Glowing Down
First published in Glug Magazine Issue No. 46 Classic France
***
Please excuse me while I rant. It’ll only take a second of your time, I promise, but I can’t carry on hearing the term ‘wines without make-up’ any longer.
Normally, upon hearing this rather useless piece of information, my physical responses range from an eye-roll to a huff once I’m out of sight from the offending party. But on my last encounter with the phrase, in French no less, I couldn’t help but quip “I like make-up” to the wine clerk who had just sold me a bottle. That’s right, the deal was done; he had successfully persuaded me to buy a low-intervention Cinsault, I had paid, and was about to be on my merry way to pop it open but as soon as I heard that comment, I felt a wave of anger wash over me. Considering that I was wearing Mac’s Ruby Woo lipstick, the comment felt… tone deaf. But there’s more to it than that.
Upon first listen, the term seems fine; a phrase used to convey that a wine hasn’t been manipulated with additives or other inputs, thereby masking its true terroir. It’s the main concept behind the natural wine movement, which in addition to not using processing aids in the winemaking, embraces little to no sulphur additions. This goes in stark contrast to conventional wines that have various products added to them, such as tannins and acidity, to cater to mainstream palates, and heavy doses of SO2 additions to protect wine on long, transatlantic journeys or extended periods on store shelves.
This is all well and good, but where did cosmetics get all tied up in this discourse? Given that SO2 is used to prevent oxidation and ensure microbial stability, why the comparison with make-up and not, say, vaccines? In essence, a no-sulphur added (NSA) wine is as close in analogy to a person who hasn’t been vaccinated: a pure homo sapien, but a poor soul that’s vulnerable to any and all viruses or diseases like the measles, mumps and polio, much like NSA wines are susceptible to bacteria like Brettanomyces, mouse taint, and volatile acidity, often rendering them undrinkable.
My guess is that one guy thought it made perfect sense, told his winemaking buddies and then it spread like wildfire in the world of wine, because there I was one night, with a winemaker I much admired telling me that his wine was “like a woman who is a natural beauty, who doesn’t have to hide herself with make-up.” He continued, “women that one night they’re one thing and the morning after, a complete mess–totally unrecognizable.” He went on and on until his partner stopped him with a “we get it” and rolled her eyes.
Honestly, women have enough shit to deal with, now we’re being judged next to fermented grape juice for wearing make-up?
Make-up shaming is a real thing. Women who wear make-up are judged to be insecure, superficial or seductresses, and women who don’t are seen as lazy, frumpy, or not taking care of themselves. Women are scrutinized, judged and shamed for just about anything related to our bodies or physical appearance, and this has trickled down to the world of wine, which unfortunately has heavy doses of sexism and misogyny.
You may be thinking, what’s the big deal? But to judge a wine based on the fact that it has no additives or preservatives says nothing at all about the quality of wine. It’s just a choice in the process, in its making. It can still be a shitty wine. To use the term ‘no make-up’ as a selling point feels lazy, one-dimensional much the way women are often characterised. I love wearing make-up: I love my lipsticks and glosses, eyeshadows and blushes. But just because I wear cosmetics doesn’t mean I’m less authentic, less unique, less than. Given that the natural wine movement is meant to be counterculture and in defiance of ‘the system’, the term is disappointing and frankly, annoying.
“Sans soufre!” the clerk replied as I closed the door behind me. Yes, monsieur, let’s just stick to the facts.
