Imo fake tan only really suits those with golden undertones to their skin, whatever their skin colour. I think for people who are pale with cool pink undertones (ie. those for whom it is impossible to naturally tan at all, they just go red in any sun), any fake tan looks awful - just orange/gold tones sitting unnaturally on top of pink
.
If you are very pale with cool pink tones (I am - Mac NW 5/10), and feel you look "ghostly", I've found a sheer light pinky blush on the cheeks helps with that and looks far more natural - with the bonus that it takes seconds rather than the 10 mins/several hours (depending on brand) fake tan takes
.
But then I am a fan of the "natural/basic" makeup look too - concealer where needed or bb cream, one coat of mascara, brow gel or light brow powder, tinted lipbalm/sheer lippy - can be done in a few minutes (with maybe some clear/light pink nail varnish and neutral eyeshadow if I'm pushing the boat out for a special occasion).
I understand the time wasted spent trying to look well kept - removing visible body hair, cleansing/moisturising daily, light makeup, trying to tame messy/flyaway hair and wanting to tint early/frizzy greys that really stand out - because most women have unfortunately felt the same societal pressure to do that for decades
. I really admire those that resist (and I do sometimes, but then you always run into someone you haven't seen for ages!)
However the current trend for long skin care "rituals", full body hair removal, the "must have" fake tan and ages doing the full face of makeup (heavy brows, false/heavy lashes, several layers of base, contouring), long false nails done, hair extensions etc - is it really worth it? Certainly I rarely find the makeup, fake tan or nails looks good, just that the person has spent the time and money to look fake tanned, heavily made up, obvious nails done etc
.