7 replies to this topic

[Gee :)]

Hi IBers!
So, I've seen an article about a local (sort of) celebrity who bleached her skin to the extent that she now looks Caucasian ( she's black and had dark skin before),I'm curious as to what you think about skin lightening and tanning.
As a resident of an African nation,I can tell you that skin lightening in my region is very common.Having light skin here pretty much means that society will consider you pretty.I have no statistics to prove this but one example I could give of this occurring is in rap music videos - dark skinned girls are a rarity.
The celebrity mentioned above has been on the receiving end of many negative comments about her supposed identity crisis,there are many people saying that she has no self-esteem and she's sending out a bad message to people by wanting to look Caucasian.
Her response is that black people alter their image to better suit western ideals (particularly referring to hair straightening,getting hair weaves and hair extensions but also mentioning plastic surgery).What I think she's saying is that the procedures she's had to look Caucasian are no different from things like straightening or relaxing, and thus, people should just leave her alone.

Now,another part of this topic I'm considering is the different response people have to tanning.A large number of Caucasian people tan their skin to look darker.However,to my knowledge, no tanned celebrity has ever been openly criticised for their tanning habits,which is interesting because tanning and skin lightening are more or less the same thing. Sure,Snooki from Jersey Shore is very very tan...but there's no outcry.

So a few questions

Do you think a person bleaching their skin to look lighter or tanning to look darker suggests a self-esteem problem,self-hatred or neither?
If its just another way of making yourself feel pretty,then isn't it just the same as makeup or getting hair extentions ?
Some have said that the lady who lightened her skin should be left to go about her business because she didnt harm anyone.
Would you say that skin lightening and tanning should be accepted because they don't harm anyone other than the person doing it?
Do you wish you were born with more tan skin or a lighter complexion? or are you just fine with the skin you're in?

[Sandwich]

Well I think there's a big difference here in terms of motivation. People have their skin tanned because having tanned skin implies you've been out and active in the sunshine = health and also (to access sunshine!) money.

If you had your skin lightened that motivation wouldn't make much sense unless you go back to Victorian times where having lighter skin basically meant you were a weak and frail limpet female who never left their house (but that was considered desirable).

I'm assuming that the skin lightening is somehow racially motivated?? Versus tanning which is a kind of vanity/health thing (although bad fake tans actually give the impression of poor health, liver failure and jaundice, this isn't their original purpose...) rather than an attempt to change your skin colour to some other ethnic group. People aren't trying to look non-Caucasian by getting a tan. They're attempting (and largely failing) to look like healthier and richer caucasians who've been out in the sun

Anyway, provided it's not racially motivated ("I don't want to be a black person, black people smell, therefore I'm lightening my skin") and is motivated by something else ("I want to have lighter skin because I think it looks prettier"), I see no problem with it. I kind-of agree, it's just like getting hair extensions in a sense, except that with skin colour changes it looks like you're trying to hide your background and it's important to distinguish the racially-motivated from the vanity-motivated on that score. People shouldn't have to change their skin colour for racially motivated reasons - but equally we shouldn't assume that those are the only reasons for doing it.

Personally, I would have liked to be born with slightly darker skin. Not because I feel there's anything aesthetically wrong with it (honestly, I find all skin colours attractive, the colour doesn't matter to me at all) but because it's ridiculously impractical. Even in my own country, I have to wear sunscreen at certain times of year to stop myself getting burned. If the sun is bright enough, I can burn in 20-30 mins. Going abroad is awful because I must be covered in horrible slimey greasy sunscreen - and in hot weather there's nothing worse! So yeah, once you get to a certain stage of lightness, it stops being just an aesthetic issue and also becomes a practical issue.

On an inverse point, many dark-skinned people - especially muslim women who cloak themselves in veils etc. so thickly that basically the only part of them capable of receiving sunlight is their eyelids - who have chosen to live in the more northerly countries of the world actually suffer impracticalities too. Rickets, Osteomalacia and other issues relating to lack of Vitamin D affect an amazing number of people. Even very white people can become slightly Vit D deficient in the winter. Part of this is lifestyle (if their skin saw the sunlight, they wouldn't have so many problems) but people with very black skin (who don't have issues with their clothing) who don't go out much can also have these problems.

[Amalimrock]

Even for the Chinese/Asians (but unsure about Indians/Philipinos etc), whiter skin colour is a desirable trait. Lots of K-pop artists are really white, and they're pretty notorious with plastic surgery as well. So it could be an esteem problem for some people who choose to lighten their skin colour for the sake of looking more desirable, and the same goes for tanning for Westerners.

Yes, skin lightining/tanning should still be acceptable because it is not harming anyone.

I sometimes wish for a paler skin, but I'm still happy with my light tan.

[Jyrgen]

Gee , on Dec 31, 2011 - 14:03, said:

Do you think a person bleaching their skin to look lighter or tanning to look darker suggests a self-esteem problem,self-hatred or neither?

I wouldn't take it as a sign of either.

Gee , on Dec 31, 2011 - 14:03, said:

If its just another way of making yourself feel pretty,then isn't it just the same as makeup or getting hair extentions ?

Exactly

Gee , on Dec 31, 2011 - 14:03, said:

Some have said that the lady who lightened her skin should be left to go about her business because she didnt harm anyone.

These people would be right.

Gee , on Dec 31, 2011 - 14:03, said:

Would you say that skin lightening and tanning should be accepted because they don't harm anyone other than the person doing it?

Of course.

Gee , on Dec 31, 2011 - 14:03, said:

Do you wish you were born with more tan skin or a lighter complexion? or are you just fine with the skin you're in?

I'm ok with my pale-white skin color, it suits my other Scandinavian features (blue eyes, blonde hair etc.)

[Sandwich]

brofessional, on Jan 02, 2012 - 23:55, said:

I don't think that people get tanned to imply that they are healthy or wealthy. In fact, it does the absolute opposite. Most classy ladies haven't changed their skin colour to a massive extent. However, one person who does pop to mind on the extremely tanned scale is Cheryl Cole (yikes!), who in my opinion cannot be described as classy. I won't say anymore in fear of being hated by any Cheryl Cole fans on here.

Just because it doesn't make them look classy, doesn't mean that that wasn't the original intention! Your stereotypical essex girl is paying to look their version of 'classy'. It happens to be a delusional version and I agree, it does the opposite of making you look healthy (although arguably it does show you've got some spare cash to splash on your appearance), but nobody would do it if they didn't think it was having a positive effect on their appearance.

There's a certain amount to be said for fashion and just following what the trend is - looking orange or looking white - but I disagree that there's no motive behind these fashions. Certainly in Victorian times it WAS to indicate your lifestyle as a delicate indoor flower rather than a woman who had to do work outside that they would pale their faces and use parasols outside in the sunshine. When I see a person who's tanned rather than pale, it does make them look healthier. That's how you tell people have been on holiday - people ask how you got your tan. If it's not a conscious motive it's certainly an unconscious one. Whether the unconscious motive is to try and copy an "idol" like Cheryl Cole because that's your idea of beauty (and I agree with you on this, I think some people do), the base root for why some people, and indeed probably for the original initiators of the fashion, wanted to look tanned is health and wealth.

Discounting the fact that some people's idea of a "healthy tan" is pumpkin-coloured, I don't think they're any of them actually aiming to look like pieces of fruit. They think it's making them look better, or why would they do it?

[marauder7]

<sub>How can be skin lightening even possible? i would be interesting to know the procedure. the only thing i can think of right now is that their skin is bleached or something (which is rather unlikely)

The first thing i thought when I read your post is that this could be a TOK  presentation topic

Answering to your questions, I don't think bleaching or tanning suggests low self-esteem. It is vanity and a desire to look better. It is amazing how our society's concept of beauty leads to such extremes, and yes lighting the skin can be seen as a denial of herritage because it is a desire to look caucassian. Anyway, the women should be left alone because it is as if she had plastic surgery. It is her choice and it doesn't harm anyone.
I think that skin lightening/tanning should be seen with the same eyes as plastic surgery. It is a way of altering your body to gain "beauty". It isn't right or wrong, it is a person's choice and that person should consider the dangers/implications of their acts. And besides it looks fake.

I am ok with my skin color I guess, I am my skin is light for mexican standards and dark for european standards. I get tanned easily and I don't get freckles of red skin with the sun, for which I am very thankful.

And...</sub>

Sandwich, on Dec 31, 2011 - 14:10, said:

On an inverse point, many dark-skinned people - especially muslim women who cloak themselves in veils etc. so thickly that basically the only part of them capable of receiving sunlight is their eyelids - who have chosen to live in the more northerly countries of the world actually suffer impracticalities too. Rickets, Osteomalacia and other issues relating to lack of Vitamin D affect an amazing number of people. Even very white people can become slightly Vit D deficient in the winter. Part of this is lifestyle (if their skin saw the sunlight, they wouldn't have so many problems) but people with very black skin (who don't have issues with their clothing) who don't go out much can also have these problems.

_{Yey I learned that in my IB biology class}

[Gee :)]

marauder7, on Feb 04, 2012 - 19:07, said:

<sub>How can be skin lightening even possible? i would be interesting to know the procedure. the only thing i can think of right now is that their skin is bleached or something (which is rather unlikely)

The first thing i thought when I read your post is that this could be a TOK  presentation topic

Answering to your questions, I don't think bleaching or tanning suggests low self-esteem. It is vanity and a desire to look better. It is amazing how our society's concept of beauty leads to such extremes, and yes lighting the skin can be seen as a denial of herritage because it is a desire to look caucassian. Anyway, the women should be left alone because it is as if she had plastic surgery. It is her choice and it doesn't harm anyone.
I think that skin lightening/tanning should be seen with the same eyes as plastic surgery. It is a way of altering your body to gain "beauty". It isn't right or wrong, it is a person's choice and that person should consider the dangers/implications of their acts. And besides it looks fake.

I am ok with my skin color I guess, I am my skin is light for mexican standards and dark for european standards. I get tanned easily and I don't get freckles of red skin with the sun, for which I am very thankful.</sub>

Hey, I believe that the woman bleached her skin severely.How exactly, I am not sure. And I would have loved to do my TOK presentation on this topic but I thought of it WAY too late I think your point about how skin lightening is like plastic surgery is interesting.I wouldn't have thought about it that way because as a dark-skinned black girl, it's an issue I can relate to quite personally. It seems a lot deeper than having fake boobs or something to the effect.Also, I come from a country where plastic surgery is almost non-existent and thus,I wouldn't associate the two.

[Gee :)]

Sandwich, on Dec 31, 2011 - 14:10, said:

Well I think there's a big difference here in terms of motivation. People have their skin tanned because having tanned skin implies you've been out and active in the sunshine = health and also (to access sunshine!) money.
If you had your skin lightened that motivation wouldn't make much sense unless you go back to Victorian times where having lighter skin basically meant you were a weak and frail limpet female who never left their house (but that was considered desirable).
I'm assuming that the skin lightening is somehow racially motivated?? Versus tanning which is a kind of vanity/health thing (although bad fake tans actually give the impression of poor health, liver failure and jaundice, this isn't their original purpose...) rather than an attempt to change your skin colour to some other ethnic group. People aren't trying to look non-Caucasian by getting a tan. They're attempting (and largely failing) to look like healthier and richer caucasians who've been out in the sun

Anyway, provided it's not racially motivated ("I don't want to be a black person, black people smell, therefore I'm lightening my skin") and is motivated by something else ("I want to have lighter skin because I think it looks prettier"), I see no problem with it. I kind-of agree, it's just like getting hair extensions in a sense, except that with skin colour changes it looks like you're trying to hide your background and it's important to distinguish the racially-motivated from the vanity-motivated on that score. People shouldn't have to change their skin colour for racially motivated reasons - but equally we shouldn't assume that those are the only reasons for doing it.

Personally, I would have liked to be born with slightly darker skin. Not because I feel there's anything aesthetically wrong with it (honestly, I find all skin colours attractive, the colour doesn't matter to me at all) but because it's ridiculously impractical. Even in my own country, I have to wear sunscreen at certain times of year to stop myself getting burned. If the sun is bright enough, I can burn in 20-30 mins. Going abroad is awful because I must be covered in horrible slimey greasy sunscreen - and in hot weather there's nothing worse! So yeah, once you get to a certain stage of lightness, it stops being just an aesthetic issue and also becomes a practical issue.

Thanks for your point of view The problem I have/had with her bleaching her skin was probably due to the fact that I can't separate the idea of racial motivation and vanity motivation. As a black girl, I know that the standard of beauty consists of being a white,thin,bue-eyed blonde girl. So essentially,to me,a black woman,aspiring to look "prettier" and caucasian seems like self-hatred."She wants to be viewed as pretty" & "She doesn't want to be black"  are married in my mind. On a much smaller scale, I wonder if what I do to look "pretty" is self-hatred because I'm aspiring toward a white ideal.On a larger scale, i wonder if the existence and promotion of beauty ideals causes us all to hate ourselves ...