It worked out pretty well for Michael Jackson... at least for a while.![]()
It worked out pretty well for Michael Jackson... at least for a while.![]()
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.
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
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.
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
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.
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.
No, I'm saying anorexia can't be compared to a normal, nearly risk-free activity like applying skin creme.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.
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.
Motivation does not equal action.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...
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're not suggesting I can't be friends with this person, I assume,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 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.
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?Same goes for various other cosmetic procedures.
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
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.
"All things are born from darkness, and all things return to darkness". Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
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.![]()
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
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.
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.Originally Posted by HoreTore
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.
Last edited by Louis VI the Fat; 07-19-2010 at 03:46.
mmm, but that isn't what we are talking about.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.
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 anorexiabut 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?
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 wayOther than murder, or violent actions, I cannot think of too many instances where motive even matters to people![]()
Then we have been miscommunicating; I thought that's what you were arguing about....
You may have interpreted "whatever" to mean "I accept everything."We are talking generally about disapproval of peoples appearance-modification habits. I'm disagreeing with the "just accepting...whatever".
Should I have added to the end "stuff that doesn't usually kill you"? I thought that was implied...
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.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 anorexiabut 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.
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.
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.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?
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.
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.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![]()
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.
#Winstontoostrong
#Montytoostronger
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 cannot think of too many instances where motive even matters to peopleOf course I would (appropriately) care if you hated my gutsand 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.
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)....I feel we got derailed somewhere.This was about skin cremes at one point.
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.
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.
![]()
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
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...
Last edited by Reenk Roink; 07-19-2010 at 04:23.
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.
Bookmarks