Aging gracefully: surgery vs. genetics at 64

Aging gracefully: surgery vs. genetics at 64

Madonna was born in August 1958. Susanna Hoffs, singer of The Bangles, in January 1959. Five months apart and both 64: same generation on paper and two opposite ways of facing the passage of time. The first, a fan of gym maintenance and cosmetic surgery; the second, without going through an operating room, based on good vibes and good nutrition. Just put the photos side by side and the question about aging gracefully explodes on its own.

Why do two people of the same age age so differently?

The most repeated explanation is also the most uncomfortable to accept: the genetic lottery. Some sum it up bluntly, speaking of the genetic roulette. You come out favored and have the means to maintain yourself, fine; you come out harmed and no cream can save you. On that base, habits act: it is noted that smoking for decades takes its toll, and that diet, outdoor sports and sleep have a real weight in how one reaches old age. The nuance that is repeated: one can be thinner or look somewhat younger, but facial sagging and flaccidity eventually arrive just the same.

The iceberg that doesn't show in photos: hormones and stem cells

Here the analysis becomes more cynical. Most celebrities are on something, and the operating room, Botox and surgeries are just the tip of the iceberg. Below circulates a list that is almost never mentioned: growth hormone, peptides, stem cells, retinol creams and testosterone therapies. This hypothesis serves to explain why some veterans retain muscle mass improper for their age. Mel Gibson is cited, who at almost 70 remains strong, and Sylvester Stallone, who was attributed the use of growth hormone. It should be taken as widespread suspicion, not as a verified fact case by case. Someone adds the skeptical warning: hormone therapies are bread today, hunger tomorrow.

When does cosmetic surgery stop helping and start deforming?

Surgery only looks good when you can't tell it's been done; if abused, the result is impossible to hide. And there appears a scene that repeats: millionaires with multiple operations in the most cutting-edge clinics who end up looking like clones, with the same deformed face. The question that hovers — at what point does one distort reality so much that one doesn't see the abomination one is becoming? — has no good answer. With so much money around, it is argued, no one in the circle tells the truth and the mirrors at home seem not to count.

"The king and the pawn, at the end of the game go to the same box"

The comparison extends to extreme longevity. Henry Kissinger appears, then 99, and Gene Simmons, bassist of Kiss, who at 73 overdoes the makeup. The reflection that is repeated is that no one beats the clock: the king and the pawn end up in the same box. Figures who, for those comparing, have aged with dignity are also cited: Kim Basinger, 69; Dana Delany, 66; Nena, the one with the 99 balloons; saxophonist Candy Dulfer. The list changes, the criterion doesn't: those who haven't abused the scalpel usually come out better in comparisons.

The male advantage: gym, tan and no shortcuts

In the case of men the margin seems greater. Some maintain that it's enough to go to the gym and stay natty to place oneself above average: thin, with weights or calisthenics, tanned skin, cared-for teeth and good character. A local nuance is added: in a country where for decades aesthetics and strength were viewed with suspicion, meeting those minimums already places someone in a high percentile. And a prediction emerges: testosterone therapies will keep arriving. In the background, the same idea as always: part of the result depends on genetics and parents, not only effort.

Aging gracefully: is it resigning or something more?

Against the cult of rejuvenation, some claim the opposite. Someone confesses to being unable to accept the passage of time, but refuses to fake youth because it seems pathetic to believe that depends on oneself. Old age, they imply, is hard, and phrases like age is just a number convince no one. Others go further: they maintain that aging has a function — that energy goes elsewhere — and that forcing the machine with hormones atrophies it. These are minority positions, but they touch a nerve: what if the problem isn't aging, but the panic that it shows?

In the end, the compared photos of two 64-year-old women say less than they seem. Genetics can't be bought, habits weigh, and the scalpel sometimes subtracts. With all that on the table, a question remains that no one closes: if tomorrow a pill capable of stopping the clock appeared, how many would take it without thinking and how many would still prefer to age without disguise?