According to some people, tanning has always had a affluent vs. poor aspect to it. Being tan didn’t become a good thing until Coco Chanel came back from a cruise with a tan. Before, being tan was associated with the “common laborer” who worked outside and therefore got tan. With the onset of the industrial revolution, the “common laborer” started working in factories and therefore became more pale. At the same time, the more affluent started taking more tropical vacations. And then it switched: being tan was considered a characteristic of the affluent, while being pale was associated with the less well-off who tended to work indoors. Hence, more people wanted to be tan.

Not sure how well this theory applies to real life/history, but it seems to make sense.

I never heard of muscle cream before. Is it similar to steroids, except absorbed through the skin?

Also, not having read the study, I wonder how they are defining “affluent areas.” I wonder what the size of the area is? For instance, would they be comparing the populations in Beverly Hills and Watts? Or are they looking at much larger areas, even by country or continent? If they are comparing very small areas, then perhaps the results are due to the stereotypical leisurely lifestyle in the sun or tanning salon vs. working inside all day. Or if it’s larger, say industrial countries or regions (affluent?) vs. agricultural ones (poorer?), then the results would be more surprising, since one would think that those who spend time outside in agricultural labor would be naturally more at risk for skin cancer just because of length of exposure. I think they’ll need more studies for this to really mean anything — well, anything other than WEAR SUNCREEN (whether you’re affluent or not!)!!