Skip to main content

making faces :: are you a scrumptiously devious kind of lady?

*smooch*
i'm not exactly sure when lipstick names finally jumped the track and headed into the forest. as with most things in the contemporary cosmetic arts, i think it started from mac cosmetics. when i first started buying lipsticks, i had ones with names like "blackberry" and "merlot". on the more fanciful side was something like "cherries in the snow", which still called to mind an icy cool pink-red, which is exactly what the colour was [and still is]. then i discovered mac and got colours like "jet" or "grid" or "media". not exactly evocative of a particular sort of shade. from there, all bets were off. now, you're lucky if anyone ever tethers their cosmetic colour names to something real.


so when you hear the name "scrumptiously devious", you might not immediately have a shade in mind. 


this is one of rouge bunny rouge's "hues of enchantment" range- their fuller-finish lipsticks [as opposed to the sheerer "succulence of dew" range]. they describe it as "cool lavender pink with a golden opalescence. inspired by the colours of pomegranate skin". 


natural light
i'd agree with the first half of the description- how they interpret the inspiration is really their business. but i'd say that rather than a cooler pink base, it's more neutral. it really looks cool only in a certain light. the refined golden shimmer makes the overall shade warmer-toned, like most rbr lipsticks. it's a gorgeous, natural but striking kind of shade that made my lips look very smooth- a remarkable feat for a frost finish. i've learned with rbr that the differences in wear time between their lipsticks have more to do with the finish than the formula. frosted shades like dark juices [part of the "succulence of dew" range] and scrumptiously devious last longer than creamier shades in either formula like word of mouth or murmurings. the coverage is pretty much opaque on this colour. 






with flash
there are a lot of light pink shades with varying degrees of shimmer, so whether or not you want to plunk down $30-ish [depending on the exchange rate] for this one will depend on what you have already and what you're looking for. in terms of similar colours, nars "pago pago" is lighter and the shimmer is cooler. nars "mayflower" is pinker and brighter. the feel and wear of the shade actually reminded me a lot of guerlain's "cherry blossom", my favourite light pink shade ever, but they're not really similar in terms of colour. "cherry blossom" is brighter, pinker and has a silvery white shimmer that gives it an overall cool appearance. i guess they're kind of cousins from different sides of the warm-cool spectrum. mac "viva glam v" is the most similar colour that i own. the base shades are very similar, but "viva glam v" is a touch sheerer and the shimmer is lighter, so the colour looks quite a bit lighter on the lips.


l to r :: nars pago pago, nars mayflower, rbr scrumptiously devious, guerlain cherry blossom, mac viva glam v



for me, this is an absolutely perfect shade. it works day or night and leaves my lips feeling wonderful. it's a shade that i think pretty much anyone could wear, which is why it's probably described as a "bestseller" by rouge bunny rouge themselves. a great light-natural pink shade brightens your whole face and this one definitely falls into that category. even someone like me, who doesn't repeat lipsticks a lot from day to day is going to find a lot of times to use this. so yes, it's currently in heavy rotation on my face. it may not be one of the dramatic reds or berries that i love, but it's so easy to wear with anything and at the same time has a glimmer of quiet sophistication that it doesn't need to call attention to itself.


like all rouge bunny rouge products, it's available from www.zuneta.com


here's a look at how i used it the first time out [along with a couple of other things i'll be reviewing shortly, in case you were curious...]



the base ::
marcelle beauty balm "light/ medium"
clarins everlasting foundation "103"
smashbox high definition liquid concealer "fair/ light"

marcelle pressed powder "translucent"


the eyes ::
inglot e/s "352" [matte white-peach]
edward bess e/s "storm" [whisper grey-mauve]
le metier de beaute e/s "corinthian" [plum-taupe]
mac powerpoint eye liner "black swan" [black with silver shimmer]
guerlain eye kohl "black"
armani eyes to kill excess mascara


the cheeks ::
guerlain blush g* [bright coral-pink]


lips ::
rouge bunny rouge l/s "scrumptiously devious" [cool-neutral pink with gold shimmer]


*suggested alternates :: rouge g = benefit bella bamba [more shimmer]

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …