D
Deleted member 23558
God make my neurotransmitters great inc
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2022
- Posts
- 64,837
- Reputation
- 91,325
On the one hand ,being white especially WASP is high class and exudes aristocracy. But is it due to skin tone or phenotype? For example Alain Delon pale white vs with a tan where he is light brown - he looks equally aristocratic in both:
So when white people say "white is right" or some variation they are refferring to the WASP phenotype mainly? But why then some iranid shitskins and turks who look more ethnic than even some dravidians post their whitewashed hand and act like its ideal? When the white phenotype facially is what is most important?
Surely Gandy doesnt become dravidian because he tanned to medium brown in his D and G advertisements
So perhaps it is a problem of different undertones rather than skin tone by itself? But there are studies claiming that women find darker men especially those tanned to light brown skin the most attractive regardless of race
journalism.missouri.edu
But perhaps if we go deeper it is a cultural problem, and some cultures find fair men attractive like gooks?
However from the face of it we can ourselves notice light brown skin being the most attractive and exudes the most masculinity and sex appeal
We also know that lower contrast in the face means higher degree of masculinity, so is it the case that for dark haired men, light brown skin is ideal (as it lessens overall contrast) and for blonde men remaining as fair as possible is ideal (Due to the being lighter tone)? The question also is a conflict between dimorphism due to melanin vs dimorphism exhibited by lower facial contrast
So does the question ultimately hinge upon different phenotypes (and thus different undertones) having different skin tone ideals and also being culturally impacted? If so what are those ideals and how would one go about assessing it (the question then becomes if darker skin tones also set different standards for sex appeal such as women wanting darker men for ONS and fair men for LTRs)
AFAIK no such study has been done. My take is that ethnics have really shitty undertones and must remain at light brown to mask grey undertones and try to overdose on carotenoid supplements such as lycopene lutein astaxanthin etc to try and get better undertones. Ultimately I think its a question of phenotype and there are fair men with ethnic phenotypes and darker men with more caucasoid shifted phenotypes. I think having the latter as your base is better as it is easy to bleach skin colour if you tend to be on the darker side.
So when white people say "white is right" or some variation they are refferring to the WASP phenotype mainly? But why then some iranid shitskins and turks who look more ethnic than even some dravidians post their whitewashed hand and act like its ideal? When the white phenotype facially is what is most important?
Surely Gandy doesnt become dravidian because he tanned to medium brown in his D and G advertisements
So perhaps it is a problem of different undertones rather than skin tone by itself? But there are studies claiming that women find darker men especially those tanned to light brown skin the most attractive regardless of race
Tan is ‘In’: Study Finds Light Brown More Attractive than Pale or Dark Skin
By Katherine Kostiuk MU News Bureau Columbia, Mo. (Oct. 2, 2006) — Some African-American stars have been ridiculed for trying to lighten their skin color, but many Caucasians go to tanning salons to…
journalism.missouri.edu
But perhaps if we go deeper it is a cultural problem, and some cultures find fair men attractive like gooks?
However from the face of it we can ourselves notice light brown skin being the most attractive and exudes the most masculinity and sex appeal
We also know that lower contrast in the face means higher degree of masculinity, so is it the case that for dark haired men, light brown skin is ideal (as it lessens overall contrast) and for blonde men remaining as fair as possible is ideal (Due to the being lighter tone)? The question also is a conflict between dimorphism due to melanin vs dimorphism exhibited by lower facial contrast
So does the question ultimately hinge upon different phenotypes (and thus different undertones) having different skin tone ideals and also being culturally impacted? If so what are those ideals and how would one go about assessing it (the question then becomes if darker skin tones also set different standards for sex appeal such as women wanting darker men for ONS and fair men for LTRs)
AFAIK no such study has been done. My take is that ethnics have really shitty undertones and must remain at light brown to mask grey undertones and try to overdose on carotenoid supplements such as lycopene lutein astaxanthin etc to try and get better undertones. Ultimately I think its a question of phenotype and there are fair men with ethnic phenotypes and darker men with more caucasoid shifted phenotypes. I think having the latter as your base is better as it is easy to bleach skin colour if you tend to be on the darker side.
Last edited:
