By that same logic one could argue that "tan" is an equally inappropriate word, since it obviously refers to the colour that only certain skin tones turn when exposed to the sun. On the other hand, for me personally the word "beige" conjours up a whitish-yellow colour very different from the one displayed (follow the link to see what I mean: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beige).

I've never thought "tan" refered to a sun tan, but to tanned hides, so I asked wikipedia, and this is the entry for "Tan (color)": "Tan is a pale brownish, tawny color. The name is derived from tannum, or crushed oak bark, that is used in the process for tanning leather. The resulting process often produces a hide with a 'tan' hue."

I think that most women would also be familiar with that color being described as "nude," since it's not supposed to show under your clothes. ("Nude" bras are actually a little bit darker than most Caucasian skin because that's less likely to show through, but they're still made for women who have Caucasian skin.)

I noticed while bra shopping recently how little selection there is for women who want a nude bra but have darker skin. There was practically nothing at all in more unusual sizes, and very little in the most common sizes.

"Noticed" the colors? Any WOC from the age of maybe five knows that this color is meant for white people, and explicitly not for them. Same with bandaids, etc.

I always wondered why they decided to name this colour this way : I'm French, and here in France, they call this colour "chair"which literally means "flesh".

I don't even think this colour matches with most of white people, so it's just ridiculous. But on top of that, of course, I think it's shocking that here in Europe and apparently also in the US, "skin" is supposed to mean this fair complexion... :-(

For those who have trouble finding a bra that actually matches their skin tone: try http://www.myskins.com/.

Not to mention both black and white are not really colours. And they most definitely are not visible in any human being on this earth.

But yes, among the western civilisation and in USA, too, the colour of "flesh" is usually along the lines of how middle-european caucasian skin tone is like.

Anyhow, the average skin tone is really universally relative but that does not stop stereotype-minded business people pushing their own ideas to the culture. They are not here to be racially sensitive or thoughtful but to make money. I find criticising each similar thing that they come up with utterly vain because in the end of the day there is nothing to criticise unless you want to somehow reform the way that the free media and capitalism go together.

I'm a lexophile and I like art and "flesh" as a descriptor for skin color has always bothered me. To me, "flesh" should mean the stuff under the skin, which amongst humans is all the same color, one "race" to another.

So calling it "skin" is a slight improvement, and in addition, as it is an unusual term, maybe people who don't blink at "nude" or "flesh" will spend a few seconds realizing that showing only one color for "skin" is terribly limiting if not downright insulting.

I do not understand why just a few shops are selling bras and bikini underwear. So many girls have size 34 of her underwear but size 34E of her bra.

People who all are really struggling to buy tri luma without knowing the right platform before going to get, then they tri luma cream buy online can go ahead with tri luma cream buy online at anytime without any issues for sure in your budget.

I think a set of basic "skin" colors should be created based on general geographic location. There would be Asian, African, Latin and European. Then any skin color should be able to be created from a combination of those four colors. To be fair we should include a tan version of each color. That would make 8 standard colors for skin. That should do it.