Hello my beautiful doves. My name is mina and today we're going
to be talking about... Hygiene. So, this might seem like
a random topic for me to do. It's not like, the other topics I've done. It's not like the other girls. I don't know if it's just me,
but in the past week or so, has anyone else been like,
bombarded by news articles about celebrities not bathing properly? As a disclaimer: I'm not a scientist
or even like a health person, so I don't want to give advice
on how many times a week you should be showering. I really don't know. I feel like you don't
need a shower like, every day. And you definitely don't need to wash
your hair with shampoo every day, especially if you're not
that active like myself. So, I'm not going to
make any statements about what you should
or shouldn't do, because I don't want
to be liable for anything. But, I don't know! If you're like, literally stinking, which I assume would happen
if you never use soap, then that sounds like
a public offense to me. This video is sponsored by CASETiFY! CASETiFY makes phone cases
that are slim and protective. Their impact cases are engineered with
a two-layer construction of qitech and they're drop test approved
for drops up to 6.6 feet for Impact cases and 9.8 feet for Ultra impact cases. Let's test the drop! Click on the home screen, Mina! That's the volume button. You go, girl! [ Drum Roll ] CASETiFY! CASETiFY's anti-microbial coating
also keeps your case germ free, killing 99% of bacteria. They come in a ton of designs
and customization options. Their Impact and Ultra Impact cases
are made with 50% recycled material and are shipped in a
100% compostable packaging. Printed with eco-friendly ink. If you're getting the new iPhone,
you should definitely get a CASETiFY case. Go to casetify.com/minale
today to get 15% off! So upon hearing this celebrity gossip, I can't say I was too shocked
because I think we all remember back in 2008 when Robert Pattinson
admitted that he didn't wash his hair and that was like,
the big story for the next several months. - I don't see the point
in washing your hair. Like, if you don't care
if your hair's clean or not, then why would you wash it? - Did you wash your hair today? - No. That's actually
why I took my jacket off, because I got like,
little plumes of dandruff. - Seriously, dude.
Like, I read that you don't wash your hair, like for a long period of time. - What's the deal?
- Because I don't care. - I gave up washing it a while back.
- You gave up washing hair a while back? - Yeah. I remember being like, 11 years old,
when i heard this for the first time and this was the time when, you know,
puberty was happening, so my hair was just
getting extremely greasy and I had dandruff... So, choosing to never
wash your hair, at the time, sounded... Sinful to say the least. But this phenomenon of rich people
choosing not to watch properly has come back in the
headlines when, recently, Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis admitted
on Dax Shepard's Armchair Expert podcast, that they don't use soap
and only wash their vital areas every day. Then to double down on this,
Dax Shepard and Kisten Bell, weighed in on how often
they bait their kids on The View and admitted that they wait until
their children start to smell. - I'm a big fan
of waiting for the stink. Once you potential whiff, that's... That's biology's way of letting
you know: "You need to clean it up". And then, in an interview with Vanity Fair,
published August 5th, Jake Gyllenhaal said: "More and more I find bathing
to be less necessary, at times . "I do believe, because
Elvis Costello is wonderful, "that good manners and
bad breath get you nowhere . "So I do that. "But I do also think that there's
a whole world of not bathing "that is also really
helpful for skin maintenance, "and we naturally clean ourselves". So, I feel like because all
these testimonials were released, all within the same month,
the media, doing what it does best, decided to publish a bunch of
articles making it sound like this "celebrity not showering" thing
was an epidemic, when, in reality,
it's like a total of 15 people in Hollywood who have ever been vocal about like,
I don't know, not using deodorant or something. But I did read some reasonable things for this
discourse that I think is worth mentioning. On Twitter, writer Jemele Hill wrote: "Celebrity white folks bragging about
not showering have the privilege "of not worrying about stereotypes
that they're inherently 'dirty'. "Black folks don't have this luxury. " 'Most' of us were raised to be
obsessively clean, because we always have to " 'present well' for white folks". And she's totally right! There's a long history and,
still to this day, the white dominated
government and corporations have oppressed black indigenous,
immigrants, people of color... By framing these marginalized groups
as being "dirty and diseased". Historically, they use this framing to
justify colonialism, imperialism and, also, to justify putting immigrants
and people of color into these low-paying meager jobs
with bad working conditions. For example, Edward Alsworth Ross,
a sociologist and eugenicist from the early 20th Century, said that slavic immigrants were immune
to dirt that would kill a white man. Because this was a time when even European
immigrants were considered "not white". And so, slavic people should take on these dirty
jobs that white Americans were unwilling to do. So, it definitely comes from a
place of wealth and white privilege to be able to stink in public
without facing any major repercussions. But, honestly like, why do we even care
how much Jake Gyllenhaal showers? In Vulture, writer Sam Taggart describes
our fascination with celebrity stories. He mentions different categories of
them, but the "celebrity revenge story" is what stood out to me the most. He writes: "No longer are celebrities caught
looking momentarily unattractive; "now, they are caught looking ideologically
repulsive and downright out of touch. "Yes, us Normals
have found a way to reckon with the ever-increasing gap between
the haves and the have-nots. "This isn't 'stars are just like us'; "this is 'stars are
actually less good than us' ". Of course, there will always be
a camp of celebrity supporters, of stans, if you will. But I noticed that, as of late,
and, especially over the course of the pandemic, a lot of "normal people" have become extremely tired of celebrity
and rich people culture. These "stars" may have been really
good in that last Marvel movie or they might have dropped a
killer summer song two years ago, but their lack of class awareness
spurred on by the pandemic is, honestly, quite baffling. Their stories of their, so-called,
"suffering in solidarity with the rest of us" is laughable, especially when you
consider that their idea of "being trapped" is being stuck in their
gigantic Beverly Hills mansions, complete with, you know,
pools and tennis courts and having to throw birthday
parties on private islands. Yeah, I think that's all
reasonable cause for criticism! But, honestly, for this video,
I don't really want to focus on the power and
disappointment of celebrity, because, you know... [ Laughing]
I just don't want to! Instead, I want to talk about fashion history
because fashion history is what interests me. And looking into the history,
is partially why I think it's so FUNNY that a group of the most
privileged people in the world decided to forgo cleaning because... Cleanliness has always been or,
virtually always been used, as a marker to signify being rich. And, again, on the flip side,
if you were dirty, that was virtually always a marker
for being poor or... Sinful. Specifically, I want to briefly share
a story about linen under clothes to kind of show you all how cleanliness
and class have always been sort of intertwined. [Mina] So, if you're wondering whether
Louis XIV just stank every day... I mean, maybe, for our standards... But perfumery was big
among the French nobility. Louis XIV was actually nicknamed "le doux fleurant". Sorry, French people. Which means "the sweet flowery one",
because of how often he used perfume. But, unfortunately--
Or, maybe not unfortunately, depending on how
you view the monarchy. He developed terrible allergies
by the end of his life, which historians presume is because
of his fascination with perfume. It is said that the only scent he could
physically tolerate was orange blossom. But perfume aside, it wasn't like he didn't
participate in hygienic practices, just because he didn't bathe. Every morning his servants
reportedly would give him a rub down, because he was quite sweaty. And he would change his clothes and
under clothes multiple times throughout the day. As for washing, he would give his hands
a rinse every morning with scented water; and then, every other day, he would wipe his face down with
a towel moistened with wine. But I want to focus on the
changing clothes deal, because, like I said,
I wanted to focus on linens and also, because I think
it's to the modern ear, hearing that someone would change
their underwear multiple times every day sounds a little excessive. Or, did I just out myself
as someone who doesn't do that when everyone actually does. Anyways! Before the 19th Century,
it was more important to wash your underclothes than it
was to wash your actual body. These underclothes
were mostly made of linen, for the majority of the 18th Century, hence the term "linens"
being synonymous for "underwear". From about the 16th Century
to the late 18th Century, it was common belief that linens
absorbs sweat and bodily impurities, therefore, cleansing the body. Medical wisdom dictated that,
if you didn't wash and change your linens, then the bodily impurities
would actually reabsorb back into the body. And washing your linens
was considered a safer practice than washing your actual skin with water, Its whiteness signified a mark of
personal cleanliness and respectability. And, as the symbolic value of white linen grew, it started to become fashionable
to show off glimpses of your underwear. For instance, white collars and cuffs
would creep out from beneath doublets. White linen undershirts would
poke out from the neck and through openings and jackets. But how do they keep
these linens so clean? As I said, the whiteness of
your linen was a marker of class, because richer people could afford
to wash their linens more frequently. And, also, afford to
buy more fresh linens. In the 18th Century, general
consensus among historians is that poor people only had about two shirts
that they would rotate between. And while the rich
wore high quality fine linen, like lawn cambric or Holland; poor people most likely wore
coarser inexpensive linens, like hempen and flaxsen, which were probably never
brilliantly white to begin with. But, despite the differences, most people still regularly
wash their underclothes, regardless of social standing. Working people who supported
households were especially lucky, because then they could just wash their
clothes while washing their employers clothes. In John Styles' book,
'The Dress of the People', he writes: "Even the lowliest and most
put-upon of these employees "could expect to have their
body linen washed regularly. "Ann Naylor, a 13-year-old parish apprentice "was starved to death
by her mistress in 1762. "Denied food, "she nevertheless had clean shifts once
a week and sometimes once a fortnight". [Mina] Anyways, to launder anything, you'd first have to heat water over a fire, then you would put the clothes
to soak overnight in the water with some kind of soap
substance, lye or even urine. And then, the next morning,
you would boil them. Then transfer the clothes to a tub,
that's also filled with soap and hot water. You would then beat it with a dolly
and push the water out with a washing board. Then, you would rinse it
and repeat the previous steps how many times if it's still dirty. Then, there was the bluing stage,
which is when you would boil the white cloves with water
that was tinged with blue dye and this was supposed to make
the yellowing cloth appear whiter. The washing process alone
would take at least a day if you were laundering for a
household with children. Laundry was extremely work intensive
and time-consuming in the 18th Century, so the fact that most poor people
still made it a part of their routine, to get their clothes laundered... Shows you just how much shame
was attributed to being dirty. Dirty clothing could prevent people from
finding work, lodgings or even going shopping. It's very much the same
problem we have today, where people who are living in poverty, who can't afford or don't have
professional attire for interviews, can't get jobs. But, how are they
supposed to dress "professionally" when they don't have money, which they would have gotten
if they were working a job. One very harsh incident occurred in 1729 when a ship's passengers locked a
victim out of the passenger's birth leaving him to die on deck
because he was, quote, "an odious filthy fellow "whose distemper and laziness
rendered him extremely uncleanly". Soap was also pretty expensive. Something I read that I
found interesting was that, soap was marketed for laundry
and not really for washing your body with. There are soap ads that
have lengthy descriptions of: "The soap's ability to restore
softness and fullness to clothes". And only as an afterthought to
the advertisers mention that, "ladies will find great advantage in
washing their hands with this soap". And, of course, they don't tell you
exactly what that advantage is. So, washing under clothes was just one hygiene
practice used to segregate the classes. There was also dental hygiene... Like, having bad breath
was a sign of low class. And then also bathing in the 19th Century. Before domestic bathtubs became widespread, people would go to bath houses to bathe. But, of course, you still had
to pay to go to these bath houses. So, bringing it back to modern day, we are starting to see a bunch of richer
people endorse natural beauty rituals, paraben-free, sulfate-free, organic beauty products, etc., etc. I believe this hole
"no showering, no soap... "No deodorant", it's just an extension of the
whole holistic beauty rhetoric that's very on-trend these days,
especially for richer people. And this belief that the body
can "naturally cleanse itself". Okay, just to clarify,
I'm not against holistic beauty at all. Like, whatsoever. I'm just kind of against the
gatekeeping of holistic beauty under these egregious price barriers and-- Usually, a lot of holistic beauty practices
are rooted in indigenous medicine; and so like, gentrifying indigenous medicine. And making these huge profit margins
because your main target audience are these like, very rich people just-- I don't know,
it doesn't sit right with me. Does it sit right with you? I think the rich people
marketing of holistic beauty is way more widespread and insidious than the decision to not use shampoo, but it's kind of all connected. This is in part why Goop,
Gwyneth Paltrow's lifestyle brand s so popular among rich white women. Now, I have my own opinions on Goop, but... Its entire marketing technique is
using buzzwords like: "Natural", "non-toxic", "clean", "free of the synthetics and artificial polymers "found in the products lining the
shelves of middle class favorite CVS". Taking a look at the Goop website, some of the product prices
look pretty egregious, like this 125$ vitamin C serum and this 95$ moisturizer. When asked about the elitism
of a brand's price points, Gwyneth said: "It's crucial to me that
we remain aspirational. "Our stuff is beautiful. "The ingredients are beautiful. "You can't get that
at a lower price point. "You can't make these
things mass-market". As Alan Levinovitz
says in his book 'Natural': "When natural living
is a luxury commodity, "the act of making money,
lots and lots of money, "turns into a sacrament. "The wellness upgrade doesn't just
transform your shower into religious ritual; "It transforms the work you did
that paid for the shower. "The ultra-rich enjoying
their Muse vacation residences "can feel secure in the belief
that accumulating great wealth "is not mere hedonism,
but rather an exclusive means to holiness". And you may be thinking: "This is getting off-topic, Mina. "Choosing not to shower is free! "Choosing not to
wear deodorant is free! "Anyone can do it, theoretically". But it's totally a luxury! It's not a luxury quantified by money,
but it's a luxury quantified by status. As Sam Taggart says: "Not showering is still a flex of
power, wealth, and influence, "simply because those
dealing in normal society "can't pull it off without risking some fragile,
meagre social standing. "To not shower is to be luxurious, "and us Normals remain
desperately unable to afford it". In conclusion, I don't really care
what celebrities choose to do with their bodies, because it's very unlikely that I'll be
within their radius anytime soon. It doesn't affect me
and it's not as big of a deal as the media is trying to
sensationalize it as being. I'm just using their backlash to talk
about things that genuinely interest me, which does include the whole
holistic beauty thing, because, once again, I feel like
that is way more widespread of an issue than, you know, not showering. I also think that holistic beauty
is something that seeped from the upper class
to the upper-middle class, and therefore, is just a lot more
visually present for, you know, people, especially who live in cities. But, if you're really interested in that
and you want to read more about it, I highly suggest reading
'Natural' by Alan Levinovitz. Okay, that's all I have for today! Thank you so much for
sticking around and watching! Air out your grievances about
personal hygiene in the comments and I hope you have
a lovely rest of your day. And I'll see you next time! Bye!
