The article is titled “Pale is The New Tan.” The argument they are trying to make is that women shouldn’t feel like only extremely tanned people can be beautiful, and that naturally pale women can be more beautiful than overly tanned women.
I don’t know who BuzzFeed is, or what they’re trying to accomplish as a blog, and I don’t care…This is irresponsible journalism at its worst. First of all, I’m not sure there’s even an argument to be had here: of course there are plenty of pale women who are hotter than tan women. Only a buffoon would be simple-minded enough to think tan = hot and pale = ugly.
But where I really take offense to this article is the supporting evidence they use to prove “pale is the new tan.”
So Scarlett Johansson, possibly the hottest woman on the planet regardless of skin tone, is compared to Snooki, maybe the biggest abomination on the planet?
And Amy Adams is compared to Hulk Hogan’s daughter, who looks strikingly like Hulk Hogan?
And let’s not forget about Nicole Kidman, who isn’t even that attractive, being compared to that man-woman-beast Donatella Versace…
I’m only exaggerating a little here when I say this article basically took the 14 most attractive light-skinned celebrities and put them up against 14 of the least attractive celebrities (regardless of skin color) and said, “Here you go, point proven: pale is hotter than tan.”
Two more notes on this article:
-Tilda Swinton shouldn’t be on the side of any argument that is supporting beauty.
-The author of this article should have gotten a man’s perspective first because he would have told her to scrap the Emma Stone vs Kim Kardashian comparison. In that picture, Kim looks damn good and the perfect amount of tan so that one isn’t going to help your argument.
My final concern is that this article might convince some people to stop going for extra tan and actually start going for extra pale. And we all know how this ends, don’t we, Sammy Sosa:
I have already lost two full days trying to solve this riddle, and there’s no end in sight.
In my current apartment, we have DirecTV, a DVR for recording shows, and a Blu-Ray player. Our DirecTV package has most of the regular cable channels as well as HBO & Cinemax. We have typically bought the NFL Ticket and MLB Extra Innings packages to watch football and baseball when they’re in season. Our Blu-Ray player can stream Netflix Instant content. Those are all of the options we have available at this time. While Netflix Instant is affordable at $8 per month, DirecTV rapes us to the tune of $124 per month.
With the move to the new place in LA only two weeks away, I thought this would be the right time to do a reset of my home entertainment packages to see if I can A) leverage different services and devices to have a broader choice in TV shows and movies, and B) cut out some significant costs from my current situation.
As I started researching this topic via the web and chatting with friends, I came across an endless amount of options: Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Instant Video, HBO GO, Roku, AppleTV, iTunes, DirecTV, Comcast, On Demand, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, illegal downloading…
Don’t worry, this can go even one layer deeper in complexity when you start to consider the following: Netflix has its instant service and its regular/ship you dvd’s service; HBO GO only works if you have an active HBO subscription through a participating cable or dish provider, Hulu has free and plus services, Roku has four different devices with options on picture quality as well as having ports for your USB cable. Not a single service seems to have “everything.” For instance, Netflix Instant has almost every well-known TV show, but lags in making the newest seasons of shows available to you. Hulu Plus’s claim to fame is that the newest episodes of currently airing TV shows are available the day after they air. But their problem is they don’t have deals with all the major network and cable channels so some shows are missing. Amazon looks awful for current TV shows but awesome for movies.
It also seems like if you were to create a spreadsheet that matched up all content providers (i.e. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon) with all the physical devices that the content can be streamed through (i.e. PS3, Xbox, Roku), your computer would probably explode. Just like my head was about to do when I started to consider all these options.
Maybe the first thing I should figure out is what I really want access to. Ideally I want to be able to watch any new/currently airing TV shows close to the date that the new episodes actually air. I also want to catch up on old seasons of still-airing shows like Mad Men, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones and 30 Rock. I need the ability to watch the playoffs of all major sports. But I also need access to every Red Sox and Patriots game. Movies don’t matter as much: I just want the option to see most new movies that are coming out on DVD.
I know some people who have gotten rid of cable/satellite service all together and get their content exclusively from the Netflix and Hulu’s of the world. This is the dream scenario, and I eventually want to get there. But here are three reasons why I’m reluctant to get rid of DirecTV/cable: playoff sports still have a lot of games on channels like ESPN, TBS, TNT; without cable I feel like I might miss out on something (there’s no logic to this feeling, it’s just an emotional reaction); and Julie will go ApeShit on me because all of the ridiculous shows she watches are on Food Network, MTV, E!, and TLC, and I don’t think she could get access to all of that content from another service.
I guess I’m leaning towards keeping DirecTV (but going back to the most basic package possible), and then buying a Roku to stream Netflix Instant and the MLB.tv package on my TV. This will probably satisfy me for three months, at which time I will buy AppleTV, subscribe to Hulu Plus, buy a PlayStation 3, add HBO to my DirecTV package again so I can access HBO GO, and of course activate the NFL Ticket just in time for football season.
I’m exhausted from this talk we just had…any better suggestions for me?