Manolo for the Beauty

No less than three commenters on the Dior 360 post proclaimed their love for Maybelline Great Lash.

They are not the first.

They will certainly not be the last.

I cannot tell you how many people have said the same thing. I have read it in countless magazines and beauty blogs as well.  All of them touting the wonders of Great Lash! So fantastic! So cheap! So easy to purchase!

I wanted badly to drink of the Great Lash Kool-aid.

Who would not want to spend less than ten dollars on some fantastic mascara?  Who would not want their search for the perfect mascara to finally be over, or to at least have a damn good backup?

Me! I would!

But I have tried Great Lash already.  Multiple times.  Because it’s less than ten bucks, so why not?

And I hated it.

Truly hated it.

Hated it on a level that places it somewhere between wearing control top pantyhose and having someone conduct a loud conversation on their cell phone in the booth next to me at a restaurant.

Maybe my expectations were too high.

It did absolutely nothing, nada, zip, for my lashes, which aren’t half bad to begin with.  I kept applying it and maybe hoping that I had done it wrong the time before.  But alas, my much-anticipated love affair with Great Lash was doomed before it ever began.

So forgive me if I secretly don’t believe you when you extol the virtues of Great Lash.

In this essay and accompanying interview with the founder of Aveda cosmetics, Ms. Kamali says she has given up wearing lipstick altogether.  Horst Rechelbacher apparently scared the bejusus out of Ms. Kamali by stating that we ingest liptsick (which is true, to some extent) and therefore we are poisoning ourselves with lead and arsenic and who knows what else.

I did some research, including here, here, and here to find out if Mr. Rechelbacher knew what he was talking about. 

 Because I’m not going to say that I’m a big fan of putting poisonous things on myself on a daily basis.  Monthly, maybe, but daily is a bit much.

I also went here, here, and here to read a bit more from the other side.

My thoughts?

We are exposed to toxins on a daily basis, including from our homes, work, and the environment.  So there is no escaping toxins, really. 

Second, I’m not necessarily a big fan of the FDA, and I do believe that the ingredients in cosmetics should be listed for all to see and that there should be more transparency in that department from the cosmetics industry.

Third, I noticed that almost all of the more “inflammatory” articles were either from sources with a vested interest in people buying their “green” products, or people who are heavily invested in a green lifestyle.  Nothing wrong with a green lifestyle, but some of these people are the same ones who believe that children shouldn’t be vaccinated, which I highly disagree with, so there’s that. 

The consensus seems to be that in a lifetime, a woman will ingest about four pounds of lipstick.  Over a lifetime, not a year, as stated in one of the articles above.

In taking all of this information into account, as well as my love for lipstick, I’m going to say that Ms. Kamali is just slightly overreacting.  I’m not going to tell her to put on some red lipstick because she apparently believes that lipstick is toxic, but man, talk about living in fear.  I’m thinking that she is exposed to more toxins breathing the exhaust-laden New York air on a brisk walk than she is wearing lipstick.

And Mr. Rechelbacher, while technically being correct about what lipstick contains, doesn’t go into the specifics, which are actually very important.  Which is a shame, because I really do love Aveda lipsticks, they smell fantastic. Shame on you, Mr. Rechelbacher.  But I’m not sure it’s enough to get me to stop wearing your lipstick.

Do I trust everything companies and the goverment tell me? No.

Am I already being poisoned by lots of other things, including the air that I breathe? Yes.

Is four pounds over a lifetime all that much? I’m thinking no.

With all the research I’ve done and facts at my disposal, I’m going to pick my poison, in a manner of speaking, and continue wearing lipstick.

Wanna join me?

Apparently, the whole “youth” thing isn’t really all that new, is it?

I don’t know whose definition of “fresh” or “alive” this ad fits, but it sure doesn’t fit mine.  Our friend here looks about ready to eat someone.

This ad, for Rimmel’s 1-2-3 Mascara has been banned in Britain from both television and print. The Advertising Standards Authority believes that even though there is a small disclaimer a the bottom of the ad that states false lashes were used for the photos, Rimmel did not go far enough to warn women that their eyelashes may not quite look like the ones in the  photo.

Rimmel claims that they had to use false eyelashes because, you know, it’s a picture.  And pictures, they aren’t very clear.  The only way for them to effectively show the three possible looks was to enhance the model’s eyelashes.

That, says Glinda, is a load of bollocks.

Pictures these days tend to be very clear indeed, and if the product does what they claim it does, there should have been no need for “enhancement.”

Seriously, though, does anyone really believe advertising any more?  With the advent of Photoshop, I am dubious of any and all makeup claims.  Even if Rimmel hadn’t admitted to the false eyelashes, I still would have looked at the picture and said, “yeah, right.” I also would have said, “why in the world does the model keep progressively opening her mouth?

I’m a deep thinker like that.

via