Botox: Medicine? Cosmetic?

First published April 12, 2012 at http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/04/12/botox-medicine-cosmetic/

IMAGE COPYRIGHT MARY AND ANGUS HOGG

In my article about Ruth Brandon’s UGLY BEAUTY, I asked questions about cosmetics and discussed the rise of pharmaceuticals that are touted as cosmetics. Today, I saw an ad for Botox as a cosmetic in the April 2012 issue of GOOD HOUSEKEEPING. The language used in the ad claims Botox is a “prescription medicine that’s injected into muscles to temporarily treat moderate to severe frown lines between the brows of adults 18 to 65.” Botox is being marketed as a “prescription medicine.” Not only that, it is used to “treat.” And, it is for people starting at eighteen?

There is something seriously wrong with claiming that skin lines or wrinkles are a medical problem in need of prescription treatment, especially starting at age eighteen! I cannot believe it is legal, actually, to refer to something like Botox as a prescription medication used to “treat” anything, and tout it as a mere cosmetic at the same time. Since when were wrinkles and lines in skin a medical problem that required treatment? Is aging skin really something that warrants a talk with my doctor?

Are we also to just ignore the mention of “botulinum toxin” in the ad? We’re talking about injecting a poison into our muscles. The poison’s action includes muscle paralysis. So, we purposefully paralyze muscles in our faces with poison. I’m dumbfounded. Not only that, the ad itself, never mind the two additional pages of fine print warnings, lists the “serious side effects” as “life threatening” such as problems speaking, swallowing or breathing. Talk about giving new meaning to the “seen and not heard” axiom! We’re supposed to be wrinkle-free our entire lives, and, like a cardboard cut-out of a person, we’re unmovable in our pursuit of a lineless face. Oh, and to achieve such beauty, we just might stop talking, or breathing. Maybe we will just have trouble swallowing. That way, we can be drooling, speechless, and wrinkle-free, but also thin because if we can’t swallow, we can’t eat, right?

The language we use, which I have mentioned in countless posts for InContext, says so much about us. We worry about lead or other harmful chemicals in cosmetics, yet we view a poison as a cosmetic as harmless, or in some cases, necessary. We start to view this procedure as a “treatment” for a problem that seems medically based. And, we believe that any variation from the plastic mold is in need of correction, when we just barely reach the age of maturity.

Feminist rhetoric claims a foundation of choice and of women having options. This translates into things like elective c-section, plastic surgery and a place at the board room table. Yet, when and how do we recognize advertising ploys as just that, and not actual “freedom” or “choice” for women? The old Virginia Slims ads seem tame by comparison to the insidiousness of this latest Botox ad. Virginia Slims cigarettes ads at least came across as celebrating the strides women have made over the decades. These Botox ads claim we have “problems” in need of “treatment.” Not only that, they’re not shy about the side effects, and they attempt to confuse the issue of medical treatment, and make illness out of natural skin processes while at the same time claiming their product is akin to wearing mascara. As my mind whirls with the bizarre implications of an ad that at once lightens one’s mood about injecting poison into one’s face and calling it medicine and makeup simultaneously, I see the ad hopes to make a potential customer of me since the incredulous look on my face is sure to produce some “moderate to severe frown lines between (my) eyes.”