Psychotic skincare

I just read this article from The Outline that's going around, and my eyes rolled back so far that I think they're permanently stuck back there. It is not wrong about some things? Sure. There's no such thing as perfect skin; women are disproportionately pressured to improve the condition of their skin; and skincare obsession can become an excuse for hyper-consumption and wealth display (I've actually written about that before). But other parts of the article are, to paraphrase, fucking psychotic--it's the typical backlash that you tend to get against typically feminine consumerism (or feminine pursuits in general). You know, where the misogyny is disguised as some sort of feminism. And I'm saying that as someone who fully acknowledges that there is A LOT of bullshit out there when it comes to beauty marketing.

Anyway, there were too many individual lines that had me groaning to quote them all here, but if one in particular stands out to you, please comment on it below. Or if you agree with some or all of the article--either way, I'd love to hear other people's thoughts! I'm still mulling it all over and sighing.

(Ok, just one. The whole "skin has survived forever, why are we doing stuff to it now?" is a lot like the old "women have been giving birth forever, why do they need hospitals now?" Groan.)

Thoughts on skincare, aging, and indulgence

A post shared by Lyn (brutally honest beauty) (@brutallyhonestbeauty) on Aug 24, 2017 at 9:52am PDT

A recent move from Michigan to Texas (which is my excuse for the prolonged hiatus here) has me thinking a lot of about skincare, beginning with how I need to adjust my usual routine to suit the new climate I'm now living in. Thinking about my goals and preferences when it comes to looking after my skin leads to all sorts of other tangential pondering about skincare in general. For instance, my skin has actually been quite good since I arrived at my new (temporary) home, and yet I'm still motivated to use all sorts of products and to try new things.

And what exactly constitutes "good skin" anyway? Or "good enough" (if such a thing exists)? For instance, I haven't been breaking out much, to the extent that I was a bit surprised to get my period, since I hadn't had my usual harbinger of cystic chin acne this month. So less acne = good, for me, ok. The texture of my skin has also been pretty nice: soft and smooth, pores aren't too enlarged. So I guess those are also things that matter to me for some reason.

On the other hand, I've been noticing lines more, whether or not they are more pronounced than they used to be or it's just because I don't have other issues to distract me from them. In a particularly ridiculous moment, I found myself browsing Instagram for closeups of faces of women younger than me to confirm that the wrinkles under my eyes weren't abnormal.

Skincare is obviously a hobby and a fascination for me, but I don't approach it without a generous amount of ambivalence. When you start looking at skincare products and reading about skincare routines, you realize that if you adhere strictly to much of the advice out there, you'll discover that there is apparently not a single person on the planet whose face doesn't have a flaw to fix. Whatever happened to "normal" skin? We're too oily or too dry--or both. Too much redness or dark spots. Pores are too big or too much acne. Too flaky or too shiny or not shiny ("dewey") enough. Too saggy or not soft enough. Too light or too dark. Too dull and not bright enough. Too many lines or too much puffiness. It's endless. It can be really hard to conclude that your skin is just fine.

Even our old gurus, like Paula Begoun for instance, who used to say that "not everyone needs a moisturizer," are going to try to sell us all moisturizers (and eye creams and essences . . . ). I'm not immune to this. When I was younger, I never used moisturizer, and my skin felt fine. Now I moisturize with different products a couple of times a day. Sure, skin often gets drier as we age, but do I really need all that? Or have I just got used to it? My mother almost never moisturizes, and her skin is neither dry nor oily. Again, remember "normal" skin?

But I have all these products, and they're fun to use (most of the time) so I use them. The pleasure we derive from our beauty routines isn't a bad thing. It's no more frivolous to have this as a hobby than to tinker with cars or knit or play video games. But it's a slippery slope from hobby into luxury and self-care. These are not always bad things either. Getting myself ready for work in the morning could be considered a form of self-care, because I get to sit quietly for 20 or 30 minutes and carry out my routine and start the day in a less stressed and more focused state of mind. But I think there's a difference between that and feeling like my problems can be alleviated with a little consumerism and that if I've had a rough time I deserve to treat myself to a new purchase. (I've written about self-care and consumerism before, and also see this Buzzfeed article about self-care and influencers.)

I try not to judge people who collect things, whether they're Funko dolls or exfoliants. But outside of those people who have the disposable income to collect one of every enticing skincare product, there's definitely some worrying overconsumption happening. Again, I'm not immune or exempt from this--I am quite aware of how much perishable shit I own, because I had to pack it up and move it with me across the country (THREE backups of PC 2% BHA liquid? Really, bitch?). If you follow skincare enthusiasts (or collectors, as you could call them) on Instagram, however, you're likely to be confronted with #shelfies of dozens of products and to see their morning and evening routines consisting of 5-8 products each, which change significantly every day. Again, they're obviously having fun, but seeing that over and over can create the impression that a "proper" skincare routine requires a lot of purchasing.

There are also, of course, the trendy and exorbitantly-priced products and brands that tend to appear regularly in these photos alongside glowing reviews. I've found, nevertheless, that there's little correlation between effectiveness and price when it comes to skincare. Some expensive things are great, and some are terrible. Some cheap things are great, and some are terrible. But the self-care, "treat yourself" mentality suggests that you're doing it better if you buy something luxurious (i.e. pricey) than merely something that's effective and pleasant to use, but cheap. In reality, you can have beautiful, well-cared-for skin (according to whatever definition you choose) even if you only own a handful of affordable products. Say sunscreen, moisturizer, and a serum in the morning, and cleanser, exfoliant, and moisturizer in the evening. Or less. Maybe you don't need to moisturize!

Returning again to that definition of good skin, it's a tricky concept. Most skincare products seem designed to do one of two things: to make skin "clearer" (less red, smoother, smaller pores, fewer pimples) or to reverse/prevent aging (again with the pores, fewer lines, tighter skin, fewer dark spots, etc.). Obviously there is significant overlap between these categories. But I wonder, did you ever notice someone's pores before you got interested in skincare? Did you ever notice your own pores? All faces have pores of varying sizes! Try looking at images of beautiful celebrities that aren't airbrushed to death and allow yourself to feel some relief that porelessness is not an achievable (or desirable!) goal.

Natalie Portman, Hollywood Reporter, May 2015

Saffron Burrows in Mozart in the Jungle

Anti-aging rhetoric is even more insidious and polarizing. (Allure magazine recently made the choice to cut it out.) A lot of the things we try to "fix" with skincare are things that happen naturally and inevitably to our skin as we age. And there are a lot of factors that affect them other than which or how many skincare products you use: genetics, skin type, time spent in the sun, environment, stress, and so on. What's wrong with looking your age anyway? Part of the problem is that it's hard to know exactly what "looking your age" means, because we are now used to seeing celebrities in their 70s who look younger than Audrey Hepburn did when she died at 63, because of all the subtle (or not-so-subtle) clinical procedures they've had done. And increasing use of sunscreen, probably. There's also the gendered/sexist aspect of anti-aging pressure, which tells us that men look better with a few wrinkles and women don't. Women don't get to be rugged. So when I slather on the sunscreen every day, there's a part of me that feels shitty for buying into all of that (I could pretend I'm doing it solely to prevent skin cancer, but let's be real--plus that doesn't explain the rest of my skincare hoard).

So all this rambling thought leaves me wondering why exactly I enjoy playing around with skincare products as much as I do when the whole concept can be so fraught. I have to admit to myself that vanity is a part of it, but I don't think that explains it all, because if I really just wanted to look better, surely I'd learn to style my fucking hair already.

I've narrowed it down to two other things: science and control. I like that skincare is a kind of experiment I can perform on myself. I like learning about all the many ingredients out there and what they can and can't and might do. I'm a researcher by profession and by nature. I especially like debunking the bullshit claims that brands and their devotees make--that's really what got me interested in all of it in the first place (see, again, Paula Begoun).

But another motivation that's been increasingly evident for me is the desire to try to exert control over some aspect of my life. That's something most of us need, and if, like me, you've been on the academic (or any!) job market during in the last decade, you might feel it more than others. I can't control what I will be doing or where I will be living or how I will be living a year or even 6 months from now, most of the time, but maybe I can control what happens to my face. (Maybe I can't. But it's somehow gratifying to try.) This is different from my interest in makeup, which I see as more of a low-stakes, low-energy creative outlet.

Anyway, if you've managed to follow my stream of consciousness here, I'd love to hear your perspective. Do you even give a shit about skincare? (I don't assume that everyone who reads here does.) Why or why not? Are your feelings conflicted at all, like mine clearly are? If so, what is it that bothers you the most about the marketing and conversation and media that surrounds skincare? If you're 100% into the whole skincare thing, what is it about it that fascinates you?

To reference an outdated meme, [my] fave is problematic.

(I'm also open to suggestions for adjusting routines to hotter and/or dryer climates. Ahem.)

Glossier's weird way of approaching beauty bloggers

This article from Racked talks about those strange emails Glossier has sent to bloggers asking us to post about a certain topic, because . . . I have no idea. They are not asking for sponsored posts or even, necessarily, mentions of their products. Just like, "Hey, why don't you write about your routine? Or your eyebrows?" Yeah, thanks, I don't need basic suggestions for subject matter from brands. It's kind of baffling. When asked for more information, they either don't respond, or in my case, send a vague message basically repeating the original request.

If you have a blog, have you got these messages too? Apparently they've stopped sending them when they also realized that they were weird.

How can you tell if something is really on sale?

Disclosure: Affiliate links.

Shitty picture taken with my shitty phone because my shitty computer is in the shop.

Way back when I was a university student in Canada, I had a part time job at a luggage store in the mall. We always had banners hanging from the ceiling that would enrage certain customers, because they said things like:

up to 80% off!

or

60% off! *select items

One brand of luggage we sold was pretty shitty--the largest piece was worth about $40. But it was always "marked down" to that price by something like 60%. Legally that meant that we had to display that shit for a certain amount of time at the "regular" price before it could go "on sale." (I realize the scare quotes are getting excessive, but I think they are warranted here.) So we would display it inconspicuously in some back corner of the store for a few weeks, while I would do my best to politely discourage people from buying it. At the "regular" price, it cost the same as several much better quality options. Finally we would put up a 60% OFF SALE! sign up and mark it down to the proper price--and then repeat the whole process with some identically shitty luggage in a slightly different color.

The point is that even though the "regular" price was kind of bogus and a total rip-off, there were laws in place to prevent us from immediately putting it on the floor at the lower price and calling it a sale. But recently a bunch of American stores have been caught doing exactly that, including Nordstrom Rack, Kohls, J. Crew, Macy's, JC Penney, and Bloomingdales. I don't know if it's that US laws are less strict (though some of these retailers have faced lawsuits), or if the companies just decided to go ahead and engage in this kind of deceptive marketing/pricing because why not. This BuzzFeed article on the problem is quite good.

I suspected something like this was going on with J. Crew Factory, because they send me weekly "40% off! *Prices as marked" emails, and everything is always the same price as usual. (The key word for recognizing an actual sale is "extra," as in "Extra 30% off everything with code NOTSCREWINGYOUTHISTIME." This fake sale pricing seems to be especially a problem in outlet stores.

So the moral is that it's a good idea to always comparison shop and not to be seduced by a big percent off sticker, because chances are these companies will keep trying to fuck us over whenever they can. 

I've been thinking about how this lesson might apply in particular to beauty shopping, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter. One thing that has occurred to me is how much range there is in the "regular price" of drugstore products (thanks to Michelle for reminding me that I'd been meaning to write about this). For instance, I bought the lipstick above, Revlon Super Lustrous in Berry Haute at Target at their regular price of $4.99. Meanwhile, CVS sells the Super Lustrous line for $8.99 a piece. Now, CVS constantly has sales, especially if you have their store card, and right now they have a BOGO 50% off deal on all Revlon products. But even if you bought two of these lipsticks as part of that sale, you'd still be spending more than you would at Target--and they just suckered me you into buying two things instead of one. It may just be pricing based on volume, so that Target sells more product than CVS and therefore can lower the price (though my local CVS is always packed with college women and most things are sold out--the pricing seems to be national). Another problem with simply concluding that one should always shop at Target (or the equivalent) and never at CVS (or the equivalent) occurs if you are like me and live in a city center and have a hard time getting out to the suburbs where all the big box stores are. Maybe that extra few bucks is worth the hour you'd have to spend on the bus or the extra gas or whatever.

I'll stop rambling now and ask you to add whatever thoughts you have in the comments. As usual, I advise you to comparison shop and be suspicious of marketing. And I always try to be sure that when I post about a deal on here, it's an actual deal, but always feel free to point out if there's ever anything shifty going on. 

(An aside: Berry Haute looks like a pretty purple in the bullet, but on my lips it turns into a much less interesting pinky-mauve. And it's not as moisturizing as Cherries in the Snow. Not a bad lipstick, but still a little womp womp.)

Is your 3 or 4 or 5-free nail polish really free?

By now you've probably read the NYT article about nail salon and human trafficking/exploitation (if not, get on it). There's been lots of interesting discussion stemming from the article as well. I would recommend, as usual, skipping the Jezebel commentary on the topic, in which the author goes apeshit in the comments - as she's been doing in the comments of other articles, including ones she didn't even write herself (I am hesitant to link from here to such ridiculous antics, but let me know if you want some directions to the train wreck). But Wondegondigo has a thoughtful discussion, for example.

As part of describing the poor working conditions of salon employees, a link in the NYT article pointed to a study done in 2012 on 3(+)-free nail polishes that showed that many of them still included the chemicals that they were supposedly free from (including formaldehyde, DBP, and toulene). In fact:

"Toluene was found more frequently, and in higher concentrations in products with toxic-trio related claims than in traditional products. Ten of the twelve products with “toluene-free” claims did, in fact, contain toluene."

You know that I am not overly concerned about "chemicals," but if these particular ingredients, which do pose potential health risks when used frequently or in the wrong way, are a concern for you, well . . . maybe you should still be concerned. Or you should be extra careful to paint your nail in a very well-ventilated space.

It was nice to see that the Zoya they tested in that study did turn out to actually be 3-free, so I can blissfully go on loving my Zoyas.

Zoya Dream

L'Oreal's FTC settlement for deceptive advertising of the Youth Code/Génefique lines (from Truth in Advertising)

I hope we all assume that most skincare advertising claims are bullshit of some kind or another, but I guess this goes beyond slippery, confusing marketing language into actual deception. A jar of goop that can manipulate your genes? I seriously hope not. Or if so, I would like to rub the gene for being able to do math on my face or find some lotion that will kill my hereditary anxiety.

Oh, and L'Oreal doesn't have to pay a cent as the result of this settlement, despite having made well over a billion dollars from selling this crap.

Not convinced

I know I said I was going to post something more substantial, and I'm working on it, but in the meantime how about something ridiculous? Look at this Aveeno ad featuring some kind of photoshopped Frankenstein monster with Jennifer Aniston's face. It's on the back cover of an Allure magazine I have, not even hidden subtly somewhere in the middle of the magazine like an abomination of this sort should have been. I'd hazard a bet that that is not Aniston's actual body. HER HEAD IS THE SAME HEIGHT AS HER ENTIRE TORSO. And the hair doesn't appear to belong to the same person, either, which is not ideal when you're dealing with a celebrity who is known for her hair. The fingers are freaky, and whoever this is was clearly not actually sitting on that cushion - either that or she is made of colorful air - because there is no indentation in it. Are the digital photo people not even trying anymore? Are they severely underpaid and overworked? I don't get it.

So if this is what happens to you when you rub that lotion on yourself, I think I'll pass.

Why BB Cream is Bullshit (from Beauty and the Bullshit)

Yay, Rowena is back and blogging. One of my very favorite blogs. Here she explains why labeling products as BB creams (or CC or whatever) is marketing bullshit.

Is there any benefit to using sulfate-free shampoo?

Lots of people swear by sulfate-free shampoo for a variety of reasons: it's better for dry hair, it's better for curly hair, it's better for color-treated hair, it's "healthier", etc. According to The Beauty Brains, tests show that sulfate-free shampoos don't make a difference for hair, but if you have very sensitive skin, they might be irritating. (If you've been using regular shampoos all this time with no problems, though, your sensitive skin is probably fine with them). At that link, they also mention products that might actual help your hair color resist fading. Useful!

Guest post from Savannah Scorpion: "Pigmented" is a Bullshit Marketing Term

Hello!

I am Savannah Scorpion, beauty junkie and retail drone. I guest post periodically to give y'all an insider perspective on expensive beauty bullshit. It's been a few months since I've posted, chiefly because I have been doing some job-hunting. One of the fun things about working in retail is that I've gone thorough a more rigorous hiring process than most politicians--for significantly less money.

I'm here to talk about a word that I see bandied about a lot in the beauty industry:

Pigmented.

One of the biggest trends that I have noticed is how beauty companies talk about pigmentation. More expensive brands love to talk about how intensely/richly/sensuously pigmented their products are--as if mass brands have low quality pigments.

Let's break through the bullshit.

I went to an amazing money pit called art school. Pigment is discussed in every visual arts class. Pigments are the material used to make colors. However, your pigments are pretty useless if you don't have fillers, binders, oils, waxes and other detritus, so that you can apply the pigment to whatever surface you are working on.

Art students do not use the most pigmented paints and pencils right off the bat, because using such products is a waste of money when you are learning basic techniques. The more pigmented products are more difficult to work with, and are meant to be used by artists who have developed their own style.

The came concept can be applied to cosmetics--with a major exception:

Expensive products do not always have the best pigments. NYX Cosmetics and Wet N Wild carry some very pigmented products [Ed. Note: Also, remember this?]. Some Urban Decay eyeliners are patchy as fuck, and in my opinion, Zero, their basic black pencil, is some mediocre smeary bullshit.

Pros will use any product that works--and I've seen many a makeup kit filled with products from Maybelline, Wet N Wild, and Revlon. Now, artists will also use brands with a reputation for their intense pigments, such as MAC, NARS, and MUFE. Keep in mind:

They are pros. Makeup artists have years of experience and if they are working on a film, TV show, or theatrical production, they aren't paying for their products out of pocket.

And:

Super-pigmented products are finicky as hell to work with. I recently purchased a mini kit of Obsessive Compulsive Cosmetics Lip Tars (Anime/NSFW/Black Dahlia/Ophelia), and while I definitely enjoy them, there's a definite learning curve to applying the lip colors, and if you don't put a primer underneath, they can smear all over the place. I also purchased a NARS blush (Exhibit A, from the Guy Bourdin collection), which is a very bright deep coral-red, that can go from "70's disco goddess" to "clown" if you over-apply even the tiniest bit. I spent plenty of time as a youngster working with sheer blushes from mass brands before I worked with more intensely pigmented blushes.

If you are new to makeup, I would not recommend spending a lot of money buying expensive "pigmented" products. Practice with more accessible drugstore products.

If you feel ready to start experimenting with products that have higher pigmentation ratios, invest in quality brushes, and use a very light hand.

So now Butter London used an ethnic slur as the name of a nail polish?

What is with these companies? If you're an American business using faux-Britishisms to market your products even though clearly no one working for your company actually understands English slang, maybe you should fucking hire someone to spend 5 minutes googling your cutesy product names. (You can read more about it here, if you're interested.)

The do seem to have immediately discontinued sales of the product as soon as it launched and people complained, so that's something. No attempts at defending it, as far as I can tell.

Will leaving conditioner on your hair longer make it work better? (from The Beauty Brains)

Apparently not (scroll down). I have to admit this sort of blew my mind. My whole shower routine is built around leaving the conditioner on my hair for the maximum amount of time. But when you think about it, it's pretty obvious. Conditioner doesn't actually absorb into your hair; it just coats it. (Unless it's coconut oil, in which case it needs to stay on for longer than your typical shower.) So the most important thing is that you spread the conditioner evenly throughout your hair (or at least the part you want to condition), not that you let it sit.

Sometimes you just absorb that folk wisdom/marketing shit and don't question it. Oops.

"Cosmetic Marketing and BFF Style" from Reluctant Femme

This is a great post about the weirdly fierce loyalty some companies inspire in people. Seriously, have you ever visited the Facebook page of a cosmetics company? Especially a sort of "cult" one, like The Balm or Zoya or something.* Fans of the company will leap to its defense in response to any criticism. "Well, if you think that, then you aren't a REAL FAN of this makeup company that is trying to get you to buy things, anyway." Shit like that. Well, not quite like that. But it's somehow creepy and it always baffles me. Why should I be loyal to a company if their products or service disappoint me?  The products and services are the things that the company give me. That's their side of the relationship. Do these people really think they have a special friendship with corporations? That they love them back? It benefits them if you think that, but most companies don't care about your feelings, just your money. Just understand and accept that and you'll be happier. Be pleasantly surprised if they behave ethically or compassionately. And make friends with actual people.

*Don't get me started on the weirdness of companies whose PR or social media people give their fans cutesy nicknames in the style of Gaga's little monsters. Shudder.

Look, it's Jennifer Lawrence wearing no makeup again! Not. (From The Gloss)

'Some media outlets are calling this is a “no makeup campaign,” and we’re here to tell you that is “obviously stupid.” While, yes, she certainly appears to be wearing less than last time around, no one sits in front of a camera for a fashion campaign without a face full of product.' 

Read more. 

(But The Gloss isn't silly, unlike some beauty publications.)

Nice package! (Or: At least Benefit is upfront about what you're paying for)

You're paying extra for the sexy package, I mean.

Tricky tricky! Which package contains more product? (Eye makeup edition)

Okay, I've got another one for you. This is probably easy to guess, because I have only two products to show you. But let's take a closer look to see how makeup companies use packaging tricks to make you think you're getting more than you are.

Which one of these containers holds more product?

Left: Maybelline Color Tattoo cream eyeshadow; Right: NYX Eyeshadow base

I'm sure you guessed that the NYX pot holds more, because it looks smaller, and you know I'm talking about tricky packaging. If you have ever held these two products in your hands, you will know that not only does the Maybelline pot look larger, it feels much, much heavier. I wish I had a postal scale to weight these, but it's at least twice as heavy. That's because the Maybelline pot is glass and the NYX one is plastic. So by looking at the top of the containers and even picking them up, the Maybelline product seems bigger. That's why you really have to look at the label to understand the amount of product you're getting and its value.

The Maybelline product contains 4 g and the NYX one contains 7 g. It's not just the material the pots are made from that makes you think the first one is more generous - it's also the design of the package. The Maybelline pot has a wider diameter, and both pots are about the same height. But check this out:

Again, Maybelline on the left, NYX on the right.

While the well that the NYX product is in goes halfway to the base of the pot, the Maybelline product only starts at the bottom of the lid. If you look at the Maybelline pot from the side, you can't see any product at all. That's just a big chunk of glass with some shit sitting on top of it! This is a big, bulky pot that is not convenient to store or carry around, designed that way simply to make you feel like you're getting your money's worth. If you stick a pin into each product, it goes down about 3 mm into the Maybelline shadow and at least 11 mm into the NYX base.

These are different types of product, sure, but they both cost $7. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy the Color Tattoo (I happen to like it), but just be aware of how the packaging is designed to fool you, and how much product you're actually getting for your $7. They are nice little eyeshadows, but they are not generous portions. Tricky tricky!

(See the last installment of this series, on nail polish, here.)

What do you think? Would you have been fooled/surprised by these pots?

Shitty makeup review from xoVain is called out by commenters (but they don't say anything about the "everything expensive is better" bullshit)

See, this is what I was talking about! First of all, the writer goes off on a rant about how more expensive products are better and you won't find anything as good at the drugstore and don't even bother trying to tell her otherwise, la la la la la not listening! She actually says, "No. Stop. Don’t. You’re not going to win this one, I don’t care how many upvotes you get." Plus a lot of nonsense about drugstore makeup being full of "fillers" etc. Um.

How to tell when beauty "blogs" are just trying to sell you shit (even if it's terrible)

Has anyone checked out xoJane's new spin-off, xoVain? (No links, because I try not to link to things I don't really like, but you've heard about googling, I presume.) I was interested to see what it was like, because, although I'm not a big fan of xoJane, it seems like a tell-it-like-it-is sort of site, and so I thought maybe their beauty blog would be low-bullshit.

Wrong.