Manolo for the Beauty » Monday Beauty Poll

Monday Beauty Poll

By Glinda

The vast majority of you, 78%, have never worn a wig outside of a costume situation.  12% would like to, but can’t seem to get up the nerve to do so, and a combined 9% wear a wig fairly often.  Wigs used to be much more common than they are now, even throughout history.  It seems that only in the last few decades have they fallen out of fashion.  I wonder why?

Today I’m curious about what you would do in a situation like this: You love a beauty product or a particular line of products, but find out that a person in a major position of influence in the company that makes it has said something that utterly horrifies you, whether it be something racist, homophobic, or whatever hot button issue gets your blood pressure up.  See Guerlain for an example.

6 Responses to “Monday Beauty Poll”

  1. aurumgirl Says:

    J P Guerlain of course has nothing really to do with the company anymore, since Guerlain is actually part of LVMH now, and just a big corporate entity (part of larger corporate entities) that’s bought the right to use his name. That corporate entity does far more damage on their own to their product–what with making various scents in their line-up defunct and by toying with the original formulae of the fragrances they continue to produce, just to save a buck so the profits look meatier to their shareholders. If they’d bothered to spend that buck getting JPG ready to represent the company to the media (an expense they probably didn’t think was necessary, when every other corporation in the world considers it necessary and justifiable, since they know their figureheads have lots of objectionable things to say) we’d never know about JPG’s bigotry. It’s a big turn off, that’s for sure.

    But before any of that happened, I was already annoyed by the fact that who the hell knows what’s in Shalimar anymore, it’s not the perfume I wore twenty years ago (and it damn well should be). On top of that, if the company is going to kill off scents just because they don’t “earn” enough (like Nahema or Mahora and countless others I was told were discontinued when I asked about them at the Guerlain store) then they don’t really care about customers like me. That’s a far more clear message to me that the company doesn’t need my money, so I stopped buying their products way back when.

  2. SarahDances Says:

    @aurumgirl To be fair, a lot of the reformulations of classic fragrances have more to do with the newer regulations on which ingredients can’t be used or must be severely limited for their supposed carcinogenic properties or whatever reason (oakmoss, citrus, and nevermind animal products like civet and ambergris).

    But really, most of the major grand old fashion houses have some nasty things in their past, like anti-Semitism or Nazi sympathization (Chanel, I’m looking at you). I don’t consider it a deal-breaker.

  3. Queen of Sheba Says:

    It depends on whether it’s a past deal, like Chanel in principle (in my book, it’s currently damned by Lagerfeld’s ridiculous fat-hating, so the fact that the Nazi sympathizing is in the past don’t actually buy it anything), or someone who’s no longer attached to the company like Guerlain, or a current principal.

    If (unlikely but possible) it’s something I really, really love and can’t find a replacement for, I’d make a 2x donation to a nonprofit addressing that particular issue.

  4. aurumgirl Says:

    @SarahDances, the IFAA “restrictions” were voluntary, not actually legally imposed on perfume manufacturers. Since it’s probably not too much of a stretch to find out that LVMH is probably part of a conglomerate which lists an aroma manufacturer specializing in synthetic “replacements” for the long used and perfectly safe essences used in the past, I suspect they opted to buy a well established perfume house in order to “find” a big market for their synthetic compounds there. LVMH also produces wines and spirits–two other manufacturing industries selling “luxury” product which also use a great deal of perfume aromas to create what they sell.

    The old essences have been used for thousands of years without causing any threat to human health. People can go around saying coumarin is a carcinogenic if they wish, but they’ll have a hell of a lot more credibility about it if they can produce actual clinical data of a death from cancer resulting from exposure to oak moss. Even more credibility if they’re not caught denouncing coumarin as carcinogenic when they’re employed by a perfumer specializing in creating and selling synthetic aroma compounds to the food and cosmetics industries.

    So Guerlain is not excusable. No way.

  5. Little Red Says:

    aurumgirl, sing it sister! LVMH has so totally gutted the classic Guerlain fragrances, it’s a travesty.

  6. Jezebella Says:

    More so than how influential the person is, I would consider what the company’s response was to the person’s bad behavior.

Disclaimer: Manolo the Shoeblogger is not Manolo Blahnik
Copyright © 2004-2009; Manolo the Shoeblogger, All Rights Reserved

  • Recent Comments:

  • Subscribe!


    Manolo the Shoeblogger

    Restore Hormally Aging Skin


  • Archives:

  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010