Beyond guyliner

As a matter of principle, I must approve of the fact that the most enthusiastic makeup-and-skincare routine "Into The Gloss" has yet covered belongs to a 16-year-old boy. Male beauty! Gender equality! And yet, I can't imagine that too many women, if a boyfriend or husband announced his plans to begin each day exfoliating with some kind of hi-tech exfoliation machine, and then carefully blend "Armani Luminous Silk Foundation in #2 and #5," with "Givenchy Lip Liner #3" on dressier occasions, would consider that a welcome development. Some - it takes all kinds - but as much as I believe straight and bisexual women do care what men look like, we really have been socialized to find makeup on men (with the exception of eyeliner on rock stars) unappealing.

But who's to say this is about the female gaze? (Not, alas, that I could imagine terribly many gay men wanting a partner with this routine, either.) As it happens, Harry Brant, the 16-year-old socialite in question, says just that: "I don’t know a lot of guys outside of fashion that wear makeup, but I know hundreds [emphasis in the original] of girls who complain about guys that don’t." In other words, Brant's vision of makeup-for-dudes is not about men/boys signaling their lack of interest in women/girls - which is, I would say, how most women/girls would interpret it.

Of course, 16 is young, and despite Brant's extensive participation in fashionable society (his mother's a supermodel, his father a gazillionaire), he's also a kid in high school. Regardless of his sexual orientation (a similarly dandyish older brother is apparently out; Gawker somewhat jumped the gun in calling the both of them gay role models), regardless of whether he personally wants to appeal to girls (and maybe he does!), he may feel some pressure, in an interview, to make this be about pleasing girls.

And quite apart from the gender-and-sexuality angle, what Brant has would be a ton of ridiculously expensive makeup for an adult, and so is noteworthy from that perspective as well. I don't quite know if the fact that gender norms are being subverted means we're required to ignore the whoa-such-spoiling angle. As in, I'm really not sure. Maybe?

Anyway, I read the profile and came away from it first thinking, gosh, this kid probably looks just fine without all the goop. More power to him if he wants to sparkle, or to present an androgynous appearance, but nude eyeliner? Does Brant come across as almost pathologically insecure because of the amount of attention he pays to getting his cover-up just so, or because we don't expect this of a boy? Or: would a girl who was similarly concerned with her skin feel obliged to pretend that she didn't wear much makeup at all, because that's part of the script, whereas a boy in makeup, well, once you've made the leap, there's not much point pretending you're lower-maintenance than you are?