Talk:Lipstick

Lipstick On A Pig

The article states:

 "The phrase "putting lipstick on a pig" is an American colloquialism that means, "making the unattractive 
 superficially attractive," with overtones of futility or of a lost cause. [7] "

However, the source cited -- cNet blog -- does not contain this quotation. Google references point back to this wikipedia article.

I don't know enough about Wikipedia policy to know what to do: so I highlighted this on the article page and am noting it here.

--Kegill (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The source cited has that phrase in its title! How could you miss it? --Christofurio (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Secondary characteristic??

I deleted this category; it's nonsense. Nothing applied to the body is a characteristic, secondary or otherwise. Pastafarian Nights 20:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This article takes for granted that lipstick makes women look more attractive sometimes usually its effect is exactly the opposite.

I remember watching a documentary (no I cannot source it, so I'm not adding it) that said the attraction carey actually is a genetic holdover throughout the ages, like larger bosoms being symbolic of producing more milk, or large hands equating to endowment. The program (Discovery or PBS) said that the application, because it is to the lips, simulated menses, therefore ovulation and fertility, and that the attraction carries second in the human brean because of that. Chris 05:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is known throughout psychology. Lipstick is a imitation of sexual stimulation. When women are stimulated through sexual encounters they gain a "glow". Lips plump, breasts increase in size, and usually a glow appears across the skin to show stimulation. I unfortunately only know this through a college psychology class and have not successfully found a good source. Anyone who is willing should investigate this further should do to its factual nature. Also the comment "it makes women less attractive" should take into consideration the importance of moderation. Anything used in access commonly destroys its purpose and should not be considered in its general use. Djxerox (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother to remove lipstick

I just added some pictures to this article, although I can see that it looks quite crowded now. You can either move or remove them. Perhaps they should be saved until this article is expanded..? --208.127.64.217 11:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

lipstick as a "band"

Lipstick is also a late nineties eurodance artist. Most wellknown song being "Queen of the Rhythm"

Black Elizabethan Lipstick?

I'm assuming the following has been vandalised, and am changing it to "red" and "white" respectively. It's not a recent edit, so I'm recording it here:

 "Lipstick started to gain popularity in the 16th century, during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, 
 who made piercing black lips and bright yellow faces a fashion statement."

Faerie Queene (talk) 23:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Lipstick lesbians?

At least as interesting and sourceable as lipstick on a pig. Dread Pirate Westley•^Aargh 19:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead

Why do many lipsticks contain lead? Badagnani (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Lipstick/all lip cosmetics?

The article doesn't distinguish between lipstick - a rigid tube of colourant which can be applied to the lips without soiling the fingers, and which seems to have been invented in the 1880s - and all earlier forms of lip cosmetic going back to prehistory. Is this article about lip-colouring in general, or just lipstick?RLamb (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Weird, confusing sentenced.

This sentence here seems to make little sense, given its surrounded by several paragraphs to the contrary. Removing it. If I did a bad, please don't hurt me.

Only actors and actresses in black and white films wore lipstick; lipstick had to be dark to stand out in black and white film. Thus the movie industry created a demand for lipstick. Women outside of the movie industry wanted to look like movie stars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.198.234 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Linkspam? (June 2011)

The article contains 10 .com links as of June 14, 2011. Shouldnt these be removed? --Smokefoot (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)