Getting waxed sucks, no matter how much new-age music the salon plays. You have to get naked in front of a stranger and pay her a lot of money to rip your body hair out by the roots, and overall the experience is highly unpleasant. A lot of people still choose to do it for various reasons of their own, but one salon owner in London is doing its best to chase its customers elsewhere by applying a “fat tax” based on her customers’ dress sizes.
According to Refinery29, the owner of MM Bubbles in London says she has to use extra supplies to wax a larger woman, so she’s charging an extra fee to cover the extra strip of wax that might be necessary.
Anyone who wears a UK size 12 or higher has to pay an additional fee to be waxed. According to the ASOS size guide, a size 12 is a woman with the measurements 36-28.75-38.75. A size 10, which is the largest a person can apparently be without causing the MM Bubbles pricing structure to collapse, measures in at 34-26.75-36.75.
Women who measure above a U.K. size 12 are asked to pay an extra $8. Women above a U.K. 18 are asked to pay an extra $16.
The average woman in the UK wears a size 16, so it appears likely that this woman is now going up to many if not most of her customers and saying, “You have to pay $16 over the sticker price because you are fat.” That does not sound like a great way to create a soothing experience at her salon.
Personally, I think this is ridiculous. The difference between a size 10 thigh and a size 12 thigh is not even a full strip of wax, so an $8 surcharge sounds absurd. And if it is about surface area, do I get a discount for being short? Karlie Kloss is extraordinarily skinny but a million feet tall. If she wants to get waxed, does she pay more or less?
The choice is mind-boggling from a business perspective. If her prices are so low that an extra two inches of meat on a woman’s butt will destroy her profit margins, she probably should have raised her prices across the board a long, long time ago. Distributing the cost of an extra strip of wax used here or saved there across her customer base would almost certainly have served her business better in the long run than imposing this stupid “fat tax,” getting in the papers, and driving a lot of her customers away.
Via Refinery29/Photo: Shutterstock