A London salon is offering up some outrageous options in the "down there" department
From Alex Brownsell, the proprietor of London's trendy "Bleach" salon -- and the stylist who brought us candy-colored dipped ends -- comes the latest craze in hair care … the "downstairs dye."
According to New York magazine, the inspiration for the avant-garde service was Betty Beauty, "an at-home coloring treatment for your bikini area (to cover grays)," which she and her team decided to take one-step further.
"It's a bit like Marmite," Brownsell told the magazine about the dye job's love it or leave it appeal. "We put it on the menu for a bit of fun but it's getting to be quite popular, especially because of the summer. I've had it done, a few of our stylists have had it done, loads of my friends have been in and had it done. We've got people coming in just for a wax that are seeing it, thinking about it, and then coming in the next time asking for it. Every one of my friends who has had it done has come in for a second go."
The heart-shape is very popular, as are the leopard print landing strip and tie-dye pattern. All this, thanks to the salon's "over-qualified waxer," Chelsea.
Brownsell explains; "First you pick the shape you want — a triangle, strip, heart — anything like that. Then Chelsea will paint the area in the shape, you don’t actually dye all of it. It is then bleached, left on for ten to fifteen minutes, then wiped off and a secondary color is applied. This is a stain and only takes two minutes. Then Chelsea takes that off and does the waxing procedure as normal. It's really quick."
And, soon, you may not have to wing on over to London to have the procedure done. Brownsell is planning to open a salon in New York by year's end. Although, she's not sure she'll have this specific service on the menu. "I think we’ll just do hair, unless there's a demand for the downstairs dye. I don't think I could do it though. I'd have to take Chelsea."
Would you be up for a "downstairs dye" or do you prefer to keep your bikini area more mainstream?
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Do NOT Follow These Celebrity Beauty Tips
Surprise! Being an actress doesn't make you a beauty expert in the slightest
In our celebrity-obsessed culture, we put stars on pedestals and think they can do no wrong. GOOP-y Gwynneth becomes a self-professed expert on everything from diet and health to outrageously expensive tee-shirts, Snooki offers up weight loss tips and we're always reading about what makeup products celebs (no matter how D-list) keep in their handbags.
Guess what? Being famous for acting, singing or being drunk doesn't make you an expert on anything but acting, singing or, well, you get the drift.
That's what makes this compendium of actress-proffered beauty tips so amusing. Styleist compiled a bunch of celebrity beauty blunders that make for a good chuckle.
For instance, both the aforementioned GOOP and model Giselle Bundchen don't think there's anything wrong with spending unprotected time in the sun. About SPF, the model famously said, "I cannot put this poison on my skin. I do not use anything synthetic."
Snooki's little gem is a doozy. In her best-selling (how is that possible) book, "Confessions of a Guidette," the diminutive new mom revealed that she's used kitty litter as an exfoliant. Why she'd choose that over, say, salt or baking soda if she didn't have an actual exfoliant handy is mind-boggling.
Sandra Bullock, like many of us, buys into the "Preparation H" for reducing undereye swelling, but there's been zero scientific proof that this hemorrhoid cream really works for anything other than what it's intended for.
And, perhaps the biggest gaffe of them all comes to us courtesy of Taylor Swift who admits to the following; “I once used a Sharpie as eyeliner in an airplane bathroom because I didn’t have any with me.” Not too swift of an idea.
So, remember, celebrities might be pretty to look at on screen or stage or magazine cover but that does not make them bastions of what's good and true in the beauty (or any other) realm.
In our celebrity-obsessed culture, we put stars on pedestals and think they can do no wrong. GOOP-y Gwynneth becomes a self-professed expert on everything from diet and health to outrageously expensive tee-shirts, Snooki offers up weight loss tips and we're always reading about what makeup products celebs (no matter how D-list) keep in their handbags.
Guess what? Being famous for acting, singing or being drunk doesn't make you an expert on anything but acting, singing or, well, you get the drift.
That's what makes this compendium of actress-proffered beauty tips so amusing. Styleist compiled a bunch of celebrity beauty blunders that make for a good chuckle.
For instance, both the aforementioned GOOP and model Giselle Bundchen don't think there's anything wrong with spending unprotected time in the sun. About SPF, the model famously said, "I cannot put this poison on my skin. I do not use anything synthetic."
Snooki's little gem is a doozy. In her best-selling (how is that possible) book, "Confessions of a Guidette," the diminutive new mom revealed that she's used kitty litter as an exfoliant. Why she'd choose that over, say, salt or baking soda if she didn't have an actual exfoliant handy is mind-boggling.
Sandra Bullock, like many of us, buys into the "Preparation H" for reducing undereye swelling, but there's been zero scientific proof that this hemorrhoid cream really works for anything other than what it's intended for.
And, perhaps the biggest gaffe of them all comes to us courtesy of Taylor Swift who admits to the following; “I once used a Sharpie as eyeliner in an airplane bathroom because I didn’t have any with me.” Not too swift of an idea.
So, remember, celebrities might be pretty to look at on screen or stage or magazine cover but that does not make them bastions of what's good and true in the beauty (or any other) realm.
Are Vitamins and Supplements Bad For You?
A noted physician has waged war on the vitamin industry
"If you take large quantities of vitamin A, vitamin E, beta carotene [or] selenium, you increase your risk of cancer, risk of heart disease, and you could shorten your life," Dr. Paul Offit, a researcher at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia says. And, he means business.
Offit, who's best known to us non-scientist types as the doctor who's been defending vaccines from naysayer activists like Jenny McCarthy (who believes there's a link between them and autism), has written a new book called, "Do You Believe in Magic? The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine" and he's determined to make people stand up and take notice of his findings.
At issue is how much we all seek a magic bullet to keep us healthy. This excerpt from an interview he gave The Guardian offers insight into his rationale as to why we don't need to take vitamins.
"You need vitamins to convert food into energy. The question is how best to get them. Most people who eat a reasonable diet will get everything they need in the food that they eat. But there are some people who have special diets – for example vegans or those who live in climates where it's never sunny – who would benefit from supplemental vitamins. But, for the most part, we get what we need in foods.
Other people think: “Because I'm not sure I'm getting all my vitamins, let me just take a multivitamin every day” – which is OK. Multivitamins contain at or about the recommended dose of vitamins for that day. But then there are some people who believe that more is better – that by taking large quantities of daily vitamins they will do even better, live even longer and decrease the risk of cancer or heart disease. But in fact, many studies have shown that the exact opposite is true – that if you choose to take these large quantities of excess vitamins, then you increase risk of cancer and heart disease and shorten your life."
Offit maintains that we all think that vitamins can't possibly be bad for us when they're supposed to be fundamentally healthy. We, according to the doctor, are wrong.
"Look at the root of the word: 'Vita' means life. I think people can't imagine you could ever get too much of a good thing. But the second thing is that this industry is very good at projecting the idea that this product lives under an untouchable halo. It’s a matter of perception. If you go into a General Nutrition Center, you can get a preparation, which contains 3,333% of the recommended daily allowance of Vitamin E. In fact, that's a typical Vitamin E preparation that's available. If you open up the bottle and take out one capsule, you'll find that it's smaller than an almond. And, in fact, almonds are a good source of Vitamin E. One almond has about 2% of the recommended daily allowance. But to get to 33 times the daily-recommended allowance, you would need to eat about 1,700 almonds – or about 17 pounds of almonds.
And when you do things like this, when you take 33 times the recommended daily allowance of Vitamin E, you are messing around with Mother Nature. I think if people saw that one capsule as 1,700 almonds, they would be hesitant to take it. But they don't see it that way."
Of course, as with any such hot button issue, this book -- and the press he's been doing to support it -- has many supporters and detractors. We are programmed to believe what we hear on the news, read in magazines and to follow our physicians' recommendations, so many of us simply do as we're told without questioning it. Then, we hear something utterly contrary to what we've bought as gospel and it sends us for a loop.
What do you think of Dr. Offit's premise? Do you take vitamins and supplements? Will you continue to do so without giving it any further thought or has this argument created some doubt?
"If you take large quantities of vitamin A, vitamin E, beta carotene [or] selenium, you increase your risk of cancer, risk of heart disease, and you could shorten your life," Dr. Paul Offit, a researcher at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia says. And, he means business.
Offit, who's best known to us non-scientist types as the doctor who's been defending vaccines from naysayer activists like Jenny McCarthy (who believes there's a link between them and autism), has written a new book called, "Do You Believe in Magic? The Sense and Nonsense of Alternative Medicine" and he's determined to make people stand up and take notice of his findings.
At issue is how much we all seek a magic bullet to keep us healthy. This excerpt from an interview he gave The Guardian offers insight into his rationale as to why we don't need to take vitamins.
"You need vitamins to convert food into energy. The question is how best to get them. Most people who eat a reasonable diet will get everything they need in the food that they eat. But there are some people who have special diets – for example vegans or those who live in climates where it's never sunny – who would benefit from supplemental vitamins. But, for the most part, we get what we need in foods.
Other people think: “Because I'm not sure I'm getting all my vitamins, let me just take a multivitamin every day” – which is OK. Multivitamins contain at or about the recommended dose of vitamins for that day. But then there are some people who believe that more is better – that by taking large quantities of daily vitamins they will do even better, live even longer and decrease the risk of cancer or heart disease. But in fact, many studies have shown that the exact opposite is true – that if you choose to take these large quantities of excess vitamins, then you increase risk of cancer and heart disease and shorten your life."
Offit maintains that we all think that vitamins can't possibly be bad for us when they're supposed to be fundamentally healthy. We, according to the doctor, are wrong.
"Look at the root of the word: 'Vita' means life. I think people can't imagine you could ever get too much of a good thing. But the second thing is that this industry is very good at projecting the idea that this product lives under an untouchable halo. It’s a matter of perception. If you go into a General Nutrition Center, you can get a preparation, which contains 3,333% of the recommended daily allowance of Vitamin E. In fact, that's a typical Vitamin E preparation that's available. If you open up the bottle and take out one capsule, you'll find that it's smaller than an almond. And, in fact, almonds are a good source of Vitamin E. One almond has about 2% of the recommended daily allowance. But to get to 33 times the daily-recommended allowance, you would need to eat about 1,700 almonds – or about 17 pounds of almonds.
And when you do things like this, when you take 33 times the recommended daily allowance of Vitamin E, you are messing around with Mother Nature. I think if people saw that one capsule as 1,700 almonds, they would be hesitant to take it. But they don't see it that way."
Of course, as with any such hot button issue, this book -- and the press he's been doing to support it -- has many supporters and detractors. We are programmed to believe what we hear on the news, read in magazines and to follow our physicians' recommendations, so many of us simply do as we're told without questioning it. Then, we hear something utterly contrary to what we've bought as gospel and it sends us for a loop.
What do you think of Dr. Offit's premise? Do you take vitamins and supplements? Will you continue to do so without giving it any further thought or has this argument created some doubt?
Men vs. Women: Who Takes Longer to Get Ready in The Morning?
The results of a new poll may surprise you -- and provide you with some much-needed ammo
It's a stereotype as old as "Father Knows Best;" Women take forever to get ready. Right? You've seen the scenario countless times …
[Interior hallway; early evening]
Jim: "Hi Mr. Smith, is Jill ready for the dance?"
Mr. Smith: "Why, no son, (chuckle, wink) she's still upstairs putting on her face, why don't we go into the den and stare awkwardly at each other until she manages to extricate herself from her vanity table."
[Cue: laugh track]
Yuk, yuk, YUCK.
The good thing about stereotypes -- the great thing actually -- is when they're proven to be nothing but, well, stereotypes, myopic, one-sided, errant views of something. And, for today's purposes, we'd like nothing more than to shatter the one that we tender-sweet young things take an inordinate amount of time getting "ready."
According to a joint study conducted by The Huffington Post and YouGov, designed to find out once and for all which sex takes longer prepping to leave the house, it turns out that both men and women primp for exactly the same amount of time. (That sound you hear is me gloating in my curlers.)
READ: New Study Says You'd Rather Look Cute for Your Girlfriends Than Your Guy
1,000 American adults were polled to see how long they preen before leaving for the day and "both 52 percent of men and 52 percent of women said it took them 10-30 minutes." The disparity only widened when it came to grooming for a night out which saw the numbers shift slightly. (58 percent of men and 42 percent of women take 10-30 minutes to prep, while 42 percent of women took more than half an hour -- but, hey, you try doing a decent smoky eye and flat ironing your hair in the time in takes to apply some nasty-smelling Axe.)
So, next time some (your?) dude gives you grief about having to wait for you to alight from your boudoir at long last, I'd like you to shoot him this link or, at the very least, point out that his nose hairs could use some trimming.
READ: 12 Hair and Makeup Looks Men Hate
[Interior hallway; early evening]
Jim: "Hi Mr. Smith, is Jill ready for the dance?"
Mr. Smith: "Why, no son, (chuckle, wink) she's still upstairs putting on her face, why don't we go into the den and stare awkwardly at each other until she manages to extricate herself from her vanity table."
[Cue: laugh track]
Yuk, yuk, YUCK.
The good thing about stereotypes -- the great thing actually -- is when they're proven to be nothing but, well, stereotypes, myopic, one-sided, errant views of something. And, for today's purposes, we'd like nothing more than to shatter the one that we tender-sweet young things take an inordinate amount of time getting "ready."
According to a joint study conducted by The Huffington Post and YouGov, designed to find out once and for all which sex takes longer prepping to leave the house, it turns out that both men and women primp for exactly the same amount of time. (That sound you hear is me gloating in my curlers.)
READ: New Study Says You'd Rather Look Cute for Your Girlfriends Than Your Guy
1,000 American adults were polled to see how long they preen before leaving for the day and "both 52 percent of men and 52 percent of women said it took them 10-30 minutes." The disparity only widened when it came to grooming for a night out which saw the numbers shift slightly. (58 percent of men and 42 percent of women take 10-30 minutes to prep, while 42 percent of women took more than half an hour -- but, hey, you try doing a decent smoky eye and flat ironing your hair in the time in takes to apply some nasty-smelling Axe.)
So, next time some (your?) dude gives you grief about having to wait for you to alight from your boudoir at long last, I'd like you to shoot him this link or, at the very least, point out that his nose hairs could use some trimming.
READ: 12 Hair and Makeup Looks Men Hate
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)