I was with a young friend the other day and I commented on how beautiful she looked. Her reply was “Botox and fillers, every six weeks.” “Yikes”, I said and she laughed saying she will “not ever, ever look old”. She is in her mid-thirties.

It got us thinking about the multi-billion-dollar cosmetic industry which is pretty much dedicated to selling products that promise to keep women looking younger than springtime. How far back did this “rage against age” originate? Was it about being beautiful or about looking younger?

Long before Botox and fillers, women used cosmetics, as far back as 4000BCE. Think Cleopatra and eye makeup. According to our research assistant Chat GPT, Egyptian women used lead and copper in eye makeup. Women in Ancient Greece and Rome used chalks and berries on their faces.

A fascinating read is about women and beauty and makeup in the 1500s. In a recent review in the New York Times, Jill Burke, professor of Renaissance studies at the University of Edinburgh, describes what women did for beauty. “How to Be a Renaissance Woman” explores the practices of 16th century Italy “through the lens of beauty standards.”

Burke looks at noblewomen but also includes peasants and sex workers of the day. “She quotes a tract from 1598 that reads, “If one sees a poor woman who has six pennies to her name, four of them are on her face.” “

Nose jobs, stretch mark remedies, gender transitions, they are all there and more. Beyond the practices she describes, Burke reminds us that in the 16^th century women were held to “unreasonable standards.” But how about the 21^st century?  We can pretty much agree that women today are still held to “unreasonable standards.”  Think Vogue covers with photoshop and touched up perfectly flawless skin and bodies.

If we look at celebrities who have the resources and the incentives to remain in the game, a few come to mind:

Martha Stewart, 82, recently clarified her position on aging. “I do not want to look my age. I have had Botox, fillers, lasers and other skin tightening treatments.”  We all agree that she doesn’t look 82 but what is the point?  She represents her brand as mistress of everything for the home. Does it require a “don’t look old” identity?  Although she comments on her dating life occasionally, the makeover doesn’t seem tied to finding romance.  The message seems to be that younger is better than older.

JLO, age 54, is criticized for not looking her age and for projecting an overt sexualization. Her cosmetic procedures are directed to her “dream of a forever perfect body” Has her talent been replaced by boobs and butts? 

With some irony we point to Cher, age 77, who has had multiple cosmetic alterations but has escaped public criticism.

And then there are the scaries like Kathy Lee Gifford, Meg Ryan, Courtney Cox, and Donatella Versace. Each trying to stay “younger than springtime”. How could it go so wrong?

When you see a friend or a celebrity who has clearly had the anti-aging serum, what are your true feelings. She looks good, I wish I could or not for me?  We do not have the answer.

Perhaps we should take to heart the words of our hero and mentor, Dame Judi Dench, that we posted on Facebook:

“Don’t prioritize your looks my friend, as they won’t last the journey.

Your sense of humor though, will only get better with age.

Your intuition will grow and expand like a majestic cloak of wisdom.

Your ability to choose your battles, will be fine-tuned to perfection.

Your capacity for stillness, for living in the moment, will blossom.

Your desire to live each and every moment will transcend all other wants.

Your instinct for knowing what (and who) is worth your time, will grow and flourish

like ivy on a castle wall.

Don’t prioritize your looks my friend, they will change forevermore, that pursuit is one

of much sadness and disappointment.

Prioritize the uniqueness that make you you, and the invisible magnet that draws in

other like-minded souls to dance in your orbit.

These are the things which will only get better.”

Ciao,

Lucy and Claudia