Skin-whitening creams: worthy of anger?

[Askthepizzaguy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot...itening-creams

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A new Vaseline ad campaign in India urging men to whiten their faces has sparked international controversy, with critics of the ads contending that Vaseline — a subsidiary of the Dutch-Anglo conglomerate Unilever — is promoting the notion that only white skin is beautiful. But in India and in other countries, face-whitening creams — and all their accompanying cultural hangups — are nothing new.

Unilever released a Facebook application that permits men to upload photos of themselves and then "transform" their profile photos by lightening them, much like they promise their new lightening cream will do. The company recruited Bollywood star Shahid Kapur to be the face of the campaign.

According to an Agence France-Presse report, advertisements for skin-whitening creams have been controversial since the first cream for women hit the Indian market more than 30 years ago. Men are a more recent target of the $500 million-per-year industry in India.

[Before and after: Kim Kardashian retouched in ad]

Detractors say the whitening industry's ads are manipulative and racist. Brinda Karat, general secretary of the All India Democratic Women's Association told AFP that a 2003 advertisement featuring a dark-skinned woman who couldn't catch a husband was "highly racist." Another advertisement in 2008 (flagged by the Independent) featured a man thinking of leaving his dark-skinned girlfriend for a lighter-skinned rival.

Unilever is defending its Vaseline ad campaign as culturally appropriate. "Much like self-tanning products in North America and Europe, skin-lightening products are culturally relevant in India," the company said in a statement, according to CBS News.

A skin-whitening defender writing in the Wall Street Journal argued that Indians should be allowed to buy the creams without people in the West worrying they are being "brainwashed."

"In a country where a dark complexion is seen as a liability, a deal breaker for putative nuptials, a stumbling block for one’s career prospects and — correctly or not — a marker of one’s standing in the caste hierarchy, the skin-whitening industry does well," writes Rupa Subramanya Dehejia in the Journal.

India's system of social stratification based on lighter skin color is rooted in the country's ancient caste system.

A 2009 poll by an online dating company of 12,000 participants living in Northern India found that they rate skin tone the most important factor in choosing a romantic partner. "Fair skin is generally associated with beauty, greater affluence and increased employability," writes Riddhi Shah at Salon, who copped to using the creams herself even while criticizing the country's racist ideas about beauty in her work.

Whitening creams hold an appeal for men and women in the United States, too. A New York Times investigation found many African-American and Latino women support a robust U.S. market for over-the-counter whitening creams. And it's not just women: Former Chicago Cubs player Sammy Sosa admitted he used the creams.

But the Times also found that many women suffered severe side effects from the products, some of which contain steroids. A Harvard study flagged by the blog Colorlines found that 90 percent of Arizona women suffering from mercury poisoning were Hispanic women using skin-lightening creams. "These women had tried so desperately to whiten their skin color that they had poisoned their bodies by applying mercury-based 'beauty creams,' " a Harvard medical professor wrote in the Boston Globe.

Let me phrase this as neutrally as possible to get a discussion going:

Are Skin-whitening products any of the following: racist, worthy of anger, or worthy of attention in any way?


My less neutral opinion:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I see light skinned people using tanning beds and tanning lotions, and no one calls that racist. I can't help but feel that certain outraged parties have too much time on their hands. The only part of the article I found offensive was the fact that people were being poisoned by skin-whitening creams.... to me, that's the actual story. But it was just an afterthought at the end of the article. Where's the outrage about that? Seriously, racial controversy is when someone runs around uttering racial epithets, or discriminating against other races. It isn't racist to prefer a certain skin color (or hair color, or body type....) for romantic encounters, or to lighten or darken your skin for aesthetic reasons. People are constantly modifying their appearance in many ways more shocking than temporary skin lightening or darkening. Tanning beds represent a higher risk factor for cancer, and yet people still use them to make their skin more noticeable and radiant. But there's no charge of being racist against white people. There's no Irish or Norwegian outrage over the awful, hideous looking orange shade John Boehner sports on a regular basis.

However, no matter the issue, there's always someone who doesn't see things exactly the way I do, so I imagine I must sound quite culturally insensitive or whatnot. However, I come from a place with no real hangups about skin coloring, so I don't see what the big deal is. I also think that's a more mature attitude to take.... and better for our society as a whole. I kind of get sick of the constant cries of racism where I don't see any. There's real racism out there, and real news stories, buried underneath garbage like this. Like the mercury poisoning. But no, we have to be dramatic about something that even smells like it has to do with race, when it does not. It has to do with skin lightening, which I believe is totally different from "race".

[Brenus]

No need to see racism in this.
To have a whiter skin means you are not working in the fields. Suntan is still in some countries equals to peasants, as in the 16Th 17th Century Europe.
Let them have their pale skin and ours have their suntan you can only get in going in Spain, if you have the means to go of course…

[HoreTore]

White skin ain't what people want.

The ideal is "tanned", which is quite a long way from northern european white.

Anyway.... The rich always make the fashion trends. Everyone else wants to look like them, act like them and do what they do. All rich people are tanned europeans. You do the math....

[Rhyfelwyr]

We're looking at this through our own western perspective when we presume that something about skin colour must automatically be about race.

These Indians trying to look whiter are not acting this way because they think they are racially inferior to white people, they just want to look more like the other ethnic Indians (ok these are a lot of ethnicities in India, but you know what I mean) with whiter skin. As Brenus pointed out this is purely a cultural thing within India, whiter skin means less time out in the sun doing manual labour, hence higher social status etc.

So maybe you could make a case for saying it's classism, but not racism.

[Furunculus]

The three responses above are all excellent.

"nothing to see hear, please carry on"

the article is a farce that panders to people who dimly aware of their own inadequacy attempt to compensate by finding a 'noble' cause to crusade for.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well of course it isn't racist, what's being argued I suppose is that it is reflective of a racist society. But it just seems like one of the personal appearance trends cultures have. The unhealthy ones are objectionable on that ground.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

White skin ain't what people want.

The ideal is "tanned", which is quite a long way from northern european white.

This isn't really true, certainly not for women, while a lot of people today are pushing "tanned = hot" the idea of beauty is still stubbornly at the "alabaster skin with rosy cheeks and full red lips" end of the spectrum.

Being tanned means you are active and healthy, but a pale complexion shows you are wealthy enough to not need to work, and will show up any imperfections as well. So overall a fair and clear complexion is still prefferred by many people.

In India:

All the above, plus traditional class-backed racism. the Higher Indian castes have a high proportion of Greco-Iranian nobility in their bloodlines, this is what gives them their finer features, green or even blue eyes and pale skin. Essentially, in India they have bred-in the charactaristics we associate with nobility and wealth.

[tibilicus]

Saw a documentary on this a while back and it isn't really to do with Indian/Asians whitening their skin to be "white" in our western sense, it's more to do with the culture of the Asian sub-continent. Generally speaking, the lighter ones skin is, the more it suggests he/she is of a higher caste (class). Many Bollywood stars have lighter skin and it is generally seen within Indian culture that to have lighter skin makes one more aesthetically beautiful and a person with lighter skin is of a higher social class.

The skin whitening within the UK Asian community, as shown in this documentary, was mainly for aesthetic purposes. A person also has the choice as to whether they want to lighten their skin so it isn't really racist. Their is simply a market of "skin lighteners" as the demand is there.

[PanzerJaeger]

It worked out pretty well for Michael Jackson... at least for a while.

[Fragony]

Don't see any harm in it, do see harm in possible moral outrage over it, a light skin isn't necessarily a western skin, such projection is much more racist imho.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Don't see any harm in it, do see harm in possible moral outrage over it, a light skin isn't necessarily a western skin, such projection is much more racist imho.

I agree, the "moral" outrage over it is more divisive to our society than just accepting people, even if they want to paint up their skin, or shove a bone or a piece of jewelry through their nose. Whatever makes them happy.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I agree, the "moral" outrage over it is more divisive to our society than just accepting people, even if they want to paint up their skin, or shove a bone or a piece of jewelry through their nose. Whatever makes them happy.

Why "just accepting people"? There is clearly a degree at which we agree that it is bad. Anorexia comes to mind. Many people are against cosmetic surgery and intense tanning as well. I think appearance-anxiety can manifest itself in many ways that don't merit "just accepting".

It does provoke a particular moralistic reaction which can be misdirected.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Why "just accepting people"? There is clearly a degree at which we agree that it is bad. Anorexia comes to mind. Many people are against cosmetic surgery and intense tanning as well. I think appearance-anxiety can manifest itself in many ways that don't merit "just accepting".

It does provoke a particular moralistic reaction which can be misdirected.

I do not equate anorexia, which is a psychological disorder, with applying skin creme.... the two cannot be compared. Even if the motivation is similar, the actions are completely different.

There's a difference between wishing your appearance to be a certain way, and killing yourself to make it happen. If the skin creme is dangerous, it should either be outlawed or the dangers clearly spelled out.

Skin creme does not necessarily have to cause harm; anorexia necessarily causes harm by definition.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I do not equate anorexia, which is a psychological disorder, with applying skin creme.... the two cannot be compared. Even if the motivation is similar, the actions are completely different.

There's a difference between wishing your appearance to be a certain way, and killing yourself to make it happen. If the skin creme is dangerous, it should either be outlawed or the dangers clearly spelled out.

Skin creme does not necessarily have to cause harm; anorexia necessarily causes harm by definition.

How can they not be compared

I think that's a problematic view to take of disorders like anorexia. You are saying anorexics are so different that they can't be compared to regular humans. Some people take this approach to all mental disorders. But it's not true, for a lot of disorders one of the requirements for a person to be diagnosed is that it "causes them significant distress in their life" or something like that, i.e. someone can have very similar behavior (ergo they are comparable) but not the disorder. You acknowledge that the motivation is similar, soooo...

You would not just accept it, I expect, if a friend of yours worried excessively about their weight and whether they were fat, even if they did not have anorexia. Same goes for various other cosmetic procedures.

[Askthepizzaguy]

How can they not be compared

One is necessarily harmful, the other is not. It's like comparing walking down the street and russian roulette. Sure, walking down the street can be dangerous, but it isn't suicidal. How could they be compared?

They are dissimilar in almost every possible way.

I think that's a problematic view to take of disorders like anorexia. You are saying anorexics are so different that they can't be compared to regular humans.

No, I'm saying anorexia can't be compared to a normal, nearly risk-free activity like applying skin creme.

I'm not comparing people, I'm comparing actions, and that is an important foundation of the discussion. That must be recognized before I can understand what your disagreement is.

Some people take this approach to all mental disorders. But it's not true, for a lot of disorders one of the requirements for a person to be diagnosed is that it "causes them significant distress in their life" or something like that, i.e. someone can have very similar behavior (ergo they are comparable) but not the disorder. You acknowledge that the motivation is similar, soooo...

Motivation does not equal action.

I can wish to be rich; as such I can either start my own business, invent something, or hold up a bank.

The motive is the same, the action is not. I'm comparing actions, not motives, and not people. It's a very important distinction to make.

You would not just accept it, I expect, if a friend of yours worried excessively about their weight and whether they were fat, even if they did not have anorexia.

You're not suggesting I can't be friends with this person, I assume,
You're not suggesting I must have the ability to solve their problems to be their friend, I assume,
So if I can be their friend, and I might not have the ability to solve their problems, that means I can accept them as people, flaws and all. Most people have some kind of excessive worry, personality flaw, or failing.

I have to accept that, or I can't be friends with anyone.

I would tell them they worry too much, and shouldn't, but if they don't have anorexia, there's not much I can do beyond that.

Same goes for various other cosmetic procedures.

I think we're comparing apples and oranges again. I'm afraid I don't follow; could you flesh out your thought a bit more on this?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What does the difference between motivation and action have to do with "just accepting"? We judge by motivations all the time, for example trying to kill someone vs not trying.

So if I can be their friend, and I might not have the ability to solve their problems, that means I can accept them as people, flaws and all.

But this is just saying that you respect people as people even if they are flawed. We are talking about just accepting neuroses without disapproving (based on what you said). Probably you didn't mean that.

[aimlesswanderer]

In many Asian countries (eg China, Korea, Japan and India too) these have been on the market for years. The bizarre thing is, in China, Korea and Japan, a large majority of the population naturally has light skin. But the old notion that the 'whiter the skin the better' (at least for women, showing that they are rich enough not to have to work in the fields like peasants) still persists, aided now by massive marketing budgets and airbrushing of celebrities. I think it is silly, and a waste of money and resources, not to mention that the avoidance of sunlight also means that women in South Korea, for example, have alarmingly low levels of vitamin D, normally produced from exposure to sunlight

It is sad that in India, where the majority of the population has varying shades of brown skin, there is such an obsession with white skin, and the association it has with being "higher caste". Such an unattainable ideal only causes endless grief to those who can never attain that ideal.

[Askthepizzaguy]

What does the difference between motivation and action have to do with "just accepting"?

I don't know where you're coming from, so it is difficult to know what you mean. I am trying though.

I can accept someone even if they are imperfect. I can use my own judgment and see that certain actions are necessarily harmful, and others are not. When a friend of mine (or anyone) is doing an action which is necessarily harmful to themselves, I do what I can, as most human beings would. Their motive for the action is less a concern for me. Their motive becomes important when it comes to murder, but for very few other circumstances. If someone robs a bank to pay for someone's kidney transplant, I highly doubt that charges wouldn't be pressed. Other than murder, or violent actions, I cannot think of too many instances where motive even matters to people. What I accept is that someone else wishes to do something which brings them something positive. I can also see that applying skin creme doesn't really have ill effects, or shouldn't necessarily have any. If it does, then that's more a problem with the manufacturer. If someone applied skin creme after every meal, I think it would be excessive, but it's not something I can change, and it still isn't necessarily harmful. If someone is anorexic that's when I have to intervene and say you need to get help immediately and stop it immediately. I can't force them to, but I can certainly step over the boundary of polite disagreement and be a little more aggressive in my persuasions, because it stops being none of my business and it becomes a necessarily harmful thing which you'd have to be unfeeling to ignore.

Again, I do not see the bridge you're trying to build between a simple act of putting on skin creme and an addictive, compulsive psychological disorder which results in failing health and death in extreme cases.

You have to build that bridge. Until then, I don't see where you're coming from at all.

But this is just saying that you respect people as people even if they are flawed.

Yes. And certain flaws are none of my business... I'd be an annoying busybody if I injected my judgment about their lives into every aspect I disagreed with.

Some flaws are exceptional, are necessarily harmful, and should be challenged if people care.

We are talking about just accepting neuroses without disapproving (based on what you said). Probably you didn't mean that.

I never said we should accept neuroses without disapproving.... we seem to be having two discussions or a misunderstanding.

I was talking about a person's right to apply skin lightening creme without being called racist, or the company which makes such a product being called racist.

[Askthepizzaguy]

It is sad that in India, where the majority of the population has varying shades of brown skin, there is such an obsession with white skin, and the association it has with being "higher caste". Such an unattainable ideal only causes endless grief to those who can never attain that ideal.

The obsession with caste is the attitude which is improper here, in my view. The attitude associated with what is otherwise a meaningless cosmetic thing is what seems out of place.

There's nothing inherently wrong with skin creme. Or hair dye. Or false eyelashes. Or fingernail polish. Which, I believe, are comparable things.... cosmetic and not inherently harmful. It connotes no racism at all, and so in my view when people complain about such an imagined thing, they are merely projecting their own hypersensitivity and prejudices.

Sometimes a skin creme is just a skin creme.

[Reenk Roink]

The entire debate with anorexia analogy is pretty pointless, because I think it can be reduced to semantics.

If anorexia is defined in the medical way then there is a difference with most cases of skin whitening cream usage and it can only be effectively compared to some kind of hardcore case where the person is obsessed with white skin like the anorexic is obsessed with being thin and is likewise taking steps in the extreme to whiten their skin like the anorexic takes extreme steps to achieve thinness.

However, if 'anorexia' is defined in some non-technical, casual way with being preoccupied with your weight and reducing/even skipping meals here and there where it does not get into a medically problematic level, then it can be pretty easily compared to someone who is preoccupied with their skin color and uses the skin cream here and there.

Obviously, given the stigma attached to the word, you'd probably be better off using another word.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The South Asian white-dark division is not comparable to the Western racial one. It is a caste thingy. Which is religious-social apartheid, incidentally rubbishing the idea that apartheid or racism is a Western phenomenon (Me, I'd rather have been Black in apartheid South Africa than untouchable in India).
The wish to be 'white' in India (rather Hindu India) society does not mean they wish to look European. They want to look like a pale skinned Indian.

White skin ain't what people want.

The ideal is "tanned", which is quite a long way from northern european white.

Anyway.... The rich always make the fashion trends. Everyone else wants to look like them, act like them and do what they do. All rich people are tanned europeans. You do the math....

The richest man in the world is not White. Most of the world's billionaires are not West European / American anymore. The world has changed.

People do want to look white. People on television are significantly paler and blonder than in real life. If you watch Italian television, you'd think you are in Norway, so many blond Italian Tirolian women are on their telly. Also, in reality, only one in six Americans have blue eyes. Which you wouldn't guess from American movies.

Rich people want to distuingish themselves from the unwashed masses. Previously, the masses were tanned from working in fields, so a pale skin was a hallmark of wealth. Then the masses urbanised, workde indoors, so the rich went to the South and got tanned. Now that everybody can afford to lay idle on a Mediterranean coast, the upper classes avoid the sun.

[Louis VI the Fat]

It worked out pretty well for Michael Jackson... at least for a while.

MJ had a serious hang-up. He got the palest woman he could find to mother his kids, to have himself a white family. Either that, or Lamarck was right. This is MJ's child:

[Reenk Roink]

MJ had a serious hang-up. He got the palest woman he could find to mother his kids, to have himself a white family. Either that, or Lamarck was right. This is MJ's child:

MJ had always gone on record as saying he was proud to be black. His skin diseases contributed to his lightening tone and the subsequent treatments made this worse, not to mention the makeup to cover the uneven color and blotches made him look paler.

Honestly one could make a MUCH better case that MJ had problems with his appearance (the plastic surgey on his nose and chin) than try to pass him of as wanting to be white.

Edit: As to the picture of his daughter, have you seen his sister Latoya, not only in pictures but in video? And she has two black parents...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Again, I do not see the bridge you're trying to build between a simple act of putting on skin creme and an addictive, compulsive psychological disorder which results in failing health and death in extreme cases.

mmm, but that isn't what we are talking about.

I agree, the "moral" outrage over it is more divisive to our society than just accepting people, even if they want to paint up their skin, or shove a bone or a piece of jewelry through their nose. Whatever makes them happy.

We are talking generally about disapproval of peoples appearance-modification habits. I'm disagreeing with the "just accepting...whatever".

There's a long line of relevant things ranging from hair cuts (perfectly fine) to anorexia and beyond (obviously not). Since you said "just accepting...whatever" I jumped to the end of the line to establish the principle ("There is clearly a degree at which we agree that it is bad."). It is obviously not my assumption that you approve of anorexia but you disapprove for certain reasons. I think if we looked at the reasons, the would lead us to a different conclusion than "just accepting...whatever". There is no need to avoid (or pretend to avoid) being at all discerning so that we can say we are accepting and tolerant.

Don't you think one of the causes of anorexia is that people just accept women putting an excessive amount of time into various preening activities?

Other than murder, or violent actions, I cannot think of too many instances where motive even matters to people

I think this is very false. Are you saying you don't care if I'm arguing with you because I despise you or arguing with you because I enjoy arguing? It's the latter by the way

[The Spartan (Returns)]

As a South-East Asian (Filipino) and having been to South-East Asia (Philippines) I would really ignore the "potential" racism/white-advocacy in skin-whitening creams.

You can go really in-depth about how racist it is and how the Europeans influenced darker people about how it's better to be white... but in the end it's all just foolish.

That's because it's simply and foremost a preference. The people who prefer whiter skin is due to simply preference. At least in the Philippines, most people don't think of being white is "superior" in terms of societal rank. People who prefer whiter skin in the Philippines don't necessarily think, "Oh, being whiter also advances my status in society."

In fact, there's a small "enlightenment" in the Philippines about how being dark is beautiful too.

There are definitely people who do believe about white-skin being superior in terms other than appearance. These people are just simply uneducated old-timers. The same as a born SS officer or born KKK member. They're just ignorant.

[Askthepizzaguy]

mmm, but that isn't what we are talking about.

Then we have been miscommunicating; I thought that's what you were arguing about....

We are talking generally about disapproval of peoples appearance-modification habits. I'm disagreeing with the "just accepting...whatever".

You may have interpreted "whatever" to mean "I accept everything."

Should I have added to the end "stuff that doesn't usually kill you"? I thought that was implied...

There's a long line of relevant things ranging from hair cuts (perfectly fine) to anorexia and beyond (obviously not). Since you said "just accepting...whatever" I jumped to the end of the line to establish the principle ("There is clearly a degree at which we agree that it is bad."). It is obviously not my assumption that you approve of anorexia but you disapprove for certain reasons. I think if we looked at the reasons, the would lead us to a different conclusion than "just accepting...whatever". There is no need to avoid (or pretend to avoid) being at all discerning so that we can say we are accepting and tolerant.

Being tolerant of others' personal habits is a general principle, and a good one. Being tolerant of obviously self-destructive or other-destructive behavior is not a good principle.

To me, the differences are so obvious that I didn't consider anyone would interpret my statement as being accepting of destructive behavior. That's not what I mean, and I would never.

Don't you think one of the causes of anorexia is that people just accept women putting an excessive amount of time into various preening activities?

I don't think so. I'm not a doctor, I'm an ignorant bystander, but my observations suggest the root cause is a lack of self-worth and a serious distortion of self-image.

No one who is anorexic sees their body as wasting away, unhealthy, and destroying itself. They see normal healthy weight as morbid obesity and that all weight that can be lost, should be lost. That means they are seeing a false image of themselves, and the delusion is compounded by their self-loathing and lack of self-worth. They don't have that safety net of caring if their lifestyle kills them, because they don't care about themselves.... they care about their image.... a distorted image that only they can see.

That detachment from reality coupled with apathy towards the self is the root cause of the destruction. You cannot have them stand in front of a mirror and have them see their skin and bones as anything but positive, and what little weight they have left, keeping them alive, as anything but negative.

Whereas, lipstick, skin creme, fingernail polish, or removing a mole.... these are generally behaviors which do not represent a detachment from reality and apathy toward one's own health. They might represent a normal-to-excessive range of superficiality, but that isn't dangerous in and of itself.

Even someone who paints themselves up like a clown isn't necessarily killing themselves. Maybe someone could say "hey, your face looks pretty without all of that stuff... you're naturally beautiful." and it might help their self-confidence. When it does not, that is when a person has either different tastes, or seriously cannot see themselves as beautiful except with the makeup. That might be another kind of disorder, and maybe they should see a counselor, but at least they shouldn't wind up dead tomorrow from looking like a clown.

I think this is very false. Are you saying you don't care if I'm arguing with you because I despise you or arguing with you because I enjoy arguing? It's the latter by the way

It matters little to the argument itself what your motives are. In fact, they are so detached from each other, you can't always tell what someone's motivation is for doing something, because they can easily do the same thing with a different motive. Of course I would (appropriately) care if you hated my guts, but ultimately that doesn't affect my life too much, and because it hasn't come up, and usually doesn't come up, that should indicate that why someone is arguing their point actually does matter very little to the argument itself.

If your points were flawlessly argued and you offered no indication that you thought I was a dirtbag, I'd never know.... and therefore, it would ultimately not matter.

See?

Suppose some billionaire gave a million dollars to St. Jude's children's hospital. And he did it anonymously. His reason? He believes that if he does it, Satan himself will possess his body and turn him into the emperor of the world. (He's clearly an insane person.) But do the people who got the money care why he gave it? No.

Motive for behavior might become apparent and it might make people trust you less, but really, unless you are inflicting violence upon people, the only time motive comes up is if they need to know if it was an accident or intentional or premeditated and cold-blooded. Otherwise, people don't seem to care why you do the things you do.... just if you do them or not.

Take your job. Your boss doesn't care why you're working there, as long as you're working hard and not breaking the law or being a liability. Maybe your motive is that you just need the cash. Maybe your motive is career advancement. Maybe you believe if you work there, a leprechaun will grant you magic powers. Whatever your reason, the boss just wants you to get the job done.



...I feel we got derailed somewhere. This was about skin cremes at one point.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't think so. I'm not a doctor, I'm an ignorant bystander, but my observations suggest the root cause is a lack of self-worth and a serious distortion of self-image.

One of the causes iirc is a desire to appear unattractive to avoid sexual abuse (also a cause of obesity in some cases). I don't know much about the causes so it's probably best to skip a detailed discussion.

Whereas, lipstick, skin creme, fingernail polish, or removing a mole.... these are generally behaviors which do not represent a detachment from reality and apathy toward one's own health. They might represent a normal-to-excessive range of superficiality, but that isn't dangerous in and of itself.

There's simply any number of things that people are drawn to because they have low self esteem (which is a detachment from reality). By your own standard you should disapprove of that. Flip through one of those mens fitness magazines or a cosmo.

That might be another kind of disorder, and maybe they should see a counselor, but at least they shouldn't wind up dead tomorrow from looking like a clown.

You are underrating psychological health though. Suicide is one way to end up dead. And even when we aren't talking extremes low self worth for bad reasons isn't a good thing.

I cannot think of too many instances where motive even matters to people

Of course I would (appropriately) care if you hated my guts

and therefore, it would ultimately not matter.

We were talking about mattering to people, which you agree motives do, but now you are talking about "ultimately mattering". But how do actions "ultimately matter"? Only because people care. So you have peoples caring as irrelevant if it has to do with motive, but relevant if it has to do with action, arbitrarily.

...I feel we got derailed somewhere. This was about skin cremes at one point.

Well, but what's the core issue? We seemed pretty well agreed that it isn't racism. But what is it? So we move on to what we give approval to. I don't have any objection to people rubbing cream on to make themselves look better. Being motivated solely by the caste system or what have you is more worrisome. Although I don't know enough about the subject to say whether it is a fault in society (for having absurd ideas about beauty--which is quite possible) or individual people for buying into it (which is something people do).

Perhaps you only wanted to discuss whether it is racism though

We could have taken the thread on the moralizing tack, and talked about other situations where people call racism etc inappropriately.

[rory_20_uk]

No, it's a pile of crap. No one is forced to buy or wear it. People choose to. It's popular in Africa / India and China. In all three areas (as well as Japan), whiteness has been preferred often way before "whiteys" turned up.

People from Essex / Cheshire pain themselves orange and this is not racist.

Rich, American women have been cutting themselves up, breaking their noses and a myriad of other things and this is almost viewed as "normal". Most people have something they'd like to improve. This is no better or worse than others - as long as they avoid the brands that contain Mercury.

I have wondered if there is any skin tone that everyone in the world is aiming for or whether it is truly dependant on the culture and varies tremendously.

[Fragony]

Ya a light skin is prefered in almost every culture, rediculous to assume they want to be whites they just want a light skin. Ironically the people who get worked up over this are the real white supremacists they just don't understand that. Soooo patronising I would be seriously offended by such a suggestion if I was Indian/Asian/whatever.

[Hosakawa Tito]

And then there's the orange people...