Face It

A few years ago, I happened to meet a former coworker while taking the train to NYC. Robin is a part-time actress in her late forties. She said she was bemoaning the “little lines” in her face to her acting teacher, and speculating about getting some of those new injections. The teacher said (and I’m paraphrasing), “Don’t you dare. There’s money in your wrinkles. You know how many older actresses are being cast in commercials?” Robin mentioned the type of commercials: arthritis remedies, vitamins and supplements, and skin creams, to name a few. And now I can’t help but shake my head at the irony. Older faces being used to sell products to an aging market. Yet older faces are being sold products to make them look younger. This is just too bizarre. It reminds me of that classic type of spread in women’s’ magazines: an article about how to get a bikini body opposite articles like “Three Delicious Cheesecake Recipes!”

Anyway, thanks to good genes and healthy living (mostly) and not giving a damn in general, I don’t worry much about wrinkles. But this past week on the Today show, I heard a statistic that sent me straight to my mirror: $600 million is expected to be spent this year on what is called “fillers and relaxers” (such as Botox and related “injectable” cosmetics that Robin talked about.) And another product, Reloxin, which is currently being used in Europe, is awaiting FDA approval to hit the US market. The story debated the pros and cons of each product and their effectiveness at getting rid of (or at least reducing the appearances of) lines, crows’ feet, etc. And, most pointedly, if the introduction of Reloxin and other new “products” would drive down the price of $200 Botox hits or $1500-a-shot Restylane injections. They also showed two women going through the “procedure,” both of them around my age.

The segment was teased by saying that “60 is the new 40,” with various female celebrities as examples. Of course, nothing was said about whether or not these women would really look like this if not for a little shot now and again. And nothing was said about WHY women feel like they have to do this to themselves. No pros and cons about “aging gracefully” (which is the new way of saying “I’m getting the Hillary Clinton, not the Joan Rivers”) versus letting the ravages of time fall where they may.

Are we simply burned out on this debate? Or has it already been decided for us by the number of women walking into their dermatologist’s offices wanting these procedures, so that all that’s left to do is compare and contrast the substances available? Is this all we’re left with, plus the continual debate about who in Hollywood is using and who isn’t? (I did notice that the unveiling of Rebecca Romijn in Ugly Betty had her looking a little…well…plumper in some places than she used to be.)

I’m sorry. I’m still stuck in the twentieth century, apparently, debating why we need to do this at all. Yes, it’s an individual decision. Yes, it’s made a lot of women feel better about themselves. And that’s fine for them. But aside from the cost of these new “injectables,” what is the long term price? We’ve seen the horrors of drugs and other substances that were pushed too fast onto the market – Thalidomide, Cyclamates, Vioxx, to name just a few. How do we know the long term effects of all this stuff that women are injecting into their faces in desperate attempts to stave off the hands of time?


And what’s so damned wrong with “looking your age,” anyway? I don’t want to look like I’m 25. I’ve earned this age. I’ve learned hard lessons, done brave things, paid my dues. Yes, I have a little fun with my hair color, but for me, that falls into a different category. It’s like putting on jewelry, or dressing up. But my face?

I plan on leaving that alone.

After all, I’m worth it.