Toasty vs. Pastey

Coming originally from Southern California, I remember waking up almost every day with that fantastic Cali sun shining through my window. The summers were long and wonderfully hot. I was tan almost year-round there. Everyone was. To me, a tan person looks healthier than a white, pastey person. Having relocated to Northern Cal (a LOT less sunshine)when I was 14, I discovered the joys of “fake-n-bake”(tanning beds).
Recently, on #strai$*&%^ope, someone(not mentioning any names…OPAL! ;-), suggested that tan people look like “toast” and that it is not very attractive at all. I protest!

Dopers, what do you think about this?

“Teaching without words and work without doing are understood by very few.”
-Tao Te Ching

Someone working in Nuclear Medicine unconcerned with UV radiation…

Tanned folks look great until about 40, when small bits begin to drop off.

Two Words: Skin Cancer

I vote for pastey

From a visually pleasing perspective: toasty.

BUT as a former suntan person who is now a cancer survivor and who is old enough to begin seeing the results of sun damage on my skin: pastey is good.

Seeing the lab report that has your name and the word carcinoma on the same page tends to change one’s point of view.

Two other words:

George Hamilton

Who the hell takes him seriously? :smiley:

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
– John Kenneth Galbraith

Tan looks better, but it’s not worth it. My mother laid out in the sun with baby oil every summer of her teenage years. Her skin looks awful, now. Not to mention the risks of skin cancer. I, personally, wear sunscreen all summer long.


Why sex is better than religion: You can scream “Oh, God” during sex, but just try saying “Oh, f***” in church!

When I see someone with a tan in the winter I translavte - “This person is an idiot.” so to me they look awful. Anybody with no more energy and brains that to spend hours laying around trying to look good just looks dumb to me. Maybe some guys like a dumb girl with a good body, but not me. Winter Tan = dumb = ugly.

I stay out of the sun’s ravaging rays as much as I can, yet I am devastatingly handsome.

– Pasty Ol’ Uke

People with toasty skin tend to look old before their time and have skin that feels like leather… not that attractive. My vote goes for pastey.

I am me… accept it or not.

Tan (on some people) looks good NOW, but when I see a tan person, all I can think about is how closely their skin will resemble shoe leather in about five years. To say nothing of skin cancer…

I don’t like the term “pasty”, either. I’m very, very pale (naturally redheaded) & a lot of guys are really turned on by my “moontan”. White skin, no freckles, scars, tattoos, or cellulite…I think I look damn good.

CanadianSue said:

Not even Rich Corinthian Leather?

Give me that pale, nacreous flesh anytime!

Well, I look horrible pale… so I try to get just enough sun so that I don’t look a pale green hue. I’m fairly sun resistant, I used to regularly spend 14 hours a day in the sun, sans sunscreen and never burned. One of the advantages to being a Native American/Greek crossbreed I guess.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

A teeny bit of color looks great. I mean where you are a shade darker, with some color in the cheeks. Anything else and you can see the skin losing it’s elasticity. It is a scary, unnatural look. Very 80’s. Like big bouffant bangs and peg-legged acid-washed jeans with a brown bomber jacket.

Yeah, I live in Florida, Grand Central Precancerous Coloration Station. Yuck!

I think my definition of ‘tan’ is a little less aggressive than most…a hint of color looks nice. This is usually achievable here by simply driving to work, or getting the mail. But most people here aren’t considered “tan” until they blend in with trees or barns.

I have never found this degree of tan appealing. But many, many people do. I’ve met people younger than me who look twice my age with their sun damage.

And anyway, most people look fine without a tan. The people I know who are truly “pasty” are that way because of their genes…they don’t tan anyway, they burn. Why force it? It just doesn’t seem worth it to me.

I find sunlight unpleasant, so I am more on the “pasty” side. Well, ask anyone that knows me and they’ll probably tell you I’m the palest person they know. Other than my girlfriend. And believe me, she looks great all pale. No tanlines, just perfect pale skin.

The cool thing about pastey is you can say you have no tan lines… and that works wonders on your social life. LOL

“Only when he no longer knows what he is doing, does the painter do good
things.” --Edgar Degas

It depends on where you are.
‘Toasty’ in Florida is de rigeur, or whatever. Pasty in Florida is really scary and hard on the eyes.

But up North where there’s no sun half the year, ‘tan’ just looks ridiculous.

The purely aesthetic viewpoint.

I don’t tan, I burn. . . and I get “sun rash”. So I don’t have a choice. Yes, tanning looks nice now, but when you’re having tissue biopsies at forty. . .
– Sylence

And now, for my next trick, I will talk in spooky half-references.

I vote pastey. I never could stand laying in the sun… I hate getting hot and sweaty (well from sunlight, anyway). And I hate when you are tanning and bugs land on you and crawl around. Anyway, I gave up tanning 20 years ago. I am 41 and people usually tell me that I look at least 10 years younger. I attribute that to not smoking and staying out of the sun.

“Predictable, really I suppose. It was an act of purest optimism to have posed the question in the first place.” --John Cleese

I have to disagree with PurpleCrackWhore. Pasties definitely leave tan lines…those little pale circles around the areola.

Hmm? I misunderstood? Oh. Nevermind.