Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 08:18:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: Cathy Green <dalek_cag at yahoo.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: botox and the affluent
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

--- Kit Mason <kit at hers.com> wrote:

>
> For you, no.  For a vice president of a corporation
> who has to look good
> all the time -- and in some businesses, they do --
> it may be a good
> choice.

I note that you made that judgment about me without
having a clue as to what my job is and whether smooth
and youthful looking skin and looking good might be an
asset.   I'm an attorney.  Looiing good in court is
important.  Jurors often make judgments about parties
based in part upon how their attorneys look and dress.
 I still hink injecting toxins is foolish and a
mistake.

> >
> But it can all be seen as ways to maintain
> self-esteem by taking care of
> one's body -- and a personal choice, nothing else.
> ::shrug::  It's no
> more "immoral" than the Hair Club for Men, Weight
> Watchers or anything
> else.  Not everyone can afford either of those, or a
> gym membership.  I
> can remember in the 70s when going to a gym or
> running or going to
> exercise classes was considered exotic and a sign of
> vanity.
>
> Kit
>
You don't have to join a gym to get exercise.  I find
that a $25 dollar pair of sneakers is adequate for
jogging, which doesn't require gym membership, nor
does doing push-ups, sit-ups, jumping jacks, etc.
while at home.

__________________________________