Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If you can afford it i used to have manicure once a week with the same person- and used marvela nail biting stuff in between, it was a bit like weight watchers showing her my nails every week. but after 30 years of biting my nails are/ were very weak. as soon as i stopped going- which was at the same time as having babies- i started biting them again.
Go see a nail expert who will stick false acrylic nails on your stubs and make them look nice but natural. Then go back every two weeks to get the infills done. Then slowly the false ones get taken off and your own have grown underneath and you will be proud. Will take about 3 months. At this point they will be weak but keep going so that they can keep them strong and well manicured for you. While the false nails are on you will need some diversionary tactics - after all you have been biting your nails as a habit for years probably. Try taking up something like knitting. No, seriously. (Someone is starting a class on this site!) I know the above will be expensive, but this is exactly what I did, and apart from a few blips it worked for me beautifully. Note: not all manicure specialists (including the Beauty Place on Forest Hill Road) do false nails. Don't go somewhere cheap. It's a horrid habit and I was terribly upset to be owned by this habit for so many years. So I hope you find something to help you. I hate seeing people with bitten nails and know how important it is to break the habit.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surely that depends on the amount.  It can be quite piffling.  
    • Apparently a tourist tax was Raynor's idea, but Reeves has put the kibosh on it because of the push-back she'll get from businesses
    • But a larger number, in a more hotly contested election, didn't. It is an anomaly that Starmer won a landslide in seats with a turnout for Labour which would have shamed Labour leaders in all the 21st and much of the post war 20th century.
    • I was not suggesting anything else!   I'm not sure how you interpret what I said  as "irrelevant"? I was responding to a post saying that Corbyn was "unelectable". My point was that a  large number  of the electorate  voted for him!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...