We’re living through strange times in America, but that hasn’t stopped Chrissy Teigen from being her wonderfully authentic self on social media—from showing up to husband John Legend’s Instagram Live concert in a towel to sharing some real talk about childbirth.
Teigen took umbrage with President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence talking about the discomfort they felt during their own coronavirus tests, which involve swabbing inside the nostrils. “[It’s] not something I want to do every day, I can tell you that,” Trump told reporters last week. “It’s a little bit of — good doctors in the White House, but it’s a test. It’s a test, it’s a medical test,” he continued. “Nothing pleasant about it.” Pence and his wife, Karen, were also recently tested. The VP described the test as “kind of invasive” and “not comfortable.”
“My vagina was ripped to my asshole giving birth to Luna. I had a vagasshole. fuck your swab pain,” Teigen tweeted in response to a tweet about Trump. “They had to put a garbage bag at the end of the bed to collect my blood before stiching [sic] me up, where I then had to pee using a water bottle as a pain fountain for 3 months. so yeah. the swab, I bet it’s super rough.”
Lots of other moms started to weigh in on social media, too.
“Do men have a low pain threshold or what? Mike Pence on the test: ‘It was kind of a pinch. It was kind of invasive. But we were grateful for the support.’ I pushed a 10 lbs baby out of my vagina…” Shannon Watts of Moms Demand Action tweeted.
“I was in labor with my first kid for 52 hours. 52. Hours. Of. Labor. Y’all can all manage a nasal swab for 30 seconds,” another woman wrote.
“I’ve had three miscarriages and one ectopic pregnancy and every single time I blamed my body,” says Danielle Campoamor, 33, a mother of two in New York. “My self-hatred became so severe I couldn’t look at myself in the mirror. I starved my body as if I was paying a penance. I spent so much of the mourning process asking what was wrong with me. What was wrong with my body.”
The shame associated with miscarriage can be overwhelming. As a psychologist specializing in women’s reproductive and maternal mental health, counseling patients like Campoamor who blame themselves for their pregnancy losses is as common as loss itself. The women in my office are often riddled with guilt; revisiting every minute detail of their lives in search of the reason behind their miscarriage. In the haze of grief, they point the finger at themselves: Was it something they ate? Did they workout too often? Had they done something catastrophic in the weeks before they even knew they were pregnant?
Having access to concrete answers could change a lot.
At least half of all miscarriages are the result of an abnormal number chromosomes in the embryo, according to The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. It’s the most common cause of pregnancy loss. But getting access to the genetic testing of fetal tissue is complicated and costly—genetic testing is rarely offered to anyone who’s experienced less than three miscarriages, and can cost thousands of dollars. A new rapid genetic test, developed by Zev Williams, M.D., Ph.D., director of the Columbia University Fertility Center at New York Presbyterian Hospital and his team, hopes to change that. The new test would take just hours to complete, and cost less than $200. Williams expects the test to be available within a year but will need to be approved by medical regulatory agencies.
Campoamor says that kind of info would have made all the difference when she was mourning her losses. “What I wouldn’t have given to have access to a test that would’ve let me know that my body didn’t let me down, that there was a problem with the pregnancies from the beginning,” she says.
A 2015 national survey published in the Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology found that 47 percent of people who’ve had miscarriage feel guilty, and 41 percent felt like they had done something wrong to cause the pregnancy loss: Seventy-six percent of Americans believe pregnancy loss is caused by a stressful event, 64 percent believe it’s caused by the pregnant person lifting a heavy object, 28 percent believe previously using an intrauterine device causes miscarriages, and 22 percent blame the use of oral contraceptives, according to the survey. “I blamed my IUD. I blamed my decision to use birth control at the age of 15. I blamed my job, my work load, a harmless argument with my partner, running at the gym. I looked for any reason—anything—to blame for my losses,” Campoamor says. There’s no evidence that any of these things contribute to miscarriage but the stigma persists. “Years later, I still have to work to not blame myself, what I ate, how much water I did or didn’t drink. The self-blame just lingers.”
The same survey found that 78 percent of the participants “reported wanting to know the cause of their miscarriage, even if no intervention could have prevented it from occurring.” That’s precisely why this test is poised to be such a game changer. Getting women answers could help dissolve the feelings of shame and failure that so often shroud a miscarriage. A 2019 study found that one in six women experience long-term post-traumatic stress following a miscarriage, and 1 in 10 women meet the criteria for major depression directly following a loss. Bypassing the mystery can potentially lead to a smoother, less complicated emotional journey following loss.
The test won’t answer every question about a miscarriage. For starters, it requires tissue from the pregnancy to test, and doctors may not always have the opportunity. If a test reveals that there were no genetic abnormalities, it could trigger even more questions—and self-blame—about the cause. But even that can be helpful. “In the minority of cases where the cause of the loss was not genetics, it allows us to look for the cause sooner—before waiting for the women to have multiple more losses,” says Williams. “If a cause is discovered, it can be corrected so the couple can have the best chance for success in the next pregnancy.“
As humans, we like to know why. I’ve sat across from hundreds of women and heard the desperation in their voices as they search for a reason why they didn’t carry a pregnancy to term. This test could help mitigate some of the psychological fallout of pregnancy loss by separating fact from fiction; science from a pervasive cultural misunderstanding that fuels self-blame and self-hatred.
“After each loss I felt like I was in the dark,” Campoamor says. “Like I was just feeling my way through grief, trying to hold onto something, anything, before I floated away. Information about why it happened, why my body didn’t hold onto those pregnancies, would’ve felt like a lantern. It wouldn’t have assuaged my pain, but it would have lit a path through it.”
Jessica Zucker is a Los Angeles-based psychologist specializing in women’s reproductive health and the author of the forthcoming book I HAD A MISCARRIAGE: A Memoir, A Movement (Feminist Press, 2021).
In fashion, when we talk about hype, it usually has to do with a sneaker drop, anything Rihanna touches, a highly anticipated designer collab—rarely does a relatively plain, season-less item of clothing get that type of attention. But one wardrobe essential recently defied the odds, gaining a devoted fan base (and 1,500 four- and five-star reviews).
The British brand Heist is best known for making Meghan Markle’s (alleged) favorite stockings. But outside of tights, it also sells socks, shapewear, and one very well-received bodysuit. Called The Outer Body the super-simple design comes in six different colors, and is available in sizes XS through XL (roughly from a 2 to a 20). Given the fanfare it was receiving online, four Glamour editors decided to put the $138 bodysuit to the test and ask: Is it really as good as everyone says it is?
Read on for our reviews—and to see how you can style the bodysuit four different ways for fall.
One of the biggest trends from the last few years wasn’t a type of hemline or a specific color, but rather a marked change in the way shoppers acquire their clothes. Increasingly, people aren’t buying, they’re renting.
Rent the Runway (with its “unlimited” monthly service) and Stitch Fix (itself a $3 billion business) are the Goliaths paving the way. Jennifer Hyman, co-founder of Rent the Runway, frequently points out how the American woman buys sixty-eight items of clothing year, some of which they never end up wearing. (According to the company, the subscription part of its business has grown 150 percent year over year since it launched in 2016.)
“Social media has created an atmosphere in which, yeah, you could wear the same thing twice, but you’d rather not,” Rachel Saunders, strategy director of retail strategy firm Cassandra, tells Glamour. “So how do you do that without spending a fortune? It’s all contributed to this idea that it’s okay to share clothes with strangers.”
Allied Market Research estimates the clothing rental market will reach $1.856 billion in global value by 2023, with more and more players in the game, like Le Tote and Gwynnie Bee. Naturally, individual brands—ones you’d normally shop at their stand-alone stores or at a mall—now want a piece of that pie, especially as brick-and-mortar shopping continues to decline.
Classic workwear purveyor Ann Taylor, fashion-forward brand Vince, and even trend-focused label Express have all launched subscription services over the last few months that allow shoppers to test a curated selection of pieces at home before either buying their favorites and sending back the rest (and then being replenished with different options.) Many of these ventures are being managed by the same company: New York-based CaaStle, which seems to have a lock on the back-end management of fashion subscriptions, at least for now.
This new development in fashion subscription boxes, cutting out the third party, begs a lot of questions for shoppers. Are these services really worth it when weighed against buying clothes outright? How easy is the rental process, really? How good is the selection? And does this mean the end of shopping as we know it?
We weighed five of the big brand options (all of which, coincidentally, are being managed CaaStle) to see how they stack up, what’s worth it, and what’s not. These might be early adopters, but judging by where the industry is growing, it’s likely you’ll see even more of your favorites jump into this space over the course of 2019.
PHOTO: Courtesy of Vince
Known for its minimal but still fashion-forward pieces, Vince enters the subscription game with Vince Unfold. To get started you create a virtual closet with at least ten items (though, it’s recommended that you add over 24), from which the brand creates your first box. Each shipment comes with four pieces. When you’re done with it, you send it back and get four new ones in a brand-new box.
The biggest difference between Vince Unfold and other brand-specific subscription boxes comes down to one thing: inventory. Vince is much more high-end than other single labels dipping their toes in this market, with most pieces featuring three-figure price tags—think silk tank dresses ($345), shaggy bear coats ($695), and oversized cashmere cardigans ($495.)
Price: $160 a month. You can exchange your four-item box an unlimited number of times, but you must return your whole box to do so. If you want to keep a piece that you’re renting, you can purchase it at a discount, between 20 and 60 percent off.
Pros: Vince clothes are gorgeous and luxurious, which means that every single item that comes in your box can easily be mixed and matched with whatever’s in your wardrobe. Additionally, the selection of products is pretty vast. You’ll get tons of mileage out of these clothes.
Cons: The price point is high, especially when you weigh it against Rent the Runway’s unlimited offering (which has Vince on its roster.) Also, you can’t return pieces individually, only as a whole box; and you don’t pick what you’re getting in each shipment.
TL; DR: While this subscription still makes sense from a cost-benefit standpoint if you’re a big fan of Vince, the fine print could be improved. Try it here.
PHOTO: Courtesy of Ann Taylor.
Infinite Style by Ann Taylor lets you rent three pieces from Ann Taylor (excluding Loft and Lou & Grey) at once. You have to select a minimum of eight pieces to add to a queue. It takes about three days to process and another two days to ship; you find out exactly which items from your edit are being shipped to you in an e-mail with tracking information for your package.
Where Ann Taylor’s service really shines is in its abundance of workwear. At the moment, you can rent pieces like houndstooth ankle pants (which retail for $98), a tweed sheath dress ($159), and a sequin fringe jacket ($129.)
Price: $95 a month. You can return the complete box for a new one as many times as you’d like throughout the month.
Pros: This is one of the best subscription box options out there if you need a big rotating closet of professional clothing. Plus, you get the option of buying clothes you’ve already rented for 60 to 70 percent off.
Cons: Given the higher price tag compared to comparable services, you have to really love the Ann Taylor look. You also have to return a complete box in order to get sent new product.
TL; DR: This is a solid solution to the what-to-wear-to-wear problem, with some casual attire and cocktail looks thrown in, too. Try it here.
PHOTO: Courtesy of Express.
Called the Express Style Trial, this service allows shoppers to rent three items from the brand at a time for $69.95 a month. There’s a pretty big range of merchandise to choose from, all of which appears to be current season—a striped jumpsuit (which retails for $79.90), a faux-leather-trimmed shift dress (also $79.90), and a satin maxi dress ($88.)
“We see Style Trial as an complement to our e-commerce and store business, allowing our customers to engage with fashion and experiment with new styles and trends that she may not otherwise invest in,” Jim Hilt, Executive Vice President and Chief Customer Experience Officer at Express, tells Glamour. “It provides our customer with easy access to the latest trends, as well as an ongoing rotation of staple pieces at a fraction of the prices.”
To begin renting, you have to add at least eight items to a virtual closet (though it’s recommended that you add around 20.) From that selection, Express creates a box of three pieces to send to you. You can prioritize what you want, through a feature that promises “we’ll try to ship those first.” But once you’re done with those first three, you can ship everything back, and Express will dispatch a box with new product. You can do this as many times as you want. Per Express’ estimates, a super-active user could have 12 different pieces a month (or four boxes); an average user, meanwhile, would probably have about nine (or three boxes.)
Price: $69.95 a month. You can cancel the subscription at any time, and you can return your boxes to exchange for new items as frequently as you like.
Pros: The price, definitely—if you’re already a big fan of Express, you can maximize the amount of returns that you do throughout the month to get the most product.
Cons: The work-appropriate options are on the limited side (in general, the offerings are much better suited for casual wear), if you need to replenish that part of your wardrobe, specifically. Because of the way that Express builds its subscription boxes, you don’t select the exact items that end up in your shipment—rather, the brand picks from which of your pre-selected favorites are available. You also can’t cancel your subscription directly online, only over the phone.
TL; DR: If you are already a big Express shopper, the cost benefit of this is pretty great. Try it here.
PHOTO: Courtesy of Rebecca Taylor.
Rebecca Taylor’s foray into subscription boxes, RNTD, is comparable to Rent the Runway Unlimited in price—Both are $159 a month. The brand grants you access to a rotating closet with four items at any given time; you must add at least 10 pieces to a queue, from which Rebecca Taylor then puts together your shipment.
“The pricing was meant to be realistic and attainable for our customer,” says Janice Sullivan, President of Rebecca Taylor. In other words: It’s hoping this service opens Rebecca Taylor up to a new shopper who otherwise couldn’t afford to constantly and consistently buy its pieces. And the “new arrivals” section has a solid mix of Rebecca Taylor’s signature dresses as well as some of its more trend-forward garments: a silk embroidered ruffle dress ($395), high-waisted plaid pants ($395), and a laminated navy trench coat ($1,295.)
“I think consumers value options, the option to rent, to own, to lend, to resell—as a brand you want to move with her and be there on every level that makes sense,” Sullivan adds.
Price: $159 a month. You get four pieces per shipment, and you can send the box back for new items as often as you’d like.
Pros: It’s hard to not love Rebecca Taylor. And while a closet full of its pieces has long been out of reach for most shoppers, it’s suddenly much more accessible.
Cons: Like with Vince, you can’t return individual pieces to get new ones—only the full shipment. That’s really what sets it apart from Rent the Runway Unlimited, which carries Rebecca Taylor.
TL; DR: You’d have a pretty dreamy rotating wardrobe. You just have to love or let go of everything you get as a bundle. Try it here.
PHOTO: Courtesy of New York & Co.
New York & Co.’s NY&Company Closet is one of the most affordable subscription boxes out there, charging $49.95 a month for three items at a time from the brand—return them all, and receive a new selection in the mail.
This offering has a great mix of both work and weekend clothes, making it one of the most versatile single-brand subscription boxes. That being said, it’s one brand—so you have to like the aesthetic to begin with. On offer are pieces like a leopard sweater dress ($74.95), a red striped blazer ($79.95), and houndstooth wide leg pants ($79.95.)
Price: $49.95 a month. You get three items at a time; you can return the full box for new product as many times as you like.
Pros: You definitely get a lot of bang for your buck with this one.
Cons: The unpredictability of not getting to choose exactly what comes in your shipment isn’t ideal.
TL; DR: This is a great value subscription service for someone who wants to test-drive this method of shopping. Try it here.
If there’s one thing any new mom will tell you, it’s that maternity leave is no vacation…unless your idea of a winter break involves waking up at all hours of the night, spit-up, and adult diapers. And that’s only the beginning. Between going back to work and the emotional toll of not wanting to miss life’s big moments with a new baby, having a child—whether its your first or your fifth—can suddenly make even the most iron-willed of mothers feel like life is totally upended.
So, to help make things a little less crazed, we tasked four extremely busy new moms with one mission: Carve out 10 minutes in their hyper-hectic schedules to chill the eff out with the help of a “calming” face mask. Not just any calming face mask, though: Origins Hello, Calm Relaxing & Hydrating Face Mask; which, according to the brand, is made with cannabis sativa seed oil (from, yes, a weed plant) that’s meant to help calm skin, reduce irritation, and make you feel less stressed out.
You’ve likely heard of CBD at this point, which some brands claim can reduce inflammation and anxiety. The science behind its benefits is still murky, but that hasn’t stopped it from cropping up in a slew of beauty and wellness products lately. (It’s even in gummies now.) Origins’ buzzy mask also rides on the weed trend, but instead, uses cannabis sativa seed oil—an ingredient made from cold-pressed hemp seeds that’s rich in skin-repairing acids and said to be helpful with redness and dryness. Lavender oil, meanwhile, is what gives the mask its “de-stressing” scent.
To answer the obvious questions: no, it won’t get you high, and yes, it’s probably wise to consult your doctor if you’re breastfeeding. As for whether the mask actually does help you relax, we’ll let the moms below take it away.
Picture a pregnancy test, and chances are that some version of the following image will pop up: a clinical plastic stick, possibly with a pink handle and the words “pregnant” and “not pregnant” printed at one end. Now try and imagine a vastly new-and-improved version of the product that’s become so integral to women’s lives, but hasn’t changed in three decades. What would that even look like?
Bethany Edwards has an idea. As the founder and CEO of Lia, a startup with designs to change the way we think about pregnancy tests, Edwards has spent the past four years developing the first-ever fully flushable incarnation. And, if you ask her, it’s an innovation that’s been a long time coming.
“Nobody has innovated on the home pregnancy test [structure] in over 30 years,” Edwards says. Since the 1980s, when ClearBlue put the first pee-on-a-stick style test on drugstore shelves, kicking off the so-called Wand Era, not a whole lot has changed—and the truth is that it took centuries upon centuries of human history for the product to progress to that point. Ancient Egyptians purportedly mixed urine with grains to predict if a woman was expecting (germinating grains were that civilization’s equivalent to a tiny “plus” sign); medical textbooks from the Middle Ages reveal similar experimentation with urine and wheat bran.
Just a century ago, pregnancy testing still resembled something out of a Flintstones cartoon. The “Hogben test,” developed somewhat accidentally by the British zoologist Lancelot Hogben, consisted of injecting a woman’s urine under the skin of a female frog and then checking to see whether or not, hours later, the creature produced a cluster of eggs. If the answer was yes, congratulations were in order. Though similar procedures were performed on mice as well as rabbits, tens of thousands of frogs were subjected to this fate.
PHOTO: Lia Diagnostics
Lia is made from biodegradable paper—no plastic—and flushes like 2-ply toilet tissue.
That is, until scientists developed amphibian-free tests which detected the presence of the so-called pregnancy hormone, human chorionic gonadotropin, a.k.a. hGC. It was a game-changing discovery that ultimately reshaped the experience of finding out you were expecting. In-office chemical tests became the new standard: A woman would give a urine sample to her doctor, who would send it off to the lab and then inform his patient of her results when they arrived back.
Predictably, the male-dominated medical establishment had plenty of reasons why women couldn’t be trusted to administer pregnancy tests on their own—how could an emotional woman be trusted to follow even the simplest of instructions?!at least one doc asked—which meant that confirming you were pregnant almost always happened in the presence of a professional.
Though Lia follows the same pee-on-the-thing principles, there’s no telltale plastic applicator left behind.
Then, in 1967, a 26-year-old product designer named Margaret Crane helped usher in a new era of women’s health by developing an at-home test that brought the science lab into our bathroom. Though the test Crane created (not coincidentally, against the backdrop of the women’s liberation movement) had the look of a DIY science kit, it would ultimately pave the way for the Wand Era: the simple pee-on-a-stick tests we’re familiar with today. Unilever launched its Clearblue Easy test, the first of its kind, in 1988, and the first digital test was released in the early aughts. And, like Edwards said, the design of at-home tests hasn’t changed much in the intervening years.
But, with Lia, women could have a potential new option. In research conducted, one of the things that kept coming up from women was the fact that they wanted a more private test, Edwards explained to Glamour.com over the phone. Pregnancy, and pregnancy testing, is a highly unique and personal experience for every individual; for women in particularly vulnerable situations, the need for privacy can even be a matter of life and death.
“We’ve heard stories from people [about] wrapping [their pregnancy test] in tin foil and putting them in dumpsters or garbage cans across the street,” says Edwards. “It can also be as simple as not wanting your housecleaner or your mother-in-law to be snooping through your trash.” Though Lia follows the same pee-on-the-thing principles—take it into the bathroom, aim, and wait for pink lines to appear (two for positive, one for negative)—there’s no telltale plastic applicator left behind, and it flushes like 2-ply toilet paper.
Used pregnancy tests add up to around 2 million pounds of waste every year.
Which brings us to the next point: the sustainability factor. Data from 2017 shows that 10.95 million American women used an at-home pregnancy test. And, if any of these women followed in the footsteps of Kim Kardashian—who once documented the fact that she used six tests in a row, on an airplane—the number of plastic test applicators starts to get a little mind-boggling: used pregnancy tests add up to around two million pounds of waste every year.
For that reason, Lia was designed to be as earth-friendly as possible, and it’s made from paper, not plastic. ”The idea that all the materials are bio-based in some kind of way so that they can degrade on their own as opposed to having to be recycled,” says Edwards. The materials her team has developed are water disposable and 100% biodegradable, so Lia can go straight back into nature without another processing step.
But while a product that ups privacy and sustainability seem like a no-brainer, Edwards acknowledged encountering some resistance while raising capital. For one thing, introducing the idea of a new pregnancy test to rooms full of male venture capitalists proved to be an uphill battle; she recalls a lot of confused faces, as well as at least one executive who was under the impression that women inserted pregnancy tests like tampons. For another: She has observed that a business with a social good mission isn’t always seen for its profitability potential, making it harder to get buy-in.
It’s an issue that’s bigger than the women’s health space. “Things that are being done in agriculture or different kinds of textiles or different recycling techniques, that naturally have a sustainable kind of bend to them: They might not be statistics-based tech businesses, and they might not be making virtual reality headsets,” she says. “But that doesn’t mean they’re not set up to be profitable businesses. They’re just solving problems that are trying to be in a benefit for the planet.”
As for how the hope for profitability applies to price per unit, Edwards said that the company is really focused on making Lia affordable, and keeping costs comparable to other name brand tests. Though Lia has officially cleared FDA hurdles—it received clearance last December—the next challenge is finding a producer who can make Lia at volume.
“We’re taking techniques from the paper and textile industries and integrating them with techniques from the diagnostic industry,” says Edwards, “so it’s a completely new way of making a product like this.” And so, while the Wand Era might not yet be behind us, the way we think about pregnancy tests—and women’s privacy—has come a long way. Flushable, earth-friendly, and completely private? All positive.
