Any of you make up guru's out there want to try this new mascara for me?
I am intrigued but also confused by the shape of this brush, but it says its "revoluntionary" so thats got to be good, right? Cosmetic companies would never lie.
Anyway I am always looking for a good mascara and can never find anything that I really love. I am also cheap when it comes to cosmetics though so spending $27 on a product where there is no guarantee it will be worth it is just a bit too risky for me. This is probably also why I cant find a good mascara since I buy all my make up at Target.
So I think one of you girls should try it and get back to me. Go now.
I am sort of in love with the color purple right now, which is as girly a color I will go since I hate the color pink and I am lusting after these two dresses:
Um, these ads make me uncomfortable:
I am sure some people may think they are edgy but to me they are just tacky and uneccesarily provacative. A little class can go a long way, a concept obviously lost on Tom Ford and American Appareal.
Agreed on the Tom Ford ad. Sometimes that edgy line is very close to pervy.
ReplyDeleteI might give that mascarra a try. I love givency but it's hard to get a hold of since no one in town sells it. But I am about out of mascarra and need to order some other stuff online.
You can get it at Sephora.
ReplyDeleteHey, how about a little NSFW warning before I pull up pictures of cooters holding onto perfume bottles?
ReplyDeleteNo you can order it on Sephora. I've been to the store and they don't carry Givencey Cosemetics just the fragrences. Also they are out of stock on-line
ReplyDeleteI just clicked on the link and they aren't out of the black online, the brown just isnt available.
ReplyDeleteSorry Adam, I will put up an adult content warning.
The owner (or CEO?) of American Apparel is the biggest sleaze bag that side of the Mississippi so no surprise there.
ReplyDeleteyeah, not too surprised one of those ads is am.app. they are frequently pushing the sexual boundaries in their ads, have used porn stars, etc. but, i think it's just in their catalogs.
ReplyDeletethe tom ford on i've seen on media websites, but haven't seen it in print. any of you?
selling products with sex may be objectifying, but in relative terms i'd have to give credit to american apparel for featuring girl next door models. look at that tom ford model; that's f'ing sad! subjectively, i think it's gross. but more importantly, this is no kind of standard to set for young women. so here's to stirring the pot: is it worse to show normal women half naked, as american apparel does, or to hold up starved stick figures as the standard of beauty, no matter what state of dress they are in?
ReplyDeletei know some of you are tempted to say that neither is acceptable. i agree. but that's not very realistic, in my opinion. the fashion industry has always set trends for the ideal female body. american apparel deserves some credit for trying to change what we, and countless young women, recognize as beauty.
that's just my knee jerk reaction. i look forward to seeing how some of you agree or disagree.
Oh Mellow, you just need to get laid more often.
ReplyDeleteI kid, I kid.
I have no issue with a girl next door look. My issue is that she looks very young and the ad for SOCKS is showing her simulating masturbation. That is highly innapropriate to me and objectives young woman as sex objects. When shooting this ad this girl was told to get naked and make expressions that simulate pleasuring yourself. Would you want your daughter or sister shooting this ad? She is not just half naked, she is completely naked with socks. So basically you can be the girl next door or a very thin model type, as long as you are a sexual object. Good message.
ReplyDeleteMellow-Some girls next door are very thin (or were).
ReplyDeleteI don't know that the idea of a woman deriving sexual pleasure from the fantastic-ness of her socks is objectification.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's more subtle and I'm missing it though.
And she's wearing panties, yes? It certainly looks that way.
ReplyDeletei think lulu is referring to the smaller pictures on the left. when enlarged it's sort of blurry, and i have no idea what the words say.
ReplyDeleteit seems to me, adam, that a photo of a woman deriving sexual pleasure in order to sell something is indeed objectification. the ad isnt saying, gosh i really love these socks because they are great at their sock-y-ness, its saying look at this tween getting herself off as she wears these (freaking hideous) socks and buy some. now im no scholar, but it seems to me that objectification is just that, treating someone as a sexual object and nothing more.
ReplyDeleteThanks Timid.
ReplyDeleteAnd by the way, the model in the ad is a porn star.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Phoenix
The lower right hand corner says to google her.
E was right, the CEO Dov Charney is a sleaze, which I was not aware of until I did a little research. I will let you do that on your own if you are interested, he is very controversial.
wow, i'm not sure who buys american apparel, and i'd heard that they used some controversial ads, but that is pretty sleazy telling people to google some porn star (unless the corner also says, meet lauren phoenix. she's a porn star. google her.)
ReplyDeletehey, if you want your porn, fine. but even a risque clothing company probably shouldn't be telling customers (potentially teens) to search out a porn star. imho.