Woman’s Passions

They say modern man’s thinking is 10% radical. The rest is mythological. And in 90% of cases we really believe or don’t, not thinking and considering. This fact is studied since long ago and used by a big business machine. 

And most such myths are used in advertisement, directed on women. Probably, this is a man’s chauvinism of developers, they think they are dealing with unpractical creatures, subjected to sudden mental impulses.

So, here’re most popular advertising methods women buy into??¦

 

 

 

Nutrition for hair is not for us, this is for Gorgon. Usual people’s hairs consist of dead keratinized cells (the same thing with nails, by the way). And it’s useless to nourish them. Here’s a simple proof: if a cell is still alive, it has blood vessels. Have you ever seen someone’s hair bleeding during haircutting?

 

Hair resembles a fir cone - lots of scales, connected with their ends. If they are crowded to each other tightly, hair shines and delights an eye, if they are fluffed - we have an opposite picture. Disposition to such  “fluffing” depends on qualities of a “fir”-organism (innate disposition, right nutrition) and the way one treats hair.

 

If you rinse fatty film from your hair too often (scalp also has sebaceous glands), blow-dry constantly, then damage is inevitable. Then time comes for “nourishing” hair cosmetics, which, of course, nourish nothing.

 

 

blondes are divided into two categories - some have a pupil’s mark book with bad marks and stable disgust for science, others also have bad marks, but they are delighted with science. Numerous scientific words, like “proteins”, “keratins”, “coenzymes” are counted on the latter.

 

Remember a chewing gum with carbamide. Well, do you think many people would like to chew a gum with urea? And here we have just a synonym, but what an effect! The same thing happens with other scientific words.

 

This myth is counted on those, who has an aversion for science in general and new technologies, in particular. Striving back to nature, these citizens learn yoga asanas and switch to raw food. And the less civilization attainments were used while growing, the better food is.

 

Advertisement entices such people with the word “natural”, and they are glad to stretch for precious cans. You know, “silk extract” sounds better, than iso-propane-butanol, do you agree?

 

 

 

Cosmetic advertisement often uses such phrase: “98% effectiveness - proved”. Sometimes there’s also more or less honest addition: “According to results of a clinical test with participation of 40 (-60-80) women”.

 

They tell the truth. Really, there’s testing on probationers, when they take from 20 to 100 people - a so-called, first test on people. With its help they check whether a novelty has some bad side effect. But this research won’t help to evaluate efficiency of a cosmetic. They should take ten times more volunteers to investigate whether a cream smoothes out wrinkles and improves complexion. So, you can ignore percents, mentioned in advertisement.

 

Another thing about testing. Now it’s fashionable to write that “we, tender-hearted, don’t torture animals and test new cosmetics on them”. Remember an anecdote about vegetarians: “Vegetarians don’t eat meat not because they like animals - they just hate plants”. The same thing with tests. If there’re no tests on animals, this means, that a novelty will finally be tested on people. You cannot replace in vivo experiments by in vitro ones. And here we have a question: whom you pity more - mouse, rabbit or man?

 

 

Practical recommendations in confrontation to advertising mythology are not original. Just ask yourself, while stretching for a shampoo bottle, - why do you chose this one? Because you saw a supermodel shaking her thick chevelure on TV? Because this shampoo is “with lipoids”? Or according to some other reason?