As post-Easter exams approach, Life and Style's Jess Howlett shares her tips on how to remain motivated over EasterWritten by Guest Author on 19th March 2018
‘The Skincare Con’ Response
Yasmine Kennedy responds to Krithika Varagur's claims that skincare is a waste of money
Any skincare enthusiasts out there probably have also read ‘The Skincare Con’ which I came across last week after seeing multiple opinions on it on my twitter feed. The article basically claims that skincare is a waste of money and time and that the less skincare we use the better our skin is. She actually labels skincare as ‘a scam’. As someone who has struggled with their skin in the past, along with many other people, I can confidently say that the claim that skincare does little to help our skin is far from accurate.
It’s no secret that not every product you buy is going to work miracles for your skin but part of the excitement of skincare is trying new things and finding the ones that work for you. Products that may work amazingly for you may not have the same effect on your best friend and that is simply because different skin types just react differently to different ingredients. The writer, Krithika Varagur, mentions that skincare products have little science therefore little benefits. In fact, skincare products are based heavily on science and usually the more expensive the product the more scientific research has gone into it. For example, in anti-aging and acne curing products a retinoid is used (also known as vitamin A). Vitamin A is also the main ingredient in the controversial Roaccutane oral acne medication that has an incredible success rate in the curing and prevention of acne. More recently its benefits for anti-aging have become apparent and the use of the ingredient is much more popular. Alongside SPF, retinols are the only scientifically proven ingredient to reduce the signs of aging. It works by chemically exfoliating the skin to encourage an increase in cell production in various levels of the skin as well as being an antioxidant which helps with the appearance of wrinkles and acne. Sounds like there’s a lot of science there to me.
“There is no reason to undermine people who enjoy to use an extensive skincare regimen: remember skincare is a vital part of self-care as well as personal hygiene
We obviously can’t deny that genes play a massive part in the appearance of your skin but Varagur addresses this in a less than sensitive way discussing the friends that are ‘fanatical about skincare and don’t really (whispers) have great skin’. Of course, we all know the girl that sleeps in her makeup and the extent of her skincare routine is some wipes and a moisturizer yet she has the most beautiful skin that we all envy. But is there any mystery behind the reasoning of why the girl with problematic skin is more likely to invest in skincare products in comparison to the one born with naturally clear skin? There is no reason to undermine people who enjoy to use an extensive skincare regimen: remember skincare is a vital part of self-care as well as personal hygiene, it’s not all about the quest for ‘perfect’ skin as the article suggests. Sometimes it's simply about the relaxing element of coming home, taking your makeup off and chilling with a facemask on. Personally, it's my favourite part of the day.
The article mentions the new trends of skincare products including acids and strong serums and how they actually wreck our skin rather than treat it. She claims that the acid toner ‘Biologique Recherche P50’ will result in a ‘scaly, dry rash’. Of course, products like these are more intense but this is so they can provide results. Products like acid toners and certain serums simply require some education before their use, results of scaly skin can be due to how the product is used/how often etc. rather than a fault of the product itself. With an increase in the complexity of skincare products and the strength of the ingredients, it is essential for consumers to learn what products can be used in combination with each other, and with the sea of skincare blogs available online, this information is not hard to find.
“Kendall Jenner showing signs of acne does suggest that the more money you spend on skincare does not necessarily determine how good your skin will end up
I do genuinely struggle to find what message the article is trying to convey, especially at points where she mentions that soap was previously ‘considered unfit for human use' - cleary, human have come a long way since then and I am extremely curious to know how this writer keeps her skin clean. Her points are overly exaggerated and in no way realistic to the actual thoughts and opinions of avid skincare users. For example, she claims that a ‘blemish seems like a referendum on who you are as a person’ and it is an implication that you ‘don’t take care of yourself’. This is definitely not the case, the public highly appreciate when stars such as Kendall Jenner step on to the red carpet with acne. Kendall Jenner showing signs of acne does suggest that the more money you spend on skincare does not necessarily determine how good your skin will end up. However this does not mean that skincare products can not help your skin to improve and have an overall healthier complexion and it definitely doesn’t imply that Kendall does not take care of herself.
Do not let ‘The Skincare Con’ article make you feel in any way ashamed of your skin or the hard work you put into it. Also, do not allow it to question your interests and where you spend your money. Some prices are indeed extortionate for the amount and quality of product you get, however some people like to spend their money on sports cars, some on designer shoes and if you’re into some fancy skincare then you do you. And finally, in terms of her comment that states that ‘no one really knew what moisturizer did’, I can confirm that it unsurprisingly, moisturizes your skin.
The original article can be found at: https://theoutline.com/post/3151/the-skincare-con-glossier-drunk-elephant-biologique-recherche-p50