All is fair in love and war (and skin creams)

This is definitely one for debate.

And probably does not count as news for most.

The above photo is just a sample from some lesser known brands; Nivea, L'Oreal, Clarins etc do it too.

It is said that in SE Asia (and also in other areas of the globe), that it is desirable to have fairer skin as darker skin implies that you are poor as you must work in the fields, out in the sun, in order to live.

The selection of skin-whitening products in Malaysian stores in unbelievable! Use of the stronger ones is basically akin to bleaching your skin.

I know that in England we have a lot of tanning products available. Although, somehow it seems to be a different scenario if you are adding something in order to enhance existing features, as opposed to using chemicals to take away something (colour) that you were born with? Particularly if it is attached to status connotations, or at least supposedly was originally.

There are some health concerns with skin whitening processes in the longer term, but equally tanning products use chemicals and tanning on sun beds is increasingly linked to skin damage and even increased risk of cancer. But one can tan naturally too.

Which is worse- tanning lighter skin or whitening darker skin?

Or is that a false dichotomy? Are both simply products of advances in our ability to change what exists naturally? If both processes are a demonstration of societal and technological development then perhaps both are very good things? Perhaps the wider debate is around how far we will go in order to enhance our own beauty. And how far cosmetics companies will go to make money. Hmm...