Fair skin preference

[Hans de Vries]

From my own observations I noticed that all around the world there is a very strong preference for fair skin over dark for, especially for women - it is so strong that it transcends all cultures and is present since thousands of years in some places (China, India). Some nations literally spend billions of $ each year to have skin just one shade paler than what they naturally got.

 

Am I wrong - or maybe there's some evolutionarily-inbuilt mechanism that makes people like pale skin more, similar to the one that makes women with large breasts appear more attractive?

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Am I wrong -

yes.

At least, based on a sample of one- me- your observation simply isn't true.

[dimreepr]

From my own observations I noticed that all around the world there is a very strong preference for fair skin

 

 

How well travelled are you?

But more to the point, the problem you have in answering this conjecture is how much influence does western culture have?

 

 

Some nations literally spend billions of $ each year to have skin just one shade paler than what they naturally got.

 

 

 

 

In England the cultural trend seems to be a shade or two darker; given the amount spent on tanning.

 

 

 

Edit/ I know Micheal Jackson spent alot, but I doubt it ran into the billions of $.

Edited March 4, 2015 by dimreepr

[Hans de Vries]

In China and India at least this preference dates back to times long long before western influence. Ideal Chinese women were ALWAYS depicted as having very pale skin. Nowdays literally every skin care product in China has whitening ingredients, including washing soap (westerners living in China complained that their hands started turning pale white after washing with regular soap).

 

Most common explanation is that peasants worked outdoors so they were tanned while upper classes could afford to stay indoors and consequently fair skin started being associated with sophistication and cultured lifestyle - I am not sure how true it is though - after all, western world seems to be the sole exception to this rule - and only since 80 years or so (aristocratic women used to apply toxic lead-based make-up to lighten their skin).

Edited March 4, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[dimreepr]

In China and India at least this preference dates back to times long long before western influence. Ideal Chinese women were ALWAYS depicted as having very pale skin.

 

 

 

Dates please, and maybe a citation; not to mention “Always”?

 

I know Chinas population is large but you can’t base your entire premise on just one culture.

[Phi for All]

Ideals in society change. Fair skin in some countries used to denote a person of wealth, who had servants to shade them when they were outside, and never had to toil. It was the same with body shape. Fat men and voluptuous women used to be preferred for the same reasons, it's a visual cue that this is a person of standing, someone who can afford to eat well.

 

But as dimreepr mentions, having a nice tan (with the right clothing style) can also denote prosperity, since who else has time to lay around the beach? Just as skinny is the preference for women now, since designer dresses are also a visual cue of wealth (and for some reason, the best designers can't seem to do voluptuous).

 

I think if there's any preference going on here, it's probably that looking prosperous is usually preferred. Skin color has little to do with it.

[CharonY]

That pretty much seems to be the case. It is an inherently cultural/societal phenomenon that changes with societal changes (food availability, travel/leisure indicators of wealth etc), and has little to do with biology. Except, of course that these cultural traits can result to mate selection preferences.

Though these are likely to shift once the cultural preferences changes. One especially striking example is probably the preference for heavier women in the past or societies with little to no incidence of obesity as there it is associated with health. Skininess as Phi mentioned, is a rather modern indicator of wealth, for example (same as the association of a tan with vacation rather than labor).

Edited March 4, 2015 by CharonY

[overtone]

Skin clarity is preferred - no lesions or deformities, smooth and continuous envelopment - probably for solid evolutionary reasons as a sign of genetic health. Lighter skin may in general abet that, as such disconformities are made easier to see and thus their absence more easily verified - a truth in advertising guarantee, similar to a Zahavian handicap.

 

Also, a large and contrastingly dark eye is attractive, probably as an indication of pupil dilation - a sign of attraction, trust, pleasure in general. This is most easily available in a lighter skin face.

 

But most people prefer as skin tone darker than the lightest available. And a blue iris provides all the contrast with a dilated pupil anyone needs - so we have the very common draw of a light eye in a darkskinned face, which many people find very attractive.

 

So the draw appears more likely to be even, all-over continuous tone. Given that, the avoidance of tanning (Chinese etc) would be explained as the avoidance of discontinuities rather than the achievement of an ideal white, and the penchant for tanning found among the palefaces of the planet explained as the evening out of otherwise unavoidable discontinuities rather than the achievement of an ideal brown.

[Delta1212]

That pretty much seems to be the case. It is an inherently cultural/societal phenomenon that changes with societal changes (food availability, travel/leisure indicators of wealth etc), and has little to do with biology. Except, of course that these cultural traits can result to mate selection preferences.

Though these are likely to shift once the cultural preferences changes. One especially striking example is probably the preference for heavier women in the past or societies with little to no incidence of obesity as there it is associated with health. Skininess as Phi mentioned, is a rather modern indicator of wealth, for example (same as the association of a tan with vacation rather than labor).

I think the fat/skinny swap is a good availability thing. Just like a tan used to be the result of labor ing outdoors, and pale skin a sign that you could afford not to, being a... healthy weight was a sign that you could afford to eat well.

 

Now, especially in the West, indoor work has become much more widespread, so a pale complexion has become a sign that you spend a lot more time working while a "healthy" tan shows that you can afford to spend time outside, presumably not in the office working.

 

Similarly, food has now become ubiquitous and cheap. Most people cat afford enough food to keep from starving, so carrying some extra weight is no longer a sign of wealth. Instead, it's people who can display a fit body that demonstrate the wealth necessary to expend the time and money on healthy food/gym membership/personal trainer.

 

It's all attraction to indicators of success. Those change over time with societal and cultural circumstances.

[Arete]

Well the tanning industry is worth $4.9 billion in the US alone, so there's plenty of people willing to make their skin darker as well as lighter.

[Hans de Vries]

People's stupidity is mind boggling.

 

I have a type 2-3 skin and I value it so much that on sunny days I never go outside without a SPF 30 wide spectrum sunblock if the temperature exceeds 25C. Fortunately, coastal areas of Netherlands are just about a paradise for a white person when it comes to weather (it's cloudy most of the year even in summer and there is seldom more than a few days of hot weather in a row. Winters are just about OK).

 

I simply can't imagine how can people live in places like Italy or (God forbid) Florida. If I ever had to live there, I would stay shut inside house for at least 4 months a year for the sake of my skin.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[dimreepr]

People's stupidity is mind boggling.

 

I have a type 2-3 skin and I value it so much that on sunny days I never go outside without a SPF 30 wide spectrum sunblock if the temperature exceeds 25C. Fortunately, coastal areas of Netherlands are just about a paradise for a white person when it comes to weather (it's cloudy most of the year even in summer and there is seldom more than a few days of hot weather in a row. Winters are just about OK).

 

I simply can't imagine how can people live in places like Italy or (God forbid) Florida. If I ever had to live there, I would stay shut inside house for at least 4 months a year for the sake of my skin.

 

 

 

Why do you think it’s OK to insult anyone that neither shares your aversion to sunlight or your skin type?

[Hans de Vries]

Why do you perceive it as an insult? My stance is not more reasonable? Radiation as a carcinogen (and cause of premature skin aging) is simply unparalelled among all other things known to man. And evidence backing it is so overwhelmingly extensive that it requires no commentary. Maybe if got a type 5-6 skin, if does not bother you (I don't know) but it bothers me (as a person with typical Northern European skin tone)

Edited March 9, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[StringJunky]

It is not on my list of proriorities to go to my grave with perfect skin or indeed attempt to prolong my life to the detriment of my enjoyment.

[dimreepr]

Why do you perceive it as an insult? My stance is not more reasonable? Radiation as a carcinogen (and cause of premature skin aging) is simply unparalelled among all other things known to man. And evidence backing it is so overwhelmingly extensive that it requires no commentary. Maybe if got a type 5-6 skin, if does not bother you (I don't know) but it bothers me (as a person with typical Northern European skin tone)

 

 

 

So stay out of the light and live your life as a hermit; stay your judgement on those that seek to enjoy the warmth a spring sun brings to those that suffer the harshness of winter.

[Phi for All]

People's stupidity is mind boggling.

Why do you perceive it as an insult?

People's stupidity is mind boggling.

 

[CharonY]

 

Radiation as a carcinogen (and cause of premature skin aging) is simply unparalelled among all other things known to man.

 

Assuming you mean UV radiation I would like to see a source not for the claim that it causes cancer, but that it is unparalleled. Based on which measures, specifically (per dose, per normal exposure etc.). Typically these types of assessments are very complicated and such a blanket statement is most likely not terribly accurate, to frame it carefully.

[Hans de Vries]

So stay out of the light and live your life as a hermit; stay your judgement on those that seek to enjoy the warmth a spring sun brings to those that suffer the harshness of winter.

 

 

Believe me, I don't live like a hermit. Dutch weather suits my needs perfectly. In summer I enjoy the cool temperatures (20-24C) and in winter/spring I simply put a moderately warm jacket on and I can exercise as much as I can outside and I get warm quickly.

 

My remark about people's stupidity refered to those people who spend money on tanning beds. This is by far the worst thing you can do to your body except maybe taking meth for years. And premature aging of skin is the least of your concerns - light emitted by tanning beds is more UVA-intensive than natural sunlight, so you not only increase your chances of getting skin cancer several dozen times, you also significantly increase your chances of getting melanoma as opposed to the less harmful basal cell carcinoma caused by UVB rays. The majority of skin cancers are diagnosed in one specific group of people - fair skinned individuals with a history of long term exposure to strong sun as a result of years of tanning. No wonder Sydney is melanoma capital of the world.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Hans de Vries

[CharonY]

 

My remark about people's stupidity refered to those people who spend money on tanning beds. This is by far the worst thing you can do to your body except maybe taking meth for years.

 

Now we have moved from hyperbole to utter ridiculousness.

[Hans de Vries]

Ridiculousness aside, I've had a chance to see detrimentall effects of UV radiation on a member of my family - I have two older cousins, one 37 and another 32 years old. The older one's been a fanatic of tanning beds, using them since early teenage years. and now she already has wrinkles and a dry, sagging skin with lots of dark spots - she looks like a ~45 years old. Her younger sister never tanned at all (she moved to North England in her late teens) and even at 32 people still mistake her for a teenager.

 

But we moved a lil' bit off topic BTW.

[Phi for All]

Ridiculousness aside, I've had a chance to see detrimentall effects of UV radiation on a member of my family - I have two older cousins, one 37 and another 32 years old. The older one's been a fanatic of tanning beds, using them since early teenage years. and now she already has wrinkles and a dry, sagging skin with lots of dark spots - she looks like a ~45 years old. Her younger sister never tanned at all (she moved to North England in her late teens) and even at 32 people still mistake her for a teenager.

 

But we moved a lil' bit off topic BTW.

 

We've all been waiting for you to comment on the arguments against fair skin being preferred all around the world. You're the one who jumped on the use of tanning beds as extremist behavior, instead of as supportive evidence that Americans, at least, are willing to spend almost $5B a year to darken their skin.