"When you use baking soda (a base) and then apple-cider vinegar (an acid), your scalp’s pH remains stable and its oil production stays low."
I hate to be that person but a chemist friend told me that this isn't actually true. Because they're going on one after the other (as opposed to mixed together which would cancel them out) what's happen is your hair is swinging from basic to acidic and it's actually not super great for your hair.
The big reason why people find their hair gets soft and fluffy from this method is because the baking soda is so alkaline that it starts to break down the bonds in your hair.
If it's working for you, obviously, you do you, but if you worry about the above or find in a few years that your hair is getting a little damaged you might want to switch to some sort of less basic substance (maybe cornstarch?) and use a slightly more diluted vinegar mix.
I hope this isn't rude to point out, but shampoos weren't artificially darkening your hair before-- the constant application of vinegar has lightened it. I have used vinegar to lighten my hair, and I still shampoo it. It is only mildly acidic so it happens slowly, but you are "artificially" lightening your hair with the vinegar over time.
@Emma Carmichael @melis Let's just all agree to go punch Brian Goldberg in the face.
@questingbeast no no it's ok, I promise melis isn't being rude, melis is being melis.
@questingbeast The way I figure it, if Richard Curtis can make Hugh Grant PM, I can make him retire in Cornwall.
@questingbeast Yes, I was trying to squeeze them into some kind of familiar [American] political narrative. So that I flubbed on, but! The Cornwall thing is a nod to Richard Curtis' most recent movie, "About Time." Bill Nighy's family lives in a big pink house on the sea. Anyway, yes, I will gladly own up to those political mistakes. "This'll do," I thought.
@questingbeast 'Ello guvnor!
@melis .70 cents on the dollar. Same old story.
We should all die such lovely poetic deaths full of love and nostalgia.
By queenofbithynia on Interview with Filmmaker Izzy Chan: "Have we adjusted our expectations of what a man needs to bring to the table?"
And subconsciously, we’ll think things like “Not my type” if a guy is unemployed, or not making any money.
This just just just isn't true. Quite aside from the am-I-right overreaching of the "we" here, I remember many a conversation ON THIS VERY HAIRPIN back in the ask-a days, people straight up saying that they did not want to date someone unemployed or "unambitious" (= poor and not ashamed). I find all this pretty gross but it is not subconscious. It is highly highly conscious on the part of those women who have those preferences. It may be wrong (and I think it is) but one thing it is not is women just confusedly not knowing what they're doing as if they lived in a New York Times article fog or something.
Would you be open to supporting someone?
But of course! Me and my cat and my hypothetical layabout husband will live like kings on my $19.22 an hour in this ninth most expensive city in this not inexpensive nation. He will have to understand that I am happy to keep him and let him sit home but the cat manages the budget, she is used to it.
anyhow I question the idea that if men and women grow up with different ideas of what they ought to offer and what they may reasonably demand from a heterosexual partner (and it's true they do), it is the womens' expectations that ought to undergo a global change. Perhaps it is not a good idea to continue reinforcing a paradigm of coupled life where an ideal marital unit consists of one independent and one economically dependent party, regardless of sex? the only answer to how to not starve in a dying economy ought not to be marry someone who will pay your rent.