In the past, temporary Henna Tattoos were only found in India, Pakistan, and Sudan. They were often seen at Indian weddings. The bride and the other women in the party would get together the night before the wedding and have their feet and hands decorated with the intricate reddish brown designs and patterns. This tradition is still practiced today for wedding ceremonies and other celebrations.
But today, much has changed. Temporary henna tattoos have now been accepted by the Western world thanks to celebrities like Madonna, Gwen Stefani, and Prince. This form of body art can be seen regularly in magazines and music videos.
Henna is made by grinding up the dried leaves of the henna plant into a powder. The powder is then mixed with a liquid like strong tea, hot water, or clove or eucalyptus oil to form a paste. The paste is put in an applicator bottle or cone and is applied to the skin to make temporary henna tattoos.
When the henna plant is made into a powder, it releases an organic compound called Lawsone. Lawsone in the paste is attracted to the protein in the outer layer of the skin and attaches to it easily leaving a reddish brown stain. This process does not harm the skin in anyway.
One of the benefits of henna tattoos is that they are temporary and last from a week to a couple months depending on the application time and care after. After applying the paste to the skin, it is important to let it dry for at least 8 hours for an effective stain. The longer the paste is left on the skin, the darker the stain will be.
Traditionally, temporary henna tattoos were only applied to the hands and feet. Today they are applied to all the visible parts of the body much like permanent tattoos. They’re commonly found on the legs, stomach, back, shoulders, arms, forehead, and neck.
April 9th, 2011 at 1:05 am
Sorry for being offtopic, but what theme do you use? suitcase set
April 12th, 2011 at 7:22 am
Excellent beat ! I wish to apprentice while you amend your website, how could i subscribe for a blog web site? The account helped me a acceptable deal. I had been a little bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright clear idea
April 14th, 2011 at 2:29 am
Hello webmaster I like your post!! Bern tourist information
April 19th, 2011 at 3:25 am
Is there something wrong with the CSS here? It all looks black and I can barely read the article?
June 2nd, 2011 at 12:00 pm
The Zune concentrates on being a Portable Media Player. Not a web browser. Not a game machine. Maybe in the future it’ll do even better in those areas, but for now it’s a fantastic way to organize and listen to your music and videos, and is without peer in that regard. The iPod’s strengths are its web browsing and apps. If those sound more compelling, perhaps it is your best choice.
June 14th, 2011 at 6:55 am
I’ll gear this review to 2 types of people: current Zune owners who are considering an upgrade, and people trying to decide between a Zune and an iPod. (There are other players worth considering out there, like the Sony Walkman X, but I hope this gives you enough info to make an informed decision of the Zune vs players other than the iPod line as well.)