An Essay on Child-Rearing

Studying what I've been studying over the past few months has been difficult. Another word for it is "trying" but it's gone as far as downright terrifying. I did not expect this information to hit me as hard as it did. Being able to personally identify with a lot of what we're learning about has been scary as fuck, since I've been avoiding thinking about these things as much as I could for as long as I could. I finally started to address it and it's been the best thing that I ever did (but at times has felt like the worst thing that's ever happened to me) but this is a topic for another post.

In my current voluntary-distraction-from-exams phase, I've discovered and have been reading extensively The Worst Things For Sale -- which is hilarious, and I highly recommend it. I do this in stores often, especially when visiting the States; I pick up items and scoff at whoever thought a particular item would be a good and necessary thing for people to have. I usually take pictures. And I am usually the only one who finds it funny. But now I know I'M NOT ALONE. I'm digressing here.

In perusing this hilarious website I happened upon an entry regarding a book about "discipline" entitled How To Raise Up A Child. I was a bit scared of what I would find in the reviews. But I am glad I decided to look into it, because this is the exact reason I am getting into the profession of social service work. Reading the reviews on the Amazon item page was also something I dreaded -- thinking there would only be reviews from those singing its praises, testifying about how fantastic the Pearls' methods were, and how it worked for them. To my relief, there seemed to be more warnings to not purchase the book than there were reviews advocating its use. Faith in humanity slightly restored.

Then in one review someone mentioned Lydia Schatz. I looked it up and was amazed that I didn't hear about this story -- or maybe I had, and never looked into it further and simply forgot. Either way, stories like this will now stick in my mind forever as evidence to bring forth whenever someone naively expresses the belief that child abuse doesn't happen anymore. That people have moved past it. Or that everyone knows it's wrong.

Anderson Cooper (bless his gorgeous heart) and another reporter from CNN profiled the Schatz case as Lydia's adopted parents were being sentenced. They spoke with an attorney as well as the authors of the aforementioned ridiculous book, Micheal and Debi Pearl, in this news segment.

What infuriates me is their insistence that abuse can be helpful. That it's beneficial to break a child's will. To hit a toddler until they stop whimpering, for as long as that may take. This is the mindset that killed Lydia Schatz; why? Because she mispronounced a word for fuck's sake. A great blog post with quotes from the book can be found here.

This book is dangerous material for anyone who isn't familiar with child development, which is unfortunately the reality for a lot of fundamentalist religious people. When the only education you get is Bible-based, you get a very ancient methodological basis for your life. We've learned a lot about people since the Bible was written, and this needs to be taken into account. A parent needs to know what behaviours are appropriate for children from ages 0-10 at the very least. They need to know what to expect as normal, childish behaviour -- that which any child of their age would do. Certain behaviours are exploratory, or for fun -- because that's what children do. They explore their fucking worlds by reaching for things or putting things in their mouths, and we should only stop them when their safety is in jeopardy (or maybe when we don't want them drooling on our $600 phones). And that's just it -- you can stop them, and explain why you stopped them. Kids are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Explain your reasoning in a way they can understand. Distinguish this behaviour from purposefully defiant behaviour -- that which is meant to test your boundaries. Or if they're older, it might be to purposefully piss you off (some kids think this is really funny, and can you blame them? You probably look hilarious when you're mad).

A few years ago I was shopping in a large store with a friend and her then 3-year-old son. As a single mother she was able to be very precise in her disciplinary methods (not abusive, for the record). She could practice consistency and control to an amazing degree because she was always with her son, all the time as a mom who worked from home. When she and I stopped to look at something, her son took off running at full tilt towards the far end of the aisle. I of course expressed some slight concern, but she didn't look bothered -- she just said "Oh, he knows to stop where I can see him." I looked over and was astonished to see him stop abruptly at the end of the aisle, turn around and smile his adorable huge smile at us both. This kid is three years old and he knows to stop running before he gets into an area in which his mother cannot see him. How did he know this? She explained it to him. It's about safety. If she were to not explain that part to him, and just do the whole "because I said so!" then it becomes about control. Then, of course he is going to run away where you can't see him and watch you freak the fuck out because it's hilarious. Don't just expect your kids to listen to you about everything, all the time, without explaining why. Again, kids are pretty fucking smart and a lot smarter than we give them credit for. It starts early, too -- when your kid throws a toy off his high chair onto the floor and watches you pick it up for him, over and over? That is hilarious, and he realizes he can control you in that way. Don't slap him for it -- just don't pick up the toy, and he will eventually learn that when something falls off of a surface, it's then out of his reach, so maybe he shouldn't throw it away if he actually wants to play with something while he's in his high chair.

I'm rambling now, but I'm trying to make a point -- there is a better way to make your child understand the world than hitting them. Spanking was not a disciplinary method in our household. From a young age my mom tried her very best to instill favourable personality traits in us through basic Christian teachings (to me they're just basic guidelines for being a good person, but whatever): be nice, treat others how you would wish to be treated, don't do things that are self-serving/don't be selfish, share and give back to others, don't be concerned with things like revenge, practice unconditional love and forgiveness, and other basic things that amount to: don't be an asshole, and do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. And while these traits may have led to me being a timid doormat who took a whole lot of shit from other kids growing up, I'm glad I got past that stage to become a person who actually cares about others (and increasingly, myself).

Spanking was a rare thing for my mom -- it usually happened when she was not okay, and only when we did something really bad, and when we were at the age where we could be snotty, purposefully talking back and occasionally being jerks to each other and her as well. She hated that because it showed disrespect, and probably made her think she didn't do a good enough job raising us, which was probably a scary thought for her. We always were still sent to our rooms, and we always talked about it after. And we didn't just get the "it's for your own good, so quit your fucking whining" spiel. I got the "it hurt me to do that to you, but your actions were hurtful to me too. When you talk to me like that it feels like you don't care about me, and that you don't love me. If you love me, act like it in everything that you do." This still is something I practice today. Don't say something that can hurt someone's feelings even when you're angry. Saying what you mean and meaning what you say is a big deal that sounds a lot simpler than it is. If we're fighting and you are so frustrated with me that you (for example) tell me to just go, get the fuck outta here, then I'm fucking leaving end of story. But later when you say "Why did you leave? Well I only said that because I was so mad..." So if you didn't fucking mean it, don't say it motherfucker! Anyway.

In short, abuse still happens. And it is usually because a parent does not know of any other method of discipline. Or they may have half-heartedly tried a more gentle method that didn't produce results that they were satisfied with. Probably because they tried it too late, or weren't consistent enough. Good disciplinary basics dictate that the consequence must come directly after the unwanted behaviour, and it must be consistent. Otherwise the child cannot connect the two events as being related and therefore it will be pretty fucking hard for them to learn that a certain behaviour will have certain consequences. You can't let them sometimes get away with it. Explanations for your discipline are always necessary -- make it perfectly clear why what they did is wrong or unacceptable behaviour.

There is always a better way than hitting/spanking/striking with objects. It should absolutely not be your go-to method of discipline for everything. Regardless if the Pearls have had what they measure as "success" in their methods, and regardless if they don't think that they take it too far, it is a dangerous line to skirt. You're potentially creating so many more problems in this little person that they will carry for the rest of their lives. To recommend that you hit a child until you break their will is not okay. Should we hit grown-ups until their wills are broken? No. So let's not do it to our kids, alright?

More Adventures in Nail Polish

Hello again. I've been painting my nails like crazy in the past few months, and in the past week it's gotten even more frequent -- I've had three different manicures on my claws in the past seven days alone! One could say this is getting a little... out of hand *snort* but I like changing it up pretty often, and with having to do dishes by hand the polish usually starts to chip after a few days anyways (and usually because I'm lazy with reapplying my top coat). So I thought I would share some of the manicures I've done lately, as well as some practice sessions that didn't quite work out the first time I tried them.

Neon Pink French Mani

This one was a favourite just because it was so easy and turned out so well the first time I tried it. For the white tips I finally got a Sally Hansen nail pen, specifically made for making white tips for French manicures. I can't seem to find the pen itself at the moment, so I can't show you what it looks like, but you could find it at any drugstore in the nail section for around $5. I found it super easy to use, although it took two coats to get a nice solid white line. The pink colour I used was Avery from Julep. The colour swatches on the website make it look more like a creamy pink, which is odd, because in real life it's pretty dang neon. On first try it was pretty translucent, which was a bit disappointing at first, but then I learned you have to put neon colours over a white base to make them really pop. But this translucency made it perfect for a French manicure as it let the white tips show through just the right amount.

Yellow & Green Half-Moon & Experimental Abstract Designs

Sorry it's so blurry. I had to use the timer function on my phone while holding it between my legs. SKILLS.

I was so excited for these colours from Julep because I think they look fantastic together and really pop when they're put right next to each other on the nail. These two were from the June Boho Glam set. They are Lexie, a bright opaque lemon yellow, and Dianna, a soft creamy green that almost borders on seafoam. Each one offers great coverage and could really only be done in a single coat if you wanted to, but I like to do two especially with yellow as it can sometimes have thin spots that show through. I love the idea of using these colours together in a half-moon mani, however I haven't quite perfected the use of those little round stickers. It's hard to get the placement exactly centered and the same on each nail, and I find they pull up the polish as I remove them which is frustrating. So I only did it on one hand and experimented with tape lines on the other. I had the same issue, but thought of using a striper brush to go over the lines where the colours meet. The white looked good, and I wanted to make a super thin black line over top using these tiny nail art pens I have but for some reason my black was clogged. Argh. So I had to use another striper, which was too thick, and so it kind of got messed up. But I will definitely be trying again, since these colours are perfect for summer. Onwards!

Galaxy Nails

Oooooh STARZ

I had been wanting to try these for EVER but I had lost my makeup sponges in the black hole that's under my bathroom sink. I finally found them the other day and promptly thought GALAXY NAILS YESSSSS. I had to use a whole bunch of colours for this one:

Galaxy friends.

The colours are, from left to right: Midnight in NY  by Sally Hansen Complete Salon Manicure, Co-Bolt Blue by Sally Hansen Insta-Dri, a no-name small blue sparkle in a clear base by Art Deco, Please Me Ceam colour by M.A.C., Spit Fire by Pure Ice, and Nail Junkie by Sinful Colours Professional. I started with three coats of the sparkly black, followed by sponging on little blobs of the flat blue and pink colours in random spots on each nail. On the blue blobs I put a coating of the blue sparkles, and on and around the pink blobs I used the pink sparkles which were a little bigger and looked more like stars. Finally I put a tiny amount of the yellow-green sparkles on the sponge and just dabbed them around in random spots. I really love how they turned out, but next time I think I'll leave slightly more black areas just to give the illusion of more depth. Galaxy nails might sound like a lot of work, but they really aren't--each colour goes really quickly since you're only doing a small area of each, and you don't really have to wait as long for each of them to dry since you're not doing full coats of each. Make sense? Give it a try!

Fuschia to Pink Ombre

New fave.

This one was super easy and had a great result. I'm loving how simple the concept is and the contrasting stunning result. You could do this with any two or three colours theoretically, however lately I'm sticking to two polishes that are darker/lighter shades of the same colour. As you can see the makeup sponges leave quite a lot of polish on the sides of your fingers, but it's easy to remove since it's a really thin coat. These colours were that same pink from M.A.C. above, and  a darker pink from Suzy Shier number 14033.

Watermelon Toes

Juicy.

After finally getting myself some dotting tools, I wanted to have some fun with them. I had a green polish with a striper brush, so I instantly thought of watermelon slices! How cute for summer, right? I again used the pink M.A.C. featured above and the same Art Deco brand of striper brush. The dotting tools were only a few dollars on Amazon, and the light green colour was one from Julep which I seem to have misplaced somehow. I'll post the name of it when I find it.

So there you have it! If you have any questions about the colours or techniques I used, you can send me a shout on twitter @hannahxb. 

Product Review: Joan by Julep

Last week, while looking around the internet for various nail art / manicure blogs, I kept hearing about some brand called Julep. After visiting their website and signing up for the mailing list, I was offered a free trial box (for which I only had to pay the shipping, which was $3.99). How could I pass this up?! I went for it. And yesterday, my package arrived. Hurrah!

Yay!

Let me explain in more detail how the Maven program works. After ordering my free trial box, I decided that I would sign up to be a Maven. Basically you take a quiz to determine your style profile (of which there are 4). After that you're taken to a preview of past boxes in all the style categories, just to give you an idea of what they offer. On the 20th of each month, you're sent a preview of the box they plan on sending you. If you hate the contents, you're allowed to switch boxes entirely, or you can opt to send your box to a friend for that month, OR you can opt out of the box for that month completely. The option to change my mind was a big plus for me, since I am the most indecisive person ever (I took the style quiz three times and switched it up when I signed up). The boxes are shipped on the 27th, the same day you're charged on your credit card.

When you sign up for the Maven program, boxes are $19.99 per month with free shipping. You can pick any add-ons upon checkout starting at around $5, which isn't bad. With every box you receive, you earn points called Jules which you can redeem for free stuff. The box above is a sample box for the It Girl style profile. It contains, from the top: a silvery shimmer polish called Rebel, a teal shimmer called Marion, and a dark burgundy red with gold shimmer called Joan. All their nail polishes are "3-free" which means they're free of the three most horrible chemicals found in nearly all of the nail polishes out there, which is a huge plus. It also came with a little packet of pedicure cream, which Julep calls the best ever. I'll have to review that one later. That reminds me: not only do they offer nail products, but beauty products as well--nail conditioners, hand cream, and the like.

Here's what Joan looks like on my nails, through my phone's camera:

Pretty, no?

In real life, the colour is a bit less purple and leans more towards the dark red / burgundy part of the spectrum. Wearing it feels like it's a better and more fancy version of a dark red that you would wear if you were a classic 50s beauty, like my grandmother. The gold sparkles really give it a kick. I just love it. The polish itself goes on smoothly, and if you were really in a rush you could probably get away with a single coat. I always do two just to make sure it looks even. They are high quality polishes that really deliver on their promise of fantastic colours, and without the big 3 chemicals to boot.

All this adds up to a pretty sweet deal! I get a ton of new pretty polishes to try, for a reasonable price, which is probably equal to or less than I would spend on nail polish each month (no lie, I'm a nail polish addict these days). I highly recommend the Julep Maven program!

(If anyone reading this wants to try the Julep program, feel free to click on this referral link: http://www.julep.com/rewardsref/index/refer/id/117750/ and you can enter the unique invitation code 9066750.)

Product Review: Sally Hansen Salon Manicure in "Midnight in NY"

Right! So here we go with another product review. Hopefully it will be the first of many. I say hopefully because I have a huge list of products that I want to review (probably over 25 at this point) but whether or not they all get reviewed is completely dependent on how lazy I am in the next few months. Ideally spring would come early and we would all get super-energized with all the sunshine and melting snow and longer days and whatnot. OFF TRACK. Anyways! If you're interested, here's what I think about this brand and colour of nail polish.

"Midnight in NY" ... sounds fancy.

 At first glance I was thrilled at this colour. I, like many girls (ie the weird girls) had had my own stint with black nail polish in late grade school/early high school. And so the thought of a black that was different, and a wee bit fancier, than the regular old black excited me. It had sparkles! And little tiny ones at that! So it seemed a bit more grown-up, refined, and just... better.

SPARKLESSSSSSSSSS

And so I was so excited to try it... until I tried it. It went on super sheer, so in order to make it an opaque black I literally had to apply about 4 coats. Annoying! (Though this seems to be a common trait throughout much of the Complete Salon Manicure line. Why?!) Not to mention it chipped and flaked only 2 days after I had applied it. And once it's on your nail, you barely see the sparkles. They should have been made a TOUCH bigger.

I've had better luck with other colours from this same line (Plum Luck is a favourite of mine; only 2 coats to awesome solid colour!) but this one just did not do it for me. And it hurts a little, because I wanted to love this colour so much. I guess I'll just have to start with a regular black base coat, and apply this over top for a bit of sparkle. 

Would I buy it again? Probably not. Would I recommend it to a friend? Yes, if she wanted something a bit fun for a night out. Otherwise a no-go. Sorry Sally.

xo B.

In the Quest for Easily-Baked Goods

Today is not a very nice day. It is dark, dreary, windy, rainy, and cold (well, colder than I'd like it to be). As if nature hadn't ruined this day enough, it decided to start throwing a temper tantrum at about 3am that was so loud it shook the house and woke me up with some seriously spooky sounds.

And so as a result of all this craziness I decided to do one thing I know that almost always makes me feel better: bake something. It has been far too long. Since I was feeling extra tired I knew it would have to be a recipe requiring minimal effort on my part. I found the perfect one thanks to my Twitter friend Russel van Kraayenberg (@rvank) of the wonderful dessert blog Chasing Delicious.

The Classics: Chocolate Chip Cookies | Chasing Delicious

I followed that recipe to a T and the result was some cookies that were pretty delicious, but not perfect, on account of a few mistakes I made:

- I used a coarser grain of salt, which means that the salty taste of the batter is pretty obvious and overpowering and lingers in your mouth after swallowing the yummy cookie you just ate. Not good. Next time in a recipe like this I'll use my salt grinder as it puts out some pretty powdery salt. Not sure what I was thinking there. Was probably not thinking.

- I preheated my oven as I was starting the recipe, when I should have done it closer to the end. My butter was too hard and so I wanted to get some heat into the ceramic mixing bowl I was using to help facilitate the softening and mixing or the butter and sugar. Result: oven was closer to 425C than 375C and the edges of my cookies were already a really dark brown 3 minutes into the baking time. Woops. They ended up only staying in there about 7 minutes for the first batch, 9 minutes for the second after letting the oven cool off a bit. Both batches were pretty dark, but thankfully not burnt.

- Not enough chocolate. I only had about 1/8 cup of chocolate chips, and about 2.5 squares of dark chocolate left over from one of those large thin slabs of 70% cocoa bars. Luckily this was a pretty small batch of cookies, so every cookie has at least a few chunks of chocolate, but... still not enough for my liking. But hey, that's impromptu baking for you.

And so a last-minute baking adventure was pretty much a success. These cookies should last me a little while... like until tomorrow. Happy baking!

Review: Motorola Droid Razr

I was recently fortunate enough to get a brand new phone. My boyfriend was offered a free product upgrade from Rogers, and there weren't any phones that he liked, and so he offered one to me. The best two phones that I could choose from were the Samsung Galaxy II and the Motorola Droid Razr. I had played around with both models in Best Buy and had been somewhat pining for the Razr as it seemed to be the sturdiest and best-looking of the Android flock: different, but not too kooky or awkward. And the fact that it had dual cores was enticing.

Nice, right?

However after using this phone for a month, I've fallen out of love with it. Let me tell you some of the reasons why.

1. The camera software. My previous two phones were the Xperia X10 and the Xperia Arc, both made by Sony Ericsson, a company renowned for it camera-phone technology advancement. The Sony camera phones were among the first really good quality camera phones, which paved the way for the Sony cyber-shots which were almost always used in Ericsson phones. Their long legacy of camera capabilities was extended into SE's smartphone camera software design and it showed with the Xperia line. Their cameras and lenses were of stellar quality, and even if sometimes the hardware of the phone couldn't quite keep up (resulting in laggy functionality sometimes in the X10) the pictures were still good enough to give the iPhone a run for its money. Both Xperia phones I owned were great at taking pictures, and the Droid Razr falls short in comparison. The primary issue lies in the auto-focus. When the camera app opens on the Razr, it doesn't auto-focus--I have to press and hold my finger on the screen to force the lens to focus on whatever it is I want to capture. I never had to do this with the Xperia phones. Their auto-focus was powerful and effective, and I was up and snapping away in seconds. The Razr doesn't allow me to do that, and in this day and age where we all need to capture that fleeting moment with whatever we have in our pockets, it just doesn't step up to the plate. I can't tell you how many blurry photos the Razr has given me in the past month. What's more is I can't press anywhere on the screen to activate the shutter anymore like I could with SE's phones. I've been demoted from screen capture capabilities to pressing a little shutter button like the iPhone, and it feels weird and restricting. I hate it. Hate hate hate hate it. This is such a deal-breaker for me that I've decided to sell this phone and get one of the new Xperia line of phones. I love taking photos on the run and sharing them. My SE phones made that easy and enjoyable, while with the Razr it's completely the opposite, to the point where I've hardly been sharing any pictures lately because I feel like it just isn't worth it to try to dig out my crappy phone and fail at taking a picture.
   
2. The battery life. Again the Razr falls short here. There is something seriously wrong with this phone when it loses 40% of its charge overnight. That's from the moment I turn off the screen and put it down while I sleep, to the moment I wake up and look at it for the first time. With mobile data and wireless off, as well as background data disabled, it routinely drops from 80% to 40% which is absolutely ridiculous. Where does that 40% charge go? Does it just leak out the sides of the phone? I am not impressed. Both of my previous Xperia phones were amazing at keeping their charge during downtime, sometimes only losing 1% or 2% overnight with no use... which is how it should be. Even now, it's lost 10% in only 30 minutes--it was just fully charged and I've barely used it. I'm charging this phone twice a day and I shouldn't have to.
   
3. Speaking of battery, the battery indicators on this phone only give me the battery charge level in 10% increments. It's not huge, but it is a bit odd--this is the only phone I've seen recently that does this. What's the reasoning behind this? The charge drops off so quickly that 1% increments don't even matter? Or did Motorola just want to make their horrible battery charge hemorrhaging less noticeable? That must be it.
   
4. And it takes for EVER to charge, too! My Xperias could fully charge from 10% to 100% in under an hour, while it takes the Razr at least two. This is just silly.
   
5. Near-impossible one-handed use. The power button is required to unlock the phone as there are no other physical buttons on the front, and it's extremely difficult to depress no matter which hand you use, and with whatever finger. It should be easier to get into your phone. Also it's just so freaking BIG. It's a wide phone. My previous SE phones were the perfect width for using one-handed. I miss pressing the middle button on the bottom of my Arc to unlock my phone. It was so much simpler.
   
6. The way it looks and the UI. Maybe I was just spoiled with getting ICS on my Arc before it was officially released. It was gorgeous, beautiful, and functional. And going from ICS back down to 2.3 just feels like such a significant downgrade. I now realize for myself just how clunky and weird the Android OS on the whole looks and feels to use. I'm glad this fumbling OS is changing its tune with ICS and the upcoming Jelly Bean, because the potential for greatness has always been around, it just hasn't been realized yet. Until now.

It's not all terrible with the Razr however. There are some good points:

1. The screen is beautiful. The brightness is off the charts and the colours look fantastic.
   
2. It's fast, most of the time. Loading YouTube videos is a sinch and pretty much instant.
   
3. It's durable, with Gorilla Glass for the screen and Kevlar coating the back and wrapped around the insides of the phone. My Arc's lovely thin silhouette was ultimately its downfall, as the plastic screen cracked when it was dropped a few too many times.
   
4. It's pretty smart, with its Smart Actions: it suggests "rules" for you to make involving settings as attached to constraints like location, time or charge level. For example, I can set a rule that dictates that when I'm at work, my mobile data gets turned off and the sound is muted. And I can set it to send a text message to a person of my choice when I leave, which is something I always do anyways. This would work for me if I had access to a wireless network where I work, since the location-based rules can only be activated by wireless networks. This is ridiculous, as I'm not sure why they couldn't set it so that location can be detected by either wireless networks OR mobile networks via my phone's GPS capabilities. And if my days were a bit more reliable, with a steady schedule of job / class times, I could set my phone to turn data and sound off, for certain time periods like when I'm in class, and dim the screen when I'm going to bed. The best of these rules is for battery life; when it gets below 20% and it isn't charging it will go into lifesaving mode by turning off background data and other functions.
   
   
5. And little things, like the fully-charged notification tone along with the in-pocket detection add some nice touches. Basically if the screen is unlocked, and you put the phone in your pocket it will automatically lock the screen for you if you forget. It's nice that it has a front-facing camera; we Androiders can finally take advantage of apps like Skype with free video calling. The sound that comes out of this phone is also pretty impressive, and call quality is crisp and clear. 

All in all, this is a great phone for multimedia consumption. Your movies will look fantastic and your music will sound pretty good too. Just don't forget to bring your charger with you, as well as your digital camera in case you want to take any pictures while you're on the road. This phone gets a dislike in my books, because what good are high-end specs if your battery life is crap? I can't watch a movie if my phone wants to die halfway through. The end.

UPDATE: I sold my Razr almost immediately after writing this entry and was able to get an Xperia U on the very same day. Review coming soon!

Review: Maybelline Dream Fresh BB Cream

This stuff is so great that I just had to write about it as soon as possible. A few days ago I splurged and got a little something for myself. I had recently seen some ads while flipping through Elle magazine for a couple of new makeup products labeling themselves as "BB cream." "What was this mysterious new product?" I thought to myself. After comparing two ads that looked extremely similar, claiming mostly the same benefits, I decided to try them out next time I got the chance. I imagined them as translucent, colour-free balms such as Benefit's the PoreFessional pore minimizing balm. Luckily my local Shoppers Drug Mart carried both of these products and had testers out for both as well, and I discovered that I was wrong. One was the Maybelline Dream Fresh BB cream, the other was Marcelle's BB Cream. I put one of the products on one half of my face, and another on the other side, and the difference was immediately clear--Marcelle's was heavier and more obvious-looking, and also looked darker (which is a problem when you're already testing the lightest shade they have.) Maybelline was the clear winner, and let me tell you why.

The product itself is more or less a tinted moisturizer. This kind of thing is appealing to me because 90% of the time I dislike the look of regular liquid foundation; it's too obvious, looking heavy and makeup-y and far too much coverage for daily use. This type of makeup is only appropriate for very few situations and should be saved for a fancy night out, or a photoshoot, when your skin needs to look absolutely flawless as a backdrop for dramatic eyes and lips. But for more casual occasions, like heading to class or out for a meal with friends, I hate feeling over-done and too made up. I hate feeling like it looks like I'm trying too hard. I'm fortunate to have pretty good skin; save for some minor imperfections it behaves pretty well most of the time.
In the past year or so I'd been gifted a few tester tubes of Laura Mercier tinted moisturizer, and really loved the medium coverage they provided. I could put a little of it in the main areas of my face (nose, cheeks, chin) and other spots if needed. Then I would apply a bit of powder to set it all (PurMinerals, which by the way is awesome). My tester tube was on its last legs, forcing me to squeeze the living daylights out of it to get the last remaining bit, and thus I needed to find a replacement. Maybelline's Dream Fresh is that replacement. It is smooth, light, and feels fresh upon application. It blends easily and doesn't set too quickly. It proclaims itself as an "8-in-1 beauty balm" with the eight benefits listed on the back of the tube:

1. With SPF30 helps prevent sunburn.
2. Helps blur the look of imperfections.
3. Creates a natural looking glow.
4. Skin looks visibly smoother.
5. Compliments skin-tone.
6. Hydrates all day.
7. Feels fresh.
8. Oil free.

The last four of these eight benefits can pretty much be thrown away; they're basically useless, but eight is a higher number than four, and thus they are listed as benefits. It is lovely that it's oil-free, but so are most things we put on our face nowadays. The one that was a clincher for me was the SPF30. Until now, the highest SPF factor I had in my makeup bag was SPF20, and that was my Laura Mercier tester tube of tinted moisturizer. The only facial SPF30 product I own is a daily moisturizer by Aveeno which claims to calm redness by way of deep daily hydration. This is a lie. This product is so extremely greasy that there is absolutely no way anyone could use it as a daily moisturizer. It feels just like regular sunscreen, and smells like it too. For this reason it has been living in my purse as a last-minute bit of sunscreen in case I end up in the sun for longer than I planned, or if I'm going to the beach. (Even then, it's so thick that it barely absorbs into my skin, and it usually just wipes off with the slightest amount of moisture on my face, which in the scorching summer heat is pretty common.) So I had been looking for something better. My best option seemed to be an expensive SPF serum that was upwards of $50 for a teeny tiny bottle. Until I discovered this stuff. It's fantastic and comes in I think 4 or 5 shades. It's extremely reasonable at about $15 per 30ml tube. And if you're like me, you'll only need a little dab about half the size of the tip of your finger to cover the important bits of your face. You can wear it alone or under a powder. For day or night. And even out in the sun. This stuff definitely gets my seal of approval for value and quality. It has been added to the short list of products that I buy over and over again because they're so great.

NOTE: there was no entry in the GoodGuide databases about this product at the time I wrote this article, likely since it's such a new product. I will however keep checking back occasionally and will update with new information as it becomes available.