Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 09:06:34 -0400
From: Kit Mason <kit at hers.com>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: botox and the affluent
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

ronkean at juno.com wrote:
> 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.

However, judging someone according to his or her looks -- the book by
its cover -- or by apparent spending on appearance can easily be
considered more immoral and shallow than the behavior of the person who
is maintaining his or her appearance.

How is using botox, or minor surgery, a different thing than buying a
new suit, working out at the gym or running?  All of these things affect
appearance, and those that don't require money require time, which can
be equated to money and might easily take up a greater proportion of a
person's income, effort and time.

Simply making the assumption that someone is vain or shallow on the
basis of anything such as this requires a level of vanity in itself,
since it means the person who is making the assumption thinks his or her
  opinion makes a difference in what is, essentially, a private matter.
  That willingness to judge someone on the basis of superficiality
reflects Puritanism, with an underlying level of Manichaean dualism that
assumes that the physical body is of no importance -- and could just as
easily be used to condemn someone for buying a pretty hardback version
of a book rather than a less-decorative paperback, or, indeed, for
reading something as frivolous as science fiction at all.

Kit