Beauty products do make some people look better. Case in point: crusty, nasty, dry, scraggly, blistery toes hanging over sandals. Now, a pedicure will usually fix that right up. Some fetishists might like it, but otherwise, it cannot be said to appear healthy. I don't think it makes someone a bad person, and I will still be very good friends with people who have nasty feet. But I'm OK with saying that aesthetically, decently maintained feet look better than fucked up ones.
-H
*** *** *** From: "Miles Jackson" <cqmv at pdx.edu>
> This assumes that the standards of "better" are benign, natural products
of good sense. On the contrary: the beauty standards are a product of a
complex array of socioeconomic and political forces. For instance: the
medicalization of "baldness" in men. This is presented as a medical
condition on many TV commercials, and I know young men who consider losing
their hair as the worst thing that could happen to them (short of their
balls falling off). People spend huge amounts of money to have hair on
their head so they "look better". This just seems ludricious to me (maybe
because I'm bald as a cue ball, but not just that).
>
Why are do so many people in our society consider male pattern baldness an aberration that requires medical intervention? Gotta go vulgar Marxist on this one: massive profits to be made by making people feel insecure and ugly. Same logic applies to cosmetic surgery, age-defying creams, hair removal, etc., etc. Instead of noncritically accepting the existing, socially determined beauty standards, why can't we create new ones? There is nothing natural or necessary about fashion and style: it's just what we think is cool, and we can make up whatever standards we want.