Obligatory “Wax-On Wax-Off” Headline (for lack of a better one)

I am kind of lazy about waxing myself. I have the fancy professional accoutrements, but never the time, energy or inclination to get myself up on the table for a good old strip-n-rip session. I wax, the hair begins to regrow, I don’t have time to wax and then I can’t stand all the hair. So I whip out the razor in the shower. Because of this, I have never been able to put that old “the more you wax the less you have to” theory to the test.

Intellectually, I understand hair-regrowth patterns. Here’s how I break it down for clients–it’s more complicated than this but it gets the general idea across. Your hair is constantly in different growth patterns. So when you wax for the first time, you are removing hair already at a certain point in its growth, and there is another hair right next to it that is just starting its growth path. This is why hair seems to grow back shockingly fast to first-time waxers, who assume that one wax means no re-growth for 4 weeks. The hair basically needs to be “trained” into same growth pattern, which eventually happens with faithful, regular waxing sessions. Waxing at the right stage of regrowth is when the damage to the hair follicle happens. As the follicle gets damaged, eventually the hair regrowth will be less and less. Hence the need for regular waxing.

By July, I was fed up with the constant wax/shave business that was getting my legs nowhere fast. So I became determined to only wax. Even if my legs got so hairy that you’d confuse me with my Manly Man Husband from the knees down, I would not take a razor to them.

Since I have been razor free for almost two months, I am finally able to test out the theory. My first wax session resulted in fairly fast regrowth, as expected. Probably about a week later the hair was back to being annoying enough for the razor to tempt me. My second waxing session was last week and while I can feel a little fuzz on the leg when I run my hands down it, the hair is not visable, even in sunlight. I think I can get away with this for about another week before I grit my teeth and hold out for the requisite 1/4 inch or until I have the time to pull out the pot again.  I hope I can hold out for 5 – 7 more sessions, which is when I should really begin to see the difference.

An open letter to my hair stylist

Dear Ronie,

I love you with all my heart. Please don’t be angry. I am not cheating. I am just really really curious.

I have held back for close to a year now, but I can no longer resist the urge. I am sorry for not being stronger, but it has been calling me for too long.

If it breaks my heart, I will beg you to mend it. And even if it doesn’t break my heart, I promise I will always come back to you. You have given me some of the best color of my life, and for that I will always return.

Love,

NYCEsthy

PS-I haven’t done it yet, but I will soon. Will take before and after pics!

This is my competition

Did you know that CVS is unrolling a beefed up beauty department called Beauty 360? So far, they have locations in CA, CT and DC. The competition is concerning some estheticians–but it looks like they are dippng a toe in the prestige market and are a more mainstreamed Sephora (if that’s even possible).

That said, a stroll past my local CVS (to be fair, one that is sans Beauty 360), leads me to believe they may need a little help in the marketing department.

The welcoming sign that invites shoppers to "Beauty"

Makes you want to rush to this in-store event

The "item of the week" display... Highlighting with neon orange is an interesting touch

Cintra Wilson fails. Obese mannequins prevail.

Does this make me look fat?

Cintra Wilson took her Critical Shopper column in the NY Times to the new Herald Square J.C. Penney yesterday. And it confirms that she is an asshole.

I don’t have a problem with her hating on the clothes–as the Times’ resident “critical shopper,” she is well within her right to take a gander and not like the options. Though I have to ask, is there any non-poly blend to be found in H&M, New York City’s low-cost paradise? I am old enough to remember when H&M landed in NYC and the glowing praise it received from the media, the lines around the block to get in, the bouncers at the door like a nightclub, with nary a natural fabric in sight, but I digress.

The real meat  (ahem) or her piece is her complete slam of Penney’s core shopper, sniffing at the racks filled with sizes 10 and up, complaining about her near-impossible hunt for a size 2 and, finally, calling the mannequins obese. In the process, she manages to insult droves of women across the United States (NYC women included).

Her “if I were a size 18, I’d be thrilled” quote tells women of a certain proportion that they can only get clothing at places like Penney’s. Which she calls, a few graphs up, a company “encrusted with decades of boring, even traumatically parental, associations.”

But wait, there’s more! “J. C. Penney has always trafficked in knockoffs that aren’t quite up to Canal Street’s illegal standards. It was never ‘get the look for less’ so much as ‘get something vaguely shaped like the designer thing you want, but cut much more conservatively, made in all-petroleum materials, and with a too-similar wannabe logo that announces your inferiority to evil classmates as surely as if you were cursed to be followed around by a tuba section.’”

So, if you are a size 10 or larger, you are cursed to shop at a place where the clothes make you inferior but you’ll be thrilled? Cintra, take your size 2 ass and go home.

According to NY Magazine, she apologized, took it back, took another stab at it, blah blah blah. In the first mea culpa, she called herself a “chubby chaser,” and claimed to love the obese even before she interviewed Beth Ditto. Umm, OK.

Cintra’s reporting landed side-by-side with Guy Trebay’s uber-trend piece about the hipster boys sporting pot-bellys. My friend Mark has a brilliant crit of that on his Critical Condition blog. Perhaps all the editors at Thursday Style have the month off, which explains this week’s particularly shoddy section?

Cintra also takes a swipe at Halston for being the first fancy-pants designer to stoop to the Penney level and create an affordable line for the rest of us. In actuality, the man was a pioneer in the business of fashion (not artistry, business). How many women can afford the real thing? The rest of us unwashed, apparently massive masses need something more affordable. Mass market is “mass” because it is high volume (not because of our girth). Ca-ching.

Product rec: Colorescience

Upon the advise of several esthetician’s, this weekend I went on a hunt for Colorescience, a mineral makeup line that was started by the original founder of Bare Minerals.

I was looking for a mineral line without all the usual talc and potential irritants that are found in the lines out there. After consulting with a few other esthys about the best mineral products for the skin, I decided to take the plunge and dump a few bucks on this pretty expensive line.

So I found a spa that carried them nearby and headed over, picked out my makeup choices (Wild to Mild primer, which is essentially a bronzer, and the Sunforgettable SPF 30 in Almost Clear) and did not bother to read the labels.

The products are beautiful. The bronzer that goes on so smooth that even Manly Man Husband commented on the glide. And the barely there dusting powder gives a nice, natural and glowing sheen. My skin on the whole feels soft and moisturized, which is very different from the way it feels when I apply other mineral brands. My top complaint about mineral makeup is the dryness I feel when I wear it–afterall mineral makeup is pretty much glorifed powder. And since I prefer a dewy look to matte, I am overall pretty happy with how the makeup wears.

The other incredible bonus with Colorescience is their sun protection. I believe they are the only mineral makeup line out there that has the Skin Cancer Foundation’s seal of approval. The line claims to be “very water resistant” and that claim appears to be true (have the salesperson perform the water test with the makeup and you will be impressed). The packaging claims that the SPF level is retained after 80 minutes of water activity. That is more retention than most traditional sunblocks.

But, my goal in purchasing Colorescience was to try a line without irritating ingredients commonly found in mineral makeup lines. And here is my very expensive lesson learned–these esthetician’s, who I do trust, were (kind of) wrong.

The very first ingredient on the Sunforgettable makeup is bismuth oxychloride, which can be a skin irritant and a pore clogger and can aggrivate acne like mad. It is not considered a toxic chemical, but it can make reactive skin go completely bonkers. However, it does give a high luster to cosmetics (that pearlescence sheen), has a good slip and binds very well with the skin. Basically the very things I rave about a paragraph or two above.

Now, here’s why my esthy friends were not completely wrong…  What Colorescience does NOT have in it is talc, which is a cheap filler in loads of mineral lines, and leads to skin dryness and that cakey look.

The cost for this line is pretty expensive. It was around 50 bucks for each product, although the Sunforgettable SPF 30 has a refill cartridge for $25, which is good for two refills. While it is fairly cost-prohibitive, I am happy I have it in time for my long beach weekend. The SPF power is definitely a huge bonus, so I am willing to pay a little extra.

My skin, so far, has reacted fine with the product–no itch or irritation. So, with this, I give Colorescience a product rec. But if you are looking for a line without the potentially irritating ingredients, this is not the one to buy.