The Lipstick Law That Never Was: The Myth of Deceptive Beauty
In the colourful history of cosmetics, few stories have taken on such a life of their own as the so-called Lipstick Ban of 1770. Allegedly passed by the British Parliament, this infamous “act” decreed that any woman who used makeup to deceive a man into marriage could be tried for witchcraft, and that the marriage would be rendered null and void.
It’s a story that resurfaces time and again — in books, memes, and lectures — often presented as fact. But the truth, as it turns out, is even more interesting.
The idea of cosmetic or aesthetic enhancements being fundamentally deceptive is an interesting one — but one that is rooted in centuries-old anxieties about authenticity, control, and femininity.
This suspicion is especially sharp when it comes to women’s choices. When women change how they look, it raises uncomfortable questions about what’s real, what’s natural, and who gets to decide the difference.
And when beauty becomes powerful — when it can influence perception, opportunity, or social standing — it’s often met with criticism, regulation, or even ridicule.
The Alleged Act: What It Said
The supposed legislation read:
“That all women, of whatever age rank, profession, or degree, whether virgins, maids, or widows, that shall, from and after such act, impose upon, seduce, and betray into matrimony any of his Majesty’s male subjects, by the scents, paints, cosmetic washes, artificial teeth, false hair, Spanish wool, iron stays, hoops, high-heeled shoes, &c., shall incur the penalty of the law now in force against witchcraft and like misdemeanors, and the marriage, upon conviction, shall stand null and void.”
The implication? That makeup — and by extension, women’s control over their own appearance — was seen as such a threat to social order that it warranted comparison with sorcery.
For anyone working in or fascinated by aesthetic medicine, this kind of language is striking. It places beauty not just as vanity, but as manipulation. Enhancement was not merely cosmetic; it was subversive, even criminal.
But did Parliament really attempt to legislate makeup out of existence?
The answer is no — but the fact that people believed it (and still do) says a great deal about societal fears around feminine power and appearance.
Where Did This “Law” Come From?
Although you’ll find a number of references citing this so-called “act” in multiple volumes dated to various time periods, the actual origins of this passage trace back to August 23, 1785, in an issue of the Public Advertiser — a London newspaper known for its biting humour.
The piece was soon picked up and reprinted (nearly verbatim) in other papers, including the Whitehall Evening Post (August 25), the Chelmsford Chronicle (August 26), and the Hampshire Chronicle (August 29). It was clearly designed as a satire of both overzealous lawmakers and the cultural panic around female artifice.
How Did It Become “Fact”?
Over time, the satirical origins of the piece were forgotten. It was misquoted and misdated in multiple books — most infamously in Manners and Customs of the English Nation (1859), which presented the passage as legitimate legislation from 1770.
Why did the myth stick? Because it fit.
The very idea that women should be punished — legally — for enhancing their appearance echoed real cultural anxieties of the 18th century. Even if it wasn’t true, it felt plausible enough to be accepted as truth.
Why Lipstick Was So Controversial
To understand the popularity of the myth, we have to understand how makeup was viewed in the 1700s.
While Queen Elizabeth I made her white-lead “mask of youth” iconic in the 16th century, by the 18th century, public opinion had shifted dramatically. Cosmetic use was associated with:
Theatre and sex work (especially rouge and heavy lip colour)
Artificiality and deceit
Moral corruption
Spanish wool (a crimson pigment used as blush), false hair, artificial teeth, and high heels were considered particularly scandalous — not because they didn’t work, but because they did.
Women were praised for appearing “naturally beautiful,” but scorned for achieving that beauty through visible means.
In short: beauty was acceptable only when it appeared effortless. Enhancement was taboo.
Sound familiar?
Cosmetics as Power — and Threat
The alleged lipstick law may have been satire, but it reflects something very real: a long-standing discomfort with women’s ability to control how they present themselves.
Makeup allowed women to manipulate first impressions, social standing, and (most dangerously, according to some) their marriageability. It blurred the lines between status and seduction, age and youth, even illness and health.
In a society that still saw women as property in marriage contracts, this was radical.
So while the lipstick ban wasn’t a real law, it was certainly a real fear — a kind of aesthetic witchcraft that threatened patriarchal control.
Spoof Law, Serious Subtext
The “lipstick law” joins a long tradition of what scholars call the spoof act — satirical fake laws that hold up a mirror to society’s contradictions. These were often published anonymously and framed as mockery of real legislation or public opinion.
And this one, in particular, can be read as a cultural artefact of late 18th-century fears of the feminine.
It wasn’t just that women were wearing lipstick. It was the idea that women were:
In control of their appearance
Influencing social and romantic outcomes
Breaking the illusion of passive femininity
And all without asking permission.
Echoes in Modern Aesthetics
While we’ve moved far beyond bans on lipstick, the undertones of this story still echo in today’s world of aesthetic medicine and cosmetic enhancement.
How often do we still hear:
“It’s deceptive to get lip filler.”
“She’s not really that beautiful, it’s Botox.”
“He was tricked — she looked younger before the makeup came off.”
The modern version of the lipstick law plays out on TikTok and tabloid headlines. And the question it raises is the same:
Does appearance-enhancement undermine authenticity — or is it a form of empowerment?
The Final Word
The so-called Lipstick Ban of 1770 was never passed by Parliament. In fact, it was never even proposed as real legislation. But its viral legacy tells us something important: that beauty — especially when used strategically by women — has long been perceived as threatening, powerful, and political.
Foor many women, aesthetic enhancement continues to be about far more than appearances.
It’s about autonomy.
And that, perhaps, is what really makes people uncomfortable.
Please find our summary slides below:
In the colourful history of cosmetics, few stories have taken on such a life of their own as the so-called Lipstick Ban of 1770. Allegedly passed by the British Parliament, this infamous “act” decreed that any woman who used makeup to deceive a man into marriage could be tried for witchcraft, and that the marriage would be rendered null and void.