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