|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 5:58 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 9:07 pm
|
|
|
|
Am I the only one who feels a tad wary of the tone of this forum. I'm naturally skeptical and distrusting of anything presented at face value. But I really hope the overall tone here is not to put up pale skin while putting down dark skin. I sort of understand where you're comming from but at the same time, most of you don' t come from a community where girls are desperately trying to look as Anglo as they can. Hydroquinine is the Black girl's version of the white girls tan addiction. While tanning darkens the skin and potentially causes cancer, hydroquinine, a skin bleaching agent has been banned in many countries (not the US)because it can potentially cause liver failure and severe skin dammage as well. I'm just saying, things like skin color and hair texture an be potentially volatile. subjects. Pale skin may be beautiful but on the same token, is this the inference that dark skin is ugly? I surely hope not. It sounds like those who are tan are even apologizing for NOT being pale because they spend time in the sun.
No one should HAVE to explan their skin color. Yes tanning is a bad idea, but be really careful what you say about someone's skin color, Those of you who are pale take this feat as some sort of great achievement. That kind of thinking is potentially dangerous. I mean, what if I were to open up a thread about how great it is to have dark brown skin, I'm sure it might come across as strange because it seems that No one would actually want to be as Dark as Alek Wek. It seems as if dark women are beautiful in SPITE of their skin tone and not because of it, where as the fair skin is considered part of a packaged deal in a lighter person. I'm just saying, re-asses your thinking a bit. What does that say about yourself and your concept of beauty? Would you really find yourself less attractive if you woke up tomorrow morning two shades darker than you are now? If so why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 1:46 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 14, 2008 11:33 am
|
|
|
|
Luz Melian I am content with my naturally pale skin but I think if I had naturally darker skin it wouldn't bother me either... I don't really think it matters; and as for standards of beauty, these are different for difrerent persons but I personally think that there are beautiful people among people of all skin shades. The skin shade doesn't play a big role in if I find a person attractive or not, it's rather their facial features, and the charm of their whole personality what makes me find a person attractive.
As in what? A pixie nose and tiny lips? Remember that can be a slipery slope as well. People put Halle Berry up on a pedestal because she has very small features. But everyone thinks Alek Wek is ugly because her nose is wide and her lips are big. Many black girls look like this and are shamed because of it. So called "delicate" features as the ideal is also a very narrow measure of beauty which has always been the Anglo standard. Jewish girls get nose jobs, Korean girls get eyelid surgery. Why? Because of a very narrow concept of beauty dictated by a eurocentric media powerhouse. Ever wonder WHY Michael jackson got all those nose jobs in conjunction with bleaching his skin? So when people say "features", I think only of those undersold black barbies. If I am a dark individual with kinky afro hair , a wide nose and large lips, I wouldn't expect most men to give me a second look. Black or white. However, according to the black hierarchy, I'm one of the good looking ones. My nose is narrow, my lips are bow like and my skin "ain't slave dark" However my hair is kinky and nappy and I refuse to have it processed straight. For you it's a fashion thing. For me it's a political/feminist thing. Out of all the ethnic groups on the planet, we are considered the ugliest. And the black woman is at the very very bottom. Our hair needs to be staightened, our skin must be lighter, our lips are too big, our hips are too wide, our noses are too wide. Nothing about our natural state is acceptable. You wouldn't believe the negative programming that has to be undone by our mothers or grandmothers with that rediculous concept of "good hair" that led them to justify putting burning chemicals on their child's head from the age of 4. I was lucky to be raised in a home of bohemians where I actually like my hair. But my peers weren't so fortunate.
I'm only saying this because as a goth room, the scene is always going to be dominated by those of euorpean decent and their experiences. Perhaps that's why it's somehow acceptable to post an entire thread on a skin shade and not expect any in depth discussion as to why the OP felt it necessary to post a thread on such a alienating topic. Did she know what the social rammifications were or was she being niave about the entire subject? Pale skin will never have the same political and socio economic rammifications of dark skin. People don't assume you're stupid, a criminal, or sexually promiscuous for having pale skin. People actually second guess my ethnic origins because I don't fit the stereotypes. That perhaps I couldn't possibly be black if I spoke this well, and acted like I had class. As if such a thing is synonymous. People only think of pale skin a sickly because ..corpses and sick people are pale. That's a sound educated assesment, it's out of concern for your wellbeing no matter how uneeded. I wish I had that kind of concern from people. Concern from your fellow man is nothing to complain about. It's better than being left to die of an illness because someone ligther than you gets top medical priority at a hospital.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 25, 2008 4:55 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 7:14 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 11:40 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 2:58 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 5:39 pm
|
|
|
|
Naztakuan Am I the only one who feels a tad wary of the tone of this forum. I'm naturally skeptical and distrusting of anything presented at face value. But I really hope the overall tone here is not to put up pale skin while putting down dark skin. I sort of understand where you're comming from but at the same time, most of you don' t come from a community where girls are desperately trying to look as Anglo as they can. Hydroquinine is the Black girl's version of the white girls tan addiction. While tanning darkens the skin and potentially causes cancer, hydroquinine, a skin bleaching agent has been banned in many countries (not the US)because it can potentially cause liver failure and severe skin dammage as well. I'm just saying, things like skin color and hair texture an be potentially volatile. subjects. Pale skin may be beautiful but on the same token, is this the inference that dark skin is ugly? I surely hope not. It sounds like those who are tan are even apologizing for NOT being pale because they spend time in the sun. No one should HAVE to explan their skin color. Yes tanning is a bad idea, but be really careful what you say about someone's skin color, Those of you who are pale take this feat as some sort of great achievement. That kind of thinking is potentially dangerous. I mean, what if I were to open up a thread about how great it is to have dark brown skin, I'm sure it might come across as strange because it seems that No one would actually want to be as Dark as Alek Wek. It seems as if dark women are beautiful in SPITE of their skin tone and not because of it, where as the fair skin is considered part of a packaged deal in a lighter person. I'm just saying, re-asses your thinking a bit. What does that say about yourself and your concept of beauty? Would you really find yourself less attractive if you woke up tomorrow morning two shades darker than you are now? If so why? I'm not trying to put people with a darker skin colour down or anything...There's an idea out there that pale skin is ugly and I'm just saying I don't agree, I think that's what the thread was responding to.
All colours look nice. 3nodding It doesn't really effect anything except for vitamin D absorption and what hair/makeup/clothing colours look the best on you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:04 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 4:24 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 5:04 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 16, 2008 2:11 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:49 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:08 pm
|
|
|
|
This is more than a bit hypocritical of me because of the effort I put into keeping myself pale, but I think the important part is to look natural. If you naturally have a deep skin tone, then you probably will look better in it than any other. Same goes for if you're naturally pale. If you spend alot of time outside and get a dark brown tan, that can be worn attractively. Or really frighteningly, but that goes for any tone. The important thing is to look natural about it. Brown and toasted is natural and can be attractive with the right hair, face shape and makeup. Bright orange is not natural, not pretty, and not healthy. It can only be truly attained in a tanning booth, which means you invested money and time into looking unnatural and unhealthy. I, myself feel prettier when I'm paler. I am aware what anyone else does with their own skin is their own business, but it's very hard for me to not make snarky comments about people who have dyed themselves orange. It's hard for me not to make snarky comments about anyone. I'm working on that, to very little effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|