Talk:Lipstick

The contents of the Lip stain page were merged into Lipstick on 28 August 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fashion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 12 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Flower-4321.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mbaile11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

An image used in this article, File:Taylor, Elizabeth posed.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Taylor, Elizabeth posed.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is my opinion that lipstick originated from the placing of vaginal fluid onto lips of women during the time of their menstrual cycle.

At least two things in the history section seem rather doubtful.

Firstly,:

During the Islamic Golden Age the notable Arab Andalusian cosmetologist Abu al-Qasim al-Zahrawi (Abulcasis) invented solid lipsticks, which were perfumed sticks rolled and pressed in special molds, and he described them in his Al-Tasrif

The phrase "invented solid lipsticks" is linked to List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world, as if that contain supporting references; but it does not. Al-Zahrawi was a surgeon, and his Kitab al-Tasrif is about medicine (mainly, surgery) but apparently it does include one chapter on cosmetics. However the only source I have found that gives more detail about al-Zahrawi's solid sticks describes them as perfume; it says nothing about colouring the lips. So at a minimum, a reference is required for this claim.

Worse is the claim that:

Ancient Egyptians extracted red dye from fucus-algin, 0.01% iodine, and some bromine mannite, which resulted in serious illness.

Again no source is given, however googling reveals that many websites make this claim, some of them citing Read My Lips: A Cultural History of Lipstick, Chronicle Books, 1 Sep 1998, M. Cohen and K. Kozlowski.

However as given the claim is at best garbled and possibly complete nonsense. There is no substance called "fucus-algin", nor "bromine mannite." Fucus is a genus of common brown seaweeds, and the rest is a slightly garbled list of typical components of an extract of brown seaweed: algin (a sticky gum), and traces of iodine (actually in the reduced form as iodide salts), bromine (also actually as salts) and mannite.

None of these materials are appreciably toxic: actually an extract of Fucus vesiculous is still a permitted food additive and dietary supplement. It is perfectly safe even to eat in moderation, never mind the tiny amounts that would be ingested from a cosmetic. Moreover, this material is not brightly coloured. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Anyone notice just what sort of authority Yona Williams is? I haven't bothered to look at any of the other references; I imagiine that they range from competent to totally fucked-up. —66.87.131.97 (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1770 a British law was proposed to the Parliament that a marriage should be annulled if the woman wore cosmetics before her wedding day."

The citation for this is from cultureschlockonline.com, which doesn't cite any sources. This claim is repeated in a lot of pop culture articles with some variations, but I could not find a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omg dora (talk • contribs) 15:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Omg dora (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lipstick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905135116/http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/788/Schaffer06.pdf to http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/788/Schaffer06.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this image is unnecessary (how many pictures of lipstick do we need?) and contributes to the eroticization of women, as it is clearly an erotic portrayal of a female which looks like it could have been cropped from a pornographic image (I am aware it probably wasn't but it looks that way).

Wikipedia articles concerning stereotypically female topics tend to be overloaded with unnecessary and often blatantly erotic images. This is a form of stereotype threat and also very creepy. - Hunan201p (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is wrong with a woman presenting herself as erotic? Why are you presuming that we are eroticizing the woman in the photo (or women in general) when obviously that woman has agency over how she presents herself? And if she thinks she is sexy in red lipstick, why are we supposed to be the puritan nanny and warn her about "eroticization of women"? I, for one, do not go through my day worrying if some random dude might objectify me. BTW, this is kind of a First World concern. The Saharan and Sahelian cultures I study have an entirely different take on what a woman is doing when she shows herself in public with an "enhanced" appearance. Pascalulu88 (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Section: Since the article talked about lead, I thought it would be good idea to speak of other dangerous things like Cadmium, Chromium, Manganese, BPA on lipsticks. I am going to put in two new section on these. Flower-4321 (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the content, but left out lip tint given the concerns expressed in the discusison. It would be great if someone could add a referenced comment about this topic.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Lipstick Lesbian" is in itself a good term, but the text of this section seems to reinforce the stereotype that Lesbians are usually more masculine than other women. Most of us are not women trying to be men. We're simply women who love and are attracted to other women. We have all sorts of styles of presenting ourselves and "butch" or "dyke" are not more AUTHENTIC than "lipstick" or "femme." And there is nothing "stereotypical" about loving glamour and fashion and all that good stuff. Also, the whole implication of masculinity being the default for Lesbians plays into and (unintentionally, I'm sure) reinforces the persistent confusion that many straight people have between gay/Lesbian/bi and trans. Pascalulu88 (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]