 |
| Is one shade more attractive? |
I was told that before the 1950s, people took measures not to tan. To stay pale, they used hats, shawls and parasols. If you were tan, it was a sign that you had to work out in the fields and were not of the leisure class.
As city life replaced farms and people acquired office jobs, getting a tan meant you could afford to travel ... taking your family on a nice sunny vacation. So thereafter, a tan meant you had the money to enjoy leisure time.
Now we know the golden glow of a tan is actually skin damage. In producing a tan, the skin is trying to shield itself from the sun's ultraviolet light (i.e. radiation). Far from being healthy, years of tanning in the sun can lead to skin cancer, not to mention wrinkles, age spots and sagging skin.
So you might think, well that's reason enough to turn to sunless tanners. And yes, it's better than baking in the sun, but now that we know how unwise tanning is, why is a tan still a standard of beauty?
Lately I don't think it is. Plus, the fewer chemicals I have to slather on my body, the better. If I don't need a sunless tanner, I'm not using it. Time and money saved! Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest one of all? Is it ... me??? Well baby, I was born this way.
Are you a fan of self tanners?
 |
| These cartoon sunbathers are setting a bad example. :) |
You may also enjoy:
Sunscreen Powder
Protecting Your Skin
Here Comes The Sun ... 10 Sunscreen Mistakes
Vitamin D And A Little Sun Is Good For Your Health
