Beauty

[Kardi]

There's no doubt all of these ladies have had work done.  And yes it is to imply that the products they sell are at least largely responsible for the way they look.  I just saw Christy Brinkley on HSN today hawking her stuff and the woman is like 62 and looks about 25.  You can take wonderful care of yourself but you can't stop the aging process. Looking good at 62 will never look like 25 without extensive surgery.

[Wackers3]

Maybe it's just me and my own interpretaion of watching beauty shows but I never make the assumption that by using anyone's products that that would result in my skin looking like their's. Not ever!  I have watched both Dr D and AA over the years and have never heard either one of them make any kind of claim that if we used what they are selling that our skin will in any way resemble their's.  Not even an innuendo to that effect.

If some viewers automatically make the assumption or leap that by using this brand or that brand that it would result in their skin or aging issues being magically transformed to resemble a brand's creator then that fallacy falls on them, imo, and not on those who sell them (given that said creator never made any kind of claim even slightly implying that.)

Why does anyone get so worked up that those who create beauty products happen to also take advantage of having professional work done?  I have never heard one of these creators credit their products for how good they look.  And if you are going to sell beauty products, it would be downright stupid not to also invest in yourself so you do look your best.  I would do the very same thing.

What I draw as any kind of conclusion as a consumer is on me, not them.  And when I do make the decision to purchase various skincare or cosmetics,  I do it because the product appeals to me in some way, certainly not because I think I will be magically transformed to look like the person who is marketing it.

[Karnerblue]

---

@Kardi wrote:

There's no doubt all of these ladies have had work done.  And yes it is to imply that the products they sell are at least largely responsible for the way they look.  I just saw Christy Brinkley on HSN today hawking her stuff and the woman is like 62 and looks about 25.  You can take wonderful care of yourself but you can't stop the aging process. Looking good at 62 will never look like 25 without extensive surgery.

---

She in fact had work done.

[Karnerblue]

@CoG so we should listen to your reasoning because?

[CoG]

---

@Karnerblue wrote:

@CoG so we should listen to your reasoning because?

---

@Karnerblue because we're all beautiful in our own right.  Because we don't need to buy into the hype of any company to validate our existence.  Because you are beautiful.  I know from the entries you submit that you care for me and others, that you are knowledgeable, involved, compassionate, generous!  Please continue to contribute your expertise so that fewer of us will make costly purchases for which we have nothing but regret. Please help us all accept ourselves as "perfection" unassailed by the devious tactics of the amoral vendors.

[wagirl]

OP--no I wouldn't and haven't spent enormous amounts of cash on anything like jewelry, skincare, make up or even handbags. I have spent money on a few things, like my ipad mini and my Vitamix, recently. Those 2 items I dearly love and use everyday with great results. I can find better things for much cheaper by doing my research. But if you have the cash and can buy those things----more power to you.

[Tinkrbl44]

---

@CoG wrote:

Did you buy the $40 lipstain from the prestigious cosmetics company because it is new, novel, chic, expensive?  It comes in a fancy dispenser to make observers envious.    Or did you, like me,  remember that Mood Matchers come in various shades and cost $1.50 to this day? You can get a 10 piece set from Amazon, no S&H, no tax.  

Did you buy the $498 moisturizer?  Read the ingredients?  Ever wonder how and why a manufacturer would give away a $498 cream?  What happens in two years when the AD runs out?  And did you notice that the lighting and shading were not quite the same in the before and after shots? The models still looked like their same old selves didn't they?

 Were you tempted to buy the $250 LED flashlight that stimulates collagen production and eradicates your wrinkles?  

If the worst wrinkles are caused by repeated facial expressions, smiles, smoking frowning, why, how  on earth is more muscle in action (facial flex)  going to eradicate anything undesirable?  But , the whole premise of the electrical stimulators is to " work out " your face isn't it?  If it costs a goodly amount we'll buy into the farce won't we. just in case? 

So we see what we want to see, discarding reason when the goal is to achieve the perfection someone else has told us we need to be.  wolves in sheep's clothing still smell like predators 

---

@CoG

What you deem "foolishness" another will see as a good investment.  

BTW, a Facial Flex costs only about $30 .... and works if you're consistent!

[Valstybaby]

---

@santorini wrote:

Facial Flex is cheap ... and it works. 

---

Use mine every day! Takes 2 minutes.

[wilma]

Cost is relative.  Everyone has different limits on what they would or would not spend on things.

The only time I ever spent a lot of money on a beauty product was the Clarisonic.  It didn't work for me, so I guess you could say that was a costly and foolish mistake. Others spent the money, love it, and it was a good investment for them.

I personally believe more in ingredients and research than a high price or brand name.  As others have posted time marches on so we can't stop aging forever.  However, many women want to try to fight it off as long as possible which is why we have a myriad of anti-aging products in the market. 

[just bee]

Costly Foolishness.  That's a great title for my autobiography -- thanks!