Susan Sontag's quote, though once quite incisive, feels charmingly dated now. For quite a few reasons.

First, by honing in myopically on the aesthetics of age, it excludes the of what "attractiveness" comprises for men, culturally. We're brought up to associate wealth, power, strength, and status with male attractiveness more closely than youthful beauty. The aging-fixated marketing of cosmetics in the US came of age, so to speak, in an era in which (among the middle and upper classes) wealth and stability were generally thought to increase with age. With the wrinkes and the grey hairs came more home ownership, higher rank in careers, and the expectation of a comfortable retirement.

That era coincidentally peaked sometime around the introduction of Viagra. For today's generation of young men, the possibility of saving for retirement, of having a lifelong career, of work and housing stability into old age, all seem like quaint and retrograde fantasies. What will make an old man attractive in the mid-20th century way as we advance to the middle of the 21st? 

Could this be on our minds as we come to dread aging - and indeed, attempt to subdue its mark on our bodies and faces - in ways that men in generations before seemed ambivalent to? I certainly don't think it's simply that we're more vain or narcissistic; more specifically, I think the privilege associated with being an older male has eroded and lost ground to the newly minted value of technologically-savvy youth.

As for the usage of "baby-soft" in the ad above, I can certainly see the creepiness, but it's perhaps a step too far to attach this to the sexualization of actual children, rather than of specific qualities. Having "baby-soft lips" is not tantamount to actually resembling a baby, and until we see a vogue for hairless adult women hobbling around in diapers, I think we can allow some poetic license for using a common figure of speech.

That doesn't change the fact that women are expected to be "soft" while men are encouraged to be "hard." But this is not any kind of aberration from centuries of Western patriarchy and the artistic representations of gender it's produced. The ideal of female softness is overwhelmingly consistent throughout so many otherwise wildly divergent eras, so the quirk of likening it to the infantile doesn't appear to signify a shift in values.

(If anything, we have quite the opposite in modern times, as throughout most of human history the marriageable age of women was between 10 and 14. The notion that a teenage girl is still a child is remarkably contemporary, and therefore the notion that people in this age group should not be sexualized is a very culturally specific and novel value judgment.)

"The single standard of beauty for women dictates that they must go on
having clear skin. Every wrinkle, every line, every gray hair, is a
defeat."

This is leaving out a few things elements of the beauty standard for women which dictate that we look like we haven't aged since we were teenagers.
1. That our hair be long, thick, full, non-gray, and, if you're white, blonde.
2. That's our eye's be bright and white (something that diminishes with age).
3. That our body below the neck be hairless.
4. That our body be taught and youthful. So, perky breasts, small nipples, no sagging skin (e.g., on the stomach from pregnancy), no cellulite, no stretch marks, etc.

Baby-soft is a well known expression and the model is clearly adult so I don't find this nearly so odd as ChapFix (the lip balm for men shaped like a lighter). 

I find this whole article, if you can call it one, disheartening. "baby lips", in my interpretation, has nothing to do with the sexualization of young girls and women trying to be younger. Honestly, for me, its to make one lips feel like a baby's lips - soft, healthy, not chapped.  This article is an example of reading too much into a simple product to find something to complain about, to comment on, when there isn't a story.  It's not a big deal that it is called "Baby Lips".  Get Real.

See, I have a big problem when people make statements like  "The great advantage men have is that our culture allows
two standards of male beauty: the boy and the man… A man does not grieve
when he loses the smooth, unlined, hairless skin of a boy. For he has
only exchanged one form of attractiveness for another…There is no equivalent of this second standard for women. The single
standard of beauty for women dictates that they must go on having clear
skin. Every wrinkle, every line, every gray hair, is a defeat."  Likewise when people wring their hands over fashion magazines that have "unattainably" thin or perfect women on their covers.  As a heterosexual male I have no control over what I find attractive, and I certainly don't take social or political concerns into account.  If "society" doesn't find something attractive, first you have to specify who society is in that case, and then give rationale for why they're wrong.  In the case of magazine covers, truth be told I don't know a whole lot of straight men who prefer tall, perfectly symmetrical, skinny yet huge breasted blondes.  This isn't surprising, since fashion magazines aren't marketed toward straight men, and straight men probably have less to do with their publication than with any other major genre of magazine.  The women on the covers look that way because that's what sells the most magazines, the consumers of which I don't even need to add are mostly heterosexual women.  But from what you'd infer from listening to a lot of critics is that Cosmo, Glamour, Elle, etc are run by a sinister cabal of straight men sitting around a boardroom smoking cigars and dreaming up new ways to undermine the self esteem of the world's females.  On the issue this article focuses on, the issue is implicitly the amorous preference of straight men, specifically that it's unfair of them to only value youthful beauty to the exclusion of older women, especially since women allegedly find men of all ages attractive, albeit in different ways.  For this I go back to the apolitical nature of attraction.  Speaking only for myself, I'm not not into middle aged women because I want to oppress them, I'm just sort of...not into them.  I don't know what you want me to do about that.  I'll also add that women have standards that are often "unfair" themselves, with older men being desirable only if they're considered successful, and even then if you're bald, short, fat, or socially awkward it's going to be an uphill battle trying to compete with younger, better looking men for female attention.  If you're going to scold men for not preferring women over forty, you should also be scolding women for not preferring forty year old, bald, unemployed virgins who still live with their parents.