"Do a Google search of historical and recent Miss India winners and other top-billed Bollywood actresses, and you’ll see why Indians collectively spend more on skin-whitening products than they do on Coca Cola (about $470 million), including creams, face cleansers, shower gels and — I’m not kidding — vaginal washes. The industry is supported by the Bollywood stars themselves, who do ad campaigns for major companies like Fair & Lovely. A typical ad has a movie star tossing a tube of lightening cream to a dark-skinned fan, who miraculously transforms into a star also."

So, females there spend a lot of money on skin lightening products (does that actually work?), as it somehow makes them feel better or gives them a competitive advantage. I thought you had to go the Michael Jackson route to change your skin color, which seems kind of awful.

They note that Ash Rai, a former miss Universe, has brown hair and green eyes, a rarity among Indians.

<https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP....>

So, females there spend a lot of money on skin lightening products (does that actually work?),>

I noticed that you don't know that enlg has 2 comparatives: the Latin is the one you try to use all the time with 'more'. But it's only correct with long adjectives coming historically from France. Most short adjectives come from Germany & don't use 'more'. They change their endings only: fairer, sweeter, cuter etc. Of course you know 'good,better, best' as an exception.

You're mistaken. As a point of style, you may personally prefer using the suffix "-er" to the adverb "more", where that's a reasonable option, and I wouldn't disagree with you about that, but people regularly use "more" with all kinds of adjectives, including short Germanic ones, including the ones you mentioned by name.

You say I'm essentially right, but your statement seems rather to agree with <Octavia>, since you put it so absolutely. While I agree that there's a <tendency> in English to use "more" with longer adjectives and "-er" with shorter ones, I disagree that this tendency is nearly strong enough to speak of it as a grammatical rule. Shakespeare saw no problem with the wording "more sweet"* (to use one of the particular examples that <Octavia> gave), and if his English was not grammatical, whose is?

<For bisyllabic adjectives, it depends on the final sound. If the final sound is a vowel or a sonorant, we use -er/-est: narrower, littler. If the final sound is more of an obstruent, we use more/most: more rotund, most abrupt.> That's an interesting distinction. I had never remarked it. Thanks!

Wow, that's a ridiculous exaggeration about Indians.