How we see women today

2»

Replies

  • Slacker16
    Slacker16 Posts: 1,184 Member
    Not endorsing photo alteration or unhealthily skinny models in any way, but...

    In the renaissance, fat was beautiful because it was a sign of wealth. The average woman during that period would have been very thin, simply from a lack of food. Being overweight was a status symbol that said you had so much money you could afford to be fat. It's simply not apples to apples to compare beauty standards from other time periods to today. It has gone from the aristocracy being overweight and the common man being tragically thin to the reverse.
    This is an oft-repeated "fact". It's also false.

    Food shortages and malnutrition remained a recurrent problem in Europe until the late 19th/early 20th century but the preferred aesthetic varied a lot over time.

    Ancient Roman art depicted women (generally) as thinner than Renaissance and 17/18th art, but curvier than ancient Greek art. Early Medieval art preferred women thin (bordering on the malnourished) and they progressively became "fuller" as time went by. This trend peaked around the 18th century and then reversed.

    Economics may have played a role, but it wasn't as simple as fat = rich = pretty.
  • heatherloveslifting
    heatherloveslifting Posts: 1,428 Member
    Basically, what's happening is what's always happened, right? Society says what's rare is beautiful and coveted. So when it was easy to be thin, you should want to be heavy, and when it's easy to be heavy, you should want to to be thin. So...how about we all just decide for ourselves what we want our bodies to look like, and tell society to suck it?

    We comprise society. When people stop buying cosmo or shape with fit people on the covers... that's "society's" (aka, our) way of saying that's what we prefer.

    I agree with your post completely though.

    :drinker:
  • ooBombshellBeautyoo
    ooBombshellBeautyoo Posts: 232 Member
    I can only be me and try not and focus on what society wants me to be.
  • MaeRay007
    MaeRay007 Posts: 68 Member
    Great reading comments about how in the times these were painted their bodies had a lot to do with their wealth! I didn't know that! I just thought this was an interesting article!
  • branflakes1980
    branflakes1980 Posts: 2,516 Member
    Basically, what's happening is what's always happened, right? Society says what's rare is beautiful and coveted. So when it was easy to be thin, you should want to be heavy, and when it's easy to be heavy, you should want to to be thin. So...how about we all just decide for ourselves what we want our bodies to look like, and tell society to suck it?

    :heart: :heart: :heart:
  • Forty6and2
    Forty6and2 Posts: 2,492 Member
    I'm actually happy to see celebrities speaking out against using (abusing) photoshop. Both Lorde and some girl on Pretty Little Liars release non-photoshopped pictures of themselves which is a "brave" thing to do now.
  • Sinisterly
    Sinisterly Posts: 10,913 Member
    Who is this "we"...?
    Not I.
  • bigbarnold
    bigbarnold Posts: 2,554 Member
    said the blind man.
  • kikityme
    kikityme Posts: 472 Member
    Of course, those Renaissance women also died at 40 and rubbed arsenic into their cleavage. Just sayin...
  • DebbieLyn63
    DebbieLyn63 Posts: 2,654 Member
    Of course, those Renaissance women also died at 40 and rubbed arsenic into their cleavage. Just sayin...

    :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    Basically, what's happening is what's always happened, right? Society says what's rare is beautiful and coveted. So when it was easy to be thin, you should want to be heavy, and when it's easy to be heavy, you should want to to be thin. So...how about we all just decide for ourselves what we want our bodies to look like, and tell society to suck it?

    ^^^ exactly


    and it would also be nice if people were seen primarily for what they do and what they achieve, rather than what they look like. There's more to life than being sexually attractive.
  • Sweetie_darling
    Sweetie_darling Posts: 123 Member
    We comprise society. When people stop buying cosmo or shape with fit people on the covers... that's "society's" (aka, our) way of saying that's what we prefer.


    ^^^ Well said!
  • wonderwoman234
    wonderwoman234 Posts: 551 Member
    I think many people object to photoshopping not merely because it makes people look thinner. It makes people look NOT human. Making someone's arms longer or carving out their pubic area, for example, is not making them appear just thinner, but like something that is not even possible in nature.

    I have no problem with thin women or fat women. I have a problem with deception and creating a "standard" that is unattainable in reality.
  • Myhaloslipped
    Myhaloslipped Posts: 4,317 Member
    I saw this on Facebook. Interesting stuff. Keep in mind that being a little " chunky" back then often meant that you were wealthy enough to afford to eat on a regular basis. So it makes sense that these were ideal body types.
  • _Lovely77_
    _Lovely77_ Posts: 993 Member
    The whole being chunky due to wealth, although true isn't necessarily correct either. Many were generally in the colonial days and before thick. This was because before refrigeration the foods that lasted the longest thus didn't spoil before it could reach its destination were mostly carbs and very little meat was consumed. So it's hard to say if the general consensus was that heavy equaled wealthy. But it was definitely a factor, then again if that were true, why were corsets so often worn to make the waist appear thin? Looks to me like not much has really changed. Corsets thinned the waist out, while making the hips and breasts appear large, then the petty coats were used to make the bottom look large. So, big butt, wide hips, large breasts and tiny waist. Sounds like Kim Kardashian haha

Categories