|I try to keep this blog light-hearted, which is why you won't find me discussing things like health care reform, politics, homelessness, the war, or mental illness very often. These things concern me greatly offline - so I refuse to bring them online. My blog has become a refuge from these weighty matters.
Having said that, though, I would like to reach a little into my dark side and register a complaint with the lip gloss manufacturers out there.
Why can't you design a tube of gloss where the applicator doesn't fall short of the bottom of the tube? I wind up wasting about 15% of the product in the tube due to the short applicators. The gloss is too thick to try to tip closer to the applicator - it just sits there at the bottom of the tube - taunting me and reminding me of the waste of society in general.
Oh, I have caved in to my practical side and broken up coffee stirrers to try to scrape that last bit of gloss out of the tube, but why should I have to do this, after paying a lot of money for that gloss in the first place? Can't you make your applicators a bit longer so that they just scrape the bottom of the tube?
I don't like squeezy tubes of gloss. They're messy and inaccurate when you go to apply it. I want a nice gloss with an applicator that doesn't waste product, in a tube I don't have to squeeze to apply. Is that so much to ask for?
I'm feeling particularly rant-y today because this situation reminds me of something in our materialistic consumerist lives: planned obsolescence. Everything from PCs to televisions, to underwear and appliances, is designed to fall apart within a couple of years. I think this may be another reason why I love vintage. Vintage items have withstood the test of time. They were made at a time when people were willing to pay a little more for better quality.
Too bad you can't buy vintage lip gloss - and even if you could, would you want to? I bet the applicators could get all of the product out of the tube, though.
Labels: planned obsolescence, vintage