Beauty products bring up the racist in us.

In India, a fair girl is a form of beauty. A stereotype. Whenever I see Indian celebrities promoting these products, I feel a bit ashamed that people fall for such marketing tricks. In India, it's like there's a definition for everything which is best. So that you can be that by following correct path towards it.

In Cuba, there's no such thing as advertisements. I've read about it. Long ago. I mean every one is treated as special. I'm someone then why should I be someone else just because he or she is needed.

For me it's racism. What do you've in your countries?

The lighter skin means greater beauty theory is fairly common. I don't really get it, because when I consider skin in terms of beauty, I'm much more interested in things like smoothness, consistency of color (regardless of what color it is), etc., none of which regards shade.

I suspect that some of the preference for lighter shades is that it's easier to see the things I've mentioned, whether there are blemishes. Also, lighter tones work better with more varied shades of make-up. These aren't things I look at so much, but can be important, without necessarily implying racist motivation.

I agree your point but I witness this behavior everyday. People change according to your complexion.

They hardly care about the things you mentioned. They care about fairness. People here don't even know that a healthy skin is that which shines.

Sent from a polarized, modified, undying, amazingly talented and extremely naughty phone.

^^Sounds as if I'd like to meet your phone.

So many of our beauty standards are really classist, and I think this is true here as well. For most of the various shades in the Northern hemisphere at least, skin will grow darker when people do more work outside, under the sun -- signalling that they're not upper-class. Note how this gets turned around, within a subculture, as soon as a tan is something you get during typical leisure activities. Also note that by connecting fair skin to beauty products and programs, you are reinforcing the idea that this is something that reflects on lifestyle and perhaps purchasing power, rather than dna.

There was a lot of controversy even in the US when a beauty company began selling "Fair & Lovely" brand skin whitening cream in India a few years back.

Yeah but did she bleach her asshole?

I think a lot of it has to do with traditionally, if you were upper class and/or a noble, you didn't work in the fields like a peasant. The nobles got to sit in side all day doing stuff other than manual labor so their skin didn't darken under the effects of the sun as much as a peasant who had to basically work in the fields sun up to sun down each day. You find this even in countries like India, China, the middle east region, etc... As well as in the west. People are always looking for ways to show off their social class or to make a distinction which they think sets them apart from others so this is just one easy way to people do that. The funny thing is in the west after the industrial revolution this whole paradigm flipped a 180. As soon as poor people worked in factories all day six days a week and their complection got pale and pasty from never being out in the sunlight then suddenly the rich decided to start tanning their skin as a way to set themselves apart, prove they were wealthy enough to travel to exotic locations, and that they had the free time to just lay on the beach all day. So suddenly having fair skin was out and being a "bronzed warrior" was in.

It's like nobody named Packard posted in this thread....

From the title, I imagined this thread would be about this.

Opps. Sorry, Packard.

In Asia, the lighter skin or look is also attached to better life. Only fisherman and field workers are dark. those that work out in the sun. People that do labor and such.

The rich and upper class do none of those things.

All this poisonous advertising swill would dry up in a generation if our schools taught critical thinking at the earliest ages possible.

Can't happen, not when the fossil record is "sketchy," and evolution is "dogma."

Yes, I've heard Cuba is a place that cherishes the individual.



(And, incidentally, if everyone is special, no one is. Something that's true of everyone is kind of the definition of not-special.)

As for beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder. Like what you want to like, look how you want to look. And if you want to look like something else, more power to you.

All I know is the order of march in hotness (from the hottest working my way down) is as such. Generally it works from darker skin to gradually lighter but not always:
Latina
Italian
Jew
Eastern European

Actually it used to happen in Hindu culture in ancient times. A fair and beautiful girl was a sign of purity. The quality of offspring depended upon her.

But now we're globalised people. We travel overseas and we still follow this. I'm mad at them.

Raj from big bang theory would have a least chance in Bollywood than in America because he doesn't look good in that way.

Sent from a polarized, modified, undying, amazingly talented and extremely naughty phone.

The company is still selling that product. They advertise their product in way that, for a moment, you'll think of buying it.

But it's nothing but an insult to those who have dark complexion.

Sent from a polarized, modified, undying, amazingly talented and extremely naughty phone.

Men drooling over big tits is an insult to flat-chested women.

Get over it, already.

The world doesn't owe you affirmation.

Shallow is as shallow does. Men - or women - who are obsessed solely with looks generally get just that and nothing else.

And imagine who wouldn't have gotten elected if that had ever been the case. Now you see why it will never be the case.

Factually speaking the less educated a person is the more likely they are to vote Republican and the more educated they are the more likely they are to vote Democratic. FACT.

So there would be a hell of a lot fewer red districts if that was the case.

Also, lighter skin means it's easier to time travel.

I wouldn't want to be black and travel to anywhere earlier than, say, the 1960's.

All that proves is that the education system in your country is completely fucked. FACT.

There'd still be horrible lying politicians of both parties, just different ones.

But, an informed enlightened public would feel better about themselves, and buy things they'd actually need, and we'd have an economy built on real goods, and not bullshit.

And, isn't quality of life improvement and a better economy what these fucking politicians keep promising us?

Yeah, that would be a fucking difference.

Oh, and here's a quality link before VisionCastle can mumble any herp-derp.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...abato/education-level-tied-voting-tendencies/

Vanity Fair is apparently in hot water at the minute for lightening Lupita Nyong'o in a recent photoshoot.

Yes, the higher the education level, the slightly more likely to vote Democratic. A swing of 4 points would've made McCain's take of college graduates the same as Obama's; that's a narrow difference.

So, basically, the claim "educated = Democrat" is bullshit.

Since this doesn't address critical thinking, it's basically a red herring. College educated != critical thinker.

If anything, the very fact that you missed that disconnect proves that Leftist = not focused on critical thinking. You stand as proof against your position. Now, how do you feeeeeeeeel about that?

Board finally banned him?!

You got that right!