Asian beauty standards are worshipping white features

[blueclover_.]

If I'm reading you right, you're arguing that beauty ideals are connected to evolutionary advantage. And I agree with that.

True.

Now, what is an evolutionary advantage in Africa or anywhere else with massive sun light? Dark skin.

True.

Not sure where that faeces/mud comparison comes from. People can tell if you're covered in faeces no matter your colour, and I wonder how that would even be a thing because it's an unlikely scenario. Why would you walk around covered in mud and faeces? As for dangerous/poisonous animals and plants, they tend to have bright colours, like a striking red or green or yellow. Animals that want to signal you they're poisonous like to have striking bright colours so you don't miss it.

Because the early cave men didn't get to shower 2 times a day. We evolved from dumb apes, so we still have that dumb instincts passed on to us by our ancestors. It is not a choice, we associate dark-colored objects with diseases because dead organisms darken during decomposition. It is an evolutionary advantage. It is cruel, i know, but nature has never been just.

This is incorrect.
If you're born into a community, black or multicultural, you will see dark skinned people as normal from birth. you won't know any different. It will be normal to you, no adjustment needed.

Technically, because they were exposed instantly to their black mother. If a black kid is to be put into a confinement for research purposes, and at a few months old then introduced to a black person and a white person, my hypothesis is that: 1) If they have identified their skin color as 'normal', they will pick the black man. 2) If they don't yet understand that they are dark-skinned, they will pick the white man. Of course, all of this is hypothetical, and feel free to present your opposing arguments.

If you're born into a closed off community, then your born into the skewed environment that'll enforce these biases.

all of this.

also, white skin is associated with ghosts and demons in African, West Indian, Asian folklore too.
But people grow up from dumb scared kids to adults. so, yeah.

Yup. They register what's normal by observing what's socially acceptable by their surroundings. But what if none of this outside factors were present? If you kidnap a baby and isolate it until it is 4 months old, then introduce the baby to a black man and a white man, which would they choose?

 

[summers]

Idk, here are some popular Asian actresses/models, and none seem to be going for a 'white' look. They don't need to, they are absolutely beautiful.

 

[blueclover_.]

Idk, here are some popular Asian actresses/models, and none seem to be going for a 'white' look. They don't need to, they are absolutely beautiful.
View attachment 83244
View attachment 83245
View attachment 83246

I'm a kpop fan. You don't know how much products Asians use to get skin that bright. Some are lucky to be born pale, but most of us are naturally tan.

 

[summers]

I'm a kpop fan. You don't know how much products Asians use to get skin that bright. Some are lucky to be born pale, but most of us are naturally tan.

Those are all professional pics. The flashes make people look so much more pale than they really are.

At the same time, I tan every day (sometimes multiple times a day) to have a good tan. Funny how everyone wants what they don't have...

 

[blueclover_.]

Those are all professional pics. The flashes make people look so much more pale than they really are.

At the same time, I tan every day (sometimes multiple times a day) to have a good tan. Funny how everyone wants what they don't have...

Yeah, they still use a lot of whitening products though. Lmao if you come to any east/southeast asian store you'll find that most face products are promoted to as whitening products. The goal is to look as pale as possible. It is the objective.

 

[nex]

Because the early cave men didn't get to shower 2 times a day.

Animals don't walk around covered in mud an faeces. Why would humans be the only species doing that? There are still some tribes in Africa and South America that have been largely left alone by "civilisation", and none of them run around covered in dirt.

We evolved from dumb apes, so we still have that dumb instincts passed on to us by our ancestors. It is not a choice, we associate dark-colored objects with diseases because dead organisms darken during decomposition. It is an evolutionary advantage. It is cruel, i know, but nature has never been just.

And again I'd like to mention that within my very own German culture, including and even especially to older people, pale skin is considered a sign of illness. Features like a tan or rosy cheeks are considered signs of good health. That's why people get a tan or why women use makeup to get rosy cheeks. To get more colour, because that's apparently more desirable.

Technically, because they were exposed instantly to their black mother. If a black kid is to be put into a confinement for research purposes, and at a few months old then introduced to a black person and a white person, my hypothesis is that: 1) If they have identified their skin color as 'normal', they will pick the black man. 2) If they don't yet understand that they are dark-skinned, they will pick the white man. Of course, all of this is hypothetical, and feel free to present your opposing arguments.

You're right in that this is pure speculation not backed up by any evidence whatsoever.

Yup. They register what's normal by observing what's socially acceptable by their surroundings. But what if none of this outside factors were present? If you kidnap a baby and isolate it until it is 4 months old, then introduce the baby to a black man and a white man, which would they choose?

We haven't, so there's no way to tell.

 

[blueclover_.]

Animals don't walk around covered in mud an faeces.

They do. When hunting, running, escaping from predators, they fall and snuggle with dirt all the time. Those dirt and mud eventually come off, but the bacterias remain until they wash themselves in the river.

Why would humans be the only species doing that? There are still some tribes in Africa and South America that have been largely left alone by "civilisation", and none of them run around covered in dirt.

When hunting, you're dealing with dirt and nature. It is temporary, but it is crucial to be recognized so that humans can avoid bacterias which could lead to infection and death. White people hunted and got dirty too, but other people can easily see the dirt on them and avoid them like the plague until they clean themselves in the river. Dirt on black people however is harder to spot, making babies and injured people prone to infection since they can't see the complexities as clearly as a white person's skin.

For example, a black man and a white man just got back from hunting. Both of them are dirty. When a kid sees them, he could easily avoid the white man because the dirt on him is visible. Therefore the kid interacts normally with the black man who is just as dirty as the white man because they just got back from hunting. If the kid has an open cut, the kid will be infected by not avoiding the black man just like he does with the white man. Therefore, as natural selection progresses, the ones with the inherent trait of fear of dark-colored objects are the ones who are left inhabiting the world to this day. Of course we have become smarter as modern humans, but the early cavemen developed the bias of dark-colored objects in order to survive.

And again I'd like to mention that within my very own German culture, including and even especially to older people, pale skin is considered a sign of illness. Features like a tan or rosy cheeks are considered signs of good health. That's why people get a tan or why women use makeup to get rosy cheeks. To get more colour, because that's apparently more desirable.

Back in the medieval times Europeans fancy being pale. You can read it from a lot of books. The tanning trend started in the modern age by 'woke' Americans.

You're right in that this is pure speculation not backed up by any evidence whatsoever.

Yeah, i did mention that it was my hypothesis based in the fact that humans have a bias of dark-colored objects. You don't have to agree if you think this is illogical, but i'd like to hear your reasons other than we don't have enough evidences. Research is expensive and i doubt we will be getting any official answer on this topic, since there is no profit for the government to invest in this research.

We haven't, so there's no way to tell.

But there are ways to speculate based on our current known facts. We have to consider every possible option no matter how hurtful it is, i know the dark-skin bias is unjust, but again nature doesn't care about anything.

 

[nex]

They do.

Do they? Evidence please.

When hunting, running, escaping from predators, they fall and snuggle with dirt all the time. Those dirt and mud eventually come off, but the bacterias remain until they wash themselves in the river.

When hunting, you're dealing with dirt and nature. It is temporary, but it is crucial to be recognized so that humans can avoid bacterias which could lead to infection and death. White people hunted and got dirty too, but other people can easily see the dirt on them and avoid them like the plague until they clean themselves in the river. Dirt on black people however is harder to spot, making babies and injured people prone to infection since they can't see the complexities as clearly as a white person's skin.

For example, a black man and a white man just got back from hunting. Both of them are dirty. When a kid sees them, he could easily avoid the white man because the dirt on him is visible. Therefore the kid interacts normally with the black man who is just as dirty as the white man because they just got back from hunting. If the kid has an open cut, the kid will be infected by not avoiding the black man just like he does with the white man. Therefore, as natural selection progresses, the ones with the inherent trait of fear of dark-colored objects are the ones who are left inhabiting the world to this day. Of course we have become smarter as modern humans, but the early cavemen developed the bias of dark-colored objects in order to survive.

You can see if a black person is covered in dirt. It's not like they're big chunks of darkness that make dirt invisible.

Back in the medieval times Europeans fancy being pale. You can read it from a lot of books. The tanning trend started in the modern age by 'woke' Americans.

It didn't. Eva Braun liked to tan her skin in the sunlight even though Adolf disapproved. What does it tell us about the universality of beauty ideals if even the royal couple of the Third Reich disagreed about it?

Yeah, i did mention that it was my hypothesis based in the fact that humans have a bias of dark-colored objects. You don't have to agree if you think this is illogical, but i'd like to hear your reasons other than we don't have enough evidences. Research is expensive and i doubt we will be getting any official answer on this topic, since there is no profit for the government to invest in this research.

Sorry, but that's not how this works. You make a claim, you are ready to provide evidence. If you can't, your claim is moot. If we were to provide evidence to counter every unsubstantiated speculation, we'd spend all the time looking up evidence to disprove wild claims like that the Earth is flat. Make an unconventional claim, sure. But be ready to back it up.

But there are ways to speculate based on our current known facts. We have to consider every possible option no matter how hurtful it is, i know the dark-skin bias is unjust, but again nature doesn't care about anything.

The truth is cruel and hurtful a lot of the time. But it isn't truth until it is backed up by hard facts.

 

[blueclover_.]

You can see if a black person is covered in dirt. It's not like they're big chunks of darkness that make dirt invisible.

As a modern human, i can. Early cavemen with slightly more IQ than apes could not.

It didn't. Eva Braun liked to tan her skin in the sunlight even though Adolf disapproved. What does it tell us about the universality of beauty ideals if even the royal couple of the Third Reich disagreed about it?

She was a special case, she was the minority. The beauty standards are set by the majority.

Sorry, but that's not how this works. You make a claim, you are ready to provide evidence. If you can't, your claim is moot. If we were to provide evidence to counter every unsubstantiated speculation, we'd spend all the time looking up evidence to disprove wild claims like that the Earth is flat. Make an unconventional claim, sure. But be ready to back it up.

Well, you are free to disagree.

The truth is cruel and hurtful a lot of the time. But it isn't truth until it is backed up by hard facts.

Hmm, okay. I guess you very much dislike the concept of a hypothesis. That is fine.

 

[nex]

As a modern human, i can. Early cavemen with slightly more IQ than apes could not.

Evidence?

She was a special case, she was the minority.

Evidence?

Hmm, okay. I guess you very much dislike the concept of a hypothesis. That is fine.

A hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis. It is not an argument.

 

[blueclover_.]

Evidence?

Sorry, you gotta google these yourself cause i am so not going to go through all those websites just to prove you wrong . Not worth it, i don't care. It's just a hypothesis and if it's true or wrong it won't change anything.

A hypothesis is just that: a hypothesis. It is not an argument.

Could be both by definition.

 

[nex]

Nope, a hypothesis is never a valid argument. As for googling myself, you're asking me to just find the answers to your unsubstantiated claims. Because you can't either be bothered or are actually incapable of providing evidence. That's not how this works.

You make a claim, you back it up. Unless your claim is nonsense. If your claim is nonsense, you probably can't.

 

[blueclover_.]

Nope, a hypothesis is never a valid argument. As for googling myself, you're asking me to just find the answers to your unsubstantiated claims. Because you can't either be bothered or are actually incapable of providing evidence. That's not how this works.

You make a claim, you back it up. Unless your claim is nonsense. If your claim is nonsense, you probably can't.

Okay, you win. Yaaay. Claps, people. I'm going to sleep, it's 3 AM over here. Bye i guess,