51184 Mr. Anti-Fake whatever

NerdGirl · Post by **NerdGirl** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:16 am

I'm pretty sure it actually is keratosis pilaris, unless he's talking about stretch marks, which are less noticeable on people with darker skin and people who have a tan. But I also like Dr. Smeed's grass marks explanation. I'm not sure why I even care enough about this to comment, other than that he seems to be indirectly promoting girls going tanning with his 'nym, and that bothers me. I'm just not a big supporter of getting skin cancer.

Damasta · Post by **Damasta** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:42 pm

I'm sorry my 'nym for that question was confusing and disturbing to you. I didn't mean to send a pro-tanning message. Quite the contrary. I'm anti fake-'n'-bake. Going tanning (at a parlor or at the pool/beach) is an unsafe practice. One hour in full sunlight causes 50,000 thymine dimers (a type of DNA damage) per hour per cell in unprotected skin. (citation) That's bad!

But I'm pretty sure it isn't keratosis pilaris (hereafter: KP) that I asked about. KP is a rash and one of its defining characteristics is raised bumps on the skin. The phenomenon I asked about doesn't exhibit any raised bumps. When you observe KP you notice that it looks like they've been stung repeatedly by a hymenopteran or poked repeatedly with a needle and now their skin is raised and irritatedâ€”it's a type of rash. In contrast, the condition I asked about looks like a blush, but on the back of the upper armâ€”it's subdermal and not a rash.

It's not stretch marks, grass marks, or rosacea, either (all of which I have seen and recognize). Perhaps when it's warmer, and girls aren't wearing jackets and coats as often, I'll try to get some photographs and post them somewhere for discussion.

NerdGirl · Post by **NerdGirl** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:46 pm

Damasta wrote:I'm sorry my 'nym for that question was confusing and disturbing to you. I didn't mean to send a pro-tanning message. Quite the contrary. I'm anti fake-'n'-bake. Going tanning (at a parlor or at the pool/beach) is an unsafe practice. One hour in full sunlight causes 50,000 thymine dimers (a type of DNA damage) per hour per cell in unprotected skin. (citation) That's bad!

Hey, no worries! Sorry for the rant-y response. Your knowledge of the dangers of tanning makes me happy (and so does your html use on that citation), and I get your 'nym now. I think I just felt like ranting that morning. And I'm really intrigued now about the rash of which you speak. I hope you do get some pictures and that someone figures it out, because I'm really curious now about what it is. Also, welcome to the message board!

Neologism · Post by **Neologism** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:37 pm

hahaha, I want to see the girls' faces when you try to take a picture of them from the back and they see you. (I'm assuming you're not just asking girl friends since you specifically said that you should see it when girls are wearing short sleeves rather than just asking your friends (which could be slightly awkward...))

Darth Fedora · Post by **Darth Fedora** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:45 pm

Nah, KP doesn't always manifest with raised bumps. I see what you mean, if you do a google image search you get a bunch of pictures of really severe cases, but mild cases really do look like exactly what you're describing, and it's such a common condition that I would put money on that being the culprit. The only other thing I think it would really be is maybe some mild eczema, but since it's on the back of the upper arms, I would definitely definitely say KP. You can take my word for it because I'm really smart and well-informed!

Damasta · Post by **Damasta** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:42 pm

Except that both Wikipedia and the Mayo Clinic list raised, red bumps as a defining characteristic.

Yeah, I actually saw a girl yesterday with the condition but I couldn't figure out a way to discreetly photograph her. I mean, I don't want the University Police chasing me down....[/url]

krebscout · Post by **krebscout** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 6:03 pm

This is definitely getting creepy.

Whistler · Post by **Whistler** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:14 pm

agreed. at some point you have to come to terms with some ambiguity.

Damasta · Post by **Damasta** » Fri May 01, 2009 12:09 pm

I think you're right. It doesn't look like there's a tasteful way to obtain photographs. I guess it'll just always be a mystery for me.