Do I need to "straighten" up and fly right in 2009?

It's possible I'm verging on militant when it comes to curls. Am I alarmed by this epiphany? Only a little. Which is further proof that I may have a problem.

I was reading one of my favorite blogs today, babyassface, wherein Jennifer is extolling the virtues of the Conair Infiniti Hair Designer. Jennifer claims to not have "good curly hair," and there's certainly not a curly-headed person in the world who hasn't shared that sentiment at one time or another about his or her own hair. And if you've tried a million ways to make your do what you believe it ought to do, and it simply refuses to obey, what alternative seems more expedient than to straighten it? The Conair Infiniti Hair Designer accomplishes this, at least for Jennifer. And you gotta love a story with a happy ending.

(I tried another Tourmaline ceramic product in the Conair Infiniti line a couple of years ago, hoping for the results that Jennifer apparently got. I was hugely disappointed, but then, I never have been very good at wielding hot appliances around my head. Maybe if I had more confidence with them, I'd get better results.)

But back to my militancy. Is it wrong that I am disappointed that yet another curly-haired person has had to seek refuge in straightened hair in order to feel presentable/sexy/well-groomed? I honestly don't know. I haven't straightened since August 2007 and I don't think I'm wearing it as a badge of honor, but am I kidding myself? Why does it bug me so much that society deems only certain types of hair "pretty" and that straight hair is so consistently lauded?

My reaction is so strange to me because I am a girl who loves her accessories. I even have hairpieces that I wear on occasion just to give myself a different look. So why am I so opposed to straightening my hair?

Is there a doctor in the house? Calling all head-shrinkers! Please diagnose my anti-staightening obsession.

Cold weather hair care

Have you been confused about why so many of the products you normally rely on suddenly seem to have stopped working their magic? The answer: WINTER.

(Apologies if you live in a different hemisphere and are in the middle of a humid summer. I promise to cover that more in depth in about 6 months...)

Back in August, humidity might have been the demon you were fighting and so you adapted your routine to keep moisture out because there was just too much of it in the air. Summertime dew points were upwards of 55 and the weather was warm. Now, maybe your dew points are more in 'teens and twenties and it's much colder. Does that really affect how products perform? Does it ever. Laurabeth has a fantastic post about the difference in hot and cold weather and the effect on hair, if you care to learn more from an expert.

When the weather gets cold, your primary goal is to keep your hair moisturized. It's impossible to get the moisture from the air, so you have to use products that will do the trick. This means lots of aloe vera, creams, and butters (if you hair can tolerate butters). Humectants such as honey or glycerine may defeat your purposes -- remembers that humectants pull moisture wherever it's needed, so if the hair is dryer than your hair, guess where the humectant will pull from to try to hydrate the air??

In addition to the dew point situation, you also have to remember that your hair cuticle is tighter (like most things, hair contracts when it's cold). This means that not much pollution is getting in, sure, but it also means that not much moisture can, either. Even the type you apply yourself. Where does that leave you? For some people, it means just using bigger helpings of moisture. For others, it means applying moisture more than once a day. If you're in an environment where heaters are running to combat the cold, consider that a double whammy -- the air is already devoid of moisture and now the heater is making things even drier. Oy vey, what's a girl to do?

- Use heavier conditioners. Now is the time for serious stuff, not the empty conditioners I'm always railing against anyway. You want to pull out your Aubrey Honeysuckle Rose or White Camellia or Island Naturals, your Jessicurl Too Shea, your Karen's Body Beautiful Hair Milk. Try to leave some in or if you aren't a fan of that, add some as a leave-in.

- Ditch the light leave-ins. Especially if your dew point is below 20, just don't waste your time with anything that doesn't contain some oil or shea butter. (Try to stick to jojoba, coconut, and other hair-friendly oils. Stay away from mineral oil, also known as parafinium liquidum. Depending on your hair, you might also want to steer clear of castor oil, but I'll leave that to you to decide.

- Use creamy curl cremes. I'm a fan of Pink Boots curl creme, but in this cold weather, it is not enough unless I put something under it (yes, in addition to my leave-in). Curl cremes I've been loving so far this winter include Loma Imply, Donna Marie's Lock & Twist (just a little goes a LONG way), and Karen's Body Beautiful Super Silky. All of these are excellent! They either contain no glycerine at all or have it in very minute amounts.

- Avoid gels that contain humectants. I've noticed that I get better results with, say, Max Green Alchemy Sculpting gel as opposed to Biotera. Aubrey's B5 gel is really fabulous in this weather.

Not sure what constitutes a humectant? Check out this article for some guidance. Be sure to scroll to the bottom of the article for a list of humectant names in products.

- Consider scrunching out your crunch with the help of a butter. Jane Carter's Nourish and Shine was a favorite among many last year, but this year, I'm hearing raves about Karen's Body Beautiful Hair Cream as well as Butter. (I don't personally scrunch out this way but many curlies have success with it. I'll be trying it when I'm in New England next week -- their dew point is scary low.)

My true identity

I have too many identities and for anybody who might care enough to be confused, I thought I'd clarify things in this post.

My name is Jill. Hence the "jillipoo" at NaturallyCurly.com and the name in this blog's URL.

The Botticelli Babe title was my own creation back at the end of 2007 but subsequent to that, a woman who posts a lot on the discussion boards at NaturallyCurly.com calls herself that. (Which is perfectly fine -- it's not copyright protected or anything.) But I am not that woman, although I wish I were because her hair is fabulous and she is famous for cooking up awesome hair potions in her kitchen.

So who is "Sage Vivant" who signs all these posts? She is my nom de plume. I used to write erotica under that name and that's how Google knows me. I was too lazy to register another name for this blog. If you are interested in my sexual self-help book, Your Erotic Personality, by all means, visit SageVivant.com and learn all about it. I would, of course, be extremely grateful if you bought a copy of the book, especially since I'm pretty sure my agent and my publisher think I've dropped off the face of the earth.

And there you have it. And you thought I was going to tell you I was Wonder Woman, didn't you?

Weird Product Wednesday: Greg Juice

Ever buy a product and not be entirely sure what it's supposed to do? Such behavior is a telltale sign of product junkieism, and I was afflicted with it when I bought Oyin Handmade's Greg Juice.

Is it a conditioner? A detangler? A curl rejuvenator? Or is it so full of herbs and essential oils that you feel virtuous just owning it?

This is one of those products that can be whatever you want it to be. Which at first vexed the hell out of me because I have been trained to read instructions and use a given product in the manner and for the purpose that the manufacturer has deemed appropriate. Yeah, that's right -- I'm a product lemming.

One thing that going CG (Curly Girl) has taught me is to get creative with products. Mix them together. Apply to wet as well as dry hair. Add them to your eggs in the morning. As you learn what ingredients your hair likes and how it likes to receive them, you also learn how to break out of narrow product label restrictions.

Given what's in this product:

- water infused with horsetail, lavender, roses, chamomile, and nettle
- aloe vera juice
- organic flax seeds
- vegetable glycerine

You can assume that it will:

- smell nice
- provide moisture
- inspire some clumping
- attract moisture from the air (if there is any)

As with many products that are designed for a certain type of hair (in this case, thick, possibly wiry, very curly hair), its benefits will vary with the quantity one uses. The label says it "softens loose hair to ease detangling" and I'm not entirely sure what "loose hair" means in this context but I'm willing to just go with the detangling part. It also says that a "quick spritz helps refresh thirsty locks," and that's the first way I used it.

I sprayed it on dry hair one night when I knew I'd be in all night. I figured in the event of a hair disaster, I didn't want to be out in public. I spritzed as suggested on the bottle and didn't touch it. Then I sat at my computer and got involved in something for at least 30 minutes before remembering to check on my hair. It was much curlier! But it was also a little frizzy. Nevertheless, I was intrigued by the curl factor.

I tried it another night and got lots of curl again but less frizz. Hmmm. I was feeling hopeful.

I tried it yet another night and just got frizz, with very little increase in curls. But it's worth noting that with this application, I scrunched the product in, and possibly used too much.

Based on the weather conditions and the state of my hair in all three cases, I came to believe that when weather conditions make my hair a little dry at the end of the day, Greg Juice is a viable way to give them a necessary drink.

And then I saw that Shellynot used it on wet hair before applying gel. I liked this idea and so I applied it before using Biotera. And for the first time since going CG -- EIGHT MONTHS into it, in fact -- I had my very first great hair day that actually lasted all day. That combo has since worked well for me almost every time I've tried it since.

So. We have success with the mysterious Greg Juice as a hair rejuventor and a ... what? Pre-gel application? Post leave-in? There is no name for the function of this product! And that's just weird.

Final tip: Don't use too much. Your hair will get a little sticky and weighed down.

Also, there is a Frank Juice and a Juice and Berries -- they are all the same except for fragrance. So if you don't care for the way Greg Juice smells, try the others.

How did this product get such a weird name? Read about it here on Oyin Handmade's site.

Animal testing

Here's the part where people will label me with all kinds of nasty names and accuse me of having no heart or soul.

I just saw a post on one of my more frequented message boards where the poster said she didn't want to use L'Oreal products because they did animal testing. (To make matters worse, another poster then made a totally unsubstantiated claim that L'Oreal had links to Nazi Germany. Hey, thanks for throwing that out there. It's always a great idea to spread rumors when you have no evidence -- the Internet thrives on that kind of fastidious fact-checking.) But back to my original point about L'Oreal and animal testing in general. [Addendum: Turns out the Nazi Germany link is not pure rumor, despite the poster's lack of knowledge about it. There is a book on the subject, if anybody is interested: Bitter Scent: The Case of L'Oreal, Nazis, and the Arab Boycott. ]

I do not claim to have an inside line on what happens within the walls of the huge conglomerate cosmetics companies, but I have read some interesting commentaries and observations by people who do. For instance, in this Beauty Brains post, they point out that the companies who proclaim that they do not test on animals are simply using ingredients that other companies have already tested. So, yes, those companies can safely make their claim, but what they're really doing is profiting from some other company's "dirty" work, no? Paula Begoun, author of Don't Go to the Cosmetics Counter Without Me, also writes on her Web site that:

Many companies proudly boast that they do not test their products on animals. Nonetheless, despite the fact that they don't test their finished products on animals, there isn't a company selling a sunscreen or using vitamins or myriad plant extracts in their products that doesn't know about the efficacy of these ingredients based on recent or current animal testing. While it is wonderful that companies like Beauty without Cruelty do not test their products on animals, as is true for many companies, a good many of their formulations are a result of animal research. If Beauty without Cruelty does excel in one area, it is that none of their products are sourced from animals. That is somewhat unique in the industry and definitely a plus for vegans.

Okay, but that doesn't get to the issue of the big companies that actually do the testing. I keep digressing....

The FDA doesn't require or discourage animal testing -- it just says that companies must use whatever method best substantiates the safety of their products. Unfortunately, although great strides are being made in the product testing arena, animal testing continues to be a highly reliable (in many cases, the most reliable) method of determining how a product will interact with humans. New methods are being developed all the time, and that is definitely a good thing. It will be a great day when no animals are sacrificed just so we can be prettier.

My research once again brought me back to the Beauty Brains, who wrote an excellent post about how this issue is simply not as black and white as most consumers would like to think.

So what about L'Oreal? I found lots of evidence to indicate that even if L'Oreal had once been an offender, it is determined to change its ways. This highly encouraging story at the cosmetics news site, Cosmeticsdesign.com that indicates L'Oreal is taking some very positive steps to move away from animal testing. And that story is more than a year old.

Another cosmetics insider site, Invitroskin, indicates that L'Oreal has discovered a new way of product testing called Episkin, which is essentially a human epidermis reconstructed on collagen.

I don't know about you, but I think it might be time to stop bashing L'Oreal for animal testing.

Cationic polymers (or: Why I didn't major in chemistry in college)

Yikes. Looking pretty is a hell of a lot easier than learning how products do what they do.

I spent about 30 minutes researching this cationic polymer issue that was the subject of my previous post. And yes, it's amazing what you can find online, but I didn't understand most of it because they talked in terms of molecule chains. I'm the girl who took nutrition classes to get out of taking chemistry back in college. Get what I'm saying? 95% of it was over my curly head.

But fortunately, Tonya -- the Curl Chemist at NaturallyCurly.com -- had written a column a while back that I think tells those of us with inquiring minds what we need to know. I'll try to sum it up in a paragraph. Here goes.

Cationic polymers are most often identified by Polyquarternium and some number. Polyquat-4 is water-soluble and does not result in build-up. Polyquat-10 is more prone to build-up than Polyquat-4, and Tonya says that guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride performs in a very similar manner. Polyquat-11, which I personally avoid because it kills my curls and makes my hair feel unnatural, does indeed build up. Furthermore, Tonya says that many polyquats can be resistant to removal even by clarifying shampoos. I don't know if she means sulfates when she refers to clarifying shampoos.

Most of her article is too scientific for me, but if you love molecular talk, check it out at the link I provided earlier. At least what she wrote was a bit more accessible than what I found elsewhere on the Web.

Bottom line is that the Beauty Brains were correct in expressing real concern about cationic polymers (although to say that all of them are problematic may not be correct). And I must emphasize here that they are only problematic for those of us who want to avoid sulfates, which strip the hair. If you use a shampoo that contains sulfates, go ahead and use silicones and polyquats.

(Why do cationic polymers, silicones, and polyquats exist? Two reasons: they smooth out hair and make it easier to comb, and they also protect hair that is exposed to heat styling. With cationic polymers, there is also the added benefit of the substance going to the most damaged part of the hair and filing it in -- kind of like spackle. This remarkable chemical reaction can help hair look and feel smoother. Again, if you don't mind using sulfate shampoos to remove it, this effect could be beneficial to you.)

Stylers potentially worse than silicones?

One of my favorite blogs, The Beauty Brains, has a forum where people can discuss beauty-related things, and I came across a thread about silicones in hair products that intrigued me. If you can get past the typical in-fighting and the allegations of plagiarism (sigh -- gotta love the Internet), you read down to Left Brain's post in which she says:

More troubling in hair care products than silicones are Cationic Polymers. These ingredients like Guar Hydroxypropyl Trimonium Chloride or Polyquaternium-10 have been demonstrated to build up on hair. They ionically bond to hair and you do need to shampoo more to get them off. Silicones don't stick nearly as well as those ingredients.

I wonder why there is no controversy about Cationic Polymers?

I am very interested in following up on this, mostly because I believe cationic polymers are indeed far worse than anybody cares to talk about. My objection to them is based on pure experience -- nothing scientific. Since going CG, I have definitely noticed that stylers with polyquaternium-10 and -11 leave residue on my hair that requires more than a conditioner-wash.

I'm going to be doing some research on this in the next few days and will keep you posted.