The Advertiser - SA Weekend - - STYLE -


in the ’90s when I was a stu­dent in my 20s I forked out $45 for an Ul­tima II long­wear­ing lip­stick called Bet­ter Than Choco­late – you guessed it – just for the name. And was it? Well, no, ac­tu­ally. But you knew that too.

Still, com­pared with the ma­jor­ity of brown lip­sticks – which of­ten come in dis­taste­ful, un­flat­ter­ing shades – it was pretty mor­eish. Said lippy was a lush shade of very wear­able plum-brown and its tex­ture was the ic­ing on the cake – it lit­er­ally glided on like a thin layer of gre­nache and some­how stayed put.

Sure, the price of that choccy lippy was a bit rich, but it made poor me smile – which was bet­ter than pout­ing be­cause I couldn’t af­ford a new dress.

I’d also heard the story about the im­mac­u­lately groomed sales­woman in John Martin’s cos­met­ics de­part­ment who caught the eye of a Grand Prix driver and lived hap­pily ever af­ter . . . trav­el­ling the globe in lux­ury.

Looks like I wasn’t alone in my spend­ing habits, ac­cord­ing to re­searchers from four Amer­i­can univer­si­ties. In a re­cent pa­per ti­tled Boost­ing Beauty in an Eco­nomic De­cline: Mat­ing, Spend­ing and the Lip­stick Ef­fect they show that dur­ing the past 20 years in times of re­ces­sion women cheer them­selves up by buy­ing beauty prod­ucts.

The re­searchers also found that young, un­mar­ried women buy lux­ury beauty prod­ucts to ap­pear more at­trac­tive to a po­ten­tial sugar daddy.

So, to all the sin­gle ladies who can’t help feel­ing like a kid in a candy store at the high-end make-up counter, now you know why.

OK, so it’s a step in the wrong di­rec­tion for any­one who fol­lows the fem­i­nist move­ment.

But leave the store with Tom Ford lip­sticks and they may lead you to a mil­lion­aire. So go on, treat your­self. Be­sides, it’s the per­fect ex­cuse for hav­ing ex­pen­sive tastes. [email protected]­ver­tiser.com.au

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Australia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.