I'd say it depends on the product. Some beauty products are genuinely effective and worth the money —
for example, good sunscreen or moisturiser, which have real, measurable benefits for the skin. But a
lot of what the industry sells is little more than marketing, promising things like flawless skin or
instant youth that no product can realistically deliver. There's also a tendency for people to buy
more than they need, chasing trends rather than solving actual problems. So I think a significant
proportion is a waste of money, but not all of it.
I think it's masterful at tapping into emotion rather than reason. Adverts sell a feeling — confidence,
youth, status, social acceptance — and they do this through aspirational images of attractive models,
careful lighting and editing, and celebrity endorsement. They also create a sense of urgency or a
"flaw" that only their product can fix, which makes people feel they'll be left behind if they don't
buy it. And crucially, they target insecurities very precisely, which is why the advertising is so
powerful even when the claims are vague.
I agree, on the whole. Children are highly impressionable, and marketing beauty products to them can
plant unrealistic ideas about appearance and worth at a very young age, which can harm their
self-esteem. There's also little genuine need for most beauty products in childhood. That said, I'd be
careful about where to draw the line — products like sunscreen or lip balm have legitimate uses. So I
think the sensible approach is to restrict the aspirational beauty marketing aimed at children, while
allowing health-related products to be advertised truthfully.
I think it's deeply rooted in biology and culture. Evolutionarily, qualities associated with youth —
clear skin, symmetry, vitality — are markers of health and fertility, so there's a hard-wired
attraction to them. But culture amplifies this enormously: advertising, film and media overwhelmingly
feature young, conventionally attractive people, which constantly reinforces the idea that youth
equals beauty. So it's a combination of an instinctive biological bias and a cultural preference that
gets endlessly repeated until it feels like a natural truth.
I believe it can, which is a troubling reality. Research has long shown that attractive people are
often treated more favourably — they get more attention, are perceived as more competent and are
offered more opportunities in hiring, dating and social settings. This is the "halo effect." Of course,
beauty is far from the only factor, and in the long run, skill, character and hard work matter much
more. But in many situations, especially at first impressions, appearance gives a real and sometimes
unfair advantage. I think it also matters how much a society values beauty in the first place.
I think ideas about beauty are surprisingly fluid and strongly shaped by the culture and era. In the
past, fuller figures were often seen as signs of wealth and health, whereas today a slim, toned
ideal is more common — and this shift reflects changes in food availability, lifestyle and media.
The rise of social media and globalisation has also spread and mixed different ideals. Looking ahead,
I suspect there will be a growing emphasis on diversity, inclusivity and authenticity, partly driven
by a backlash against unrealistic, edited images. So beauty standards are really a mirror of the
society that produces them, and they change as society does.