[ SECRET POST #2937 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2937 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 056 secrets from Secret Submission Post #420.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I've read somewhere that there was a test which showed that when you show people two pictures of the exact same person, one of which is altered to have their skin appear darker, and tell them that these are photos of twins, 0% of the time they will identify the darker-skinned "twin" as male and the lighter-skinned one as female. It reminds me of how disney and dreamworks films with personified animal, color the female animals much lighter than male animals of the same species.

I wonder if perhaps this phenomenon is more to blame for fair skin beauty standards. Something like women = lighter skin than male, therefore lighter skin = more feminine, and more feminine = more beautiful (to the male gaze). And then male gaze = the default, therefore light skin = ~objectively~ more beautiful than darker skin.

[(Anonymous)]

*that 0% should be 90%, lmao

[(Anonymous)]

Fair skin is equated with beauty and status because if you were fair, that meant you were rich and could afford to stay in all day and not work in the fields. That's why it occurred in places like Europe and Asia separately.

Nowadays, having a tan is a status symbol for white people because it means you can afford to lay out in the sun.

Beauty is often associated with signs of wealth and the availability of leisure.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, but this doesn't explain why it's a beauty standards for women much more for men.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I believe in Japan it applied to male youths as well, who were also held to a beauty standard... but then again, pederasty was a big thing so maybe that argument is not totally sound.

[insanenoodlyguy]

Because most societies had an expectation that men, even ones of leisure, spent more time outdoors doing things. Thus the ladies who stayed indoors would be paler, thus it's emphasis on females.

[darkmanifest]

Women generally (always exceptions, blah blah blah) have lighter skin than men of the same race. The theory I've read is that women need to absorb more vitamin D from the sun to help with calcium absorption, since women generally need more calcium than men, especially after menopause and while pregnant or lactating. So biology feeding into social perception, blah blah blah again.

[(Anonymous)]

This is really a thing? I've not noticed it in daily life. Women do need more calcium than men. The difference must be really small or it would be more noticeable to the naked eye.

[(Anonymous)]

da

It is actually a thing! It's a generalization, of course, but actually do tend to be lighter skinned than men.

[darkmanifest]

Yeah, maybe it only requires a couple shades of lighter skin tone of help, I couldn't say.

[(Anonymous)]

There was a convention for a long time in European/US illustrations of men and women, especially in advertising, that the woman had blonde hair and the man dark. Ditto for the girls blonde and boys brown. It's something similar I think.