Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Health & Wellness

Tan Is the New Tacky

By Verena von Pfetten, Huffington Post. Posted September 30, 2008.


There is nothing inherently healthy about tanning. It can give you wrinkles and cancer. Good thing it's gone the way of the Ugg boot.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd be able to declare, "Tans are out!", mainly because I never thought I'd be the one declaring anything, but well, here goes nothing:

Tans Are Out!

Yes, you heard me. Tans have gone the way of shoulder pads, dark lip liner, and, more recently, Uggs.

Let's go with this Uggs thing. I think we can all agree that, yes, Uggs are out. But I think we can also all agree that that doesn't necessarily mean that people have stopped wearing them. There are still the die-hard, stalwart fans that will just not let go of their marshmallow shoes.

But Uggs, while comfortable, are utterly useless boots! (Just like tanning, but I'll get to that in a minute; Uggs rant coming up.) Seriously, don't tell me that you wear Uggs in the winter because they're so warm and cozy. Yes, they're warm and cozy, that is, until you wear them in anything over an inch of snow. And forget rain! What is it about Uggs that has girls wantonly traipsing through snow drifts as though suede and fleece are made of rubber? They're not waterproof! Even the smallest puddle leaves your (most likely) un-socked toes nestled in a cold and wet blanket of smelly sheepskin. And that's supposed to be cozy?!

(End Rant.)

Tans too, fake or not, are utterly useless. Gone are the arguments that a "base" tan stops you from burning, or that exposure to UVA/UVB rays is good for your health. Lies, all of them. So, then, what's the point of tanning?

Well, the point is: there is no point! And, Lord knows, the fashion world is backing me up. Let's be honest, the tan-demic is really fashion's fault: In the last five years we've seen a very bohemian / hippie / California-girl style reign supreme, and naturally (no pun intended), what goes better with boho than a faux glow (or Uggs, for that matter)? But its fashion backlash time, and boho is over, ladies. Victorian is in.

Gone are hippie skirts and beach-y waves. It's a new era, and Anna Wintour says bobs away! (Sorry. I couldn't help myself.) It's all about pencil skirts and structured, even corseted waists, gothic gloves and Dita von Teese! Pale is back, and I for one, couldn't be happier. No need to desperately slather yourself with self-tanner cream (that stuff just reeks of cancer) or feverishly brush your cheeks with bronzer. As constructed as our '08 clothing is, it's time for skin to go au naturale.

And this isn't just a fashion trend. Shades of tan (or the lack thereof) are the new class dividers. Classism exists, people, and we've got the tan lines to prove it. Remember way back when Queen Victoria was still around, and tans were the ultimate faux pas? A tan was a dead call-out that instead of lounging on sedans and munching on puff pastries, you'd been out working the fields all day, you pauper, you. The manor-born even went so far as to douse themselves in white powder and paint little blue veins on their foreheads to prove just how translucent they were.

So yeah, while I'm not advocating a return to the feudal system, I think we have to open our eyes to the fact that tans have once again become a sign of a lower class. The 80's are over, and the well-oiled tan has been relegated to Staten Island, while conversely, nothing says Upper East Side lady-who-lunches more than a smooth, white, and almost plasticine forehead. Now, that said, I've got nothing against Staten Island, nor do I have a particular affinity for UESiders, but considering that people in the US spent over 14 billion dollars on cosmetic surgery in 2006, it would seem that the over-arching trend in beauty is to look good. And to look good is to look younger. And I don't think I have to be a doctor to tell you that tanning ain't doing nothing for your complexion.

Beyond a sign of wealth, paleness is held in high regard within circles of the hipsterdom's intellectual elite. Have you ever seen a tanned hipster? I thought not. (And if your answer was yes, I'll bet you a million dollars that they just got back from writing grants in Burma, or something, so there. Point: Me.)

Say it with me, people: Tans are Tacky!

It feels wonderful! I'm no longer mocked for my "pastiness", chided for my "lack of color". Instead, I'm complimented! Told my skin looks like a Vermeer! (Or was it veneer...) I'm now described as glowing, not pallid, and asked what sunscreen and skin cream I use. I've got nary a line on my face and I'm now free to secretly eye the fissures that have started to rumple my friends' faces. Victory is mine.

So, I've declared it. You can argue with me, mock me to your friends, or stick your fingers in your ears and "lalala" yourself all the way to Jersey City, but I've said it on the Internet, and you've read it on the Internet, so therefore it's undeniably true: Tans Are Out. And just remember, you heard it here first, folks!

Editor's note: This was originally posted on January 8, 2008, but since we're heading back into pale season, it seemed time to re-run this tribute to pale people.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: trends, skin cancer, tans, tanning, wrinkles, fads

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
HDTV + "barbie doll" tan
Posted by: persephone1961 on Sep 30, 2008 8:30 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i agree that tans are very unhealthy
but HDTV broadcasting + high def video change all the "makeup rules"
high def shows every wrinkle and blotch, and (excuse the image) razor burns--very unattractive
makeup for regular TV rebroadcast on HDTV looks like clown makeup (rouge highlights etc. are garish vs. natural looking)

which brings us to the common solution of the Paris Hilton "barbie doll" all over tan, masking skin imperfections etc.

unfortunately, I think that particular look is here to stay

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: HDTV + "barbie doll" tan Posted by: JosephLevy
Smart Tanning Is In
Posted by: JosephLevy on Sep 30, 2008 8:35 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Verena -

The moment you inaccurately declared that base tans don't help prevent sunburn (a laughable error) was the moment you lost your credibility.

Smart tanning - regular, moderate exposure to sunlight - is in. And here's why:

As millions of indoor tanners know, a base tan DOES help prevent sunburn. It is what your body is designed to do to prevent sunburn. Even the National Institutes of Health refers to melanin (the pigment produced in your skin when you tan) as your body's natural protection against sunburn.

When you tan, you increase your skin's natural resistance to sunburn. That natural resistance essentially multiplies the effectiveness of sunscreen that a tanned person wears outdoors, which is why people with suntans sunburn less often outdoors than those who do not tan.

When you declared that "Victorian is in" were you aware that in the Victorian era vitamin D deficiency was epidemic? Skirvy is caused by vitamin D deficiency. Plague may have been related to it as well. And high society women - desperate to prove that they didn't have to labor outdoors like commoners - dyed their skin white with arsenic, which lead to thousands of deaths by poisoning.

If you want to be pale, that's your choice. But I would encourage you to have your vitamin D levels checked the next time you have blood work done. It's called a calcidiol test, and unless you have vitamin D blood levels between 40-60 ng/ml, you aren't getting enough of "the sunshine vitamin."

As it turns out, the vitamin D you need on a daily basis to get you up to that level probably can only be obtained naturally by (you guessed it) regular, moderate sun exposure. It's UVB in sunlight (and in 90 percent of indoor tanning equipment) that initiates vitamin D production naturally.

Consider this: One full-body suntan, for most of us, makes between 10,000 and 25,000 IU of vitamin D. That's 100 times as much as you get from a glass of whole milk. (And that D is fortefied into the milk - it isn't there naturally.)

Why would Mother Nature give us this great ability to manufacture vitamin D naturally if we weren't intended to get it that way?

As it turns out, we probably do need that much. Do a little more research before you condemn society back to the pale-seeking Victorian Days and you'll find:

- 97 percent of Canadians are vitamin D deficient.

- 60 percent of Americans are vitamin D deficient.

Lack of sunlight and sun avoidance is the only plausible explanation.

Given that we now know vitamin D deficiency is linked causatively to breast, overian, prostate, colon and many other cancers, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis and many other disorders, why are you condemning the only natural, free source of vitamin D: Sun exposure?

And 10 minutes of exposure to your face and hands might make 400 units of vitamin D in a fair-skinned person. (If you're dark-skinned, you may need 10 times as much sun exposure to make the same amount of vitamin D, which is why there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation). But we now know that 400 units isn't nearly enough to increase your vitamin D blood levels to natural levels: 40-60 ng/ml.

Do the vitamin D research yourself. I suggest the following independent sources:

- www.vitaminDcouncil.org
- www.HealthResearchForum.org.uk

Your hyperbole and generalizations aside, I know plenty of moderately tanned hipsters today. Pale may be your choice, and more power to you. But moderate tanning, sunburn prevention and re-embracing the Sunshine Vitamin are in everywhere in America today.

If you think pale is in it's because you've got your head in the sand.

Joseph Levy, moderate tanner
52 ng/ml 25(OH) D

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Smart Tanning Is In Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Sources Of Vitamin D Posted by: bcgirl125
» RE: Sources Of Vitamin D Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Smart Tanning Is In-NOT Posted by: NoPCZone
» Paranoid, huh? Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Smart Tanning Is In-NOT Posted by: JosephLevy
» RE: Smart Tanning Is In Posted by: schmoopsy
» RE: Smart Tanning Is In Posted by: Aimleft
» RE: Smart Tanning Is In Posted by: Siciliana
» RE: Smart Tanning Is In Posted by: phatkhat
» RE: Skins In Southern France Posted by: bcgirl125
» RE: Smart Tanning Is In Posted by: barbatus
» Lost credibility? Posted by: bornxeyed
» It's not necessary to be rude. Posted by: countingdaisies
» Then don't be rude. Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Lost credibility? Posted by: JosephLevy
» RE: Lost credibility? Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Smart Tanning Is In Posted by: TomTom
Vampire chic?
Posted by: Democratic Socialist on Oct 1, 2008 12:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel sorry for a lot of these pale, unhealthily thin, laughably sheltered, and overall weak 'hipster' types as they scurry from one sterile, air-conditioned, plastic indoor environment to another avoiding the sun at all costs - you can almost see them bare their fangs and hissing when they are forced to take a short walk through the sun and break a minor sweat. Figure that after that much non-exposure to the sun they probably have mold growing all over them by now...at their best these people remind me of mushrooms in a way, and at their worst they remind me of vampires.

I agree that these horribly fake orange tans are laughably unfashionable along with terrible for your skin, but as another individual wrote here a certain amount of sunlight is necessary and very healthy for the human body since we are, by nature, animals who in the past lived almost entirely outdoors or semi-outdoors (or spent much of the day outside working to survive) and as such we need sunlight for optimal functioning.

The funny thing is that BY FAR the healthiest 'glow' I've seen on people are the country-folk who spend a lot of time outdoors in the sun with the fresh air and are most in contact with nature...modern country-folk are smart about sun exposure though and often avoid the sunlight during the harshest time of the day (about noon until 5PM) if they can or wear sunscreen and clothes/hats which block the harsh rays. Conversely, the worst complexions are obviously found on the urban-dwellers who live in crowded, polluted cesspools (AKA cities) with bad-noxious air, overprocessed food, and sunlight that barely shines through the thick smog cloud which constantly envelops the city.

This 'hate sunlight movement' is just another symptom of the anti-nature and anti-REAL WORLD syndrome which has infected vast swathes of the American population these days, mostly on the left. Many on the left claim to love the environment, but their artifically white complexions show that they barely spend any time outdoors - how can one claim to love or respect something which is constantly avoided?

If anything else, a perfectly non-lined, non-sunspotted, and/or non-freckled face shows you to be the weak and sheltered indoors/anti-nature type which you are, as it shows that you are too scared to go outside and actually experience nature and are stuck in your sterile little cubicle at work or home 99% of the time. Totally weak.

"Sunlight is the best disinfectant." - former Supreme Court Justice Brandeis

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Vampire chic? Posted by: countingdaisies
» RE: Vampire chic? Posted by: Cybershaman
» RE: Vampire chic? Posted by: phatkhat
How vain
Posted by: weathered on Oct 1, 2008 4:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tan or down a quart matters very little, its all about the inside.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

who the hell cares?
Posted by: Moira61 on Oct 1, 2008 4:53 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
just sayin'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sunshine is one of the HEALTHIEST things in the world!
Posted by: disc golf on Oct 1, 2008 4:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a nutritionist and have been researching the benefits of exposure to healthy UV rays for over 30 years. Deficiency of adequate exposure to sunshine/UV rays would SAVE a minimum of 100,000 people from dying, EACH YEAR, in America.

Adequate sunshine exposure--yes, that's vitamin D, reduces your risk of breast, prostate, ovarian, colon and pancreatic cancer from 30-65 percent! It also decreases the risk of suffering from most other forms of cancer, while generally increasing the health of the immune system.

Since I work in a medical center with over 30,000 patients, I can attest to the fact that 80 percent of the patients are vitamin D deficient. (Of course, this is a preselected group of SICK patients, 60-70 percent of whom have cancer! Just more evidence to prove my point.)

While it is true that excessive exposure to sunshine/UV rays can wrinkle the skin, this is more true if the user also takes poor care of their health. In other words, if they drink alcohol, eat sugar and also consume insufficient quantities anti-oxidant-rich fruits and vegetables. Osteoporosis is more a disease of vitamin D deficiency than calcium lack. One almost doubles their risk of multiple sclerosis by insufficient sunshine exposure! The risk of heart disease increases 30-40 percent by insufficient sunshine exposure! Skin cancer (MM type)is likely to be MORE aggressive--if it occurs, IF the sufferer has a history of INADEQUATE sunshine exposure!

It seems that the sunscreen makers have done their jobs in promoting their sad propaganda about avoiding sunshine to prevent skin cancer. The words should be "excessive sunshine exposure." Meanwhile, while the use of UV skin creams have increased dramatically since 1974, the incidence of malignant melanoma (the sometimes fatal form of skin cancer) is about 3-4 fold higher.

Perhaps lowering our cholesterol too much is adversely affecting our thinking while such decrease might also lessen the production of vitamin D in the skin! While we're not sure of this last item, we can be sure that most Americans are deficient in vitamin D and this is THE most prevalent deficiency nationwide, right up there with vitamin C. (VItamin D is made under the skin from cholesterol.)

To learn more, go to my article on the subject: http://tompetrie.net/id8.html. There, you'll find some useful references. You'll also learn why this nutritionist even parks his car in the farthest corner of the parking lot, so he can get his "maximum" skin exposure, during those lunch hours, when the sun is shining. (Just ten minutes on each side. Certainly will NOT use those UV "protection" skin screens that have 2 or 3 potentially carcinogenic ingredients!) I for one will do EVERYTHING to prevent future cancer and that includes adequate sunshine exposure or if necessary, the occasional few minutes in a tanning booth at my local gym.

We've evolved over millions of years, exposed to UV radiation. If it were truly dangerous, our species wouldn't be here. What WASN'T here, was alcohol, sugar, junk food and insufficient intake of fresh fruits and vegetables. THESE are the tools we use to reverse the potentially damaging effects of UV radiation exposure. Don't get toasted, just get your modest "intake" of sunshine/tanning booths. Your health will improve dramatically--just remember to keep it to just 5-25 minutes, the lower amount for fair skin. There's a reason this writer plans to never get cancer. Daily exposure to sunshine (and the occasional tanning booth), is just one of those tools, but, easily the most important, next to a diet of organically grown foods.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

beefee
Posted by: beefee on Oct 1, 2008 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that what is "in" is even talked about by women shows how manipulated we are by businesses that sell to us--cosmetics, clothing and plastic surgery!! Wake up, women. Figure out what works best for you and be that person. Stop listening to people who tell you how you have to look and PLEASE, when is someone going to say it??? Plastic surgery makes women look like monsters! What makes these women do it when they see the monstrosities others become with bloated lips and psycho eyes. And men don't think it is attractive. It means a woman is embarrassed about how she looks. It wreaks of lack of confidence. I hope the next generation of women realize how beautiful they are and allow themselves the freedom to not use cosmetics to make themselves into peope they aren't. And save money, too!! Cut the class, crap and get a life. Perhaps if you stopped worrying about how women looked, we'd have more people trying to sove the REAL problems that exist in life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fashionable is the new moron
Posted by: MD1 on Oct 1, 2008 5:50 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seriously these boho hipster-poser trendoids are just as arrogant, insular and shallow as any bleached-blonde Paris Hilton clone... they just choose a different "uniform". True "hipsters" don't give a damn what they wear. So go ahead and wear overpriced, smelly, motheaten clothes from a forgotten era and stay out of the sun until you're just as pale as Tom Cruise in Interview with the Vampire. We'll STILL be laughing at your inherent lameness behind your back. By the way... the whole "goth" thing? 1994 calls and wants it's idiotic "trend" back!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "True" hipsters? Posted by: Scientz
RE: Pale - Agreed, author has been out of the sun too long
Posted by: bystander on Oct 1, 2008 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't people have better things to do than convince others they should spend their lives indoors? As an ex-patriate Canadian living in Florida for 15 years, I can assure you conclusively that sunshine is healthy while neon is not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tans
Posted by: ah2323 on Oct 1, 2008 6:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everybody looks and feels better when they have a nice tan. As for the sun being unhealthy: We've lived with the sun for thousands of years. We've lived with "sun screen" for fifty years, tops. I'm waiting to see what happens to all these lemmings after decades of slathering themselves with petroleum byproducts because the corporate media told them to.

BTW, I get a severe sunburn every year whether I need it or not. I'm 47, and I'm regularly taken for 10-20 years younger than I am. Exercise, nutrition, stuff like green tea and vegetables, etc. will protect your skin and your health generally, not expensive, repackaged industrial waste products.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» To Be Fair... Posted by: BreeMass
Could It Be...
Posted by: Godfather89 on Oct 1, 2008 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live on Long Island home of the Metrosexual Guido Population. The Guido phenomena is such a problem on LI that their is a website dedicated to the Guido Endemic:

www.getoffourisland.com

I will say this much. The "Guidos" may finally be able to show their true skin color without this need to show off a hideous (almost alien) orange skin tone. Its not even like a tan its like a mix between brown and orange. Hearing this news makes me rejoice at the hope of no longer seeing superficial girls and guys going into tan themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Could It Be... Posted by: countingdaisies
bullsh*t
Posted by: jstepp590 on Oct 1, 2008 8:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's not "a look" or fashion statement. Apparently the writer has never heard of the role vitamin D plays in our health. Our skins are designed to take a certain amount of sun and our very health depends on it for things like preventing cancer.

Go back to school before you start printing misleading and erroneous information.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article...
Posted by: meesajean on Oct 1, 2008 9:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does anyone else think it's strange that this article is written specifically for white folks but never says it out right? They just assume only white folks are reading the post and therefore they don't have to state "this article is specifically for white people". What about those of us with naturally darker skin? Pale is in, what the hell am I suppose to do about that?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This article... Posted by: Joni50
I call white privilege bullshit on the author and Godfather
Posted by: Ladydog on Oct 1, 2008 9:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article reeks of white privilege, and the commenter who recommends getoffourisland.com is also spreading anti-Italian crap. Now really - calling admittedly obnoxious characters a slur (it sure as hell was one when I was growing up)? Also, the advertisement for the T-shirt "Thank God I am Irish and Not a Guido" or some bullshit like that gives the racist intent away. Imagine if any of us wore a T-shirt that said "Thank God I am a Muslim and not a Jew," or "Thank God I am White and not Black"? The possibilities for racialist, bigoted and privileged fun and games are endless. What shameful, clueless crap Alternet has posted here. The editors should know better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» If not a rock, where then? Posted by: countingdaisies
And this is important WHY?
Posted by: Aimleft on Oct 1, 2008 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is hard for me to believe that Alternet would even consider printing such a vacuous piece of crap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And this is important WHY? Posted by: phatkhat
» RE: And this is important WHY? Posted by: countingdaisies
OMG! What is she saying???
Posted by: phatkhat on Oct 1, 2008 10:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally, a couple of others got it! This article is wrong on every point the author makes (ably refuted by others better versed in nutrition and health than I), but I could hardly keep reading when she started talking about class and whiteness!

Mind you, I AM white - an Irish descendant with no tan but a lot of freckles, LOL. But the idea that those of us who work outside because we either must or - horrors - like it, are somehow low class??? And though she doesn't say it, she is spreading an idea that people of color are automatically of lower class!

This article points up what "red state" America finds wrong with liberals. They think we are all like this author, and living on another planet. Vain, self-absorbed, and clueless.

Alternet, how C"O"U"L"D you publish this absolute - sorry, but - racist, classist PIECE of SHIT????

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Uncomfortable
Posted by: koreana12 on Oct 1, 2008 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't really feel as if this article fits with the message of alternet. I was slightly disappointed to find this article on the site. I found it some what offensive, especially considering that my natural skin color is not anywhere close to "natural" aka white.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Uncomfortable Posted by: Joni50
» RE: Uncomfortable Posted by: phatkhat
Yeah!!
Posted by: ah2323 on Oct 1, 2008 10:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that you mention it. I can sort of see this in the back, back pages of Huffington, but not here!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do you want to be left alone and not hit upon?
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Oct 1, 2008 10:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Then show your pasty white thighs with all those ugly veins showing through your sick looking skin.

Add to that the hills & craters of cellulite and it's barfing time.

A healthy woman with healthy looking skin is almost as much of a turn on as her intelligence, sense of humor and self confidence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fish Belly White
Posted by: jumperladd on Oct 1, 2008 10:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've waited years for fish belly white to come back in fashion as I agree with those who don't like wrinkled skin. I lived in the Southwest most of my life and a tan was de riguer. I wore hats and loads of sunscreen as soon as it became available. My skin is not pristine but it aint no leather saddle either. The rest of me is happy that fish belly white now is in vogue. Long live fish belly white!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I checked the calendar and its not April Fools...
Posted by: outwestdj on Oct 1, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article seems like a joke so I checked the calender but it is October 1st not April 1st. I was totally confused by this marginally racist and completely non science (or research for that matter) based article because it is on one of my favorite fact based websites.
Living in the Northwest United States I know (through statistics) that our levels in of Vitamin D are chronically low and some diseases thrive when under these conditions including MS, many forms of cancer and many other ailments and diseases. Check out actual facts at www.vitamindcouncil.org for some statistical information on the sun and its benefits through vitamin D production in the skin. The site even has MD doctors opinions and studies on it! WOW... I do agree tanning for only the tan is silly and not good for the skin. However exposure to the sun (actually UV B) is very important for the human animal. We need the sun to produce vitamin D beacuse most people do not intake enough through diet alone. Supplements do help but your skin can make the vitamin for you and evolved for this purpose. We are not a fragile weak animal that should hide from the sun and the outdoors.
This reminds of the the parents who overly protect their children from germs and dirt only to cause a weakened immune system in adulthood...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WTF?!
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 1, 2008 11:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only interesting thing about this article is the brief lapse into classism.. which the author not only muddies but then engages in (probably as a satirical device but it's kinda hard to tell).

Not being a slave to fashion (I am my own and I pretty much don't givafrack) but living near enough to Malibu to laugh my ass off at the Ugg boot parts, I was sorta confused by most of the piece.

I'm a slightly darker than "white" skinned "white" fella with sandy blond hair, I surf, garden, play futbol, referee and spend a lot of time outside when I'm not working (for free) at a desk, so I'm "tanned" in very funny shapes and lines everywhere, and I use sunscreen. I don't wear Uggs because who can afford $200 for a pair of schlumpy boots anyway (all I can ever think of is, dang, they must have foot fungus and jungle rot somethin' fierce to wear that shit around here when the ave temp is 37 degree celsius). My mate is a gorgeous darker skinned chick of mediterranean descent and our two offspring are light skinned and tow-headed blondies. My mate has no wrinkles, or at least none that I find unattractive, she's still wicked hot as far as I'm concerned and my kids are cute as hell. So if my kids are pale I'm supposed to find them more appealing than when they've been in the sun and brown up like us? Or I'm supposed to now be unattracted to my mate because she's not pale? I'm so confused.

I'm not sure about this skin-color-classism thing... We work for a living and even went to Europe once apiece (well I went twice) thanks to job opportunities way long time ago when we were youngish and fell for the bullshit about getting paid to work abroad (when our own savings ran out we had to go home, after working as illegals for a while...ooooo bad bad liberals we are), and we certainly know people who jet-set about polluting the air and shit like that. But come to think of it, most of them hang around outside too and despite their liberal use of sunscreen, like us they're tan too...

I'm just confused by all this.... do owning classers all act like this author or am I just missing out on some insider funny? Please let me know what I'm missing so I can laugh along... unless it's more owning class bullshit then don't bother.

Why is this piece on alternet? Is she a FWB of someone on the staff or something? Is it a New York thing?

People with money sure get stoopid real fast.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unbelievable!
Posted by: lightwing1 on Oct 1, 2008 11:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So, following fashion trends is the new Alternet Zeitgeist? I thought Alternet was supposed to champion the worth of all people - fat/skinny, brown/black/white/yellow/red, wrinkled/not wrinkled, etc?

Celebrate your "whiteness" if you wish, but don't act like the dominant fashion paradigm you so colorfully describe doesn't exclude 90% of the human race who would have to "bleach" themselves to achieve the "pale" heights of fashion you describe.

What a joke! I am white, btw, and could care less how people color their skin - or don't. The worth of human beings lies in their hearts, minds, and actions - not how they "look." This is the whole problem with the world today - superficiality trumps substance.

Let's all rush out and judge a book by it's cover, shall we?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is 10 years late
Posted by: tubesss on Oct 1, 2008 1:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not only is the whole, "there is no such thing as a healthy tan" ridiculous on its face, but it has been proven wrong long ago. Getting a base tan doesn't prevent burns??? That's something that you can easily test yourself. Of course it prevents burning - that's the main reason for the biological process of tanning. It's amazing that people believe that we are not meant to be exposed to the sun ever. How can that make sense? As long as humans have been evolving we have had a sun shining down on us. Are we to believe that for some reason we never evolved to deal with sunlight? It kills us? I wonder how those scared of the sun would explain why people evolved in a such a way that the further you get from the equator, the lighter your skin tone is? If we didn't need a good deal of sunlight for optimal vitamin D production, among other things, then why wouldn't we all have dark skin to protect us from the sun? Studies are done to make someone money. Sunblock companies can make money by linking sun exposure to certain cancers. Does sunlight cause skin cancer? Even if it does, why would anyone assume that skin cancer is the only effect of sun exposure. It's also been linked to sharp reductions in the risk of many other cancers. We treat our bodies like the parts don't effect the whole. Your skin is connected to your whole body. Whether or not people who tan get skin cancer more often is not the most important question to ask. The more important question to ask is whether or not people who tan tend to live longer, healthier lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Uh, what about POC's???
Posted by: Kym525 on Oct 1, 2008 3:16 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is PEOPLE OF COLOR???

Does this article even make sense or is it just a lark?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who is going to live forever anyhow?
Posted by: chief of okeefe on Oct 1, 2008 5:57 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let the kids go outside and if they tan, so be it. For crying out loud, even if we hide inside in a bacteria-proof bag and eat nothing but organic vegan we are STILL GOING TO DIE.

Let the people have some fun with the eyeblink of time we have to live, for crying out loud!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Crap - lured and hooked and reeled
Posted by: barn on Oct 1, 2008 8:10 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You win!

Tan? Out? You mean.. like the Sun? As in suntan? You're kidding right? Wtf'ng point?

Uggs? You have an ugg grudge?

Well I'm afraid I'm going to have to support the bloody things now aren't I? Being that you seem to have been swept off your feet or rather jumped the train and were somehow expecting .. I don't know.. a miracle? They're sheepskin, yeah they get wet.. twit. You don't freakin walk in the rain in your woolies do yah? Or if you do you let them dry before you were them again do you not? Marshmellows.. something against soft have we? Soft tan things.. no fun?

Case A) a tall ugg makes a great changing rug - especially when the wind chill is subzero and you're naked and the ground is cold, frozen like. A short ugg not so great if you have big feet but a bloody blessing nonetheless. Slip on - slip off.

Case B) Snow, by it's very nature, is frozen ... mostly .. so your 1" snow fests are either a sloppy mix or melting rapidly as in puddles.. water == wet Sooo, if you're actually in snow, the cold frozen version that is, your ugg would have proved rather comfortable in a rather deep and chilly setting. Oh.. to about 30 below on my own feet. Now if you've been there I know you know how cold a rubber bottom boot is so.. yeah.. bloody cold right? No contest.

Case C) For those not overly concerned with the impression you're making the payoff is lasting. For those that could care less about who thinks what about your shoes the payoff is long lasting. For those concerned with tan ankles.. well.. you're right fucked I'd say. Being that you seem to be easily impressed upon and value your own opinion much higher than yourself then case C is reserved for those folks that derive a bit of pleasure from seeing the cockeyed head tilts and smirks of deep rooted displeasure from people that noticed your shoes *knowing* that you must be a train jumper and missed your stop. e.g. don't like 'em - don't wear 'em... and.. shut the fuck up.

Case D) Next best thing to bare feet right here baby. Yeah... you like that don't you.. Yeah you do.

So.. I feel better and my feet aren't doing too badly either thanks.

Congrats.. you got me to comment on the first retarded thing I've read here that wasn't a comment.. so, natch, you win the award.

\r

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pale Irish-American
Posted by: DCBeltway on Oct 1, 2008 8:22 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As an Irish American, whose pale freckly arm used to be the measuring stick for my friends to see how tan they got over the summer during my school days, I like this article. The fact I could not tan used to embarass and shame me as a child. Today I love my skin. I cannot tan naturally and well I hate self-tanner (it smells and its gross) so I am happy to embrace my pale freckly Irish skin and if society accepts it then that's great. If society doesn't I don't care anymore. My Middle Eastern husband likes my skin and finds it attractive and exotic which is nice, freckles and all. Au natural is best regardless of your skin color and we should embrace all shades and backgrounds. No need to be something you are not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Pale Irish-American Posted by: Mel H.
» RE: Pale Irish-American Posted by: Siciliana
lol
Posted by: 876 on Oct 2, 2008 9:29 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn’t read most of this utter crap, honestly it was too absurd and annoying, like the ranting of a thoughtless teenager. I am surprised though that people still refer to other human beings by “class” in the 21st century. You should be ashamed if not for your lack of human decency than for your absurd and buffoonish snobbery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Less Talk, More Knowing Stuff
Posted by: obliu222 on Oct 2, 2008 9:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Honestly this person should be standing on a curbside handing out leaflets about their self-styling quandaries and vain misgivings of yesteryear...

Although equally problematic are many of the comments recorded for future civilizations to gaffe at mildly.

For instance, the roundly laughable idea that scurvy (not "skirvy") is caused by Vitamin D deficiency. One letter off, but it's Vitamin C, thanks. Although Vitamin C is a fairly important antioxidant as well and is involved in collagen synthesis.

However it is true that without direct sunlight exposure of at least 30 minutes 2-3 times per week, people are more prone to depression. I'm sure a lifetime of modish "Victorian" melancholy is better than a few wrinkles.

Human beings evolved (and I'm not sure this person is aware of it) "under the sun", where it is fairly bright for most of the day, the sun being a giant nuclear reactor responsible in large part for life on earth. One benefit of this exposure is that the body is able to synthesize stores of Vitamin D which is the body's most powerful antioxidant. Nevermind the anthocyanins in dark colored fruits (blueberries or plums) which also have sugar that countervails your body's immune system response, or even those found in Rooibos (Green Tea has caffeine which plays a role in a host of vitamin deficiencies and other problems). There are studies that show a healthy level of sun exposure is correlated to a decrease in the incidence of cancer, which flies in the face of much of the common sense-style "knowing stuff" that this article relies upon.

As far as the whole style question goes, I remember a person making the observation that I was a hipster once. Know why? I was wearing a new shirt that I'd bought a few weeks ago. So that's a pretty interesting label. It was red (cadmium or so) with a collar. I was wearing jeans. Yeah...

The writer seems to have some unresolved issues involving a romantic notion of the Victorian age which might be revised upon researching the role of early feminists in that society. I find that it is a strange association to find personal confirmation in achieving an outdated standard of appearance based on a society of gender-based repression. And incidentally, the "intellectual elite" is what "they" are often referred to when all the smart people failed to show up to avoid using such a phrase. Here is a good and questionably funded historico-feminist run-down of why reading Jane Austen is not enough:

Look up "Feminism and Freedom" by Christina Hoff Sommers, resident scholar at AEI

I specifically appreciate the plight of the hapless person or persons of some (see: any) other "race" or ethnicity than "white" wondering what on earth "pale is in" could mean to them. What a silly, progressive problem. And how accommodating too. It reminds me of the opening scene in Malcolm X. Unfortunately the "white privilege" is still just to seem clueless and insular. Look up the word solipsist.

The "Fish Belly White" person at least has a better marketing campaign than strangely affected ranting. However, be it known to those who are not graced to reside in California or elsewhere, but those who evolved in relation to more sun (it is theorized) are probably going to require more of it. Makes sense from a thinking perspective, which is usually the way to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cute, but sort of silly
Posted by: cathalator on Oct 3, 2008 12:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel for those who go from white to red to white again, really, but where I live one has to wear sunscreen constantly to stay white and uh "rich" looking. Personally, I'd rather get a little sun, enjoy a beautiful Autumn day in my garden, and have a bit of a tan (not like I have much of a choice anyway since I'm a tad more brown than my Celtic ancestors were). I think we should just enjoy our lives, live healthy, wear what we want and say, "TO HE** WITH FASHION!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All of this back and forth is silly
Posted by: Siciliana on Oct 7, 2008 1:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
White or tan, who cares? Vive la difference!
Some of us really can't tan even a little, and can and do end up looking like a leather handbag by age 30. Some can't avoid the sun sufficiently to maintain a "Victorian" look and shouldn't waste their mental energy worrying about it. I say we should accept our limitations and embrace our differences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement