every now and then it is the case, look you see, that the title of one of these posts completely negates the need for any sort of introduction or clarification. such is the case here, to be sure. there can be no doubt that if i am using words like clownfish and unicorn then the topic up for conversation here pertains most decidedly to personal hygiene products.
yes, quite. this is all yet another look at things what i have found to buy and use for the purpose of cleansing. whilst it is unlikely that anyone will be all that interested in what i use to wash, so long as i do it at appropriate times, some of you may like to see what splendid items are available out there on the cheap. the latter is the important part, of course, for i seldom spend excessive amounts on soaps when the lower cost items seem to get the job done.
in this instance, for a grand total of £2 (as in each item cost £1), i am embarking on an ambitious personal hygiene quests which apparently features the shampoo of the seas and the soap of a mythical creature thought not to actually exist.
to start with shampoo, there was much appeal here other than the £1 price. for openers, that's shampoo and conditioner, which i think you will find is ostensibly two usually separate things. so, i am sort of scoring double value here. add to that the Finding Nemo branding and, well, that is all win, that is.
but, does it do any good in terms of the intended purpose? a not entirely unreasonable question to pose of any shampoo (or, for that matter, any shampoo and conditioner combination), is that of whether or not it washes hair in a most agreeable and successful way. yes, i suppose, it does.
and what of the idea that a company would use (presumably in a liquefied state) clownfish as an ingredient of their product? one must presume that such sealife is contained within, for in this day and age of strict financial penalties being imposed on those who mislead with products, no manufacturer in their right mind would sell a product with something on it if it were not in it. this isn't a subject i have ever been called upon to give much thought to, but presumably there are no issues or quarrels with it. had it been so that using clownfish (named Nemo or nameless) as a central part of shampoo products was a problem, then i have every confidence that greenpeace or peta or similar would have kicked off and raised awareness of it being wrong. as i am unaware of such, there must be no issue.
rather more controversial, then, is the idea of using unicorns (actually "cosmic" ones according to the label) in order to make soap, or if you will "shower gel". yes, i have indeed sourced one of them "free to use" images off of the internet to illustrate this section.
my understanding is that unicorns, as cute as they seem and as aesthetically pleasant as their name may be, don't actually exist. well, apparently they do. how marvellous it is that a company has discovered them to be real has to be tempered with the fact that they have, possibly irresponsibly so, found that the only practical use for this discovery is to mash them up and use them in a personal hygiene product. one suspects this rather stark conclusion will cause some upset, and a degree of distress, to those who have dreamed of unicorns being real.
indeed, this shower gel, or if you will soap, does work well. no idea who decided that soap or whatever infused with extracts from a unicorn would be a good idea, but it is. whereas i would usually raise an eyebrow at the idea of using fantasy beasts for hygiene products, knowing now what i do, well, i cannot complain. also, i am aware of one or two people who keep pet rabbits in their bathroom, just to test out things like shampoo, toothpaste and what have you. they argue that if it is good enough for scientists to do it, then so it must be for them.
well, anyway, that is pretty much just about all i can say on these two items.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment