Do you strive for golden, sun-tanned limbs and live by the mantra "the browner the better", or would you describe yourself as "pale and interesting"?
We all tend to associate ourselves with either one of these and we spend our time cultivating our chosen look to maximum effect.
Obviously, genetics play a great part in which team you wave
your flag towards.
It's easy for those who naturally have more melanin in their skin's
pigment to veer towards a more sun-kissed look while those freckly
redheads of celtic descent, for example, don't even have to try to
be anything but pale and eccentric, celebrating their peaches and
cream complexion in it's full glory.
However, it's very difficult if you want the opposite look to that
which you have inherited and if it's not done well, it can look
incredibly wrong!
How many times have we seen a sweet "English rose" kinda gal
feel compelled to have a spray tan for her wedding and then go a
horrendous patchy oomphaloompa orange instead! Yikes!
Why did she decide to forgo that alabaster look for that of a
bronzed glamazon you may well ask? Well, because of the cult -
determined by the beauty world - that tells us brown just looks
better.
Sure, brown, darker bodies can make you look slimmer and even
appear healthier, especially when it looks as if you have had a
touch of sun. Those "pale but interesting" folk should never opt
for this look though as it just looks plain bizarre.
The upside is that lighter toned gals and guys are very "fashion"
at least.
Open up any fashion magazine and you will see pale, china-white models embracing their fair beauty and revelling in it.
On the other hand, duskier lasses should totally avoid trying to go paler as they can end up looking gothic on a good day or ashen and grey a la Dawn Of The Dead on a bad day.
This is just "the ugly truth".
