An illustrative picture: actor Luke Bracey at 21 and 33
The have indoor spaces in Australia now. It’s not all work camps anymore.
No.
Lived there for a few years. Yes, the sun is harsh and many people dont wear enough sunscreen. Some of the harshest UV periods of the day are not intuitive, such as hitting you at 8am as you walk to work while its still cool from the night.
There’s a reason they call Queensland the skin cancer capital of the world.
No, it isn’t fair. “Rugged” isn’t an objective measurement. Not all of them are outdoorsy. Some have emigrated to other climates. To Hollywood even. A lot of Aussies are doing everything they can to mitigate the impact of harmful UV rays. Especially actors might do more for their physical appearance than the average Bruce or Sheila.
Why are you so focused on how people look?
Maybe it’s poorly phrased, but I don’t think this is a question that deserves the vitriol of your last question. It’s completely valid to wonder if higher exposure to UV rays would lead to a more “rugged” appearance in a place like Australia. I think the fault is them asking, “is it safe to assume…”, but that doesn’t imply that someone is focused on other’s looks, more the curiosity of environment to effects on aging.
Look at OPs post history. 13 day old account and multiple posts exactly like this
vitriol
What now?
Vitriol means bitterly harsh, cruel, or venomous language and criticism.
And none of that applies to what I wrote. Hence my confusion. Could this be hyperbole on your part?
Nope. Good genes handed down generation to generation of honest hard working folks.
