Thursday, July 18, 2013

Tsk tsk, Women's Health


Always happy to find alternatives to UV tanning in the mainstream media, I was excited to find a feature on sunless tanners in the July issue of Women's Health magazine. That was, until I actually started reading it.

The article begins by summarizing recent findings that spray-on sunless tanners may be harmful to the lungs. But don't worry. The article reassures us that we don't need to "endure a pasty existence." Call me crazy, but if tanning in general (outdoors, indoors, and now maybe in Mystic tanning booths as well) is bad for us, would it really be the end of the world to endure being pasty? Is being pasty really something that must be "endured" in the first place? My natural skin tone is obviously pretty light. Are they somehow implying that there is something wrong with me? Is it truly necessary to take the "Casper-ness out of pale skin"?

While I love a little self depreciation every now and again, it bothers me when I see fair-skinned women apologizing about how white their skin is. Articles like this one help perpetuate such behavior. Even if skin cancer wasn't an issue, I'd like to think that it's OK for me to be satisfied with my God-given skin color. I shouldn't be obliged to change it with sun exposure, DHA, or bronzing powder.

8 comments:

  1. It baffles the mind that some people are willing to risk damaging their skin and even their health to look less pasty by using sunbeds when there are plenty of facts out there. Spray tan booths are a much safer alternative for when you want to look good on special occasions.

    ReplyDelete