"The Perfect Girl" -- in 1912

MissyJessy

The weight gain stuff is still marketing to men as muscle building powders, etc. I guess to some extent to women athletes, too. I remember seeing the "98 pound weakling" ads in the back of comic books, I'm pretty sure into the 80s, advertising the Charles Atlas method of gaining weight for boys. http://www.flickr.com/photos/paxtonholley/4531752344/

Regarding the first article, when I weighed about 171, I looked pretty good and felt great. Now I would love to get there again!

Some of the earlier discussion about "toothpicks" AND saying the subject of the article is undesirable seemed meanspirited: Some women have a straight figure, some women have hips. I have big 'ol hips, but I cringe when I hear other body types put down. Some women are naturally thin, and maybe don't feel great about how they look, either. Some of us see them and think they have it easier than those of us who struggle to get down to a healthy weight, but there are negative messages about small breasts, just as there are about big hips. We all get bombarded with "you're not good enough" messages, no matter how we look. We are all in this together, let's try to be accepting of each other's individual unique beauty.

very well put.

dmh0204

This poor woman. She's probably dead, and we're all talking about whether or not she was fat.

denezy

I posted this yesterday as I found the same article quite fascinating.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/825143-meet-1912-s-perfect-woman-5-7-and-171-lbs

The reason she was considered perfect is that her body most accurately represented the Venus de Milo sculpture, and thus considered a "perfect female speciman".

Force_Majeure

I wish they had a picture of her. With those measurements (35-30-40) it doesn't sound all too desirable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist%E2%80%93hip_ratio#Measure_of_attractiveness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist%E2%80%93hip_ratio#Indicator_of_health

Marina_Love

Sounds like an active lady! Which is awesome. I wonder how many calories per meal she used to eat with only 1.5 meals per day. Non of that fat-free crap I am sure!

seansquared

This poor woman. She's probably dead, and we're all talking about whether or not she was fat.

Everybody dies, and we are all the richer for our mortality.

Azdak

Interesting topic! There was even dispute back in 1912 about her weight being much too heavy:

http://www.fultonhistory.com/Newspaper 14/New York NY Herald/New York NY Herald 1912/New York NY Herald 1912 a - 1614.pdf#xml=http://www.fultonhistory.com/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getpdfhits&u=35001ca7&DocId=4034126&Index=Z:\Index U-F-P&HitCount=4&hits=7e7+7e8+949+94a+&SearchForm=C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Fulton_New_form.html&.pdf

Thanks for the extra link. Good stuff to see that other perspective.

I still find it odd--from our 100 years later perspective -- at the idea that they had a Medical Examiner for all of the women, and that it was perfectly OK for this person to publicly announce the girl's measurements. These days, that would be a violation of Federal law.

arrexu

She eats but three meals every 2 days and almost always goes without breakfast...Her favorite food is beefsteak....She has never taken a drink of tea or coffee...She says she has never been ill and doesn't know what fear is....

What what what?? Three meals every 2 days and goes without breakfast?? WHAT was she eating that she maintained 171 lbs if she was only eating 1.5 meals a day? Handfuls of pebbles and small flat stones? Were her meals 3 hours long?

And even if it was true, how was her weight distributed? Is the first number her under bust or her overall bust? How much of it was muscle mass to have those stats? If she was muscular, wouldn't that mean she was more active, thus burning more, so she'd have to eat more?

I would LOVE to believe this story, but something doesn't seem right.

^^ This, thank you for summing up what my thoughts were exactly! Eating 3 meals every 2 days is not healthy!

Why is it not healthy? Seemed to work for her. Also, google IF.

Well, maybe, but what would have happened if she had just started eating 3 meals a day all of a sudden, without changing the meal sizes? Would her metabolism been able to compensate for the extra calories coming in if she didn't increase exercise? 3 meals every 2 days averages out to 1.5 meals a day, so she's essentially only eating once or twice a day.

Just saying that it's probably not the ideal way to eat for most people that want to maintain their current weight. I'm pretty sure if I started eating just 1.5 meals a day on average, my metabolism would really slow down and when I started eating more meals a day, the pounds would pack on.

Also, what does IF stand for, exactly? So I can look it up.

louised88

Sheesh, to some of these comments. I thought we were admiring the beauty of different women. We can't all be the same size. My waist and hip ratio is 23-34. I'm just not a fan of calling women "not real women", saying why would any man want them, or calling them bones and toothpicks. Just seems degrading (and not a way I would speak around young women). But, whatever.

This. Every woman is a real woman, whether she looks like Rachel Zoe or Melissa McCarthy.

Ruthe8

Well, maybe, but what would have happened if she had just started eating 3 meals a day all of a sudden, without changing the meal sizes? Would her metabolism been able to compensate for the extra calories coming in if she didn't increase exercise? 3 meals every 2 days averages out to 1.5 meals a day, so she's essentially only eating once or twice a day.

Just saying that it's probably not the ideal way to eat for most people that want to maintain their current weight. I'm pretty sure if I started eating just 1.5 meals a day on average, my metabolism would really slow down and when I started eating more meals a day, the pounds would pack on.

What a silly thing to say. She could have been eating a large number of calories at those 3 meals. Why would you assume otherwise?

Ruthe8

171 pounds is not a lot for a woman of that height, if she was muscular. It gives her measurments and she was obviously not fat.

Ruthe8

This poor woman. She's probably dead, and we're all talking about whether or not she was fat.

Probably dead? Honey people don't live to 124.

fitbum19

[/quote]

I'm also 5'8" and 35-24.5-32. I'm not even really happy with that. I kind of hate hips though and I would be upset if my hip measurement was bigger than my bust measurement. Ideally I'd like my hips to be <30.
[/quote]

EW. hips are necessary!

nadiB

:laugh: a fun read!!!

NormalSaneFLGuy

I find this article very informative. Long before today, I've contemplated the possible existence of a perfect girl and now I know it exists. Since it does in fact exist, then every woman who doesn't comply with the current standard of such is imperfect. So really what you are saying is that at any given time, 95%+ of women are failures and should change their appearance to rectify their errs.

I understand the idea behind implying that continually getting thinner isn't the way, but listing measurements that could be interpreted a variety of ways depending on an individual's body type and listing them as perfect once upon a time is equally destructive. The whole reason people try to get thin is because they idealize society's current version of perfect. If I were to say that in the 1600's, perfect was a morbidly obese woman, it wouldn't mean obesity is awesome. It would just further enforce the notion that there is a perfect type - a one size fits all. If you want to encourage women to be happy with their body, just remind them they are perfect as they are and they should choose whatever level of fitness that gives them the most fulfillment in life. Bringing up articles written by idiots, so you can say weighing 171 lbs used to be perfect just makes me facepalm.

tonyacoursey

I am not a runway model, I am an obese, overweight daughter, sister, aunt, wife, and grandmother. My goal is to be a healthy all of those.

sho3girl

She says she has never been ill and doesn't know what fear is....

What more would you want in life, really?

*new hero alert* This woman sounds awesome.

agrees

Sweet_Pea0107

I guess my definition of a real women is different than what seems to be widely accepted. To me a real woman is caring, strong, compassionate but has a strong hand when need be. A real woman is smart and takes care of her family and friends and a real women is humble and appreciative of what she has and she is mature in the way the gets her point across. It has nothing to do with how they look or what their numbers are. I see now why so many people think bad about females. I will say that there are people on here that I don't consider real women and it has nothing to do with how big their *kitten* is. This thread as a whole is pretty sad.

NormalSaneFLGuy

She says she has never been ill and doesn't know what fear is....

What more would you want in life, really?

*new hero alert* This woman sounds awesome.

ohhh brother. The logical fallacies are ripe.

hughtwalker

"Normal" is such a dangerous word!

My wife is "perfect" - she tells me this. Everyone else is just not trying hard enough, I suppose.