It’s one of the images I have ever seen

Didn’t Marx have something to say about something along the lines of this? Looked it up-

The less you eat, drink, buy books, go to the theatre or to balls, or to the pub, and the less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you will be able to save and the greater will become your treasure which neither moth nor rust will corrupt—your capital. The less you are, the less you express your life, the more you have, the greater is your alienated life and the greater is the saving of your alienated being.

Edit: also- from right prior:

This estrangement manifests itself in part in that the sophistication of needs and of the means (of their satisfaction) on the one side produces a bestial barbarisation, a complete, crude, abstract simplicity of need, on the other; or rather in that it merely reproduces itself in its opposite. Even the need for fresh air ceases to be a need for the worker. Man returns to a cave dwelling, which is now, however, contaminated with the pestilential breath of civilisation, and which he continues to occupy only precariously, it being for him an alien habitation which can be withdrawn from him any day – a place from which, if he does not pay, he can be thrown out any day. For this mortuary he has to pay. A dwelling in the light, which Prometheus in Aeschylus designated as one of the greatest boons, by means of which he made the savage into a human being, ceases to exist for the worker. Light, air, etc. – the simplest animal cleanliness – ceases to be a need for man. Filth, this stagnation and putrefaction of man – the sewage of civilisation (speaking quite literally) – comes to be the element of life – for him. Utter, unnatural depravation, putrefied nature, comes to be his life-element. None of his senses exist any longer, and (each has ceased to function) not only in its human fashion, but in an inhuman fashion, so that it does not exist even in an animal fashion.

I love {the slogan}, as part of a movement, though I believe it doesn’t necessarily have proper dialectical analysis to view it, on its own…

I believe that is an image from a cutscene in the TMNT game on the NES? If my memory serves, Donatello was questioning why men don’t wear make up and the other turtles made fun of him for it (it was the 80s after all)

In general, for femmes, the ideal of “beauty” is just whatever makes the person look:

1. Young
2. Fit
3. Wealthy
4. Extreme genetic outlier

Obviously the specifics are different on every nation, region, era, ethnicity, time period, etc.

Yes. If you’re poorer you struggle attaining popular beauty, which is very youth and fit oriented, even outside of obvious cosmetics, good sleep, good hydration, proper nutrition and movement help keep down microwrinkles and later on wrinkles along with keeping you toned looking. Then there’s things like temperature and the right amount of sunlight. Not to mention constant stress without relief.

Cheap cosmetics are more likely to irritate your skin and look off in certain lightening, expensive cosmetics are more forgiving and last longer, making me think of a cosmetics version of the Sam Vines boots theory. This applies to lotions and such to a degree. Clothing is an obvious one and fashion is fickle and fast.

I’ve noticed in the very, very impoverished rural area I live in people generally look a good 10-20 yrs older than they really are and just haggard and prematurely wrinkled. Worst I saw was some early 20yos at work I would have guessed easily for 40. Growing up in a similar area, some of my classmates in high school were already balding.

What does April O’Neil have to do with this?