to be rich. It’s to start doing this stuff when you’re young. If you wait until you’re in your late 30s or early 40s, you’ll either need to spend an inordinate amount of money to get significant results (like laser) or you’ll have to be satisfied looking like a rested and refreshed version of yourself. But if you want to really slow down the aging process and get the most bang for a really pretty small investment ($20/mo) then you need to start in your early to mid-20s.

I’m certainly not saying that people are obligated to buy these products, or to pay more attention to their skin care than they’re already doing, but you definitely don’t have to be rich to get “rich people” skin care, no way.
posted by Autumnheart at 8:10 PM on January 4, 2019 [29 favorites]


I get that people like talking about their hobbies, but I am truly not interested in hearing about how all I need to do to have acceptable skin on a budget is go back in time to my early-to-mid 20s, make skincare my main hobby, and be willing to stick acid on my face in a medically-unsupervised setting. I mean, that's great if it makes you happy, although the time machine thing would be tough no matter how enthusiastic you were about skincare. But it shouldn't be considered the norm. I prefer to spend my time on other things than researching and performing skincare, and that should be ok.
If you wait until you’re in your late 30s or early 40s, you’ll either need to spend an inordinate amount of money to get significant results (like laser) or you’ll have to be satisfied looking like a rested and refreshed version of yourself.
I guess that I would just like to live in a world where a rested and refreshed version of yourself would be adequate.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:21 PM on January 4, 2019 [28 favorites]


I am willing to stick acid on my face to get these acne scars gone, but it's because I am treated as less valuable as a human as my attractiveness fades. But I still appreciate the tipoffs, so thank you Autumnheart.
posted by corb at 8:27 PM on January 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


Also on the plus side if it all goes horribly wrong I can start a new career as a supervillain.
posted by corb at 8:27 PM on January 4, 2019 [9 favorites]


Besides, that’s why I posted the links. Now others can enjoy the results without having to do the legwork.
posted by Autumnheart at 8:48 PM on January 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


you’ll either need to spend an inordinate amount of money to get significant results (like laser)

Assuming one is willing to spend that, where does one begin? It seems like the world of expensive skin stuff is even more opaque and dangery.
posted by saysthis at 8:55 PM on January 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


Realself.com and local recommendations for highly qualified dermatologists and/or facial plastic surgeons.

But really, starting with the less invasive stuff can make a pretty big difference. A series of 12 spa-strength glycolic peels will give you significant improvement, and you can use it wherever—chest, hands, back, neck, it’s not just for the face. That’s why they’re such good moneymakers.

I had a microdermabrasion peel (a professional one) before embarking on my DIY peel journey, to see how my skin tolerated it (very well) and what the pain threshold was (stung, but bearable). After that, I started with 30% glycolic acid, and over the course of a few years, moved up in strength to 50% glycolic and then eventually to 15% TCA. By that time, I’d given myself dozens of peels, and was comfortable in knowing that I could safely apply (and tolerate) a stronger solution. And a 3-layer 15% TCA peel would easily cost about $2000 at a dermatologist.
posted by Autumnheart at 9:52 PM on January 4, 2019 [9 favorites]


A friend of mine posted this link to FB and I had a protracted semi-argument with her because she stated she knows plenty of poor older women with stunning skin and that genetics have more to do with good skin and maintaining a youthful appearance than money, which can't buy what genetics can give you.

Me: Tell that to Cher.

British TV will make you feel better. They also have faces that can move and show expressions too.

Hello, have you heard of Jordan?
posted by elsietheeel at 10:40 PM on January 4, 2019


To be strictly fair, there are plenty of celebrities who engaged in some really poor quality plastic surgery, too. They had the money to spend and they did so, but the result was considerably worse than if they’d just left things alone. Being rich might enable one to afford the products and procedures that will maintain a youthful appearance beyond one’s youth, but it definitely isn’t the deciding factor.
posted by Autumnheart at 11:31 PM on January 4, 2019 [2 favorites]


Oh, another product recommendation: Jarrosil activated silica drops. (Horsetail, not sand.) You put a few drops in a glass of juice or water (not milk, it coagulates) and it makes your hair, skin and nails look fantastic. A 2oz bottle costs $13 and at the recommended dosage, lasts more than 6 months.

But in short, it’s a lot easier to begin at 30 to keep looking 30, than it is to start at 50 and try to erase 20 years to look 30. And you don’t need to be rich to do it, in fact it is shockingly affordable. Is it even easier if you have tons of money to throw around? Sure, so is everything. But you can get a hell of a lot of anti-aging bang for about $100/year. It’s more than “sunblock, drink water, eat veggies” but mine is basically wash face, glycolic toner, peptide serum, jojoba oil, zit cream, eye cream, Frownies. Nothing crazy. A series of peels once every 12-18 months. I would say I spend about $300/year on my skin care, which averages out to $25/mo. I wouldn’t consider that excessive or unaffordable.

So yeah, I just really don’t agree with the premise of the article, which is that a) effective skin care costs a lot of money and b) practically nobody but the wealthy has access to the products that really work. Not true!
posted by Autumnheart at 1:05 AM on January 5, 2019 [8 favorites]


I really want to push back on the idea that $300 a year is not a lot of money. $300 a year is unlikely to be a lot of money for the average mefite, but it is well documented that, eg, even small changes in medical co-pays result in declining use, for instance, and so I think we can infer that if there's a lot of USians who can't afford an extra $5 a month for medical services, they can't afford $300 on DIY skincare, either.

Also, I appreciate that some people find this fun, but an evening routine with five products and stickers to keep on your face while you sleep actually seems like a lot of work to me, never mind whatever else one does in the morning. So does the very substantial reading of forums and the ordering and trying new products.

Especially because the whole thing is "look young, look young, don't look old, start worrying about looking old when you're twenty because otherwise you'll look old when you're forty" - a way of making sure that no matter her age, every woman will spend all her adulthood with the constant chime of "looking old is bad, it's your responsibility not to look old". And of course, if you individually decide not to care, you're still living in a society where the expectation is that women start in their twenties on a very elaborate scientific/medical regime to prevent wrinkles, because wrinkles are bad and looking old is bad. And because, at that point, looking old makes you less employable. Of course, this already exists, but I tend to see a lot of the "new" skincare stuff as just a more millenial-driven, more culturally palatable version of the same thing.

God forbid that we not spend a lot of time and money trying to look nubile, because everyone knows that women who don't look as close to 25 as humanly possible have failed in an important way.

It just seems like it's impossible to separate messages about how great your skin can look for very very cheap from the message that only women who look very young are worthwhile.
posted by Frowner at 6:02 AM on January 5, 2019 [23 favorites]


So yeah, I just really don’t agree with the premise of the article, which is that a) effective skin care costs a lot of money and b) practically nobody but the wealthy has access to the products that really work. Not true!

I read the premises of the article as more complex than that - less that you can't have good skin without spending lots of money, and more that the media machine of skin care articles and interviews has a strong tendency to gloss over the fact that most of the people we see on screens do spend lots of money on skin care.
posted by soundguy99 at 6:21 AM on January 5, 2019


I guess that I would just like to live in a world where a rested and refreshed version of yourself would be adequate.

I find it disheartening that this thread has turned into a recommendations thread for beauty regimens: "It's not that difficult or expensive to put acid on your face!"

Like, I am not going to knock you for putting acid on your face. I wear makeup, and I might put acid on my own face some day. However, this sort of rhetoric - especially in threads where we are discussing the misogynist and classist expectations of these kinds of beauty standards - is really inappropriate and tone deaf.

It reminds me of an infamous Tumblr thread, where someone posted a hyperbolic complaint about how women are expected to use thirty beauty products because their own natural face isn't acceptable. The response that made it go viral was that you really only need five.

This kind of advice, in places where it is not solicited, functions to normalize the expectation that women do this, that it's normal, that it's not really a great burden (only it is, even if it's easily within your budget it's a great psychic burden).

If I want advice on which acids to put on my face I'll make an AskMe post about it.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 6:25 AM on January 5, 2019 [18 favorites]


It’s not tone-deaf. The premise of the article is literally about affordability. Never mind that the article is factually wrong on practically every point it makes, which it is. And I’m making product recommendations specifically to counter the claims that the article is making, pointing out exactly which products do give you “rich people” results, exactly how cheap they are, and where anyone can buy them.

But instead you want to make this into yet another “Metafilter sensitive” ethics competition, where people who buy skin care products are frivolous and weird (see also the repeated framing of “putting acid on my face” as if that’s an exotic and strange idea that only weirdos do), while claiming that $25/mo is a lot of money, and people who aren’t measuring income by the bar of the extremely poverty-stricken are somehow out of touch. Spare me the faux outrage. I doubt you’d be preaching about classism and misogyny and what weirdos do to their skin in the name of appearance, if you read about someone spending $300 on a tattoo.

Maybe start with the idea that a skin care article in The Atlantic isn’t the most reliable source for keeping your finger on the pulse of the middle class. They have a good article now and then, but they also write a lot of really wrong ones too.
posted by Autumnheart at 7:41 AM on January 5, 2019 [15 favorites]


And then consider the accuracy of the article in the light of the fact that celebrities and top-tier models look like they have poreless, airbrushed skin because whenever we see them, it’s either with professional-quality makeup application and lighting, or in media that has been digitally altered to remove their flaws and idealize their appearance. There are about a gazillion candid snapshots of celebrities who are out and about without makeup that reveal that they have the same wrinkles, eyebags and acne as anyone else. Look at Brad Pitt, does he still look like he did in “Fight Club” or “Troy”? No, he sure doesn’t. Is he lacking in money and access to professionals who could give him state-of-the-art skin care? Hell no. He’s 55 years old and while he looks good for his age, he certainly doesn’t look young. Why doesn’t he still look at 55 the way he did when he was 41 (which is how old he was when “Troy” was filmed)? Because that’s not how aging works. He looks pretty good for 55, but he definitely doesn’t look young. You could say the same thing about practically every celebrity over 40, they usually have nice skin and look good for their age, but in no way do they look like they’re not older than their 25-year-old selves. They maybe look 10 years younger than their actual age on average. But then, so do tons of people, costly skin care interventions or not.

I mean, really. Think about it. Wealthy people aren’t ubiquitous, but they’re hardly rare. Do you notice people with especially nice skin in public? Do you naturally assume that they must be wealthy and are using super expensive skin care products? Are the wealthy people you know noticeably more youthful-looking than the people you know who aren’t wealthy? I would bet $50 that they’re not, because people age dramatically differently, and it has tons more to do with sun exposure as a child and adolescent, alcohol and drug use, stress, kids, and your own genetics. Someone using a $150 face cream might have way nicer skin than if they didn’t use it, but how would a casual observer ever know the difference unless they were told?

This article was written by someone who walked around Manhattan and made some observations about the wealthy people there, and then speculated about how they achieved their look by extrapolating from the professional regimens of Victoria’s Secret models. The entire premise is bullshit and easily countered, completely ignores the availability of products and their actual prices in regard to their effectiveness, and absolutely ignores any other contributors to the aging process, except to remark that fashion magazines repeat individual celebrity tips as magic bullets against aging. But anyone who’s ever visited a northern climate and a southern one can see the stark difference that environmental UV exposure has on your skin, and indeed practically every dermatologist worth their license will confirm that UV exposure is responsible for the vast majority of skin aging. Smooth, wrinkle-free skin isn’t an indicator of either age or wealth in a northern climate, it’s just what happens when you work an indoor job (which the vast majority of people do) in a part of the world that doesn’t get a lot of sun for a big chunk of the year.

It’s silly to get up in arms about classism and misogyny without even taking 10 minutes to consider whether the copy that you’re reading is actually an accurate portrayal.
posted by Autumnheart at 8:45 AM on January 5, 2019 [7 favorites]


Eczema has made me a lifelong connoisseur of non-greasy, unscented moisturizing creams that are also woo and pseudoscience-free.

preach it, unison-stringèd brother. Spectro, though it might smell like a TSC and have a winter consistency near cheddar, means that my hands no longer hate me and have stopped seeping fluid from every crack.
posted by scruss at 9:11 AM on January 5, 2019


Is it wrong that I actually love my melisma (most days)? It ages me, sure, and I’m sure it’s a sign of how I’m Doing It Wrong (every sunscreen or facial mosturizer with sunscreen I’ve tried burns my skin, so I go without.) I have spots, like a cat or a dog, it’s cool. The freckles of my youth gave way to coalesced blotches on my cheeks. My only sad is that I generally prefer to even my skin out with makeup, which covers it except it’s darkest late summer.

I started skin care too late. Like many people, I didn’t think about it until I saw aging coming. Melisma love aside, I would like to do something about it, but haven’t a clue if I will. Now it’s financially not an option. I worry I’ll be aged out of work. I look younger most of the time, which is good in some ways, but it’s hard to be taken as seriously professionally when you’re seen as 10 years younger (or more!). I believe it’s a combination of height, dying my grey hair (including eyebrows, this has made a crazy big difference), (I have pretty awesome skin for early 40s, but started going gray at 19, and would be completely white if I let it show.) and working in computers for many hours, so spending a LOT of time hidden way from sunlight.

The thing I keep debating is when working, I can either look younger and treated though I don’t know things “yet” or work to look my age, and be dismissed as a no-longer relevant, aged woman. I’ve seen how women in their 40s and 50s are treated as irrelivant and out of touch my whole career.

And eventually, I’m going to start to look my age. I’m blessed with good skin, but these past couple years have been stressful as fuck. I see it taking a toll. I’m working on getting back to work, and I do spend time wondering will a little Botox to reduce the deepest lines between my eyes help ensure I’ll young and relvant and employable in the tech field? Even if not now, at what point will some of this skin care start being a necessity to maintain the kind of appearance that’s taken seriously in the working world. How much additional will I have to invest in maintaining an appearance that lets me move through the working world freely? More freely at least.

Like so many other beauty rituals and standards, it’s not something that can be easily opted out of. Maybe we all can’t look celebrity level good, but choosing to ignore rituals that let your skin age naturally does have professional implications as a woman. I mean, ageism exists for men too, but women are already facing the uphill battle on irrelevance in the workplace.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 10:03 AM on January 5, 2019 [2 favorites]


I mean, really. Think about it. Wealthy people aren’t ubiquitous, but they’re hardly rare. Do you notice people with especially nice skin in public?

Yes, constantly.

Do you naturally assume that they must be wealthy and are using super expensive skin care products?

For the most part, yes. Especially if they have all of the other markers of wealth about them.

Are the wealthy people you know noticeably more youthful-looking than the people you know who aren’t wealthy?

ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY. Are you kidding me? I look a solid decade older than my rich friends. I don't even look that run-down for my age, tbh -- no grays, yet, and only one little wrinkle that won't go away when my expression is neutral. Heck, sometimes I even get carded. But my friends who are lawyers and such -- they look convincingly ten years younger. And yes, their bathrooms are like the inside of a Sephora. And yes, they each have 4 separate aesthetic professionals to fret about tipping each Christmas.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 12:31 PM on January 5, 2019 [9 favorites]


Spare me the faux outrage

No, the outrage is real.

Approach my comment with this in mind: I am saying something that I genuinely feel - not something that I am pretending to feel because I get validation from being holier than thou. Assume good faith, and then reread my comment.

The fact that you thought my comment must be false posturing is also disheartening. It should not be so surprising that some women actually feel this way.

And also: "Putting acid on my face" is not hyperbole, but a literal description of the process - a description that I chose because it strips (haha) away the euphemistic language of "self-care". This euphemistic language serves to obscure the extremes that women are expected to go to in order to preserve a "youthful" appearance. You think that it's unfair I'm making it seem like something weirdos do. Except that's not's not what I'm doing; by using literal language, I am making the point that it is a weird thing to do. This might seem like splitting hairs, but it's an important distinction because my entire objection here is to the normalization of extreme beauty expectations.

But anyone who’s ever visited a northern climate and a southern one can see the stark difference that environmental UV exposure has on your skin, and indeed practically every dermatologist worth their license will confirm that UV exposure is responsible for the vast majority of skin aging.

No one has said that regular use of sunscreen is unreasonable. A beauty regimen involving multiple products, including acid peels that make your skin more sensitive to UV damage, is not the same as protecting your skin from UV damage. I do not know why you are suddenly conflating these, as though a defense of one is a defense of the other. Beauty and health are not the same, regardless of the pervasive marketing we're exposed to that tell us otherwise.

if you read about someone spending $300 on a tattoo.

This is a very bad comparison. We do not live in a society that expects women to maintain an appropriately tattooed appearance. You're trying to accuse me of hypocrisy because I wouldn't bring up the misogyny and classism behind women spending money on tattoos - but why would I? Tattoos have a completely different cultural context. You're taking an objection to sexist double standards regarding women's appearances, and turning it into a blanket objection to women spending money on their appearances in any way. You are again conflating very different things.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 12:53 PM on January 5, 2019 [9 favorites]


FTR, the people I know to whom $300 is a lot of money don't have tattoos, unless they're stick and pokes or "$10 tattoo Tuesday" specials from, like, 1985.

Again, the idea that $300 is pin money to the average person is not born out by facts. The majority of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. The majority of Americans do not have the cash on hand for a $500 expense.

A lot of people who working poor - which is a huge percentage of Americans - get amateur tattoos from people who, eg, got a tattoo gun on ebay and either tattoo people for free or charge, like, $25. Most of those aren't great tattoos. If I see someone walking around with really choice work, I know that the odds are good that they're not poor, or else that they're temporary-poor, like a student from an affluent family with a part time gig as a barista. I mean, nothing against tattoos - I've seen lots that I like, from very expensive ones to well-done stick and pokes, although obviously your odds of getting a great tattoo go up with your cultural connections (to find the best artist) and the amount you can pay.

On another note - and I say this as someone with zero tattoos - you buy a tattoo once and you're done with the expense. You're not talking about $300 a year every year for the rest of your life, with that being the cheap option.
posted by Frowner at 1:11 PM on January 5, 2019 [6 favorites]


I am 55. I am coming from a place of privilege in that I seem to have good genetic skin - I do nothing whatsoever to it except sunscreen and moisturizer (both from the drugstore) and I never have. One time my cousin gave me a facial but that’s about it: I don’t even wear makeup. Yet I look okay for my age as far as I can tell and from what people say. So I cannot weigh in on what it’s like to have bad acne scars or other problematic skin conditions and I can totally see why it’s good that there are more options out there nowadays for those who do. And, hey, your skin routine is none of my business and whatever, go wild.

That said, I do feel that the ever increasing pressure on women to constantly do more to their appearance, look younger, spend more money ($30 a month is a LOT, that would cut significantly into the wine budget) and focus intensely and continuously on how they LOOK to the outside world (*cough* men *cough*) is really not great. I suspect there’s absolutely no reason for the majority of people to do anything to their skin beyond rest, hydration, moisturizer and sunscreen. I don’t like seeing appearance expectations get ratcheted up and up. Oh, you have to wear makeup! You have to get facials! And mani/pedis! And peels! The list goes on and on and frankly, it’s bullshit. It just keeps getting longer and it’s all bullshit. You’re going to end up, if you’re lucky I guess, getting old and looking old, because that is just the way it is. And the way it is should be fine. There is no reason for it not to be fine - a 40 year old person isn’t going to look 20 and why should they? I feel like the more people think this stuff is essential, the more they are buying into the basic lie here, which is that it’s not okay to be old, that old people are useless and undesirable. Sexism meets ageism! It’s a pernicious lie and I get it, in my 40s I was a hot mess about it too. I wish I hadn’t been because that was a dumb waste of time - I got older, I look older and finally I more or less stopped caring much about it. I find it’s way more relaxing that way. But it would be even more relaxing if I didn’t have to feel like I’m being judged for being just a plain unvarnished* female human being in late middle age.

*I do have tattoos! Some were cheap, some were expensive and I don’t regret any of them one damn bit.
posted by mygothlaundry at 1:49 PM on January 5, 2019 [7 favorites]


Okay, first of all, putting acid on your face isn’t a weird or extreme thing to do. People have been doing it for centuries. If you have a bottle of lotion, go take a look at the ingredients. Chances are you’ll see “citric acid” or “lactic acid” or some kind of acid listed (my bottle of Eucerin has citric acid). Chances are you’ve heard of people putting lemon juice (citric acid) on their skin, or taking milk baths (lactic acid). Which is really no weirder than giving yourself a facial with egg in it (vitamin E) or putting mayonnaise in your hair to make it shine (eggs again). But companies have isolated those active ingredients and perfected them to be less harsh and more effective than using the food items.

Since there are too many people for me to individually respond to who are taking exactly the same “Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer” tone, like they’ve never heard of acid peels and don’t know why anyone would do such a thing, the reason you put acid on your skin is to chemically exfoliate your skin cells. The reason you might do it chemically with an acid instead of physically with a washcloth or a loofah, or a granular scrub, or a microdermabrasion treatment, is because it’s easier to get a more even and controlled application. But either way, the ablative process is the desired result.

What else happens when you do this? It promotes a response in the skin to create new skin cells. It also promotes the growth of collagen. It helps remove dead skin and reveal new skin to the surface. See, when you age, your skin gets thinner and more delicate because the collagen layer underneath deteriorates. So by stimulating collagen growth, you maintain a thicker epidermis and maintain a healthier skin layer that is more resistant to injury and disease. It also makes your skin look nice. And this is really the primary reason people might do it, just like they probably go to the gym to look good naked, even though physical exercise has obvious physical benefits that go well beyond looking good. The same. Is true. Of skin care.

So, yes, when you perform a peel, your skin is temporarily thinner and more delicate and needs to be protected from UV exposure. After that, though, it is healed and is no more vulnerable to exposure than any other part of your skin. But the reason you do it on your FACE is because your FACE gets more exposure than all the rest of your body. Face, neck, decolletage and hands. Those are the primary target areas because those are the areas that see the most sun and environmental damage.

Why the other stuff then? Well, there are multiple things that promote new skin cells and collagen growth. Copper is one. Vitamin C is another. Hyaluronic acid is a third. You can use products with these ingredients in them, without peels, and get the benefit. But if you stack them, you get way more benefit, just like if you combine an iron tablet with a vitamin C tablet, you absorb more iron than if you take it by itself. One way to stack them is to use these products during the healing process after a peel. Another is to use them nightly or daily after you wash your face. You can also use what’s called a carrier oil, so named because these products are chemically similar to the body’s own sebum and therefore are more effective than other products in carrying active ingredients into the skin. Jojoba oil, emu oil, argan oil, there are several and they’re easy to find and not very expensive. When you use a carrier oil with your product stack, you can get the same effectiveness with less product, or greater effectiveness than if you used the product without it. These oils also tend to be effective against inflammation and help promote healing and reduce scarring, so if you happen to get a sunburn or accidentally fry your arm on the stove, it will help with that too.

So now you know why you might do these things. Making fun of people who do it, or trying to insinuate that they’re weird or morally bankrupt, just exposes your ignorance and is just Puritanism in practice. After all, there are plenty of people with skin conditions that all this shit can and does help. Are you going to start making fun of people with psoriasis and eczema because their Gold Bond medicated lotion has urine in it? Or is that considered okay because having healthy skin is important if you have an illness, but vanity if you don’t? It’s time to evolve out of the 1600s.

“But I shouldn’t have to know all this stuff just to get by in my daily or professional life.” Nobody’s asking you to. Literally nobody would ever fucking know if you did it or not. It’s not like makeup or hair dye, the results aren’t going to show up until your 40s or 50s, and how would you ever know if it was the face peels, or just the fact that you got about 12 bad sunburns as a kid? Or that you drank and partied a ton in your 20s? Or that you used to smoke, or grew up in the same house as a smoker? Or that you had kids at 35 when your friends had them at 25? Or that you were a lifeguard in college? There is NO way to know.

But, seriously, being willfully ignorant about the benefits, and trying to frame the whole subject as though you are morally and ethically superior for not doing it than the people who do, is nonsense. Just stop.
posted by Autumnheart at 3:26 PM on January 5, 2019 [10 favorites]


This is my favorite example of celebrity done up and photographed v celeb candid. (Sl twitter to Jane Fonda on the red carpet and at home the next day having slept in the dress)
posted by (Over) Thinking at 4:52 PM on January 5, 2019 [2 favorites]


But, seriously, being willfully ignorant about the benefits

I am not being willfully ignorant of the benefits. You just spent a lot of time explaining how to make your beauty regimen more effective, because you want to demonstrate how much you know about this topic. But what effect are you going for? Primarily, as you admit, it's for nicer looking skin.

You briefly claim it makes the skin more resistant to damage because it promotes collagen growth. But the process is itself controlled damage to the face; there are potential side effects, such as discoloration, infection, and scarring. It does not protect your skin from UV rays, which is what you were so concerned about earlier. Even if this benefit exists - and I am having hard time finding non-industry studies saying that it does - it is a very small benefit.

In fact, you are talking about this intensive regimen as though it's necessary for "healthy" skin - which is exactly the type of normalization of the beauty industry that I originally objected to, only worse, because now you are actually claiming that there is something wrong with our skins that we need to fix. My skin is not less healthy than yours because I do not do facial peels.

After all, there are plenty of people with skin conditions that all this shit can and does help.

The fact that some people have skin conditions that can benefit from some kinds of skin treatments does not mean you should pathologize every woman's skin.

Making fun of people who do it, or trying to insinuate that they’re weird or morally bankrupt [...] trying to frame the whole subject as though you are morally and ethically superior for not doing it than the people who do

All right. This tells me that you are just feeling defensive about your hobby, and not actually reading what I have written.

I said in my very first comment that I am not knocking people who have a beauty regimen that involves acid peels. I even said that I might try it myself one day. I gave an example of something I already do (wearing makeup) that I do in order to look more attractive; I offered this information because I wanted to point out that we are not that different. At no point have I said that you are weird or morally bankrupt.

I explicitly objected to a particular thing: Turning a thread about damaging beauty expectations into a thread for beauty advice.

Yes, I chose wording that communicates how deeply weird I find the practice of chemical peels. I corrected you on t
he distinction between finding the practice weird, and finding the people who engage in it weird, but you've ignored that. I also find wearing high heels to be weird. I find wearing bras to be weird. Yet, I have done two out of three of those things.

I would similarly object to a thread about how awful it is that women are expected to wear high heels being turned into a thread about where to buy "affordable" high heels.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 4:54 PM on January 5, 2019 [11 favorites]


And I’ve explained why my posts are relevant to the actual article, but you don’t seem to be paying attention to that, either. You just want to frame other people’s hygienic practices as weird and then act like you’re on the moral high ground, while ignoring facts. K.
posted by Autumnheart at 6:07 PM on January 5, 2019


Like, it would be one thing if you were like “I understand what it’s for, but it’s not for me,” like a person who just isn’t into a thing, instead of engaging in an “OMG, it’s just so weird and strange, I’m from an alternate timeline where such things were never invented” exaggerated estrangement schtick. I don’t go into a thread about the Avengers and try to argue that people who cosplay are weird and strange and encouraging a classist society because they can afford to make a costume and travel to San Diego.
posted by Autumnheart at 6:13 PM on January 5, 2019


Mod note: Folks, maybe take it to MeMail?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:17 PM on January 5, 2019


Do people really draw an equivalence between good skin and good moral character?

I have had people assume that my adult acne means one of the following:

* I must not wash my face, with attendant other judgments about my hygiene.
* That it's the result of failure to eat properly due to poor self-control and this indicates something about my suitability for employment/social contact.
* That I must pick at it because of poor self-control and this indicates something about my suitability for employment/social contact.
* That I'm clearly just not even attempting to treat it (or at least for god's sake cover it up) because I don't care about my professional appearance--this has gotten lectures from bosses, which resulted in various attempts to at least use cosmetics to obscure the problem, which always made it worse.
* Even that I might use meth or some other drugs, or at least this has been framed several times as "I might have thought this except you aren't skinny, haha," and I had a psychiatrist once indicate that he thought I might be abusing my stimulant ADD medication because my face was particularly bad during one appointment.

So, yeah. If this is how "bad skin" gets judged, it makes sense that there's an attendant drive to show yourself to be as far away from "bad skin" as possible.
posted by Sequence at 6:27 PM on January 5, 2019 [12 favorites]


1) i enjoy tips and advice that helps me to class-pass and clear my blackheads;

2) consequently i'm looking forward to the next inevitable fad where 'glass skin' is gauche and try-hard so you have to try harder to look like a 'plebe';

2a) think about it... there'll be a time of 'acceptable wrinklage'
posted by cendawanita at 9:07 PM on January 5, 2019


I explicitly objected to a particular thing: Turning a thread about damaging beauty expectations into a thread for beauty advice.

But the article is literally about how effective skincare is only available to the wealthy. I think both lines of conversation are on topic (finding affordable skincare and discussion of damaging beauty standards).

From the conclusion of the article:

If everyone admitted that skin care is primarily a function of wealth, then they’d have to grapple with who has money, and what we assume and expect of those who don’t.

Personally, skincare and makeup have been a hobby of mine, but more often than not I buy things and don’t end up using them much. My observation is that skin condition as one ages tends to be mostly a matter of genetics, but I’m not a scientist. I had horrible acne for most of my life, age 12-40 more or less. Like someone above commented, I never had access to anything like dermatologists or prescriptions until I was into my 20s and figured out that was something I could pursue. I don’t know if I finally found the right products or if age mostly cleared up my skin but that multidecade struggle left its mark. Who knows, maybe I’ll do a home peel.
posted by JenMarie at 10:05 PM on January 5, 2019 [2 favorites]


JenMarie: But the article is literally about how effective skincare is only available to the wealthy. I think both lines of conversation are on topic (finding affordable skincare and discussion of damaging beauty standards).

Using the social capital available via Metafilter to combat the money capital available via inheritance and celebrity.
posted by clawsoon at 5:04 AM on January 6, 2019 [2 favorites]


I was not really familiar with acid peels (or skin laser zapping) before this article and thread. I live with chronic pain everyday. I am not going to intentionally cause myself additional pain just so other people like the way my skin looks, especially if it means I have to stay out of the sun for some number of days, since much of my work is outside. I have no problem with other people intentionally causing themselves pain if that floats their boat.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:47 AM on January 6, 2019 [1 favorite]


Of course no one should do anything to their own skin if they don’t want to. To be clear, anything I do is my choice and not done for anyone else. As a point of information, I can’t speak for lasers, but “pain” doesn’t really describe the peels I’ve had while getting a facial. More like mild stinging for a couple of minutes, if that. I’m not trying to convince anyone to do anything, though.
posted by JenMarie at 8:51 AM on January 6, 2019


Good grief, putting yogurt on one's skin is an acid treatment. Skin itself is acidic, with a healthy pH of 4.5- 5.5. -in fact there is something called the "acid mantle" which is sebum mixed with lactic acids and amino acids from our own sweat. When the acid mantle of skin is damaged, skin becomes more susceptible to conditions like acne, eczema, and rosacea. (Yes, it can be damaged by too much acid, but more often people are damaging it with alkaline products like soap, shampoo and cleansers. When these products are "pH balanced" for skin, they have been made acidic.) Putting slightly acidic things on your skin does not cause pain, it matches the optimal conditions of skin. Sure, more intense acids exist and people use them to do more extreme treatments in order to minimize scars and improve texture, and sometimes these treatments are uncomfortable. But let's not act like any act putting acids on skin is some extreme form of self-mutilation that proves that women are victims of societal norms.

It's not off topic to talk about these things because TFA concludes with "If everyone admitted that skin care is primarily a function of wealth, then they’d have to grapple with who has money, and what we assume and expect of those who don’t." While there are issues around how what we're being shown as optimal and moral in these Instagram days has an enormous amount to do with money, I disagree with the use of "primarily". Many people in this thread have pointed out what their own skin care regimen costs and they clearly aren't spending thousands of dollars. It certainly reasonable to push back on the idea that one must spend a shit ton of money on skincare. Whether that comes in the form of rejecting arbitrary beauty standards OR/AND recommending more affordable options to achieve similar results, either is a valid response, particularly in a thread where someone suggests that women who get injectables are victims. WTF. That's not a path forward to rejecting bullshit societal expectations. Let's maybe decide that whatever people do with their bodies and whatever they want to spend, time or capital, is up to them. There's a wide variety of human experience and chastising people here for sharing their experience WRT this issues in this article is garbage. Especially since the article itself is hardly an in depth look at he issues around skincare and privilege- it doesn't even mention POC or transgender people because they don't fit into the incredibly basic premise in a neat and tidy way.

I've had horrible skin all my life, and now it's much less horrible because cheap treatments and the knowledge to use them are widely available. There's nothing wrong with wanting one's own face to look pleasing to one's own eyes. I mean, my teeth are very yellow and gappy and I don't give a shit. But I am happy to have my skin looking younger and clearer than it did five years ago and that's possible because so many women care about the issue and have done the research and shared it. It's cool if you personally are not into it, but I appreciate the people who talk on forums and read scientific papers and share their experiences so that other people realize YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE RICH to make some improvement to your appearance, if you choose to do so.
posted by oneirodynia at 2:40 PM on January 6, 2019 [5 favorites]


I think it's like dressing well imo - there's obviously class dimensions to it, and achieving certain looks, but there are ways to achieve them affordably and class-pass, while acknowledging the system that's led to the privileging of certain looks and aesthetics. but i think clothing and fashion, while fraught, doesn't feel AS fraught? but maybe it's because we have an easier time not to make connections with the inherent moral quality of the person with their clothes, as opposed to their body. or rather, intuitively most will feel like dressing well is achievable with access to some resources, but having good skin feels like such an externalisation of character that maybe you're just 'not meant' to have nice skin.
posted by cendawanita at 7:19 PM on January 6, 2019 [1 favorite]


Something I notice on metafilter on virtually every topic: Someone posts an article about a systemic problem - food deserts, lack of time to exercise, difficulty accessing services, whatever - and the debate always turns into a discussion of how it's not actually difficult. There's always at least one person who, eg, is a vegan in a food desert, or who enjoys investing an unusual amount of time or money into solving their version of the systemic problem while also having the skills, knowledge and interests which make this possible, and the argument quickly turns into "you're just ignorant and biased to suggest that there is s systemic nature to this problem, if you just do these life hacks it's not a problem at all". And we all take it as read that a life of extra life hacks and effort is just cool cool cool.

You see, by unhappy coincidence, I would prefer not to spend my time and money researching, acquiring and applying five or ten cheap versions of five or ten expensive face products, and yet I would also like not to live in a society where I'll be discriminated against for having aging or "bad" skin, a la the "good luck holding onto your job after fifty" thread currently on the blue. "Don't liek don't read" does not apply when we live in a society which discriminates and pressures people to heavily manage their appearance.

I would add that when systemic problems appear - whether food deserts or discrimination based on lack of use of fancy skincare products - the correct analysis is unlikely to be "everyone except the few of us who hack this problem as a fun hobby is doing it wrong, and the real answer is to make sure that everyone adds some work and expense to their schedules and budgets, both of which they obviously have to spare and would not prefer to direct somewhere else".
posted by Frowner at 5:21 AM on January 7, 2019 [19 favorites]


It’s a preference (In wider American society not just Metafilter) for individualistic solutions rather than acknowledgement of widespread systematic problems, because no one wants to admit to being a victim.
posted by The Whelk at 8:36 AM on January 7, 2019 [4 favorites]


Yeah, I'm really skeptical of the whole claim that it's easy to do discount skincare on a budget, for a number of reasons.

1. It may be that you can come up with a pretty cheap routine, but my hunch is that most women experiment a lot before they settle on that routine. And that experimentation costs effort and money. So it may eventually be $300 a year, which isn't peanuts, but you're probably spending more to get to the point where you can spend only $300 a year.

2. Once you decide to subject your skin to scrutiny, you're going to find new things that need to be fixed. And your skin is going to change as you age, because everyone's skin changes as they age. So you're going to go back to the experimentation phase again, which is going to disrupt your $300-a-year skincare regimen. Even if you eventually find a new $300-a-year regimen, it will take money to get there. And probably, once you start scrutinizing your skin, you're going to decide that you need additional, more-expensive stuff. For instance, Autumnheart helpfully told us that you can avoid expensive treatments by starting your skincare regimen when you're in your mid-20s. But I didn't start my skincare regimen in my mid-20s for all sorts of reasons, including that I was spectacularly broke when I was in my mid-20s and that skincare wasn't really a thing at the time. So here I am in my mid-40s, having neglected my skin for 20 years, if you buy into this way of thinking. According to her, I will need to do the expensive lasers and whatnot to get good skin. So once I join her community of $300-a-year skincare people, I am going to hear that I actually should be spending much more, because that's the cost of making up for my previous mistakes.

3. There are a lot of companies making big money off of skincare, and that means that there are a lot of highly-skilled marketers working really hard to convince women that we need expensive skincare stuff. You don't have to succumb to these messages, but it's really hard not to, especially since the main sources of information about skincare are funded by and beholden to the companies that make the stuff.

And of course, this is just one branch of the femininity industrial complex. So you spend $300 a year, optimistically, on skincare. You're also spending money on hair removal and makeup and the latest fitness trends and aromatherapy oils and other corporate self-care products and.... it's a lot. And while some women really enjoy that stuff, which is great, it's a tax on women when it's expected of all of us, including those of us who don't enjoy it. So I'm not faulting anyone for enjoying skincare, but I think it's a problem when it's expected of all of us.

I still have no idea how much of it actually works. I also have no idea whether I have good skin, other than my actual diagnosed dermatological issues, and I kind of want to keep it that way, since I have enough stupid stuff about my body that I angst over.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:03 AM on January 7, 2019 [6 favorites]


Someone posts an article about a systemic problem - food deserts, lack of time to exercise, difficulty accessing services, whatever - and the debate always turns into a discussion of how it's not actually difficult.

So there is definitely a problem in how we talk about systemic problems that overemphasizes the way that we can respond to them in individual ways, and often makes people feel bad about their being the victim of it. But there's also how we can overtalk about something as a systemic problem, thus making it seem as though there can be no individual response at all, which has the negative side effect of causing paralysis and making people's lives worse off as well.

So systemically, there are always going to be differentiating factors of class, right? Right now, it's 'good skin', or 'good teeth', or a 'fit physique', or tailored clothes that are of expensive cut and quality, but in reality the differentiating factor is obvious class markers, which differ according to the time and culture we live in. We should not (but often do) feel ashamed of possessing obvious class markers that show we are not of the upper class, in part because these are constantly changing as we acquire them.

At the same time, these negative class markers ('bad skin', 'bad teeth', 'overweight', etc) do have a recognizable impact on individual lives, even if they would stop being useful if we all acquired them. And so it makes an enormous amount of sense for individuals, even if the problem is systemic and the goalposts will move shortly, to spend both time and money on acquiring the look of positive class markers, because the amount it will improve your life is usually far more than the amount you will spend.

The issue of skin is easier for the wealthy, because they don't have to spend a mental load worrying about it - they can simply go to a store and ask for 'the best' products, which actually don't take that much time to apply if you already own them. While the most expensive isn't necessarily correlated with the best product, you can be reasonably sure that the more expensive products at Sephora or at salons will have at least a moderate effect at delaying aging - as does the ability to avoid the sun, to be well rested, to have a good diet, etc.

However, for those of us still struggling, it is massively advantageous to have 'good skin' because of how we are treated for having 'bad skin', whether it is fair or not. So - I'm going on job interviews right now, and it would really help me to know what cheap products I can use to clear up my skin so that putting makeup on it doesn't completely destroy it. It would massively improve my quality of life to be employed right now. And so people saying 'hey, just as an FYI, you can do it by doing XYZ as well' isn't just drive-by snideness, it's community members trying to genuinely improve other community members' lives.

And that is way better than me just being hopeless and saying 'fuck it I guess I'm going to be discriminated against', even as I work towards a system where that doesn't happen as much.
posted by corb at 10:01 AM on January 7, 2019 [5 favorites]


And so people saying 'hey, just as an FYI, you can do it by doing XYZ as well' isn't just drive-by snideness, it's community members trying to genuinely improve other community members' lives.
That seems like it would be an excellent AskMe question. Or someone could do a post on the Blue that was about skincare from a positive point of view, not about critiques of it. But it's annoying to derail a discussion of critiques of skincare into a discussion of how to do skincare, especially since some of us are consciously trying to avoid exposure to a multi-million-dollar industry that profits from convincing women that we are flawed and selling us products to fix the flaws that we might not otherwise have noticed that we had.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 10:12 AM on January 7, 2019 [7 favorites]


the correct analysis is unlikely to be "everyone except the few of us who hack this problem as a fun hobby is doing it wrong,

Nobody said that. The article was about how effective skincare is only available to the wealthy, and a poster offered a counterpoint to that. If you think the real topic is supposed to be the way skincare and other appearance-focused industries and expectations victimize women, discuss that, but it's not a derail to counter the thesis of the article.
posted by JenMarie at 11:15 AM on January 7, 2019 [2 favorites]


Seems to me that the nub of the thing here is the idea of good skin, good teeth, good hair and so forth. That little word "good" packs a lot of social punch, which is kind of unfortunate because it's so egregiously ambiguous.

Does "good" mean the same thing as "healthy"? The same thing as "unblemished"? The same thing as "functional"? As "non-painful"? "Pleasing to the eye"? Something else? All terribly context-dependent.

Follows from this that "skincare" - the process of achieving and maintaining "good" skin - is ambiguous as well.

I'm not faulting anyone for enjoying skincare, but I think it's a problem when it's expected of all of us.

I can't see a problem if "skincare" means "minimizing the likelihood of acquiring a horrible cancer that will kill you". If it means "trying to look like a magazine cover IRL" then yeah, definite problem.

Then again, I grew up with the right kind of skincare guru.
posted by flabdablet at 7:08 PM on January 7, 2019 [1 favorite]


> 1. It may be that you can come up with a pretty cheap routine, but my hunch is that most women experiment a lot before they settle on that routine.

That's my situation exactly. I have both time and money to spend on a routine if I knew what it should be, and I enjoy a good moisturizer, but looking at this photo of Nicole Cliffe's bathroom counter makes me give up in despair. It seems like such a huge commitment, doing all the research to make sure you're using the Right Serum for Your Skin Type and at the right time of day and layered with the right blah blah blah.
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:06 PM on January 8, 2019 [4 favorites]


I don't mean that as a knock on Nicole Cliffe, to be clear -- she enjoys it, she has the money for it, she gives advice for free to other people who want to be into the same stuff. More power to her. But I can't make heads or tails of it.
posted by The corpse in the library at 4:07 PM on January 8, 2019


The reality is that a “skincare regimen” should consist of moisturizer, salicylic acid, maybe a retinoid (prescription or no), SPF, and medications from a dermatologist. It’s great that Cliffe has lots of products that make her feel fun but they are highly unnecessary and unlikely to have visible effects beyond the five listed above.

Peels can help, lasering can help. But it shouldn’t be that controversial to point out that like everything else in the beauty industry, things are vastly overpriced and demand for products is ginned up.

But skincare = vanity is only true to a degree. If you have “problem” skin, that shit is painful and irritating. When I realized I needed to wear moisturizer every night it ended a decade of dealing with painful, dry skin and inflamed pores. But I always rejected that advice because I thought it was “vain” and pointless.

So if you are 100% not vain about anything in your life, congrats! But literally everyone can benefit from ACTUAL skincare, which includes SPF, and it should be taught to teens by someone, a doctor, parent, whatever.

And anyway, it seems valid to point out that these “only the rich can afford nice skin!!!” articles aren’t even correct. Genes play a factor, consistency plays a factor, not smoking and partying, etc.
posted by stoneandstar at 8:44 AM on January 9, 2019 [5 favorites]


If you are interested in effective and cheap nonsensationalist skincare, Dr. Dray on YouTube is good. She is a dermatologist, occasionally buys silly products for reviews and will admit to enjoying masks, etc. for destressing purposes, but she is really good about posting detailed routines for products that are modest and reasonable. You can take or leave the lifestyle stuff. But she is straightforward about what it means to take care of skin and when you need to see a doctor (e.g., hormonal acne) instead of spending $1000 over the counter.
posted by stoneandstar at 8:54 AM on January 9, 2019 [2 favorites]


I wonder how much this device from Proctor and Gamble will cost. "Procter and Gamble's device scans the skin and precisely applies tiny amounts of make-up to remove age spots, burst blood vessels and other blemishes."

I bet the printer will be cheap, but they'll get you with the ink...
posted by clawsoon at 9:09 AM on January 11, 2019 [1 favorite]


« Older Orange Peels and Fresnel Integrals! Train Sets!...   |   How to Make Friends Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments