An illustrative picture: actor Luke Bracey at 21 and 33

all 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 8 hours ago

The have indoor spaces in Australia now. It’s not all work camps anymore.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 17 hours ago
    [–] 1 point 17 hours ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago

    There's a reason they call Queensland the skin cancer capital of the world.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago* (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 23 hours ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 day ago

    Nope. Good genes handed down generation to generation of honest hard working folks.

  • source