Use of whitening creams in India

[Akhlut]

I dunno. I find there's so many fuckable women among just about any race that I simply don't have any kind of preference. Personally I'd jump in the sack with a dark skinned black woman as quickly as a pale skinned white woman. I suspect a good deal of it has to do with social expectations and peer pressure as much as anything.

However, I don't think it's about just sex, but, rather, it is about marriage. Consider antebellum Alabama: African slave women were considered good for sex among white men, but unthinkable for marriage. I think a similar, less drastic case is going on in India, as implied by the article. This isn't about sexiness, but 'good' marriage material. Still a very racist sentiment, nonetheless.

[Solauren]

I dunno. I find there's so many fuckable women among just about any race that I simply don't have any kind of preference. Personally I'd jump in the sack with a dark skinned black woman as quickly as a pale skinned white woman. I suspect a good deal of it has to do with social expectations and peer pressure as much as anything.

However, I don't think it's about just sex, but, rather, it is about marriage. Consider antebellum Alabama: African slave women were considered good for sex among white men, but unthinkable for marriage. I think a similar, less drastic case is going on in India, as implied by the article. This isn't about sexiness, but 'good' marriage material. Still a very racist sentiment, nonetheless.

Let's also not forget the attitude of White Males that lead to 'creamies' and 'the Stolen Generation' in Austrilia.

[General Zod]

However, I don't think it's about just sex, but, rather, it is about marriage.

The article in the op was specifically talking about physical attraction, though.

[wolveraptor]

The discrimination against dark skinned folk in India runs deep. Aside from being banned from acting (not legally, but that's the practical reality), they inevitably hold lower paying jobs than their lighter skinned counterparts. What's really weird is how little anyone seems to acknowledge it. Even family I have over in India find nothing wrong with banning their dark skinned servants from sitting on chairs (they always use the floor). I don't even know if it's a personal choice by the servants, if they've been indoctrinated that thoroughly. As far as I know, there isn't any organized push against discrimination against dark skinned Indians like there is for black and other minorities here in America. It's just accepted as a fact of life.

[Simon_Jester]

Its not a trend. Go into a social gathering of upper classes in subcontinent and you will see most of the men and women look very european. then travel into a south indian village and you will be greeted with a sea of muddy faces. This is how it has been for thousands of years. Interestingly the term for caste division in many indic languages is barna. Which also means color. Is the two related ? I do not know but would not be surprised.

Speaking as an Indian subcontinent dweller I dont think this problem can be eliminated. All my attractive female friends are pale skinned. A few have brown hair even. Are we (the men) taught they are attractive ? No, we felt about them that way since we were growing up. Sadly I think this behavior is part of the human condition - we were born with definations of what is beauty rather than taught.

The problem arose over millenia; making it go away would take centuries.

As I understand it, the upper castes of traditional Indian society originated with invading charioteer tribes back in the late Bronze Age or early Iron Age; the fact that relatively light skin was preserved among those classes over thousands of years is probably due almost entirely to the restrictions Indian culture put on interbreeding between the castes.

The discrimination against dark skinned folk in India runs deep. Aside from being banned from acting (not legally, but that's the practical reality), they inevitably hold lower paying jobs than their lighter skinned counterparts. What's really weird is how little anyone seems to acknowledge it. Even family I have over in India find nothing wrong with banning their dark skinned servants from sitting on chairs (they always use the floor). I don't even know if it's a personal choice by the servants, if they've been indoctrinated that thoroughly. As far as I know, there isn't any organized push against discrimination against dark skinned Indians like there is for black and other minorities here in America. It's just accepted as a fact of life.

Perhaps this is because antidiscrimination movements in India focus so extensively on the caste issue that they tend to ignore more overt stuff like skin color that is related to the caste issue?

[Sarevok]

Color is not the sole factor here though. It is tied into complicated matter of social status. Basically if you are poor you are a second or third class human being. You dont get to enter fancy restaurants or sit on the couch at rich peoples houses. Slumdog Millionaire is dead on accurate about this. I think the class discrimination is the bigger problem here. To be a sucessful in India in general one usually has to be.

- rich.
- well educated.
- from a respected family line.

Being milky white as a brit can be a bonus, especially if you are a girl. It does not hinder one too much though. The chief problem is when girls try to get married it is extremely hard if they are dark not matter how good their family backgrounds, jobs or education levels are.

[Akhlut]

However, I don't think it's about just sex, but, rather, it is about marriage.

The article in the op was specifically talking about physical attraction, though.

The beginning of it seemed to tie it in with marriage, though.

It is being called "Snow White syndrome" in India, a market where sales of whitening creams are far outstripping those of Coca Cola and tea. India also has the world's second most lucrative marriage industry - the first being neighbouring China - that has grown to a whopping $40bn a year spent on weddings, dowries jewellery etc.

And demand for fair-complexioned brides and grooms to grace these occasions is as high as ever. Fuelling this demand is the country's 75-odd reality shows where being fair, lovely and handsome means instant stardom.

Emphasis mine.

[General Zod]

Emphasis mine.

Fuelling this demand is the country's 75-odd reality shows where being fair, lovely and handsome means instant stardom.

You're overlooking the key thing at the end of what you quoted.

[Akhlut]

Emphasis mine.

Fuelling this demand is the country's 75-odd reality shows where being fair, lovely and handsome means instant stardom.

You're overlooking the key thing at the end of what you quoted.

It's not like that's a new thing in India, though, nor does it refute the idea that people would necessarily find darker-skinned women less attractive sexually; however, given that most of India is still extremely conservative vis a vis extramarital sex, the fact is that most people who want to get themselves a spouse are going to probably use some sort of skin whitener in order to attract said spouse due to preexisting racial views on what makes someone marriagable. It isn't logical to say that those people in India will find darker-skinned people unattractive just because they wish to marry someone with lighter skin, similar to how a plantation owner in 1840s Virginia won't necessarily find his black slaves unattractive simply because social mores and his own racism force him into marrying a white girl.

[Liberty]

Am I the only woman not obsessed with changing how I look? Sure, I'll shave my legs, pluck excess facial hair, and put a little gel in my hair, but I have never tried changing the color of my skin, or getting plastic surgery, etc. And I definitely wouldn't try to change something I didn't like about me if it ran the risk of giving me cancer!

I cringe every time my sister goes tanning...

Oh, and Shroomy, it may be just me but people who go tanning strike me as lower class. I mean, most of the people I see who are noticeably tanned are lower class. It seems like people who actually have money know better than run the risk of cancer like that. Or is it just me?

From what I've been able to tell, you're from the Midwest, where the lower class traditionally is manual labor (farmers, factory workers, etc.), wherein getting a tan is a sign you work outdoors and, thus, are lower class.

On the coasts, the West coast especially, the labor there, as I understand it, is more indoor labor (aside from construction), so it would be the upper class that would have the free time associated with being able to go outside and hang out at the beach long enough to tan.

Yes, I'm from the Midwest. Yes the lower class is traditional manual labor. However, people don't get tanned from manual labor today, they get tanned in tanning salons. And it's generally lower class people who do that, hence my associating tanning with the lower class. So...according to what you're saying, wouldn't the lower class want to look pale? Or else, if tan was in, wouldn't the upper class be the ones who were tan? I'm confused.

[wolveraptor]

Yes, I'm from the Midwest. Yes the lower class is traditional manual labor. However, people don't get tanned from manual labor today, they get tanned in tanning salons. And it's generally lower class people who do that, hence my associating tanning with the lower class.

Well the whole thing is just a holdover from the days in which manual labor was a common occupation for Americans. Now those types of jobs are more likely to go to people who are already naturally darker.

It might have something to do with the fact that some of the earliest (and hence most iconic) images from color television showed tanned actresses like Farrah Fawcett running around with bronze skin and perfectly feathered hair. Those images have a way of sticking in the public consciousness.

[Liberty]

Yes, I'm from the Midwest. Yes the lower class is traditional manual labor. However, people don't get tanned from manual labor today, they get tanned in tanning salons. And it's generally lower class people who do that, hence my associating tanning with the lower class.

Well the whole thing is just a holdover from the days in which manual labor was a common occupation for Americans. Now those types of jobs are more likely to go to people who are already naturally darker.

Wait - you're saying that lower class people go tanning so that they will get hired, because employers are more likely to hire darker skinned people because that's an indication that they're lower class? That doesn't make a wit of sense.

[Phantasee]

I think the original point is that, while labourers were tanned in the Midwest, the upper classes on the West Coast were tanned. Due to the West Coast's massive influence in US media, that has changed the traditional association of tanned skin from labour to upper class, in the Midwest.

[Liberty]

I think the original point is that, while labourers were tanned in the Midwest, the upper classes on the West Coast were tanned. Due to the West Coast's massive influence in US media, that has changed the traditional association of tanned skin from labour to upper class, in the Midwest.

Then why doesn't the upper class in the Midwest tan?

[Phantasee]

I think the original point is that, while labourers were tanned in the Midwest, the upper classes on the West Coast were tanned. Due to the West Coast's massive influence in US media, that has changed the traditional association of tanned skin from labour to upper class, in the Midwest.

Then why doesn't the upper class in the Midwest tan?

Because they're the real upper class? The middle class folk would be more influenced by Hollywood. They aspire to be upper class, but they go by what they see on TV and movies, which is the upper class of the West Coast. Your local upper class has it's own thing going on. Most of the upper class in New England probably doesn't tan either, from what I know.

[Master of Cards]

I think the original point is that, while labourers were tanned in the Midwest, the upper classes on the West Coast were tanned. Due to the West Coast's massive influence in US media, that has changed the traditional association of tanned skin from labour to upper class, in the Midwest.

Then why doesn't the upper class in the Midwest tan?

Because they're the real upper class? The middle class folk would be more influenced by Hollywood. They aspire to be upper class, but they go by what they see on TV and movies, which is the upper class of the West Coast. Your local upper class has it's own thing going on. Most of the upper class in New England probably doesn't tan either, from what I know.

Here in Missouri every girl tans unless she has Irish/super pale skin. It's just what everything does and I live in a upper middle class area.

[wolveraptor]

Wait - you're saying that lower class people go tanning so that they will get hired, because employers are more likely to hire darker skinned people because that's an indication that they're lower class? That doesn't make a wit of sense.

Sorry, should've been more clear. I meant that manual labor jobs tend to go to immigrants, usually latino (at least as far as I know).

[Liberty]

Wait - you're saying that lower class people go tanning so that they will get hired, because employers are more likely to hire darker skinned people because that's an indication that they're lower class? That doesn't make a wit of sense.

Sorry, should've been more clear. I meant that manual labor jobs tend to go to immigrants, usually latino (at least as far as I know).

But that doesn't explain why people tan. Girls used to wear bonnets (1800s) so as not to get tan when working outdoors. Now they go to tanning salons. What changed?

[wolveraptor]

But that doesn't explain why people tan. Girls used to wear bonnets (1800s) so as not to get tan when working outdoors. Now they go to tanning salons. What changed?

I know it doesn't, it was more a tangential point than anything. I already put forward my own theory in my earlier post, and many others have come with their own explanations.

[Broomstick]

Am I the only woman not obsessed with changing how I look?

Nope, I'm not obsessed, either.

Oh, and Shroomy, it may be just me but people who go tanning strike me as lower class. I mean, most of the people I see who are noticeably tanned are lower class. It seems like people who actually have money know better than run the risk of cancer like that. Or is it just me?

It's a changing social norm - it used to be that the upper classes took pains to remain as pale as possible (skin lightening creams used to be used by Caucasians in North America and Europe before WWI) when only the rich could avoid working in the sun. Then, post WWII tanning became fashionable because only the wealthy had the leisure to lay in the sun all day, particularly in winter when it required traveling to foreign lands. Only the wealthy could be tan in winter through the 1970's, having a winter tan meant status. Only with the arrival of indoor tanning beds, when everybody, even poor trailer trash, could be tan all year long, did a deep tan lose its status (late 1980's through the 1990's is when this started) and now we're swinging back to paleness being OK, if not actually fashionable, and a clearly artificial tan is starting to swing to "low class"

[Dooey Jo]

Wait - you're saying that lower class people go tanning so that they will get hired, because employers are more likely to hire darker skinned people because that's an indication that they're lower class? That doesn't make a wit of sense.

Sorry, should've been more clear. I meant that manual labor jobs tend to go to immigrants, usually latino (at least as far as I know).

But that doesn't explain why people tan. Girls used to wear bonnets (1800s) so as not to get tan when working outdoors. Now they go to tanning salons. What changed?

Lower class jobs moved indoors to factories and and cleaners and whatnot, so the upper classes could no longer use paleness to show how awesome they were, and had to tan instead. And since "everyone" wants to be like "them", or perhaps because "no-one" wants to appear to be lower class, tanning beds and low-price airlines were shortly invented.

[Phantasee]

Because they're the real upper class? The middle class folk would be more influenced by Hollywood. They aspire to be upper class, but they go by what they see on TV and movies, which is the upper class of the West Coast. Your local upper class has it's own thing going on. Most of the upper class in New England probably doesn't tan either, from what I know.

Here in Missouri every girl tans unless she has Irish/super pale skin. It's just what everything does and I live in a upper middle class area.

Upper middle class are the worst in terms of trying to emulate the upper class*. Upper class people are more than a tax bracket, you know.

*This may be because they have more income to spend on making the attempt to look upper class.

[eyexist]

I think the original point is that, while labourers were tanned in the Midwest, the upper classes on the West Coast were tanned. Due to the West Coast's massive influence in US media, that has changed the traditional association of tanned skin from labour to upper class, in the Midwest.

Then why doesn't the upper class in the Midwest tan?

They don't? Almost all of my wealthy clients have three things in common: at least one Bentley in their garage, 24/7 housekeeping, and a tanning bed in their basement. Most of them joke about how I must find it amusing that they are trying to achieve a color that I naturally have.

[Mayabird]

Oh for crying out loud people.

I think it's simply a case of people going after what's "different". I remember someone said that fat people were sexy in the Middle Ages because back in the day, people are skinny and starved. But nowadays, skinny people are sexy because people are all fat from ugly fast foods. Also, back then fairness was hot because everyone toiled under the sun and were thus dark. While nowadays, most people are working in doors and thus pale, while those who have time to go to the beach and tan are seen as better because they are not the norm or something. These different and unusual things that are outside the norm are, usually, only available to those people more well-off than the average person, thus making them more attractive.

I just heard that. It may be complete BS.

Shroomy basically got it, but I'll expand. The evolutionary psych explanation is that there are multiple measures of attractiveness. The one which is the point of this entire damned thread (and the only one people have control over) is things that show that an individual has excess resources to spend on crap instead of mere survival. This is where the fat/skinny pale/tan stuff comes in. Being pale when the norm is to be dark or vice versa says, "Look at me. I have excess enough that I can go against the norm. I'm rich. This may be a sign of my superior genetics, or at the very least, if you have my offspring they'll have these excess resources during their development as well. Either way, your genes win." This is why there have been things like the crazy haircuts of the Babylonians (can Ur Peasant afford the servants and time to have their hair made up four hours a day? Of course not) and the Ming dynasty nobles who had fingernails so long that they couldn't even feed themselves and had to be cared for by their servants nonstop lest they break a nail.

Style comes into play as to the exact ways these things manifest, of course. Having lots of people with excess resources instead of just a few nobles may drive that since there's a constant push to do something new to stand out in resource-flaunting.

[Shroom Man 777]

I think the person who originally said that, somewhere sometime ago, was Broomy and I just recalled her informative discourse on skin tone, fat Victorian women, and sexiness.

Man, Broomy! You know everything!