You know what has been on my mind lately? An advert I saw.
It showed the neck of an older woman and promised that her wrinkles had been reduced by a certain percentage. The woman presenting the advert entered as though she had just received news that a war had ended.
"The results have just arrived."
"Oh my God. What are they?"
"Tell me. How much?"
Twenty per cent.
"Oh my God!"
Sixty per cent.
"Oh my God! I have never seen anything like this in my career."
Then came the language designed to make the whole performance sound serious and unquestionable: Independently reviewed. Dermatologist approved. Scientifically assessed. And I sat there in shock, thinking: What exactly are we celebrating? How dare you do this to women?
An older woman now has fewer visible lines on her neck. What has changed in her life? Is she healthier? Has the function of her skin improved? Was she in pain before? Did the product restore something her body had lost?
Or have we simply taken a normal sign of a life being lived, measured it, reduced it by a percentage and presented that percentage as a human success story?
And that word “dermatologist” stayed with me. What is the role of a dermatologist?
I grew up surrounded by healthcare workers. My mother was a midwife and a nurse. My father taught nurses. I knew the name Hippocrates when I was a little girl because my parents taught me that caring for another human being was not simply a profession. It was a responsibility.
The Hippocratic tradition is rooted in a fundamental ethical principle: first, do no harm. Not every doctor today recites the same ancient oath word for word, but the moral responsibility remains. You are there to serve. To care. To protect health. To treat the person in front of you as a human being, not as an opportunity, a percentage, or a surface to be corrected.
I watched my mother and father care for people. I saw what it meant to feel responsible for another person's wellbeing. I saw the seriousness of being trusted with somebody's body, pain and fear.
So when an advert announces that its wrinkle-reduction percentage has been reviewed or approved by an independent dermatologist, I have to ask: What exactly is being approved? Is the dermatologist confirming that this woman's skin is healthier? That its barrier is functioning better? That she is no longer experiencing dryness, inflammation, discomfort or disease? Or are they simply confirming that a photograph contains fewer visible lines, and lending medical authority to the idea that this should be celebrated as though a woman has been cured of something?
Wrinkles are not an illness. Ageing is not a dermatological emergency. A woman's face is not a clinical failure.
Dermatologists perform essential work. They diagnose skin diseases, identify skin cancers, treat infections and inflammatory conditions, and help people living with serious discomfort. I am not questioning the value of dermatology. I am asking what happens when the authority of medicine is used to validate the commercial fear of ageing. At what point did the healer become the official witness to a wrinkle-reduction percentage?
There is an important difference between healing the skin and erasing evidence of age. It is one thing to support skin affected by acne, eczema, rosacea, persistent dryness or another symptom of imbalance. It is one thing to help somebody whose face feels dry, tight, irritated or painful.
When the skin returns towards balance, homeostasis, premature lines soften naturally. The person is no longer constantly pulling against uncomfortable, dehydrated skin. The barrier is functioning better. The skin is producing and organising its own protective substances. The face can move freely because it feels comfortable again.
That is not the same thing as declaring war on every wrinkle.
We use skincare because the skin is a living organ exposed to the outside world. We wash every day. We move through heat, cold, wind, pollution and changing seasons. The skin communicates with its environment continuously, and it needs intelligent support.
The purpose of skincare is to support function. The purpose is comfort, resilience and balance. The purpose is not to take a woman's face and treat it like a kitchen worktop that must remain perfectly smooth, or a dress that must be ironed over and over again so that no crease can ever appear.
What must a woman believe before this advert can sell to her? For an advert like this to work, a woman must first be taught that a wrinkle is not simply a wrinkle. She must be taught that it means she is losing value. That she is becoming less visible. Less desirable. Less lovable. Less important.
The advert does not just sell a cream. It creates an emotional wound and then sells relief from the wound it created.
It made me wonder: if a woman comes to believe that a line on her neck makes her smaller, what else might she accept?
Will she accept being spoken to as though she matters less because she is ageing? Will she tolerate a partner who makes her feel less desirable? Will she dress, behave and silence herself in order to remain acceptable? Will she allow friends, workplaces and entire industries to treat her as though youth is the admission price for being seen?
Because when you believe your value can be taken away by a wrinkle, you can begin accepting less everywhere. Less respect. Less love. Less honesty. Less freedom.
So, if you see that advert or another one like it, look at it again. See what it is really asking you to believe. See the fear beneath the excitement. See the ordinary human feature being transformed into an emergency so that somebody can sell you the solution.
Then look away for good.
You are not your wrinkles. You are not defined by your face. Your skin is a living organ, not an object to be perfected. Support its biology. Help it return to balance. Let your body create the beauty that belongs to health. And let beauty remain what it was always meant to be: a delightful side effect of being alive.
with all my love,
Ezgi