Anti-ageing creams? Thanks, but no thanks

The beauty industry was waiting for Anita Roddick to take another fall when she told us women who spend £95 on a pot of anti-…

The beauty industry was waiting for Anita Roddick to take another fall when she told us women who spend £95 on a pot of anti-ageing cream are wasting their money. Her comment, which also implied that such women deserved to be fleeced, was likened to Gerald Ratner's famous speech in which he derided his cut-price jewellery company's products and suggested a Marks & Spencer prawn sandwich lasted longer than a pair of Ratner's earrings. Cue the wrath of the City, the demise of the company and Gerald's search for a new job.

But those waiting for Anita to take a hit may well be waiting for a bit longer, since her shops don't sell "anti-ageing" creams and since her market is clearly not one in which consumers spend almost £100 on a single product.

I'm as susceptible as the next woman to a nicely packaged jar that contains a product which will make me feel good. I have a tube of moisturiser that's supposed to be "extra firming", whatever that means. I bought it because I liked the smell. But I know there is nothing short of time travel that will give me the face and body of a 20-year-old again. And, despite the moisturiser, I don't want to look as though I'm just starting out on my adult life when I've experienced so much already. Why shouldn't those experiences be reflected in some way in my face?

Our society has become extremely visual. We're constantly fed images of line-free, bright-eyed, white-toothed young women as being the perfect role models for how we should look no matter what age we are. We are told we should want to look like this and that we owe it to ourselves to look like this. So if we don't, we feel incredibly guilty for not looking after ourselves better.

READ MORE

One of the most persistent TV and magazine advertisements this year has been for a range of products that supposedly reduce the "seven signs of ageing". Hearing the voiceover immediately recalls the seven deadly sins, making us feel as though those seven signs of ageing are bad things and that we should be constantly vigilant to protect ourselves from them. We're forced to feel that only by using products which help to reduce these signs will we be able to find eternal salvation in a youthful face.

If I knew what the seven deadly signs of ageing were then maybe I could make some judgment on them. But I've never seen them listed.

Wrinkles are clearly the main culprit, since so many creams are now on the market which are supposed to help prevent them. But wrinkles are caused by sun exposure, and the only way to avoid them is to sit in a shaded room for your whole life.

The industry doesn't like to call them wrinkles. "Fine lines" seems to be the accepted way of talking about an older face these days, and nearly every new cream that comes on the market is designed to "reduce the appearance of fine lines". What does "reduce the appearance" mean? Certainly not that you won't have lines on your face. Possibly just that you'll notice them a little less. Temporarily, that is.

Creams that are supposed to reduce fine lines and signs of ageing just puff up your skin a little. Collagen or elastin in products is marketed as a good thing, but they'll never get into your skin in sufficient quantity to do very much. AHAs loosen up the cells in the outer layer of your skin so the younger cells beneath get exposed. AHAs have fallen out of favour although there are still a lot of creams that contain fruit acids which are also AHAs.

I like to look good. But I want to look good for the age I am and not for the age I used to be. I'll happily slap on some foundation, blusher and mascara to achieve my objective but I'd be horrified if I was taken for someone in her mid-20s as a result. I've done that age, it was fun while it lasted, I've grown up since then.

Maybe I'm cynical because I simply don't believe the promises on the pots anyway. Perhaps if someone, somewhere really did invent a product that would give me a soft, dewy face and unlined skin I would rush out and hand over my £95 without a second thought, although I'd prefer to believe I wouldn't.

I believe in moisturisers, but not the impossible promises they make. Without using one, my skin feels like a piece of sandpaper. After using one, it feels better. If that's anti-ageing, it suits me fine. But we should be happy to celebrate the fact that we've lived our lives, not ashamed of it. So I will not be changing my shower soap to the sample that came through the door the other day which is also meant to contain "anti-ageing" ingredients.

Having a shower is probably anti-ageing in itself. Slapping on some cream afterwards is probably even more anti-ageing. In the case of the free sample, I think you get both in one package. Anti-ageing, maybe. Just don't try to convince me that I've conquered those seven deadly signs by hopping under the water and using the specially designed puff.

I was turned off the entire cosmetics industry when Lancome dumped Isabella Rossellini on account of her having turned 40. Lancome sells anti-ageing products, too. Obviously, though, only for people who are too young to need them.

John Waters is on leave