Cosmetic procedures are being classed as ‘skincare’ – and it’s a problem

When Lindsay Lohan appeared in public last month with what appeared to be an entirely new face, her explanation was simple: skincare. Speaking to Allure magazine, the actress credited her transformation to “a morning cold face towel, Avene redness solution, along with their recovery creme”. Later in the piece, almost as an afterthought, she mentioned trying treatments like Morpheus, IPL and lasers – though she was quick to add that she doesn’t do them “too much”.

Many beauty experts, including the people behind accounts like @IGfamousbyDana have speculated that visible scarring and drastic changes to Lohan’s appearance indicate she has, in fact, undergone multiple facial surgeries in recent years. Everything from blepharoplasty, buccal fat reduction and repositioning, a face and neck lift, endoscopic brow lift, nose job, chin augmentation, Botox and dermal filler have been suggested as procedures that might be responsible for the new look. But even if Lohan hasn’t had any surgeries or injectibles, the results of procedures like Morpheus 8 cannot be replicated by topical skincare and are fairly invasive, involving microneedling to depth of up to 8mm into the skin.

This linguistic sleight of hand – where significant cosmetic procedures are downplayed or rebranded as simple skincare – represents a growing trend in how we talk about beauty work. The language around cosmetic procedures has undergone a subtle but significant shift, with terms like “enhancements” and “balancing” replacing more direct language about surgical interventions. More notably, increasingly invasive procedures are being lumped under the innocuous umbrella of “skincare”.

@drpremtripathi This is easy for celebs but isnt what we all recommend #drpremtripathi #facialplasticsurgery #undetectableera ♬ original sound – Dr. Prem Tripathi

“There has been a noticeable shift in the language used around beauty treatments and cosmetic procedures,” says consultant dermatologist Dr Anjali Mahto. “Words like ‘enhancements’ or ‘tweakments’ have replaced harsher terms like ‘corrections’ or ‘fixing flaws.’ I think this reflects a broader societal move, with cosmetic treatments now often framed as part of a broader regime rather than as drastic measures to alter appearance.”

This semantic evolution isn’t accidental. When treatments requiring numbing cream and 24 needles stamped into the skin are marketed as “non-invasive”, we’re witnessing a deliberate obfuscation of reality. The beauty industry has mastered the art of making dramatic interventions sound as gentle, and accessible, as applying moisturiser.

On social media, this phenomenon plays out daily. A viral tweet about “facial balancing” that requires “no plastic surgery!!” is revealed to be achieved through extensive filler injections. The before-and-after photos are striking, but the process – the pain, the recovery, the cost – remains carefully hidden from view. The transformation appears effortless, as if by magic, feeding into what has become a dangerous mythology of quick and easy fixes.

The fluidity of terminology has made it increasingly difficult to establish clear boundaries between different types of beauty work. As I was researching for my book Pixel Flesh, I found it difficult to pin down the definitions. In South Korea, double eyelid surgery is so commonplace that it’s not considered cosmetic surgery, despite requiring anaesthesia, a surgeon and a scalpel. Kim Kardashian went to great lengths, including getting an X-ray, to prove she didn’t have butt implants, despite the widespread rumour that she’d actually had fat transferred to her bum (which wouldn’t show up on a scan). Similarly, procedures like injectables, lasers and fat freezing are labelled “non-surgical” and “non-invasive”, allowing those who undergo them to claim they haven’t had any cosmetic surgery at all.

@drjb.aesthetics Lindsay Lohan through the years #lindsaylohan #lindsaylohanedit #celebrityface ♬ original sound – Dr Jonny

This careful curation of language serves a specific purpose: maintaining the illusion of effortless, natural beauty while hiding the labour, cost and potential risks involved. It perpetuates the paradoxical expectation that women should be beautiful without appearing to try too hard – what scholars have long identified as the contradiction between beauty as a virtue and beauty work as a form of deception. “What is most beautiful is not what is most natural but what has been reworked by the imagination, made visible through effort, and yet appears effortless,” Susan Sontag wrote, while Kathleen LeBesco summed it up simply as, “The work of beauty is to conceal its work.”

The motivation behind this linguistic gymnastics is deeply rooted in societal pressures. “Many people want to enjoy the benefits of these treatments without facing judgement or being perceived as ‘artificial,’” Dr Mahto explains. “There is also an association between having ‘work done’ and vanity, which can make individuals uncomfortable admitting to more extensive procedures.”

But it’s not only misleading, it can be incredibly harmful. When celebrities like Lohan credit dramatic transformations to simple skincare routines, it leaves regular consumers feeling defective when their drug store products fail to deliver similar results. Young girls are left confused when the promise of perfect womanhood doesn’t materialise naturally, ageing becomes a terrifying curse, and new mothers feel increasingly vulnerable in their changing bodies.

@teawithmd Is Lindsay Lohan aging in reverse? 👀 She says her #secret is a solid skincare routine and in-office treatments! 1️⃣ Cold Face Towel to reduce puffiness ❄️ 2️⃣ @Eau Thermale Avène creams for calming sensitive skin 🧡 3️⃣ @Peter Thomas Roth Labs Eye Patches for a fresh, de-puffed look 👁️✨ Plus, treatments like Morpheus8, IPL, and lasers keep her skin tight and glowing! ✨ What do you think of her glow-up? ⬇️ #lindsaylohan #antiaging #glowup #teawithmd #skincareroutine #youthfulskin #dermtok ♬ original sound – Dr. Joyce Dermatologist

This reluctance to acknowledge beauty work creates a particularly insidious cycle when combined with celebrity endorsements and commercial partnerships. When an expensive moisturiser is promoted by someone who has secretly had a facelift, or when an influencer credits her plump lips to a new lipkit while concealing her filler treatments, it sets impossible standards for consumers.

The implications of this deceptive language extend far beyond mere semantics. It creates what Dr Mahto describes as “a dual standard in the beauty world – enhancements are acceptable as long as they remain invisible or understated.” This perpetuates unrealistic beauty standards while simultaneously denying the very means by which they are achieved. The Undetectable Era of cosmetic intervention goes hand-in-hand with this language shift, making it even easier for the wealthy to deny, minimise and justify their beauty work.

This deliberate blurring of lines between skincare and more invasive procedures shows no signs of slowing down. Now, it would appear, everything – from a facelift to lasers and injectables – is skincare. The end result is a system that ultimately suggests that being a human woman simply isn’t enough. Whilst we get caught up in semantics as a way of evading admission of the extent of our beauty work, the industry continues to grow.