The tyranny of underwear and women
The tyranny of underwear and women
By Emma Warren
LONDON: Knickers, you'd think, would be pretty resistant to the persistent forces of beauty technology. Unless you are an Olympic swimmer and you need your briefs specially designed to reduce trawl and cut those vital milliseconds from your breast- stroke, of course. But no. In the name of technology, advancement and the marketing of women's anxieties about their bodies, come elastic-less knickers, created to - wow! - eliminate visible panty line.
The smalls, made by French manufacturer Scandy, cling to the skin by transferring perspiration from an inner layer of fabric to finer fibers on the outside and are made from Tactel, a fabric more frequently used to make hard-wearing sportswear. Whether it's knickers that mould into your skin, anti-cellulite tights or a spray-on bra (a heavily marketed YSL firming gel) beauty and cosmetic manufacturers are focusing on ever-smaller parts of the female anatomy to sell their wares.
Emma, a 27-year-old trainee lawyer, is unconvinced. "Underwear is something to be a bit sexy in, and none of this sounds at all sexy. Who is it made by? Who's it for? You can't quite take it seriously."
There's no denial that semi-surgical cosmetics are big business: millions are spent each year in research and development of products designed to multi-task us into shape - an Elizabeth Arden lipstick that freshen the breath being just one of the latest.
"There's a whole side of cosmetics that is just ridiculous," says Manchester- based fashion journalist Sarah, 26. "They hit you with science and tell you that you need it, but at the end of the day it's bullshit that panders to women's paranoia about their self-image."
It's not just gym culture that is exerting pressure: women of all ages and shapes are being exhorted to adopt the American model of external beauty. And being expected to spend more time, effort and money on attaining the one specific, large-breasted, slim-hipped model of beauty that our culture deems lovely.
We already have the longest working hours in Europe, and now women and girls are being pushed to spend any free time on the expensive, here's-the-science-bit equivalent of having a wash.
Louise, a 28- year-old Australian who works in publishing, agrees: "The pressures are enormous. My mother spent years doing ridiculous exercises and using millions of different creams to make her breasts larger. I've spent years wearing various padded, push-up and underwire bras to make myself look bigger. Not only is it demeaning - it's bloody uncomfortable too."
Sarah makes another point: "Products like the spray-on bra are just wordplay. It's so typical of the really hardcore marketing that cosmetic companies are doing at the moment."
Look on the stacked shelves of any beauty counter, and you'll find a staggering range of creams, gels and sprays, which, if you believed the hype, would be able to turn the average gal into a lush, fleshy- in-the-right-places, tight-everywhere-else, ultra- model. In reality, they are more likely to relieve you of cash than they are of natural (womanly) body shapes.
"A lot of these products are marketed at women in their late 30s who are worried that their bodies are sagging but don't want plastic surgery," reckons Sarah. "I think a lot of people were scared by Lola Ferrari's death - plastic surgery seems really scary and creams seem like a safer option."
Either way, every day, women are confronted with more evidence that natural slippage is bad and hiked-up silicone souls rule. Body beautiful is not about beautiful bodies, it's about beautiful clothed bodies. Real bodies are shapely and soft, while Wonderbodies are probably covered in plant gels and bio- technology, clothed in perspiring (but seamless) pants, and plastic with uplift. Which would you prefer to hold in bed?
-- Guardian News Service