Would you like to appear to be wearing no makeup, when you are actually wearing some makeup? Then Dior Lip Glow is the thing to buy. Basically a very high end tinted chap stick, this tube of lies moisturizes, protects you from the sun, and subtly intensifies the color of your lips, whatever that may be (it’s science). Friends of mine like it because it goes with every outfit, doesn’t look like “LIPSTICK lipstick,” and won’t show up on their teeth (a regular bunch of rom-com heroines, us). There are also similar products available for those who’d like a redder version of the concept.

($29)

Related posts:

• Pick Of The Week: Stanley Thermos
• Pick Of The Week: Sturdy Boots For Winter
• Pick Of The Week: L’Oreal Elnett
• Pick Of The Week: Desert Rose Anything From L’Occitane

Post from: TheGloss

Earlier today, Jennifer posted a gallery of your beautiful, cowardly faces, and I found it delightful. It was fun to see what some of our readers look like, and also to poke holes in the idea that going barefaced (something a lot of people do all the time, anyway) is enough to earn the stamp of “bravery.” But that’s not the only idea that deserves to have holes poked in it! There are many other disingenuous ways to post photos of oneself; here are seven of them. (Or rather, six plus one honest one.) And lest you accuse me of throwing stones from a glass house, I will admit to being guilty of most or all of them at some point in my life. After all, I’m using examples from my own collection.

Related posts:

• Willow Smith Shaves Head, Demonstrates Actual Beauty Bravery
• Video: Brave Russian All-Girl Punk Band Arrested For Performing Anti-Putin Song
• Not Wearing Make-Up Doesn’t Make You “Brave”
• 39 Reasons To Wear Make-Up

Post from: TheGloss

And I especially don’t want to undermine those fine women who submitted their pictures to the XOJane gallery of make-up free heroism, the same gallery that started this week’s unofficial theme of “what constitutes bravery.” But I’m afraid that no matter to which gallery we submitted, we’ve all just been shown up: Willow Smith, 11, has shaved her head.

Ladies, that takes balls. Do we want to call it bravery? I’d certainly argue that it’s braver than forgoing lipstick (or…um…wearing lipstick). Ridding yourself of your hair as a woman (or in this case, a very famous girl) flies in the face of pretty much every beauty expectation, and it actually makes you quite vulnerable. Or at least, that’s how I imagine it would be, because I will be the first to admit that I’ve never tried it. Having a shaved head is a really, really scary idea. Did I mention that Willow is 11?

Anyway, I’m sure that about 1% of you are cracking your knuckles right now and gearing up to tell me about that one time you shaved your head, too, and you will make it seem like my percentages are off because no one is going to be all, “yeah, no, I’ve never shaved my head” in the comments section because that would be a dumb comment. So instead, how about a poll? I’ve just hypothesized (a little exaggeratedly, but I’ll stick by it) that approximately 99% of us have not shaved our heads. I’m not afraid to be wrong.

Related posts:

• Ready-To-Click:Willow Smith’s Style Evolution
• Do You Like Willow Smith’s Neon Braids?
• Video: Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young Cover Willow Smith’s ‘Whip My Hair’

Post from: TheGloss

I mean, the first reason is obviously that you’re a coward.

But when we noted that wearing make-up and bravery seem not connected readers came up with others – sometimes cowardice inspired! – reasons for wearing make-up. Hell, one of our readers doesn’t even have a face without make-up, and we support their right to have eyes.

Though the entry above really stood out (in part because of that artful use of blue facepaint). Her name is Ashley. Her cousin submitted this story on our behalf:

Here’s a picture of my cousin Ashley circa 1985. She’s all dolled up like a true toddler tart. (Take that pageant moms!) Despite the caked-up makeup, she’s secretly SUPER BRAVE. Ashley was recently diagnosed with a super rare, super scary form of cancer that they still aren’t quite sure how to treat. So in the face of this she decided, “Oh, I think I’ll start a foundation for other single moms in my position, because cancer sucks for everyone.” So, even though she’s no chicken, I think you should hook her up with the swag bag.

I’d be happy to share her blog or foundation information upon request, but my goal here is to score her some cool shit.

She gets all the cool shit.

The foundation is called Until The End, and you can check it out, here.

But all of these people are – well, indispituably not winners in this particular contest – but perhaps winners in life. Seriously, I love this gallery. I know it takes forever to flip through slideshows, and I wish I had a better way to lay this out, but I  I think that you should read it. Because it’s fun. And so that if someone asks you why you paint your face, you will have things to say that are not, necessarily, “because I am not brave.” Unless you aren’t! That’s cool, too.

Related posts:

• Submit To TheGloss’s Gallery Of Cosmetic Cowardice!
• Not Wearing Make-Up Doesn’t Make You “Brave”

Post from: TheGloss

She’s surprisingly relevant in just about any era (although this is an older picture of her by Steven Meisel).

It’s Madonna! her movie W.E. inspired by Wallis Simpson is opening this weekend. I suppose we can only guess at what drew Madonna to a story about an American broad with a great sense of style who decided to break into aristocratic British circles.

Related posts:

• Retro Snap: The Fact That This Woman Was A Model Always Surprises Me
• Retro Snap: You’d Recognize This Famous Supermodel Today
• Retro Snap: This Was The Most Famous Movie Star In America

Post from: TheGloss

When she appeared on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” yesterday, FLOTUS was there to talk about her campaign to reduce childhood obesity. She began describing her own workout schedule — an hour and a half every day, ladies — and with that, Ellen challenged her to a push-up contest. Michelle accepted, the two stripped off their jackets and took to the floor, and then Michelle won.

And you know what? Even if this win was staged, I’m still impressed — Michelle did 25 push-ups.

That’s the way you do it — that’s the way you debate.

Related posts:

• Did Michelle Obama Spend $50,000 On Lingerie?
• Gallery: Happy Birthday, Michelle Obama! Here Are 10 Of Her Best Looks
• Congressman Says Michelle Obama Has A ‘Large Posterior’

Post from: TheGloss

Everyone in this first family photo looks unenthusiastic about this, except for the father to be. Who, honestly, doesn’t really need to be shirtless.

What I like best about this astonishingly awkward photo is the way drawn-on-baby seems to realize that this is a really weird idea. He likely also doesn’t understand why the base of his umbilical cord is tinted red while the rest of him is black and white. I have a feeling that this baby is going to be questioning a lot of decisions once he makes it out of the womb. Do that, little guy. Do that.

Related posts:

• Is This Photo Too Sexy For A High School Yearbook?
• Photo: Teacher From 1969 Who Moonlighted As A Stripper
• Random Photo: A Very Literal Sex Tape
• Random Photo: How Women Rank Men’s Valentine’s Day Presents

Post from: TheGloss

Though I suppose it shouldn’t, as she’s still into doing things beautifully…

It’s Martha Stewart! In a swimsuit. It’s still a little bit weird, right? Perhaps because I associate her more with “providing me with incredibly ambitious cooking projects” and less as “being a glamour girl” but she looks terrific.

Related posts:

• Retro Snap: You’d Recognize This Famous Supermodel Today
• Retro Snap: This Was The Most Famous Movie Star In America
• Retro Snap: Do You Recognize This Actor/Model

Post from: TheGloss

I’m just going to say it, I think she’s brave.

Or, at least, really interesting to look at, though the logic behind her transformation is pretty impressive. And she does seem to have an astonishing capacity to withstand pain (judging from these photos from Buzzfeed). Like, here:

Intrigued? Here are 5 interesting facts about her

Related posts:

• Dating Hijinks: The Vampire Lover Who Also Loved Applebee’s
• Vampire Sex Sucks: Were The Honeymoon Scenes In Breaking Dawn Worth The Wait?
• Become a Vampire and You’ll Lose Weight

Post from: TheGloss

Our old friends at the Advertising Standards Authority are still at it: the UK’s watchdog group recently banned L’Oreal ads featuring Rachel Weisz (pictured) for misleading consumers. The product–L’Oreal’s Revitalift Repair–promises to remove wrinkles, but ASA ally and parliamentarian Jo Swinson (who filed the complaint) said the beauty company “misrepresented the results that the product could achieve.”

The ASA explains:

“We told L’Oreal Paris to ensure that they did not use post-production techniques in a way that misrepresented what was achievable using the advertised product. Although we considered that the image in the ad did not misrepresent the luminosity or wrinkling of Rachel Weisz’s face, we considered that the image had been altered in a way that substantially changed her complexion to make it appear smoother and more even. We therefore concluded that the image in the ad … misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product in relation to the claims ‘SKIN LOOKS SMOOTHER’ and ‘COMPLEXION LOOKS MORE EVEN’.”

L’Oreal, of course, doesn’t think they’re in the wrong:

[L’Oréal claims they] sought to represent Weisz as favorably as possible,” shooting her with a lot of light and giving the image a soft focus and low resolution. The firm also provided the ASA with details of what postproduction it had used on the image, as “they wished to ensure that they were compliant with the [ASA’s] code,” the ASA said.

In a response to the ruling, a spokesperson for L’Oréal said: “We are disappointed to learn that the ASA has adjudicated against our press advertisement for Revitalift Repair 10. We believe that the image in the advertisement is a true representation of Rachel Weisz. The product claims are based on extensive scientific research which proved that the product improves 10 different signs of skin aging. We therefore do not believe that the ad exaggerates the effect that can be achieved using this product.”

Although the images of Weisz are obviously retouched, we’re beginning to be concerned that the ASA could erode their own credibility by going after less flagrant abuses of Photoshop. Weisz is very beautiful and, yes, especially with a few hours in the makeup chair and some flattering sunset-y lighting, the photos are going to reflect that (or maybe we’re just saying so because our love of Weisz is well-documented).

…Then again, we’re still not sure which images have been banned, and this one (in particular) doesn’t look much like Weisz:

Last year alone, the ASA banned a Marc Jacobs campaign for “sexualizing” teenage Dakota Fanning, a Drop Dead ad for featuring a too-skinny model, and–surprise–a pair of L’Oreal ads. Are they undermining their own mission or… should obvious retouching in beauty ads be banned one by one?

(Reuters, WWD)

Related posts:

• Taylor Swift’s CoverGirl Ads Have Been Banned
• Hailee Steinfeld’s Miu Miu Ad Has Been Banned In The UK
• Ads Featuring Skinny Model Banned In UK, Deemed “Socially Irresponsible”
• Dakota Fanning’s Marc Jacobs Ad Banned In England For ‘Sexualizing Children’
• L’Oreal Ads Featuring Julia Roberts And Christy Turlington Have Been Banned

Post from: TheGloss