One upon a time, before the coined term ‘metrosexual’ came into existence, I dated a handsome fella whose bathroom was filled to the brim with personal care and beauty products. His collection of facial moisturizers far outweighed the lone moisturizer I used and trusted. Oh, and the look of disgust he cast my way when he found out I washed my face with...body soap. Quelle Horreur!

We were from two different worlds. I preferred au naturale; he had cologne for every day of the week. It obviously didn’t work out, but he taught me a thing or two about a three step cleansing program and a good moisturizer.

When the release for Manceuticals’ Wrinkle Relaxant Gel by Skin Scientists came across my desk, thoughts of him came to the forefront and I wondered:
a. if he would use something like this; and
b. how he would respond when he discovered I manage a cosmetic magazine (since, of course, he had shown me how to properly apply eyeliner and etc.).

The selling points for the gel are attractive. It contains an active ingredient called Argireline, which is said to mimic the actions of Botox and can reduce wrinkle depths by an average of 27 percent within 30 days. Additional products are set to be released in autumn and will include a specially formulated men’s moisturizer, an eye bag gel and an aftershave.

Several marketing firms contend that cosmetics tailored for men are positioned to take off in the upcoming year. If this is the case, manufacturers such as Skin Scientists already have their foot in the door and are paving the way. If that’s not enough, take a look at today’s man. The term metrosexual has already become an archaic term in today’s urban lexicon; simply put, more men have adopted the way of the metrosexual. The burly he-man with his stock pile of Old Spice has found benefit in a daily moisturizer, the husband and live-in boyfriend are sharing their partner’s anti-aging cream, and the myspace generation of pretty boys has some serious skills when it comes to hair products and applying black nail polish

So do people regard beauty as a physical attribute or is it a feature found below the surface? According to Synovate’s global survey, two thirds of those survey say that beauty is about non-physical attributes; yet, as many as 40 percent would change their looks if they could.

The survey asked more than 7,000 people in Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Korea, India, Singapore, Spain, South Africa and the United States and uncovered some intriguing attitudes about beauty across cultures and genders:

• Nearly one in five respondents would have plastic surgery if they could afford it; 30 percent wouldn’t change a thing.
• Those in Spain desire darker skin; Koreans strive for paler skin.
• Americans have the poorest self image when it comes to beauty; seven percent said they are not beautiful and want to change.
• Beauty doesn’t buy you kudos in Korea where 96 percent disagreed that beautiful people do not have to work as hard. In Brazil and India, 55 percent of people think you can get away with less work as long as you look good.
• Forty-one percent of all respondents agreed that they pay attention to beauty tips in magazines.
• Three in ten people are comfortable in their beauty to do nothing at all (no extra products, spa treatments, tanning, skin whitening or surgery).

And just in case that wasn’t enough fodder to inspire new ways of marketing beauty products to consumers across the world. Take heed from the fashion maven himself and his thought on beauty:  

"I don't like standard beauty- there is no beauty without strangeness." 

                                 ~Karl Lagerfeld

(EPA photo)

Living in Phoenix has definitely taught me a thing or two, mainly that a well-formulated sunscreen is necessary for living in the desert. I like to think that I’m pretty savvy when it comes to picking out a sunscreen that provides the most protection for those days spent lounging by the pool.

However, now that there’s a tot in tow, I am rethinking what sunscreen is best for me and my family. Those glamorous days of sunbathing by lavish hotel pools have been replaced by plastic wading pools and protecting the little one’s delicate skin from those hellacious summer rays. While a concoction of tanning oil and SPF 60 might have worked for me back in the day, it definitely isn’t the kind serum I’d want to slather on the little miss’s precious skin.

A variety of children-formulated sunscreens have hit the marketplace in recent years from conventional to natural skincare manufacturers. Perhaps one of the best places for a parent to begin her search is figuring out whether she wants to use a sunblock or a sunscreen.

According to here, the differences are based on ingredient types:

Sunblocks do have some benefits, including that many experts believe that the main sunblock ingredients, including titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, can be less irritating and are less likely to cause allergic reactions than avobenzone (Parsol 1789), the main sunscreen ingredient that provides UVA protection and other chemical sunscreen ingredients.

So if your child commonly gets a rash when using sunscreen, a sunblock might be a better alternative.

The main differences between sunblock vs. sunscreen is in how they work. According to the EPA, sunscreens are chemicals that 'protect your skin by absorbing and/or reflecting UVA and UVB rays.' On the other hand, sunblock is made of physical or inorganic ingredients that actually block, reflect and scatter the sun's rays.

Next is evaluating the mother’s list of things a sunscreen must or must not have and deliver; for example, a sunscreen that doesn’t irritate baby’s eyes and skin, that doesn’t leave a greasy-like texture, and isn’t loaded with 50,000 chemicals. And most importantly, one that actually works.

The part of me who is a skeptical mother and consumer was recently drawn into a recent newsletter from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) that noted: “Four out of 5 sunscreens don't give the protection you need, blocking too little of the sun's harmful UV radiation, or containing ingredients with significant safety concerns.”

EWG offered its top five picks and noted that consumers can go to their database here to see how their current sunscreens rate. The group uncovered these findings during its investigation of sunscreen products:  

• Only 15 percent of 952 products analyzed met EWG's criteria for safety and effectiveness, blocking both UVA and UVB radiation, remaining stable in sunlight, and containing few if any ingredients with significant known or suspected health hazards. Our assessment is based on a detailed review of hundreds of scientific studies, industry models of sunscreen efficacy, and toxicity and regulatory information housed in nearly 60 government, academic, and industry databases.
• Many products lack UVA protection. Our analysis found that 7 percent of high SPF sunscreens (SPF of at least 30) protect only from sunburn (UVB radiation), and do not contain ingredient combinations known to protect from UVA, the sun rays linked to skin damage and aging, immune system problems, and potentially skin cancer. FDA does not require that sunscreens guard against UVA radiation.
• Sunscreens break down in the sun. Paradoxically, many sunscreen ingredients break down in the sun, in a matter of minutes or hours, and then let UV radiation through to the skin. Our analyses show that 48 percent of products on the market contain ingredients that may be unstable alone or in combination, raising questions about whether these products last as long as the label says. FDA has not proposed requirements for sunscreen stability.

Here are the top five products the EWG picked and additional recommendations here.

1. Keys Soap Solar Rx Therapeutic Sunblock
2. Trukid Sunny Days Facestick Mineral Sunscreen UVA/UVB Broad Spectrum
3. California Baby Sunblock Stick No Fragrance
4. Badger Sunscreen
5. Marie Veronique Skin Therapy Sun Serum

The findings are quite surprising; especially after I entered in the product that I felt had passed mommy’s stamp of approval and all those that I used during my glama rama heyday. Let’s just say they didn’t make the 15 percent. (ouch!)

(photo from here)