Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Tanning is just as bad as skin lightening.. Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Natural tan = no obviously. (as in one that has come from the sun and you've been safe and put suncream on etc)

    But otherwise yep I completely agree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cowsgoquack)
    But lots of things are very harmful, smoking, I would have thought was an obvious example. I don't see why people shouldn't be able to choose wether they want to get cancer and die or not.
    That's the thing. Unless you're suicidal, you don't want cancer.

    It's just that people are don't want to hear about the risks, and want to deal with the consequences later... their method of 'dealing' with the disease leaves much to be desired too. It'll upset/gravely harm the family structure, and will put considerable strain on the medical service.

    If they didn't seek treatment, and accepted that it was their own fault, then it's all fine by me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think people should stfu about making things illegal. If somethings bad for you, you weigh up the risks and benefits and decide whether you want to make that choice, whether you want to risk that damage to your body. I'd only outlaw sunbeds for anyone under the age of 16, but I thought they already were anyway?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yawn-er)
    That's the thing. Unless you're suicidal, you don't want cancer.

    It's just that people are don't want to hear about the risks, and want to deal with the consequences later... their method of 'dealing' with the disease leaves much to be desired too. It'll upset/gravely harm the family structure, and will put considerable strain on the medical service.

    If they didn't seek treatment, and accepted that it was their own fault, then it's all fine by me.
    I hope you don't drink alcohol at all. Since, you know, you get liver damage from that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I dont think I will ever understand the concept of tanning but thats probably because I dont have light skin. I think tanning and skin lightening are probably as bad as eachother, considering the fact that they could both result in cancer.

    However, there's a very serious ideology behind skin lightening that I dont think is behind tanning. Most people who actively sl have been conditioned to believe those with lighter skin are superior and by bleaching they will become more attractive, successful etc. Whereas with tanning it seems alot more like a fad.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SensiDub)
    I hope you don't drink alcohol at all. Since, you know, you get liver damage from that.
    I know.

    I don't.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Warrior King)
    Yes I know that's what I said!

    And at the end of the day what celeb is going to gladly announce to the media that he/she bleached their skin because they were unhappy with their natural skin colour? Citing a medical condition at least kept the media scrum slightly (ever so slightly) at bay.
    So what you wanted was a doctor, with no links to MJ (so he couldn't have been paid off) to somehow come out and confirm that he does have vitiligo?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EskimoJo)
    So what you wanted was a doctor, with no links to MJ (so he couldn't have been paid off) to somehow come out and confirm that he does have vitiligo?
    Not quite. All I'm saying is that the stories of him having vitiligo and/or lupus would be more credible if they had been verified in reputable medical journals rather than some random fansite. Common sense really.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldn't say either was particularly bad.


    WHo cares if it's not how you would look naturally? Everyone changes their natural appearance in some way, so I see no problem with skin lightening/tanning.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Warrior King)
    Not quite. All I'm saying is that the stories of him having vitiligo and/or lupus would be more credible if they had been verified in reputable medical journals rather than some random fansite. Common sense really.
    Why on Earth would a reputable medical journal verify that MJ had a skin disease?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EskimoJo)
    Why on Earth would a reputable medical journal verify that MJ had a skin disease?
    Clearly because he hasn't got vitiligo? He's displayed none of the symptoms of either condition and his claims have never been backed up by clinicians or journals etc (well those he hadn't paid off).

    If it had been the case he had vitiligo or lupus I'm sure a fair few medical journals would have ran articles on the situation given that most reputable medical journals run an article or two on medical related issues in the news over the years be it H5N1 or Swine Flu etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Warrior King)
    Clearly because he hasn't got vitiligo? He's displayed none of the symptoms of either condition and his claims have never been backed up by clinicians or journals etc (well those he hadn't paid off).

    If it had been the case he had vitiligo or lupus I'm sure a fair few medical journals would have ran articles on the situation given that most reputable medical journals run an article or two on medical related issues in the news over the years be it H5N1 or Swine Flu etc.
    Even if he didn't have it, it still exists and he put it in the news. I hadn't heard of it before he 'claimed' he had it and when people say vitiligo, I'm sure the first person that comes to most people's mind is MJ. They could have still written an article, so the fact they haven't most certainly isn't proof that he didn't have it.
    And the medical professionals who did confirm he had it were all paid off. Do you believe that because it was in a medical journal, or have you just made up your mind and refuse to believe anyone else? :rolleyes:
    Like someone else in the thread said, she has lupus and doesn't display the signs. Will you be telling her she doesn't have it?

    Anyway, I can't be bothered with arguing with you anymore, you will not change your mind.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yawn-er)
    That's the thing. Unless you're suicidal, you don't want cancer.

    It's just that people are don't want to hear about the risks, and want to deal with the consequences later... their method of 'dealing' with the disease leaves much to be desired too. It'll upset/gravely harm the family structure, and will put considerable strain on the medical service.

    If they didn't seek treatment, and accepted that it was their own fault, then it's all fine by me.
    Totally agree I am fed up of seeing people continuously harm their bodies and then expect the NHS to fix it. Its wasting tax payers money ffs
    So anyone the uses bleaching creams or continuously tans and gets cancer knowing the harmful effects should pay for their own damn treatment
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    if tanning and skin lightening is wrong, then why isnt make-up also wrong?

    People want to look better so they tan or make their skin lighter, and for the same reasons people wear make-up, to look better, to hide marks, to get a more even skin tone, so why is make-up so widespread and acceptable?

    There are safe ways to lighten your skin as there are safe ways to tan your skin. So the issue isnt a case of safety, so whats the actual problem?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    I find both to be silly...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Its a sad case but a lot of white guys like a white girl with tan and similarly black guys like lighter skinned black girls and in the asian culture it's pretty much the same, everyone wants an olive skin tone.

    There was BBC 4 radio programme on why people lighten their skin, its by Aasmah Mir who is a BBC reporter and was aired just a few weeks ago, you can listen to it here: http://www.skinlightening.tv/BBC-Rad...-Customers.htm
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by inksplodge)
    They're both as bad as each other and should be banned IMO.
    Are you serious? People should be able to tan themselves, lighten their skin if they want to. Why on earth would you ban it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Tanning's a natural process, whereas chemical skin lightening is not. It's all pretty obvious...
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.