Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dead

Standards of beauty change over time. Fat chicks used to be considered beautiful. In addition, beauty is comparative. She may have been one of the more beautiful of her day. Any picture I've seen of a woman from the 19th century looks hideous by today's standards. I tend to believe that each generation gets progressively more attractive.


19 posted on 02/14/2007 10:53:35 AM PST by aynrandfreak (Who would turn out better if we split into two separate countries based on the '04 Presidential Map?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: aynrandfreak
>Fat chicks used to be considered beautiful


these hips are big hips
they need space to
move around in.
they don't fit into little
pretty places. these hips
are free hips.
they don't like to be held back.
these hips have never been enslaved,
they go where they want to go
they do what they want to do.
these hips are mighty hips.
these hips are magic hips.
I have known them
to put a spell on a man and
spin him like a top!

Lucille Clifton (quoted in chapter 23)

23 posted on 02/14/2007 10:57:28 AM PST by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: aynrandfreak

"...I tend to believe that each generation gets progressively more attractive."

Man, I think the opposite. Some of the famous Anciant Greek art certainly showed women as very beautiful in a timeless way. Some of the waistlines were slender.

The Maja Desnuda by Goya in 1797 sure beats Paris Hilton and Jessica Simpson.


33 posted on 02/14/2007 11:05:43 AM PST by Monterrosa-24 ( ...even more American than a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: aynrandfreak
Fat chicks used to be considered beautiful.

Used to be? Most black and Latino guys prefer a gal with a little junk in the trunk. Even among us white guys, Kate Moss is hardly the feminine ideal. We like the squeezable bits.

But you're right that corpulent, zaftig or Reubenesque women used to be the ideal -- just as men with an abundant spare tire were once idealized. Being soft and squishy around the middle was a signal of wealth and privilege, of someone who could afford abundant rich foods and who didn't have to make a living in physical labor.

I wouldn't read too much into this coin. Portraits of royals are routinely tweaked to make them more flattering -- by the standards of the day, which could make her look uglier by today's standards. And depending on the political agenda in play, she might have been tweaked to make her look stronger and more resolute, as opposed to more frail and feminine.

Frailty and delicate features are traditionally appealing to guys -- we want to be the protector. It's hard-wired. But what we look for in a mate isn't necessarily what we want in a queen.

37 posted on 02/14/2007 11:13:40 AM PST by ReignOfError (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson