To: WSFAlist at keithlynch.net
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 05:54:49 -0400
Subject: [WSFA] botox and the affluent
From: ronkean at juno.com
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

On Wed, 14 May 2003 22:16:19 -0400 Kit Mason <kit at hers.com> writes:

> As for botox, according to what I understand from my cousin the
> plastic
> surgeon, it's designed for less-affluent people, not necessarily the
> > wealthy, since it is injections, and far less costly than actual
> surgery.

It is true that botox injections are far less costly than facelift
surgery, and thus botox would presumably appeal to those who have
relatively less money to spend, but I would also note that botox might be
preferred over surgery, disregarding cost, including by those who could
easily afford 'wrinkle abatement' surgery, since the botox is far more
convenient, with near zero 'down time', and the botox is probably
regarded as far less risky than surgery.  Perhaps the best that can be
said in favor of surgery vs. botox is that surgery is 'permanent',
meaning that it is good for a few years, whereas botox is good for but a
few months, before a new injection would be needed to keep the wrinkles
away.

As for botox users being tagged as more rich than sensible, and even
shallow and morally deficient, that is, whether or not it is fair, a
common gut reaction.  It is sometimes difficult for the rich to spend in
proportion to their means without appearing extravagant (perhaps there is
a relevant Oscar Wilde citation).  If a rich person spends more on
cosmetics than the average person, that might be taken as a sign of
vanity, and vanity, in turn, is associated with shallowness and moral
deficiency.

Ron Kean

.

________________________________________________________________