Brightest Bulb In the Box: Beauty for Critical Minds

Vitamin E as a treatment for scar tissue is a tale as old as time. Sadly, it's no more based on reality than turning into a hairy monster because you were mean to a witch. Despite the damning evidence that you probably should not put Vitamin E on a scar, this myth continues to bounce around, particularly on sites that advocate for home remedies and on sites about body piercing and modification.

Before I start, I want to clarify that there is nothing wrong with using a cosmetic product that contains Vitamin E. I am specifically debunking the idea that you should be putting Vitamin E on scar tissue. Additionally, although post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation is colloquially referred to as "acne scarring", it is not actually a scar and there is no evidence that putting Vitamin E on hyperpigmentation is anything put benign.

What Are We Talking About?

So, what the hell is Vitamin E, anyways? In general, vitamins are organic compounds that the human body requires. (This contrasts with minerals, like calcium or potassium, which may also be required, but are inorganic.) Vitamin E is the name for eight different fat-soluble compounds, four of which are tocopherols and four of which are tocotrienols.

Alpha-tocopherol
Image Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tocopherol,_alpha-.svg

When Vitamin E is added to topical cosmetics, it is usually in the form of tocopherol acetate. (Tocopheryl linoleate and tocopheryl nicotinate are also used cosmetically.) A wide variety of skincare companies make products featuring Vitamin E, including the Body Shop and Malin + Goetz, where it is typically touted as an antioxidant.

Secondly, what is a scar? I've written about scar tissue in more depth here, but a quick-as-a-motherfucker review: A scar is the fibrous tissue that your body may produce post-injury.

Why Do People Think Vitamin E On Scar Tissue is a Good Idea?

According to Baumann and Spencer (1999), "Since the discovery that vitamin E is the major lipid soluble antioxidant in skin, this substance has been tried for the treatment of almost every type of skin lesion imaginable." In other words, part of the craze is just because it's there. And, like, antioxidants and stuff.

However, as with many home remedies, there is some scientific reasoning behind the remedy.

Most notably, in vitro evidence shows that Vitamin E inhibits fibroblasts and keratocytes in both humans and rabbits. In particular, Vitamin E increases the levels of a cytokine called basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), which inhibits collagen production, an important part of scar formation. 'Bingo bango!' thought home remedy advocates. 'Vitamin E equals less collagen scar formation!'

Fibroblasts
Image Source: http://crm.nih.gov/stemcell_types/ESC_iPSC/images/fibroblast_D2.jpg

And that would seem true, if we didn't have any other evidence.

In vitro experiments, or "test tube experiments", which take place when you isolate a cell or tissue culture from the organism at hand. They are awesome because they let us look a lots of tiny parts individually without getting distracted by a bunch of irrelevant stuff. It's simple and an essential part of biological science.

But here's the thing: being able to predict the levels of bFGF in a petri dish don't always mean a crapload when what we really want is to extrapolate and talk about a big, honking, on-a-living-body scar. That's why in vivo evidence on an actual set of humans is so important when determining the efficacy of cosmetics ingredients.

Why Is This Actually a Terrible Choice?

We do, in fact, have that in vivo evidence.

Vitamin E, when applied topically to scar tissue, does not improve scar healing. Indeed, it actually results in a pretty worrisome number of minor but troublesome side-effects.

Jenkins and colleagues (1986) tracked 159 burn victims for one year. Participants were randomly assigned to be treated using a Vitamin E cream, a topical steroid cream, or a base cream containing nothing of note. The researchers assessed range of motion, scar thickness, change in graft size, and ultimate cosmetic appearance of the scar. They found no effects of either the topical steroid or the Vitamin E on any of their assessed factors and concluded that neither treatment was effective at reducing scar formation. What's more, 20% of those receiving the Vitamin E treatment reported some form of adverse side effects as a result of the application.

A later double-blind study by Baumann and Spencer (1999) had similar results. Skin cancer patients who had undergone surgery to remove their lesions were given two ointments labeled A and B, one of which contained Aquaphor, a traditional emollient, and one of which contained Aquaphor mixed with vitamin E. Scars were then randomly divided into part A and B. Participants were instructed to put Ointment A on part A of the scar and the Ointment B on part B of the scar twice daily for 4 weeks. Scar appearance was independently assessed by the patient, the physician, and a trained investigator. Instead of finding a beneficial effect of the Vitamin E on scar tissue, researchers concluded that "the application of topical vitamin E may actually be detrimental to the cosmetic appearance of a scar." Furthermore, 33% of the participants developed contact dermatitis, a form of skin inflammation, as a result of the Vitamin E exposure.

Image Source: http://healthpsych.psy.vanderbilt.edu/2010/VitamineE_files/image002.png

Zurada, Krigel, and Davis (2006) add that even the in vitro justification for Vitamin E on scar tissue may be flawed. They note, "The use of vitamin E in scar management has other theoretic limitations. Because of its ability to inhibit collagen synthesis, the use of vitamin E early in scar therapy may reduce scar tensile strength and, hence, lead to the development of widened scars and even wound dehiscence."

If the Evidence Isn't There, Why Does This Rumor Keep Showing Up?

In my opinion, part of the reason this home remedy refuses to die is because people cannot run a double-blind experiment on themselves... but scars do fade, no matter what you put on them. If someone hears about Vitamin E, uses it, and ends up with a faded a scar, even if it had nothing to do with the Vitamin E, they might continue to recommend it.

This is one of the reasons it is so important to check out what the scientific literature says on an ingredient, rather than relying on user testimonials.

I originally got a black Sumita eyeliner from Birchbox in May 2013. I was really impressed with the brand's creamy texture, which reminded me of the Urban Decay 24/7 pencil liners. However, in a world of near-infinite 'pretty darn good' black pencil liners, even the softest, most pigmented black doesn't get my heart rate pumping.

Do you know what does?

Chartreuse.

The Sumita eyeliners retail for a downright-paltry $11 each. They're pretty basic, but I think the packaging looks nice, especially for the price. There's some floral-y squiggles on there. I can appreciate that. They're also not too difficult to sharpen, even though they are quite soft and smooth.

Ziba is a yellow-y green shade. I find that it swatches well, but, on my eyes, it takes a few passes to really build up intensity, especially if it is applied over heavy eyeshadow looks.

Once you get it on, though, it's not going anywhere. Pass the makeup remover, guys.

Here's how the Sumita Eye Pencil in Ziba looks on my face:

Sorry about the clumpy lashes. I was trying a lash primer and it was not a success.

The Sumita Color Contrast Eyeliners retail for a super reasonable $11 for 0.06oz, or $183.33 per ounce. For comparison, Urban Decay's 24/7 Pencil Liners retail for $20 for 0.04oz, or $500 per ounce. Given the pretty low cost and good quality, I definitely plan on trying out other Sumita products in the future.

Now I just need a liquid liner in this color...

Chic Week (or "Spring Social", depending on whether you prefer rhyming or alliteration) kicked off for VIB Rouge today. For those of you who, like me, live prohibitively far from an actual Sephora, you're probably taking advantage of your 15% discount with some good, old-fashioned online shopping.

Image Source: http://www.temptalia.com/sephora-15-coupon-code-springs-hottest-ticket

If you do online shopping and are not already signed up for Ebates, you should probably remedy that immediately. It's a cashback service that takes money for "referring" you to a store, and passes over a percentage of that profit to you. (My referral link is here, if you are interested.) Concurrent with Chic Week, Ebates is having a "Luxury Week" with double cash back on "luxury" stores. Sephora is at 8% cash back right now. (Sephora is frequently at 8% cash back, so it's not really "double", but it's pretty darn good either way.)

Our math question of the day is what are you actually saving when you stack these discounts? Because the 8% total is off of the already discounted price, you are saving 21.2%. You are paying 78.2% retail price.

That means if you are buying $300 worth of stuff, you are spending $234.60.

If you buy $100 worth of stuff, you are spending $78.20.

If you buy $50 worth of stuff, you are spending $39.10.

Note that because this saving is including what you get back from Ebates, you'll have a higher total in your cart (plus, like, tax and stuff), but you will get some of that money back.

Easy math, but a good reminder for anyone who is weighing their purchases this week.

Chic Week runs March 30 - April 11 for VIB Rouge. It starts later for VIB and Beauty Insiders, although I can't seem to find the exact dates. If you know, let me know too!

I'm on a new quest: the perfect powder contour. Although Illamasqua Cream Pigment in Hollow is serving me well, I generally prefer packing on powder products over my foundation. NYX Blush in Taupe is a lovely contour color, but the packaging falls apart as soon as I look at it, and I'm having profound problems with having to constantly scrape off a thick layer of grease that just kills the product's pigmentation. It's acceptable for a drugstore pricepoint, but I would gladly pay a premium to bypass its pain-in-the-ass qualities.

Enter Dolce and Gabbana's Blush in Tan. After reading a boatload of raves, I decided to take the $45 plunge.

If there is one thing you can say about high end brands, they know how to make you feel fancy. This blush is encased in a velveteen snuggie in case it gets cold at night.

The packaging is gold and very shiny. Hey look! It's me!

It comes packaged with a snazzy mirror and a small brush. The brush isn't a tragedy, but you're not going to be able to effectively contour with it. It's probably a little more handy for blushes that you would use as a traditional blush, but anyone who's paying more that forty bucks for a blush probably owns a much better blush brush already.

As you can probably see, the color is an ashy medium brown. It looks a little dramatic in the pan, but it applies really beautifully. A single swipe of color is quite sheer, but you can build it up to be as intense as you would like.

Although the color is much cooler than any bronzer you might find, it is still warmer than NYX Taupe.

Dolce and Gabbana Blush in Tan on left, NYX Blush in Taupe on right.

The packaging is great and the product applies beautifully, but the color is just too warm to look natural on me. Hell, if I could cool down NYX Taupe a little, I would.

I think that this product definitely has the capacity to be "holy grail" material for anyone who is light to medium skinned and warm-toned (those of you who can get away with contouring with bronzer, but might still prefer a more natural-looking shadow on your cheek). The texture and application are truly superb, it's just the hint of warmth that's throwing me off.

Here's how it looks on my face:

Dolce and Gabbana 'The Blush' Luminous Cheek Colors retail for $45 for 0.17oz, putting them at a relatively pricey $264.71 per ounce.

Spring! It's here! That's romantic! We're only a month late for Valentine's Day!

The BareMinerals True Romantic collection has been out for a fair while, and I have had the eyeshadow palette in my greedy clutches for months. Still, given that I reviewed my last BareMinerals palette a solid year after it was sold out, though, I feel I'm doing pretty good on timeliness. If I keep up this trend of rapidly increasing punctuality, soon I'll be reviewing palettes that haven't even been formulated yet.

I think the packaging on this little quad is gorgeous. The floral design feels both fresh and classic.

Plus, it's housed in rose gold, which is everyone's secret favorite color.

The palette's not exactly a neutral set, but it's maybe a neutral palette's first cousin. You can see the family resemblance, even if you're confused about why there are no browns.

As always, it comes with a snazzy little mirror.

The shadows themselves are a little difficult to photograph, since they, much like Walt Whitman, contain multitudes. Still, I think these pictures give a hint about the fanciness they are hiding:

The four shades contained in the palette are as follows:

1. Love It is a shimmery color that straddles the line between a greenish white and a pale mint. It has an eerie, mermaid-like tinge. I'm not particularly impressed by the pigmentation of this shade, but the color is fantastic and you can build it up on your lids. The texture is a little bit gritty, though.

2. Woo Is Me is an iridescent, tan apricot that almost reads as a duochrome. The texture is better on this one than Love It, but I still feel that the color was much sheerer than I have come to expect from the BareMinerals READY eyeshadows. Again, it's totally fine practically. Throw in a good primer and do a little building and you'll get gorgeous color out of it. Still, the previous palettes I've tried from BareMinerals have been essentially flawless, and this one certainly is not. With that said, this is my favorite shade in the quad because the color is so damn pretty.

3. Louder is a dirtily-named metallic copper. The texture here is much better and it's beautifully pigmented.

4. Head Over Heals is a dark, matte taupe-y slate that applies downright perfectly.

Here's how the palette looks on my face:

Like all BareMinerals quads, this palette retails for $30 for 0.17oz, putting it at a slightly-pricier-than-ideal $176.47 per ounce.

In comparison to some of the other BareMinerals palettes that are unerring in their quality, this palette is a little bit of a bummer. I can definitely see why one might not want to pay such a premium for a quad where two of the shades are inferior in texture and pigmentation. Faults aside, though, I do really like this palette. I think the color combinations are witty and wearable. But, even more fundamentally, I've found that every time I wear this eyeshadow, I think "Fuck yeah. I look awesome."

I've come to have very high expectations of the BareMinerals eyeshadows, but I'm forgiving of a little wobble here and there. If this palette was something boring, that I'd seen before, I'd be less charitable. As it is, I think it's really fun, even if it takes a little extra layering for a couple of those shades.

Anyone who takes careful inventory of my color choices 1. should consider what they are wasting brain space on and 2. is probably not surprised that I choice to upgrade my Julep box this month. The theme of this box is literally called "the Vivids Collection". This nail polish collection is my nail polish soulmate.

A note for the purposes of transparency: As is my way, I did not actually spend real money on this box. I paid for it with points and definitely would not have upgraded to such an absurd extent (a traditional Julep box is $19.99 and this upgrade would have cost $74.99 if I'd paid for it out of pocket) under different circumstances. As it is, though, COME TO ME, SWEET BRIGHT COLORS.

Here's what I got:

There was candy, but it looked like that creepy no-name candy that comes in jars at terrible restaurants and looks like it has been there since the mid-1990s, so I didn't eat it. I probably will eat it one day when I am really hungry. Let us pray for the sake of my future self that this is not a mistake.

Nail Polish

The nail polish is BRIGHT AS FUCK:

The colors are:

Maren (It Girl): An iridescent bubblegum pink with flickers of electric blue.

Caitlin (Classic With a Twist): A highlighter pink.

Flora (It Girl): A shimmery fuchsia. The nail polish version of Urban Decay's Fishnet.

Kayla (Bombshell): Julep's description calls this an "electric iris"... and that's perfect. It's got a pink-leaning iridescence, as well.

Bailey (It Girl): A cobalt blue.

Phoebe (Boho Glam): A metallic, saturated, green-leaning teal.

Tatum (Bombshell): A metallic chartreuse.

Sunny (Boho Glam): A shimmery yellow chrome. The nail polish version of Sugarpill's Elektrocute in Hi-Viz.

Mariska (Classic With a Twist): A shimmery highlighter orange. Also, despite the name, it does not remind me of Law and Order SVU at all.

Here's how Caitlin, Flora, Kayla, Bailey, and Phoebe look on my nails all at the same time:

Sorry, nail polish lovers. Cuticles something something TOO COMPLICATED.

Face Stuff

Glow Pore-Minimizing Blush

My upgrade also came with blush and a bronzer. I was particularly intrigued about the blush, since I love blushes and Julep makeup is a little hit-or-miss. There were two blushes available this month. I chose Peach Bellini (the other color was called Petal Pink).

Like all Julep packaging, it's pretty bland. There's a mirror. It's got the shit you need.

The texture is really soft and smooth. Impressively so, in fact. It feels like what I would imagine pressed powdered sugar to be.

The color is also great, especially on fair skin, since it's not ridiculously pigmented (some people love blush pigmentation, but, to me, a too-pigmented blush is a serious flaw). It's a light, peachy blush with just a hint of sparkle in it. On significantly darker skin, I suspect it would be too light to really show up.

This is a terrible swatch. It was sunny and the sun confuses me.

I actually got a request to do a Beauty Bullshit post on this blush, since Julep is making all kinds of AWFUL FUCKING CLAIMS about it. On their blog, they say, "Inclusion of diamond powder in our Glow formulas exfoliates the very top layer of skin ever-so-slightly, giving the beneficial vitamins and minerals a clear path to absorption. Yay, science!" (The "yay science" at the end for what is clearly unscientific crap makes me want to poke someone's eyes out.)

So, facts: diamonds can be used for exfoliation. That is true. But there's nothing special about exfoliation done with diamonds as opposed to any other physical exfoliator. It's just exfoliating by being rough on your skin. Diamonds are only used because they are expensive and make people feel fancy. Remember how I said that this blush is almost absurdly smooth? This is not doing any physical exfoliation. Guaranteed. I also checked on whether or not exfoliation has any effect on the way that the body handles vitamins and I couldn't find any studies on the topic whatsoever.

The blush is totally nice. I like the blush. I just wish they would advertise it based on reality.

The blush, sized at 0.25oz, is retailing for $24 for non-subscribers and $19.20 for subscribers. That's $96 per ounce and $76.80 per ounce, respectively, which is relatively inexpensive.

Glow Pore-Minimizing Bronzer

I also got a bronzer, which I wouldn't have picked out for myself, but I wanted all the other shit in the upgrade, so it tagged along for a ride. Again, there were two colors available. I chose Light Golden Bronze with the hope that the emphasis would be on the "light". (The other color was called Medium Tan.)

For some reason, even though the blush and the bronzer are almost exactly the same size (0.25 and 0.26oz, respectively), they put the bronzer is different packaging. While the blush mirror stays upright, the bronzer mirror opens all the way back. The bronzer pan shape is also longer and larger.

This bronzer also has the same nice, smooth texture, but I think that the problem with this texture is more evident for this product. Because it is so soft, I ended up with a product that had lots of little dings and nicks. I don't particularly care, but I can definitely imagine this being a bummer for some people.

I would probably call this a medium cocoa-y brown. On me, it runs orange, but all bronzers run orange on me, so that's a little meaningless.

I decided to swatch this next to a couple of other bronzers to give you a sense of how dark it is.

From left to right, you have Benefit's Hoola, Pixi Subtlety Suntouched (my favorite bronzer), Julep Light Golden, and NYC Sunny.

I think that this bronzer is very similar to Benefit's Hoola. It's very slightly less orange and it's shimmery. So, if you are looking for a shimmery clone of Hoola, this might work for you.

Julep's 0.26oz Glow Pore-Minizing Bronzer retails for $28 for non-subscribers and $22.40 for subscribers. That is $107.69 per ounce and $86.15 per ounce, respectively.

Here's how both Julep's Blush in Peach Bellini and their bronzer in Light Golden Bronze look on my face:

The blush is on the apples of my cheeks and the bronzer is very lightly applied on my cheekbones.

Brushes

Finally, I got two brushes in this box: one blush brush and one bronzer brush. They are synthetic, duo fiber brushes that are very dense. The blush brush is angled and the bronzer brush is tulip-shaped.

The blush brush in particular is terrible with its compatriot product. The soft blush is completely SHREDDED by the blush brush, and then the bristles of the blush brush somehow manage to completely repel the product. The product description says it is "designed for specific use with Glow Blush", but I can't imagine that this is true, because they are so bad together.

I've had this stuff for a few days, so I've used 1. the blush and blush brush together (tragedy), 2. the blush with my usual Ecotools blush brush (nice) and 3. the blush brush with a non-Julep brush. I found that the Julep blush brush is nice if you are using a blush that is just too pigmented for you. It doesn't shred other non-powdered sugar-y blushes, but it does mute their pigment. If you are someone who is very fair and you have a lot of problems with over-pigmented blushes, you might like this as an anti-clown assurance tool. For everyone else, though, I'd probably skip this brush. It's expensive ($24 for non-subscribers/$22.40 for subscribers) and there is really nothing to recommend it over another blush brush. It is very soft, though.

I haven't played quite as much with the tulip-shaped bronzer brush because I don't typically use tulip-shaped brushes. I also don't think there's a whole lot of consensus about what the point of a tulip-shaped brush is, since I've seen them used as blush brushes (Real Techniques), all-over brushes (Sigma) and contour brushes (Sedona Lace). I have a sneaking suspicion that Julep only chose a tulip shape so that they could make rhymes behind closed doors.

I tried this brush with the bronzer and had literally no feelings about it. I'm not sure if it also muted the bronzer color, since the bronzer is so dark on me anyways. Since then, I've used it as a face brush a few times and, again, felt much. I definitely wouldn't buy this, but, since I have it, I'll use it.

Overall, I'm relatively happy. If I went back in time, I would have still ordered all of the nail polishes, but I would have added on the blush, instead of getting the whole collection, since I didn't really like the brushes, and the bronzer (like many bronzers) doesn't suit me at all.

If you are interested in joining Julep, you are always welcome to use my referral link by clicking here. The code "FREEBOX" gets you your first box for freeeeeee!

This year, Wet'n'Wild released five new permanent 5-pan eyeshadows. They are designed in sort of a funky twisty pattern as a big 'fuck you' to the concept of symmetry.

I bought three of the five (Tunnel Vision, Floral Values, and Art in the Streets), as I'm only 60% committed to a perfect understanding of Wet'n'Wild's product line.

Like all Wet'n'Wild eyeshadow palettes, these buggers inexplicably come with the worst tools on the face of the planet for eyeshadow application: a crappy sponge and a brush that is so crappy it would win medals in competition. I don't know why these are manufactured, as I can't imagine that anyone is using them. It would be like trying to apply eyeshadow with a hairbrush.

Save a little plastic, Wet'n'Wild, and leave those suckers out.

WHY.

Tunnel Vision

Tunnel Vision is the gray-themed palette of the bunch. I've spontaneously become a total sucker for gray eyeshadow, so I was pretty excited about this one. Fittingly, of the three 5 pan palettes that I picked up, Tunnel Vision was definitely the nicest.

Here's how the colors did--

Base: This is a bright, matte white. It's fairly nice in terms of pigmentation, but it is so chalky that it would remind my grandpa of elementary school. Still, it's pretty tough to do nice matte whites perfectly and even much more expensive brands have bigger slip-ups than this, so I don't think it's a major problem. It's one of those eyeshadows where you swatch it and then have to blow on it to get all the extra dust off, though.

Browbone: This is a metallic, aluminum foil silver that I think is great. It's smooth, pigmented, and eye-catching.

Eyelid: This is a metallic slate that applies just fine.

Crease: This is by far the worst shade in the bunch. It's a dark gray with a crapload of glitter. You have to scrape your brush against the pan to get any pigment out of it, and what comes off is rough and patchy.

Definer: This is a matte black. It's a pretty terrible matte black, though. There are so many excellent matte blacks in the world that a mediocre one really feels like you're writing with a magic marker that is running out of ink. It's just a faint shadow of the pitch black pigmentation you probably have the pleasure of using on a daily basis.

In general, I would recommend this palette to people looking for a nice gray-toned palette with the understanding that 1. the colors are inconsistent and 2. you're gonna need to find a half-decent black somewhere else.

Here's how this palette looks on my face:

Floral Values

Floral Values looks so promising because of my predisposition to love everything that is purple. Sadly, the whole thing could be summed up in a serious of sad trombone noises. I think someone working in Wet'n'Wild product design must really hate the color purple, because every purple eyeshadow that they produce is embarrassingly bad. (I can only assume it is a personal vendetta against me, as that is my favorite color.)

Here's what I thought of each shade--

Base: This is a baby pink matte. It takes the word "chalky" to an entirely new level. It's like trying to paint on your skin using pink-colored flour.

Browbone: I assume this is supposed to be a shimmery lavender, but I can't really get enough on my brush to actually transfer onto my lid. This is not just lacking in pigmentation, there is no pigmentation. This is the Emperor's New Clothes of eyeshadow. ("Well, I spent 20 minutes trying to get this shit on my face, so I'm pretty sure my eyelids are a little purple... right?") I am pretty sure the only way that this would actually show up on my lids would be if I smashed the palette with a hammer and superglued the pieces to my eyes.

Eyelid: I want to like this shade because it's so damn pretty in the pan. It's a bright, pink-y fuchsia with a hint of shimmer. Sadly, this one is also seriously lacking in pigment.

Crease: This is an indigo shimmer. It's the most pigmented of the bunch, but it applies so patchily it must have been inspired by the Spongebob Squarepants pirate.

Definer: This is a purple that in shade looks like Crayola's Royal Purple, but in pigmentation looks like one of the terrible RoseArt crayons that were equivalent to drawing with purple-tinted candles.

In addition to the problems I have already highlighted, I had one other global problem with this palette: the shadows don't blend at all. Although some eyeshadow blends more beautifully than other eyeshadow, I have never had a problem this severe. Typically, when you want to blend eyeshadow, you take your blendy brush, you blend... and then you have blended eyeshadow. With this palette, you take your blend brush, you blend... and then you go "what the fuck" because random hunks of your eyeshadow disappeared, while other parts stayed in the exact same intensity as before. Instead of looking gorgeously blended, it looks like you applied your eyeshadow with a broken q-tip.

I hate this palette. I don't have anything more to say. Please, for the love of the color purple, don't buy it.

With significant struggles, I managed to make this palette do this on my face:

Art in the Streets

The last palette I grabbed was Art in the Streets, which is the super bright edition.

Technically, these shadows are not labeled like the other ones, but I'm following the same pattern in writing about them. Also, the colors are pretty distinct and you have pictures, so I'm pretty sure you can just look and find 'the blue one'. Here's what I thought of each color--

Base: This is a bright, matte, sunset orange. This has truly top notch pigmentation.

Browbone: Sadly, not all the colors followed suit in their fantastic-ness. In fitting with Wet'n'Wild's presumed hatred of the color purple, this matte violet has terrible pigmentation.

Eyelid: This is an ethereal, matte green. It's like a matte mermaid. It is okay in terms of pigment, but nothing to write sonnets about.

Crease: This matte sky blue is excellent. Neither this nor the orange feel like they came out of a $3.99 palette.

Definer: In order to prevent this palette from seeming too excellent, they threw in a matte, Easter-y pastel yellow that has virtually no pigment whatsoever.

This palette is all over the place. It's like eyeshadow PMS. It goes from "some of the best matte, bright eyeshadow available at the drugstore" to "why would anyone think that this is acceptable to release" and back again. If you're loving it for the orange and blue, though, go for it, since those colors are excellent in every way.

Here's how these shadows look on my face:

Two of these palettes are deeply inconsistent and one is consistent only insofar as it is consistently atrocious. I don't know how the other two palettes perform, but based on my experiences here, I'm not filled with pangs of product lust.

The Wet'n'Wild Powder Play 5 Pan palettes retail for $3.99 for 0.21 oz, or $19 per ounce. For reference, the Wet'n'Wild trios are $2.99 for 0.12oz, or $24.92 per ounce, while the 8-pan palettes are $4.99 for 0.3oz, or $16.63 per ounce.

Hopefully, you guys have all made your dermatologists proud motherfuckers by wearing adequate amounts of sunscreen all winter long, and this post is just a helpful reminder. For the rest (and presumably the majority) of you, go buy some more sunscreen!

If you followed my sunscreen series at all last summer, you probably remember that sunscreen can't be applied all willy nilly! The amount of sunscreen you use is essential if you're aiming to get the advertised SPF. In particular, you need to apply sunscreen at an area density of 2 milligrams per centimeter squared. This translates to a lot of sunscreen-- 0.04oz/1.13g for a face alone. I also calculated out my body area and found that I needed about 1.063oz to protect my whole body. (If you're larger than I am, you would need more.)

Sadly, area density isn't converted to volume without more specific info about your sun goop. Still, 1.063oz had a really convenient volume approximation: it's about the same as a shotglass of sunscreen. If you are applying a shotglass worth of sunscreen, you're probably in the approximate range of SPF protection that you're aiming for. Unhelpfully, 1.13g does not have such a convenient volume rule of thumb.

...or so you might think.

All over the internet machine, there is a specific recommendation: use 1/4 tsp of sunscreen to cover your face. Although it's oft repeated, I couldn't find an original source for how this was calculated, so I decided to do some fact checking with my handy dandy scale.

The sunscreen I'm using for this test is the Neutrogena Sensitive Skin Broad Spectrum SPF 60+ Sunscreen. It was not picked for any particular reason; it's simply the sunscreen I am using at the moment. I mention it, though, because there's a little fuzziness here, since not every sunscreen is going to have the exact same density. If you are using a sunscreen that is dramatically more or less dense than my sunscreen, my investigation might not be fully applicable.

First, I measured a perfect, flattened out teaspoon, the way I might measure if I were baking a cake. I got... 0.995g. Whomp whomp whomp... remember, we were hoping for 1.13g. In other words, close, but no cigar. We're at 88% of the mass we were hoping for.

Next, I tried out a heaping quarter teaspoon, the way I might measure when the waffle recipe says, "1 tbsp sugar" and I'm like, 'fuck you recipe, I like my waffles sweet'. I got a much happier 1.481g, more than the desired 1.13g!

So, what's the verdict? If you already have a quarter teaspoon beside your vanity reserved for sunscreen measurement purposes, choose a heaping teaspoon over a flattened out, perfectly measured, quarter teaspoon, which will probably be too little sunscreen. (And if you have a teaspoon beside your vanity for sunscreen measurement purposes, I know you care.) If you want to purchase a measurement spoon for sunscreen, though, I'd go with a 1/3 tsp, which will put you in the "slightly too much"/"better safe than sorry" sunscreen category. [(4)(0.995)=(3)X, X=1.326g, so 1/3 tsp should be closer to 1.326g.]

For those of you who are slightly less precise, I'd just give your measuring spoons a quick glance and squeeze out a blobby approximation. (Which is what I do.)

Do you remember that episode of Every Sitcom Ever Written where Friend #1 and Friend #2 totally get along in a group, but then the realize that they never actually spend any individual time together, and then they try, and it's awkward because they don't actually like each other?

For me, Tarte's Lights, Camera, Lashes! is the mascara manifestation of this trope-y plot line.

By every account, I should love this sucker. We have common interests (keeping my lashes long, lush and coal-black). It comes from a group full of things I love (the 'Tarte' wall at Sephora). It wears hilarious purple snake-skin attire (for the sitcom equivalent, imagine us dressing up in this mascara's old clothes and having a hearty laugh at how these snakeskin leggings [they would be leggings. FACT.] are no longer in style).

Alas, I only truly enjoy its company when it is layered on top of an additional product.

This mascara has a very wet formula. It's so wet, it feels like you are coating your eyelashes with a couple of layers of heavy whipping cream. Wet formulas can be beautiful things, offering ridiculous length and volume when done properly. It does do this. Sadly, though, the insubstantial wand is a jostled elbow away from the fabled monoeyelash. I do walk away with more eyelashes than I have fingers, but that's hardly an acceptable metric of success.

Here's how I look sans mascara:

And here's how I look with a big old layer of Tarte:

One more time! No mascara:

Tarte:

And here's a creepily close-up picture of my eye so you can really admire the clumping on an up-close and personal level:

It certainly doesn't look terrible, but it's just too spidery.

With that said, although Lights, Camera, Lashes! may not be on my list of mascaras to be used alone, damn if we don't get along well in a group. If you use this mascara over a mascara that separates your lashes into the follicular equivalent of tiny little post-Cold War Balkans states, you'll have lashes as flawless as a neatly tied up a 30-minute television episode.

The Tarte Lights, Camera, Lashes! Mascara retails for $19 for 0.24 oz.

I have had several questions in the last couple of weeks asking for info on the "No Poo" method. In particular, I've been asked to "debunk" it. I'm not going to do that, exactly, but I will talk about it.

Since y'all are beauty blog readers, you probably already know that the "No Poo" movement has nothing to do with constipation, despite how it might sound. It's a movement towards elimination of shampoo from your routine. There is a huge hodgepodge of methods currently in use, but the two most common are 1. using baking soda and apple cider vinegar and 2. Conditioner-Only washing (aka CO-washing). For the purposes of this post, I'm going to focus on the latter method.

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/beglendc/

Why Would One Want to Do Such a Thing?

I think that a big part of the reason that I've been asked to 'debunk'"No Poo" is because a lot of people are motivated to cut out shampoo for reasons that are not empirically supported. A lot of people are under the impression that there is something "dangerous" about shampoo, which is simply contrary to the scientific evidence.

With that said, there are still valid reasons to be interested in reducing or eliminating shampoo use.

Firstly, many people find the shampoos can be harsh and damaging. Like any soap, surfactants are comprised of a lipophilic (oil-attracting) side and a hydrophilic (water attracting) side. The lipophilic side glomps onto the oil in your hair and traps it in a sphere called a micelle. Afterwards, you can happily wash it out. (I have a lengthier discussion of soap mechanisms available here, if you want more info.)

Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES) is a surfactant. Because one side is polar, it is hydrophilic, whereas the long, non-polar chain is lipophilic.
Image source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sodium_laureth_sulfate_structure.png

Shampoo surfactants are really good at this. They get your hair squeaky clean. However, they can definitely be hard on your hair. In the International Journal of Trichology, Zoe Draelos (2010) notes, "Many persons feel that they do not have good hygiene unless they bathe daily. Technically, it is not necessary to shampoo the hair daily unless sebum production is high. Shampooing is actually more damaging to the hair shaft than beneficial." Any time you get your hair wet, you're causing some damage, but the surfactants in shampoo are certainly harsher than water alone.

Thus, many people want to avoid traditional shampoos to help minimize the damage they are causing to their hair.

Basic shampoo ingredients
Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3002407/

The second big reason to avoid shampoo is because it is expensive. As many of you already know, I have a shitload of long hair. I am not "No Poo", but I personally do not wash my hair on the daily simply because I don't want to spend a gazillion dollars on shampoo.

Does It Work?

Shampoos typically contain anionic surfactants like Sodium Laureth Sulfate or Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate. (High school chemistry reminder: an ion is a molecule with a charge; an anion is a molecule or atom with a negative charge.) They are anionic because the polar, hydrophilic group is negatively charged. They are super awesome at removing sebum and other yucky shit in your hair, which is the point of shampoo.

Still, conditioners frequently also have surfactants. Usually, they are cationic surfactants, like Cetrimonium Chloride or Distearyldimonium Chloride. Since a cation is a molecule or atom with a positive charge, you've probably already guessed that cationic surfactants have a positively charged polar group. Cationic surfactants are awesome at leaving your hair silky smooth, but they are not as effective at removing sebum, so they aren't used in most shampoo. When they are found in shampoo, it's usually shampoo that's specifically designed to be as gentle as a snuggling guinea pig.

Cetrimonium Chloride
Image Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cetrimonium_chloride.png

If you are using a conditioner that contains cationic surfactants, you can definitely effectively cleanse your hair using only conditioner. It will be more gentle and will likely leave your hair soft and pretty. Like all things in life, though, you'll be making a sacrifice. In this case, you will be sacrificing having super clean hair, as conditioner contains surfactants that are both crappier at removing sebum and present in lower concentrations.

Additionally, people who go the CO-washing method frequently run into trouble when they use a ton of other hair products. In particular, silicones tend to be really difficult to remove, and could build up in your hair until you finally break out the shampoo.

Should I Try It?

Ultimately, it's up to you to decide whether CO-washing is a good idea for your hair. If you like it, I suspect that you'll feel your hair is softer and less damaged and/or that you're spending less money on haircare products. If you hate it, my guess is that you'll feel your hair is dirty and weighed down, and/or that it's too much trouble to find products that work without shampoo to lend a helping hand.

Lipstick Queen is a brand name that sounds a little like an Abba outtake. In reality, it's a five-year-old brand that's been slowly gaining momentum. I picked up the Hall of Fame set, which features a full-size trio of some of the company's best selling lipsticks.

I think the packaging looks great. I like the fact that each tube has a different color tube and a different finish on the metal. Everything looks simple, clean, and uniform, but it's easy to distinguish between them so you can easily grab the color you want. (The glittery box is pretty tacky, but it took me about two seconds to throw the thing out. It can also be argued that it is thematic, as it looks like something that Abba band members might wear.)

I was kind of on the fence about this purchase from the start, as all three lipsticks are sheer and I'm more of a "punch 'em in the face with pigment" kind of gal. I was mostly worried that they would be boring.

When I first got them, I swatched them, and my heart sunk. My worst suspicions, I thought, had been confirmed. On my arm, they look bland and unidimensional.

From left to right: Medieval, Float, and Jean Queen

Apply those fuckers to the lips, though, and some serious Mary Poppins magic happens.

Jean Queen Lipstick

Like all three of the lipsticks in this set, Jean Queen is ludicrously moisturizing. For those of you have tried the Fresh Sugar Lip Balms, the texture is relatively similar-- but with a lot more pigment thrown in. It looks like a light, rosy coral. It's sheer, but the color payoff is still good.

In theory, this is supposed to look awesome when you are wearing denim. I'm not a fan of the Canadian tuxedo look, and my ass is too far away from my lips for any fancy comparisons. I can say that it does look awesome with blue. (It also looks awesome without blue, though. Blue may or may not be irrelevant to the lipstick's awesome-ness.) I also love that it's slightly warm toned, since I adore a good coral against my cool-toned skin. Contrast, motherfuckers. I like it.

This is currently my go-to casual lipstick. For example, this is the lipstick I wore to watch the Superbowl.

The only potential problem is wear-time. No lipstick with this texture is going to have impressive wear-time. I can only pray that we remedy this problem by investing in cosmetic science so that I can have the perfect lipstick by the time I turn 80. Priorities, people!

Still, for now, these lipsticks melt off my lips in only a few hours. All three failed the "four hours and a meal" test so deeply that I almost considered leaving the pictures of the test off this blog entirely.

Here's Jean Queen when applied:

And here's what's left, four hours and a meal later. (NOTHING.)

Butterfly Ball Shimmer Treatment Lipstick in Float

Lipstick Queen's "Butterfly Ball" lipsticks allegedly imitate the "light, airy and magical look of the butterfly wing" with their hint of blue and turquoise iridescence. There are a range of seven shades in the line, and Float is by far the most bland-looking. It's a very sheer, yellow-y nude shade that's most distinguished by its cool pearly tones.

I've been using this more as a lipstick top coat than a standalone product, since the shimmer is the only part of this that I feel is really invested in.

Unfortunately, even the shimmer has no lasting power whatsoever. When applied:

Four hours and a meal later (totally gone, again):

Since Float does have the same smooth, moisturizing texture as Jean Queen, it also shortens the lifespan of any lipstick that I stick underneath.

Still, I would be interested in drying one of the darker Butterfly Ball shades to see if I get better results.

Medieval Tinted Treatment

According to the product description, this lipstick was inspired by a medieval practice of rubbing lemons on your lips to inflame them, causing them to look red. I'm having a difficult time finding a legitimate source that confirms the veracity of this statement. (If you know of one, please do leave it in the comments below!) It's a very warm, sheer red, with the same fabulous texture...

...and the same terrible lasting power. When applied:

Four hours and a meal later:

I really like this little set. There is a really good chance that I will repurchase Jean Queen when I use it up. I probably would not repurchase Medieval (since I do not feel it is as special) and I definitely would not repurchase Float, but I'm happy to have them. For the record, I only carry three lipsticks in my purse. Two of them are in this set (Jean Queen and Medieval). They're awesome to carry around, since they apply so easily in non-ideal circumstances. They are un-fuck-up-able.

The Lipstick Queen Hall of Fame set retails for $48. Jean Queen retails at $20 for 0.13oz, making it a slightly pricer $153.85 per ounce. Butterfly Ball in Float is $24 for 0.134oz, or $179.10 per ounce. Medieval is $22 for 0.12oz, or $183.33 per ounce. (I don't know why the sizes and prices vary so wildly! The packaging is the same size, so it's not obvious by mere appearance.) That's a total kit value of $66, which is pretty decent.

Statistically, there's a pretty good chance that I have at least a few French-speakers in my blog-reading audience. If that is you, you may want to consider skipping the next few paragraphs, in order to avoid a heaping pile of second-hand embarrassment. (If you like schadenfreude, though, carry on.)

I am sure that French is a language that makes sense. I, though, am used to English, which is my native tongue and thus easy by default, and Spanish, which is a phonetic language. When I am asked to pronounce something in a language that is neither English nor Spanish, my brain kind of melts. 'Jouer' is a word that means "to play" in French. I know this because of google. I fully believe that there is a way to pronounce the word 'jouer' that is not based on unicorns and fairy dust. Unfortunately, my brain is too busy melting at the concept of the entire French language to fully figure it out. (I have accepted that I am simply the kind of person who butchers brand names when I speak. This is reason #857 that I write a blog instead of doing youtube.)

When your brain melts halfway through the word "jouer", something magical happens.

In 30 Rock, Jenna Maroney stars in an indie movie called 'the Rural Juror'.

"The rurrrrr jurrrrr".

For the rest of my life, this is how I will pronounce the brand name "Jouer". I am so sorry, France.

On to my review!

Jouer's cream blush is, un-googleably, called "Tint". (The put the word "tint" in about half their product names, making it slightly annoying to track down this particular product.)

It's a super teeny-weeny little package, containing a paltry 0.07oz of product. (Products like NYX Cream Blush weigh in at 0.12oz. NARS Cream Blush is 0.19oz.) If it were any smaller, it would warrant a Zoolander Reference.

Jouer pans have a unique packaging that link together with other Jouer items. The idea is that you can create a customizable palette containing only the shit you actually want. It's definitely a unique idea, but I don't feel that it is practical for most people. Perhaps other people are much more brand-loyal than I am, but I only own two Jouer products that click together and there is no part of me that feels that I am any better served using them while attached to each other.

With that said, it's certainly not a negative that the products hook together, and it is kind of cool. It might give you something to do with your hands while sitting in a waiting room or while riding on a long car trip.

The packing opens to reveal a small mirror. If mirrors are you thing, you shall have one!

Amaryllis, named for the vibrant South African flower, is an electric dark coral-red.

FINGERPRINTS.

It swatches with a fair bit of pigment, but it's also quite easy to blend out into a natural blush color on fair skin. I think that this is a product that would work really well on a variety of skin tones, since it's quite easy to adjust the intensity of the color as needed.

As many of you already know, I am pretty wary of products that claim to work for both lips and cheeks. There is a distinct "I am wearing a cream blush on my lips" feeling that is partly drying, partly greasy, and thoroughly unpleasant.

This product doesn't solve the problem flawlessly, as it definitely does not feel like a lip product, but it's the best "two in one" lip and cheek color that I have tried. It's comfortable on my lips, albeit a bit strange-feeling, and it is flattering on both my cheeks and lips. If you're really passionate about two-in-one products for some reason, I would definitely recommend this to you.

Here's how it looks on both my cheeks and my lips:

And here's a close-up of the lips:

You can see that the level of pigment works well in both locations. It's flattering. I like it. Thumbs up.

Since it does work well as a two-in-one and since it is itsy bitsy, I think this would be particularly effective to bring while traveling.

Jouer Tints retail for $20 for 0.07oz, putting it at a pricy $285.71 per ounce. The overall price isn't scary, but because it is so small, it's expensive for what you get. (For comparison, the old NARS Cream Blush Cheek Color is $29 for 0.19oz, which puts it at a much more reasonable $152.63 per ounce.)

KFC is a contentious topic in my house. My boyfriend's mom gave up on frying chicken when she spent four hours making the perfect drumsticks for an event, only to be told by attendees that it was "almost as good as KFC". Now, my boyfriend resents the brand as a symbol of the end of homemade fried chicken in his childhood home.

Still, if any of y'all are in high school, you have my blessing in supporting the chicken behemoth because they brilliantly decided to PUT THEIR CHICKEN ON CORSAGES.

Really. Actually. In real life.

Image Source: http://www.kfc.com/corsage/

Purchasers can spend $20 on a corsage kit from a Kentucky-based florist, which comes complete with $5 gift card for a drumstick of their choice. According to the site, choices include "Original Recipe, Extra Crispy or Kentucky Grilled Chicken. Whichever best matches her dress."

Image Source: http://www.nanzandkraft.com/gifts/kfc-chicken-corsage

This is both deeply hilarious and brilliant marketing by KFC, as their measly 100 limited edition corsages have captured media attention and made me want delicious chicken.

Image Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJdUSxFbJbw

The only downside? It's often suggested (note: very unsourced) that corsages were originally intended to 'ward off evil spirits'. If I were an evil spirit, I would definitely follow around the lady with a wrist covered in greasy food.

The full commercial is available here:

Also, just for fun, here's me getting my way less memorable corsage at my junior prom:

Happy prom season, young'uns! Now get off my lawn.

I am a big fan of routines. I pick less-than-desirable parking places just so I can park in the exact same spot every time I drive somewhere. I order the same thing every time I go to a restaurant. I have uttered the phrase "I hate everything new" on more than one occasion. As a result, it's bizarrely distressing to me that I am reviewing Ipsy before I review Birchbox this month BECAUSE THAT IS THE WRONG ORDER, YOU GUYS.

For some reason, though, according to my tracking information, my Birchbox has been hanging out in Indiana for five days, so that review's gonna have to wait on deck.

Here's what I got this month:

As always, Ipsy came in a makeup bag. It has a record player on it. I don't have strong feelings about the bag design.

Urban Decay 24/7 Velvet Glide-On Eye Pencil in Black Velvet (0.03oz), approximate retail value $15

I was pretty excited to receive the new Urban Decay eyeliner pencil, which was just released last month. It was made with smudging in mind, for maximum smokiness, like burning bacon in a small kitchen.

To be frank, I am not a big fan of the smudgy liner look most of the time. I prefer crisp and clean lines. Still, I have used this for both a smudgy look and for regular tightlining (my usual pencil liner look) and it holds up for both purposes.

I would agree that the formula is a little more slick than Urban Decay's traditional black liners in Perversion and Zero, making it easier to smoosh up your lines as desired. Still, if you hadn't told me that this was the function of this liner, I probably would not have noticed, as the formula feels much more similar than different. All Urban Decay 24/7 pencil liners apply smoothly with rich color and stay put once applied (even when smudgy).

In terms of color, Black Velvet is darker than Zero, but grayer than Perversion. Additionally, Perversion looks much cooler in comparison to the warmer-toned Black Velvet.

From left to right: Zero, Perversion, Black Velvet

If you already own either Zero or Perversion, I'm not going to necessarily recommend that you run out and grab this, too. However, if you know you want something smudge-able and you're shopping for a pencil liner, I do think that this one performs well.

Elizabeth Mott Pop! Goes the Shadow in Champagne (full size at 0.07oz), retail value $12.99

On the packaging, this shadow literally claims that it is going to change my life. That's a really high standard, especially given how much eyeshadow I own. Well... it didn't do that. But I did think it was perfectly nice!

The color is like a bronzed up version of Stila's Kitten (although it doesn't have Kitten's softness or pigmentation).

It swatches fine and is a very usable, practical color, even if it's neither life-changing nor particularly special.

Mary Kay At Play Jelly Lip Gloss in Teddy Bare (full size at 0.32oz), retail value $10

Good news, you guys! I found it! You can stop looking. This is officially the worst lip gloss of all time.

I have never tried Mary Kay products because I try not to buy from companies that could reasonably be mistaken for a pyramid scheme. Luckily, if this product is indicative of the brand's quality, I am definitely not missing anything.

Let's start with the packaging. This looks like something that a 12-year-old would have purchased in the mid-90s. What adult, modern woman wants to own something so visually wretched? From the white cap to the squeezy tip, this looks like something that the dollar store would throw away. Then, the name, "Teddy Bare" manages to turn this train wreck into something really creepy. Infantilization? Yuck.

In comparison to the product inside, though, the packaging may as well have been designed by Alexander McQueen. I would say that a lipgloss is sticky if it had 1/3 the tackiness of this terrible goop. This is like putting half-dried Elmer's Glue on your mouth, but only it Elmer's Glue sunk into the lines of your lips.

To top it all off, the color is disgusting. When someone says the phrase "anal leakage", this is the color that comes to mind. A diluted, unflattering light brown.

This is the BEST I could POSSIBLY make it look. It took like ten minutes to make this picture from being nauseating.

I hate literally everything about this product. I hate the business model and the ethics of the company, which preys on women struggling to make ends meet and requires them to purchase products for a career that, statistically, is incredibly unlikely to be lucrative. I hate the color of the product. I hate the texture. I hate the packaging. I hate how it wears.

This is the worst lip gloss. It is Guinness Book of World Records-worthy.

Dr. Brandt Microdermabrasion Skin Exfoliant (0.25oz), approximate retail value $9.75

I cannot get over how ludicrously priced this product is. It's $78 for TWO OUNCES. I cannot imagine that the average Ipsy subscriber is fitting a cleanser this expensive into their budget.

There is absolutely nothing about this cleanser that is special or that justifies this price. It's simply using regular old aluminum oxide as an abrasive. You can buy the same sort of product from fucking Neutrogena. Why would you pay for this?

Also, for the record, it's really rough, and I say this as someone who generally doesn't have problems with physical exfoliants. It's not only overpriced, it's right out as an option for anyone with sensitive skin.

Big Sexy Hair Root Pump (1.6oz), approximate retail value $2.71

This is a traditional textural mousse in an aerosol can.

Here's my hair sans any sort of product:

Here's how I look with the Big Sexy Hair Mousse added:

I think it did a pretty decent job of holding together the sporadic waves that I do have in my hair, so I was pretty happy with the product.

Bonus: TokyoMilk Dark Femme Fatale Collection Lip Elixer Lip Balm in No. 42 La Vie en Rose (full size at 0.7oz), retail value $7.00

This was a bonus item for referring folks to Ipsy. It was advertised as "Salted Caramel", but I ended up receiving La Vie en Rose. I saw a few people got both, and I can only assume that they sold their souls to the devil to receive such special treatment.

The product is 0.7 oz, so it's just slightly smaller than a 0.8oz tin of Rosebud Salve. Like Rosebud Salve, it's a petroleum jelly-based product.

To me, the smell is a pleasant milk of florals and peaches. Those are two of my favorite things, so I'm quite pleased with it. Plus, the packaging is so dang cute. It also gave a nice relief for my lips after that sticky Mary Kay monstrosity.

Total Box Value (Without Bonus): $50.45
Total Box Value (With Bonus): $57.45

Here's how I look with everything from this bag piled on my face:

This is as smudge-y as my eyeliner gets.

And here's a close-up of my eye:

Overall, I'm not disappointed in this bag. I think it is consistent with the quality I expect from Ipsy. Nothing transformed my life, but the only thing I won't use at all is the lip gloss.

If you suddenly feel the need to join Ipsy, you're always welcome to use my referral link by clicking here.

I like my foundation as thick and opaque as house paint. Ideally, I want it to be like scribbling on my face with a perfectly flesh-toned Sharpie.

My one exception is theBalm's BalmShelter Tinted Moisturizer in Lighter than Light.

Like most of theBalm's packaging, the box is adorned with a sexy white lady acting all sexy-like. The drawings on theBalm's packaging sometimes read as "tacky" to me, but I think this one is pretty cute, even if they did miss an opportunity to have different drawings on the different shades, reflecting the skin tone the product in question matches. (I concluded a while back that theBalm's packaging design team has never gone outside and noticed that not only do non-white people exist, the brand is presumably trying to sell things to them.)

The tube inside is a massive 2.15 fluid ounce squeeze tube with a handy cap that prevents too many microbes from migrating and having little microbe babies in my makeup.

I also have to give theBalm props for keeping their entire color range consistent across products. Their concealer, foundation, and tinted moisturizer all come in the same shades. As a primarily online makeup shopper, I find that so fucking convenient. It's very frustrating when brands decide that they're going to randomly completely change their available shades based on the product. I can't imagine the thought process: "Hm. People who need foundation are all pink-toned and need at least 15 shades to find a good match, but people who need concealer are all yellow-toned and only need four shades. Because of reasons."

Lighter than Light is a fair shade. It's much yellower than I am, but I am essentially the color of a pink oil pastel, so that's not super meaningful for the neutral-toned among you. (I suspect that it does lean warm-toned in general.) Still, when it's all blended out, it hardly makes me look jaundiced at all, so, in this sheer product, the yellow undertone is probably not going to be match-prohibitive for most.

TheBalm Lighter than Light in blended and unblended swatches.

I find the texture of this product to be really pleasant and blendable. You can even build the coverage ever-so-slightly on particularly rough hunks of your face, which can be difficult with some tinted moisturizers.

The finish is on the dewey side of natural.

To give you a sense of the coverage, here's my face with only sunscreen on my skin:

And here's how I look post-tinted moisturizer (nothing else):

Throw a concealer on top and this works well for casual makeup days. It's the makeup equivalent of flip flops: comfy, easy, and low-maintenance.

I do have one last gripe: the SPF 18 seems like such an afterthought to me. First off, no one's applying enough tinted moisturizer to get even that paltry sun protection. Secondly... SPF EIGHTEEN? That's super low. Given that the active ingredients are chemical sunscreens (Octinoxate, Avobenzone, and Octisalate) which can be irritating for some, it seems that they're excluding those who have to stick to physical sunscreens in favor of what's essentially a marketing gimmick, rather than real protection.

TheBalm's BalmShelter Tinted Moisturizer retails for $25 for 2.15 fl oz, putting it a budget-friendly $11.63 per ounce.

I've had a few questions recently about two marketing buzzphrases in the nail polish business: "Three Free" and "Five Free".

"Three Free" nail polish is advertised as nail polish without Dibutyl Phthalate, Toluene, and Formaldehyde. "Five Free" nail polish is advertised as nail polish without Dibutyl Phthalate, Toluene, Formaldehyde, Formaldehyde Resin, and Camphor.

There's a lot of scary shit written online about all of these chemicals, but without a lot of facts backing them up. So, what are these ingredients, and do you actually need to avoid them?

Image Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevendepolo/

Dibutyl Phthalate

Dibutyl Phthalate
Image Source: http://www.drugfuture.com/Pharmacopoeia/USP32/pub/data/images/v32270/cas-84-74-2.gif

What Is It?
DBP and other phthalates are what is known as "plasticizers". These are additives that improve the plasticity of a substance.

Why Is It In Nail Polish?
What happens when your nail polish isn't flexible? It CHIPS. DBP in nail polish gives a longer wear-time.

Why Are People Freaked Out?
Phthalates are a controversial group as a whole, and DBP is probably one of the nastier versions. It affects testicular differentiation in frogs and fetal rats, and it has been hypothesized that it might have an effect on human fetal testicular development as well. There is also some evidence that it may disrupt thyroid receptor activity.

What Does the Science Say?
As with all things, the dose makes the poison. (As does the subject, since most of you are probably not male fetuses.) DBP exposure is considered to be acceptable at a rate of 0.01 mg per kg of body weight. I can't find any specific studies that look at he exposure you would face based on typical nail polish use, so it's not clear whether adults will hit that threshold.

Personally, if there is one nail polish ingredient on this list that I would skip, this is the one. Luckily, for many of you, you probably don't have to do a lot to escape it. The European Union has banned the substance in cosmetics, and the only American producer, Eastman Chemical Company, stopped manufacturing DBP in 2011 (although it is still imported by a few companies). I'm currently unable to find a single major nail polish brand that is still using the substance (although if you are aware of one, feel free to leave it in the comments below).

It's also worth noting that, given the research on fetal development, it is probably more important to avoid DBP if you are pregnant.

Toluene

Toluene
Image Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/Toluol.svg/230px-Toluol.svg.png

What Is It?
Also referred to as phenylmethane, methylbenzene, or toluol, is what makes some nail polish smell like paint thinners. It is commonly used solvent.

Why Is It In Nail Polish?
Because toluene easily dissolves a wide variety of substances, using it as a nail polish solvent gives you a smooth, attractive application.

Why Are People Freaked Out?
Inhaling high doses of toluene results in headache, nausea, dizziness, drowsiness and confusion. It is also a minor skin irritant. Very high doses may harm the kidneys.

What Does the Science Say?
At the moment, concerns mostly center around inhalation of high doses. Solvent abuse ("huffing") or high levels of exposure in an industrial environment are the most significant concerns, rather than traditional nail polish use.

"Formaldehyde"

Formaldehyde
Image Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Formaldehyde-2D.svg

Methanediol
Image Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Methanediol-2D.png

What Is It?
Although nail polish companies commonly talk about "formaldehyde", formaldehyde is definitely not in your nail polish for one simple reason: formaldehyde is a gas. Formaldehyde definitely is toxic to all animals, causing death at high doses. It is also a known carcinogen, causing nasal cancer in rats.

If you are applying gas to your fingernails, we are not talking about the same products.

When we talk about "formaldehyde" in nail products, we're presumably talking about methanediol (also known as methylene glycol). When you add water to formaldehyde, you go from an aldehyde that is a gas to a diol (meaning there are two OH groups) that is a liquid. It is a completely different substance.

Why Is It In Nail Polish?
Formaldehyde has never been in nail polish. Methanediol is a cross-linking agent that stiffens and hardens nails. Thus, it is commonly used in nail hardeners.

Why Are People Freaked Out?
People have incorrectly conflated formaldehyde and methanediol due to cosmetic mislabeling.

What Does the Science Say?
It is completely incorrect to conflate the dangers associated with formaldehyde with methanediol. Methanediol is considered by the FDA to be safe up to 5% concentration. Most manufacturers use levels between 0.5% and 2%, well within the safe limits. Even at higher doses, the primary concerns are skin irritation and allergies.

Formaldehyde Resin (Tosylamide/Toluenesulfonamide/TSF Resin)

Image source: http://theorganicsolution.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/p-toluenesulfonamide.jpg

What Is It?
Despite the scary-sounding name, formaldehyde resin is also not the same thing as formaldehyde. Formaldehyde is used during the production of the substance, but is completely consumed by the reaction. Formaldehyde resin is a polymer, meaning the molecules stack together to make a durable film.

Why Is It In Nail Polish?
The resin helps the polish adhere to the nail, ensuring it won't peel or flake.

Why Are People Freaked Out?
Again, the word "formaldehyde" is scary.

What Does the Science Say?
Some research suggests that formaldehyde resin may be a concern for those who have significant levels of allergies or who are prone to contact dermatitis. Of course, all people should stick to painting their nails and not large chunks of their skin. Otherwise, despite the scary name, there is no evidence of harm.

Camphor

Camphor
Image Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Camphor_structure.png

What Is It?
Camphor is a naturally-occurring chemical known for its strong scent. It has been used in European, Arabic, and Indian cuisine at various points in history. It gives a cooling feeling on the skin and is the active ingredient in Vick's VapoRub.

Why Is It In Nail Polish?
Camphor is another plasticizer, keeping your nails chip-free.

Why Are People Freaked Out?
Truly, I have no idea. Camphor is a poison when consumed in large doses. Adults typically see toxic effects after ingesting 2 g of pure camphor, with 4 g being the lethal dose.

What Does the Science Say?
Don't eat your nail polish.

What does it mean?

If you are buying standard nail polish brands in the United States or Europe and you are using them as intended (i.e. you are not eating or huffing them and you're putting them on your nail, rather than, say, your face), you're probably okay. If you have a tendency towards significant skin sensitivities (for example, if a nail polish has given you contact dermatitis in the past), you may want to be more careful around a few of these ingredients.

My Birchbox finally showed up my my doorstep, despite the grammatically incorrect tracking information and the unreasonably long, five-day pit stop in Indiana.

Wrong "its", Birchbox!
(I am a pedant.)

In addition to their samples, Birchbox also send out little cards with rainy day ideas. Unfortunately, 100% of the tips that I have seen so far have been TERRIBLE. Two of the tips were "sleep longer" (if it's a weekend, I'm doing that anyways; if it's a weekday, that's not an option) and "wear a sweatshirt". Weirdly, they are trying to sell these... for money.

This month, my samples included:

Anastasia Beverly Hills Clear Brow Gel (0.085 oz), approximate retail value $6.68

If I am being honest here, I have never found a clear brow gel that is noticeably different from any other clear brow gel. They are all exactly the same to me. This is a clear brow gel and it works exactly like every other clear brow gel in the world.

With that said, I'm not disappointed that I got this, as I throw away clear brow gels pretty quickly, since they always get easily clogged up by yucky brown product. It also let me know that Anastasia Beverly Hills is in the Birchbox store, which is awesome news. I'll definitely be picking something up with my points next time I make a purchase from Birchbox. (No sign of the new Dipbrow Pomade, though, which is a bummer.)

Davines Oi Absolute Beautifying Shampoo (0.4 fl oz), approximate retail value $1.10
Davines Oi Absolute Beautifying Shampoo (0.4 fl oz), approximate retail value $1.51

You've heard me say it before: I have a lot of hair. I have hair that needs quite a bit more than 0.4 fl oz to shampoo and conditioner. Getting little packets of shampoo and conditioner is worthless for me, since it is less than a single use; I never get a good chance to try it. For the same reason, I am not going to spend $32 for 8.45 fl oz of conditioner, which would only give me about ten uses.

With that said, I did think these smelled really fabulous. It was a sandalwood-y smell that reminded me of a sexy perfume.

GUYandGIRL Shower Gel (1.01 fl oz), approximate retail value $2.49

There's sort of a distinct, nondescript smell that hotel body washes exude. This product smells so strongly of "generic hotel body wash" that it's no surprise that they are typically featured in hotels.

I also don't really understand the premise of the brand. Birchbox says, "For anyone who’s ever swiped their significant other’s bath products [raises hand], there’s a new way to avoid a potentially uncomfortable confrontation down the line: going Dutch on a single bottle of GUYandGIRL’s Shower Gel." My boyfriend already uses 90% of my bath products even though they do not contain the word "guy" on the packaging (my bath bombs are MINE, though), and I'm not sure I want to encourage him to steal more of my things.

I tried to find out a little bit more about the company by googling "guyandgirl bath", but all I got was porn.

KIND Healthy Grain Bar in Maple Pumpkin Seeds with Sea Salt (1.2 oz), approximate retail value $0.79

I know that people get all grumpy about getting food in their Birchbox, but this granola bar is fucking delicious. It's not very maple-y, but it's really salty, and salt is my soulmate. I have already bought a 15 pack on Amazon and I'm going to throw a few in my desk at work for snacks.

Color Club Gala Gem Collection in Gold Struck (0.25 fl oz), approximate retail value $3.25

Gold Struck is more of a super shiny champagne. I actually found it was opaque in a single coat, although brushstrokes are pretty hard to camouflage due to the slightly streaky formula.

Total Box Value: $15.82

The Kind granola bar was the only product in my Birchbox that I was really over the moon about. The brow gel and the nail polish were enjoyable, and the bath products didn't work well for me. I wish there had been at least one other product where I thought, "fuck yeah, I'm so excited about this!", but I wouldn't say the box was disappointing.

If you are interested in joining Birchbox, you are always welcome to use my referral link by clicking here.

If you make something purple, the chances that I will like it increase exponentially. It's no surprise, then, that I'm a little bit gaga about Kat Von D's purple-themed eyeshadow palette in Poetica.

The embossed tin packaging is the bee's knees. It admittedly doesn't have the heaviness that's a good "I spent a lot of money on this shit" indicator, but, for the $36 pricetag, I think the design is stellar. I've said it before; Kat Von D product packaging looks like it is designed for someone in their 20s. It feels youthful and fun without looking like you got it at Claire's in the mall.

The color selection, though, is what makes me really want to jump up and down with glee.

The palette contains eight shades:

Forgiveness is a white-gold color with a warm, almost frosty finish. It reminds me of how snow looks when your eyes are just starting to adjust to your orange ski google lenses. It's definitely an "ice princess" sort of shade. This color leans a little bit sheerer than the other shades in the palette, but the pigmentation is still perfectly adequate... and it's probably the shade I use most frequently. I especially like that it's a really subtle color, but it's also unconventional enough to be eye-catching. When I open the palette to admire it (which is something you gotta do sometimes!) this is one of the shades I gravitate to, as it's just so damn aesthetically pleasing!

Sand Timer is a neutral nude akin to drugstore pantyhose. It's got a lot of light shimmer in it.

Chandler is a metallic burnt orange. It's one of my favorites due to its flawless, creamy texture. I am sure there was some sort of logic to the naming, but all I can think of when I see it is this:

Image Source: https://telestrekoza.com/link-gallery/albums/Classic_shows/Friends1/Chandler/friends_chandler_006.jpg

Tijuana is a black shadow with heavy gold and purple glitter. Pigmentation on this shade is fine, but it takes a lot for a black to "wow" me, and this one takes a couple layers to build up to full opacity.

Wonderland is a dusty dark purple with tons of purple glitter.

Skiba is a grayish purple with gold, silver, and lavender glitter.

Babe is a lilac that seems to almost glow with a blue sheen. It's not quite a duochrome, but it's a duochrome's cousin.

You Alone is a matte the color of French Vanilla ice cream. It's soft that swatching it with your finger is like petting a kitten. It almost verges on being too soft. Although it's not powdery or chalky, I feel like I am using a lot of product every time I stick in my brush. Personally, as someone who loves a good light-colored shadow, I'm really glad that there are multiple highlights in this palette; I think it makes the whole thing a lot more versatile.

Two swipes, no primer.

The palette also contains a black pencil liner.

The texture of the liner is smooth and easy to use, but it's definitely not the blackest liner on the market.

Here are a few looks I have done with Kat Von D's Poetica:

The lovely quality, perfect packaging, and made-for-me shadow shades makes this palette a winner for me.

Kat Von D True Romance Eyeshadow Palettes retail for $36 for 0.4oz, making them a reasonable $90 per ounce, with the 0.028 oz mini Autograph Pencil Liner as a bonus.

First off, I apologize for being MIA as of late. The boyfriend just started a new nuclear tech job and he needs to get up at 5am to get to work. Being the supportive and wonderful girlfriend that I am, I've been getting up with him to make breakfast, which basically results in me being tired all day long. I've ended up going to work, caring for my pets, and getting nothing else done all day. I can only assume that you have all been sitting at your computers, pining away in my absence.

PopSugar Must Have is a relatively new subscription for me. This is my second month receiving it. It's a wee bit pricy at $40 (uh, "$39.95") per month.

Last month, I subscribed because my life was clearly going to be incomplete without a particular luxury item: a Brokedown scarf. This month, though, was all about practicality. The box was full of shit that I actually need. Here's what I got:

Too Faced Natural Eyes Neutral Eyeshadow Collection, retail value $36

Admittedly, as an eyeshadow hoarder, I don't actually need another neutral eyeshadow palette, but this is still practical as a motherfucker. Too Faced's Natural Eyes palette was originally released on 2009, but it was re-released this year with three switched-out shadows, presumably in response to quality-related criticisms about a few of the grittier colors.

Like all Too Faced palettes, it comes with a little card showing what eyes look like when they are photoshopped to vaguely look like the colors in the palette.

I also, as always, love the fact that the highlight shades are fatties at 0.07oz, with smaller 0.03oz lid shades. They are organized roughly around three looks, which is helpful for anyone who feels really overwhelmed by eyeshadow composition.

The "Day" look contains Heaven, a matte cream the color of vanilla ice cream, Cashmere Bunny (new to the update), a medium cool toffee color, and Sexpresso, a matte coffee brown.

The "Classic" look contains Silk Teddy, a shimmery pink-leaning beige color, Push-Up, a sandy, shimmery brown, and Erotica, a dark gray-brown with yet more shimmer.

The "Fashion" look contains Nudie (new to the update), a smooth, matte, pale brown, Honey Pot, a shimmery bronze-leaning gold, and Chocolate Martini (new to the update), a chocolate with gold glitter. Nudie is the only color I would happily pass on. Although the shade is pigmented and lovely in quality, I really wish that Too Faced has chosen to include more of a highlight shade, rather than a giant-ass lid color. (If you are dark-skinned, though, this will probably work a little better as a highlight on you.)

From left to right: Heaven, Cashmere Bunny, Sexpresso, Silk Teddy, Push-Up, Erotica, Nudie, Honey Pot, Chocolate Martini.

Here's the "Day" look:

Here's the "Classic" look:

And I totally fucked up on symmetry for the "Fashion" look, so here is an awkward close-up of my eye. Go ahead and pretend my other eye also looked like this:

The full palette is $36 for 0.39oz, making it $92.31 per ounce. I like it in terms of quality, though it should be noted that there is nothing about this palette that makes it really stand out as something special in the world of nude shadows. The quality is great, though, and every shadow performs well.

Blue Avocado (Eco) Shopper, retail value $24.99

I am the first person to call out a gimmick, and the idea of a shopping bag that folds up originally made me roll me eyes. I have a gazillion cloth shopping bags. Why would I want one with an extra zipper?

I totally changed my mind the VERY NEXT TIME I WENT TO THE GROCERY STORE. I am the kind of person who habitually forgets my shopping bags in the car and then feels bad about killing the environment. The beauty of this bag is that, when it is folded up and zipped up, it fits in my purse. That means that it doesn't matter if I forget my bags in the car-- I literally always have a shopping bag with me! It's been super handy in the past couple of weeks. It also holds a surprising amount of weight.

The only think I don't like about this bag is that I think there are cuter designs on the Blue Avocado website. The "tuxedo stripe" one is more attractive to me. (Still, this is way prettier than any shopping bags I had before.)

French Pastry Stand Totally Awesome Tea Towel Set, retail value $18.00

Some of you are almost certainly adult enough to have your lives together and stuff, but I am still in transition. We actually didn't own anything with which to dry dishes. When something comes out of the dishwater wet, my strategy has just kind of been to hold it upside down for ten seconds and put it away damp.

Although I don't love the "Totally Awesome" design, this is a really handy acquisition for me.

Graphic Image Pocket Notes 'Run the World' Notebook, estimated retail value $20

A notebook that says "Run the World"? I'll take it. That won't stop me from secretly wishing it was a planner, though.

Caldrea Rosewater Driftwood Hand Soap (full size at 10.8 fl oz), retail value $10.50

I need soap. You need soap. We all need soap. This soap smells like rosewater. That makes me feel fancy.

(For the record, though: As an aquarium enthusiast, I probably have way more driftwood in my house than the average person. Driftwood does not smell like very much.)

Naturebox Popsugar Must Have Mix (4.5 oz), approximate retail value $5.00

PopSugar also kindly sent me a snack. I did not like it. It was almost impressively bland. There were off-brand Craisins in it, but there needed to be way more to counter-balance the absolute boringness of the flavorless soybeans and the like. I have been sticking baggies of them in my boyfriend's lunches so that he can have the, uh, joy of eating them.

Total Box Value: $114.49

I'm super pleased with this box. The Too Faced palette and the Blue Avocado bag were standouts for awesomeness and helpfulness, respectively. The only thing I didn't like was the Naturebox snack, and I'm still using it... just sneakily. With that said, I feel like many people who have their shit together in life enough to own tea towels and all that jazz might be less psyched about the contents of this box.

If you are interested in joining PopSugar Must Have, you are always welcome to use my referral link by clicking here. The code REFER5 will get you five bucks off your first box.

Fact: There is a 50% chance that a Paul & Joe makeup package is going to look like it belongs in a fantasy in which you are a mermaid, you have shells for a bra and anemones for false eyelashes, it's sunset, and the ocean is made of raspberry sherbet.

Fact: I bought this lipstick in a work-appropriate Retro 302 so that I could whip this out to casually reapply during the day and everyone would say, "Oh, look at that fancy-ass lipstick she has. I bet she is really popular and awesome." Or, more accurately: "Why is she applying lipstick at work at 3pm when it is ninety degrees outside?" Or, even more accurately: "Nice to see you, Robyn. I have paperwork to do. Goodbye."

Fact: The PJ that is engraved on this lipstick has a really fancy script, but it still seems like it must stand for either "pajamas" or "peanut butter and jelly".

Fact: Retro 302 is in the same vein as a "my lips but better" shade, but it leans more orange-y. Your local thrift store likely has a dress from the 1980s in this color.

Fact: There is a part of me that really wanted to call this a "scallop" color. Upon googling pictures of scallops, I have concluded that this is more of a "scallop gonad" color, as evidenced here, on the RAM Marine Station website.

Fact: This lipstick applies patchily and unevenly. Remember that one time when you tried that new foundation and then caught a glimpse of yourself in the mirror in a well-lit area and recoiled in horror at how your face was simultaneously melting off and flaking off? This is the lipstick version of that foundation.

Fact: Anything that is really patchy is not actually "full coverage", by definition.

Fact: There are a lot of nude-y lipsticks out there, even if they don't have the kind of spectacular packaging that makes me want to set things on fire from passion.

It doesn't look that bad but it is.

Fact: This lipstick does not last well.

Here's how it looks at application-

And here is how it looks four hours and a meal later-

It's like a magician's disappearing act!

Fact: I have not been able find another lipstick that I can successfully depot into the Paul and Joe cases, since those lipsticks are narrower than your first tampon was.

Fact: I paid $17 for both the case and the lipstick from the Birchbox store, but most places sell the two separately, for a higher price. Beauty.com and Dermstore are both selling the refills alone for $20. At 0.105oz per lipstick, that's $161.90 per ounce or $190.48 per ounce, respectively. This is slightly more expensive than MAC, which rings in at $150 per ounce.

Conclusion: You should probably just buy the case and carry it around, stroking it gently, like a kitten. As a bonus, this will guarantee that your lipstick won't melt in the car this summer.

Beauty Myths: Vitamin E and Scarring

Review: Sumita Beauty Contrast Eye Pencil in Ziba

Stacking Sephora Chic Week and Ebates: What's the Savings?

Review: Dolce & Gabbana 'The Blush' Luminous Cheek Color in Tan 22

Review: BareMinerals The True Romantic READY Eyeshadow Quad

Julep April 2014 Review

Review: Wet'n'Wild Powder Play 5 Pan Color Icon Eyeshadow Palettes in Tunnel Vision, Floral Values, and Art in the Streets

Is 1/4 tsp Enough Sunscreen for Your Face?

Review: Tarte Lights, Camera, Lashes! Mascara

What is "No Poo" (and Does It Work)?

Review: Lipstick Queen Hall of Fame Set

Review: Jouer Tint Lip and Cheek Color in Amaryllis

It Might Be Worth Going Back to High School for the KFC Chicken Drumstick Corsage

Ipsy April 2014 Review

Review: theBalm BalmShelter Tinted Moisturizer in Lighter than Light

Is it Important to Get "Three Free" and "Five Free" Nail Polish?: The Science

Birchbox April 2014 Review

Review: Kat Von D True Romance Eyeshadow Palette in Poetica

PopSugar Must Have April 2014 Review

Review: Paul & Joe Beauté Full Coverage Lipstick in Retro 302