Haven't seen QFF in many years, so I may be remembering this wrong, but.
-
elicia-1 — 17 years ago(November 18, 2008 12:18 AM)
Good reading this thread but Hold on .. I totally agree with you BUT:
Think about it: examine another cultural assumption:
Why would increased chance of male offspring be desirable?
Prehistoric people would have preferred more females, since then higher birth rate.
The only reason to prefer male offspring is in a patriarchal culture, which is extremely recent, only a few thousand years out of the few hundred thousand of human-like existence, or at LEAST, 40,000 years of existence of humans who buried their dead. -
plaidpotato — 15 years ago(September 02, 2010 01:38 AM)
Sons might be preferable to daughters because a successful male can theoretically produce dozens, or even hundreds, of grandchildren over his lifetime, whereas a female can only give birth a few times.
-
vicky_lc2001 — 13 years ago(August 20, 2012 06:19 AM)
Except if there are only a few women in your tribe. In a small tribe a woman would be more valuable in quantity than men, all you need is 1 male but if you had only 1 female then the chances of that tribe surviving is next to nothing.
Global Warming, it's a personal decision innit?Nigel Tufnel
-
Big_Boss_Ogg — 18 years ago(October 31, 2007 08:01 PM)
The women on the log and in the tent represented the Earth Mother, The All Fertile Woman, and that sort was always the backbone of any tribes' baby making. They could and did pop them out like watermelon seeds for years on end.
And while the 'humiliation' if you want to call it that was more along the lines of teasing and looking to see in what manner he might have been different from them, I believe their idea all along was to use him to deepen their gene pool.
And it was not just the chief's daughter, nympho or not, there on the log waiting for some "trim" from our boy, there were several others giggling and waiting their turn with great anticipation, scooting over on the log toward the tent mouth as a spot came open.
I think that there may have been something wrong with the males of their tribe, too much inbreeding perhaps?
I recall all of this,and I've not seen the film in 15 years. -
pippini-3 — 18 years ago(October 14, 2007 09:52 PM)
In addition to the VAST anthropological evidence of fertility (and thus attractiveness) being linked to larger hips, breasts, and bellies, there's also a wealth of psychological research showing that the majority of men cross culturally prefer a fairly specific hip to waist ratio. While body size attractiveness varies cross-culturally and over time, the ratio remains basically the same. It appears to be biologically based. Similarly, women seem to be more attracted to more "masculine" facial features during ovulation, and to more "feminine" facial features the rest of the time. Interestingly, this crosses sexual orientation boundaries- lesbians are more attracted to women with "masculine" facial features during ovulation.
-
timberwolf530 — 18 years ago(January 11, 2008 07:58 AM)
"I think you're wrong there; overweight women have never been considered more desirable than those who are physically fit. Richer? More care-free? Definitely. More sexually appealing? Wishful thinking from the pudgy masses, I say"
That is simply untrue. If you took Kate Moss or any of the other anorexic looking models of today back in history, they would not have been considered attractive. Look at the nude paintings from the early 1900's or earlier. All the women in them were plump. Why, becuase that is what was considered to be attractive at that time. It has only been recently in the history of the human species that a skeleton-like frame has been considered attractive. -
frightfan — 18 years ago(January 11, 2008 08:32 PM)
This never ceases to amaze me: the fact that people in this thread ignore the "physically fit" part of my statement and just jump to the complete opposite of the spectrum, talking about "size 0" and "Kate Moss" and "anorexic models" etc.
Fine, for some reason, I suppose I have to concede that the fat women may have been considered important sexually. Given the evidence seen in paintings throughout history, I have to also admit that pudgy bellies definitely seem to have held a lot of interest. It seems I was definitely wrong. I don't get it though.And that's the kind of day it is here in the mind of FRIGHTFAN!
-
happycurl — 18 years ago(February 05, 2008 08:07 AM)
"I don't get it though."
That's probably because you were raised with different ideals. But the first thing you need to learn when trying to study other cultures, including past cultures, is that your values and world-views aren't going to tell you about theirs. This is a great example of that. -
bentley_john — 17 years ago(February 24, 2009 02:15 PM)
Fat women have always been the most desirous for the last thousands of years until the diet corporations in league with the medical profession decided to brainwash the public to think otherwise. Women with large breasts, belly and large buttocks and a curvy figure have always been seen as the most sexually desirous until the last 50 years, look at old pornographic movies and old paintings of beautiful women not to mention old statues for desirous females, not to be confused with paintings or statues of famous people. So offering the fat lady was not in humiliation but to offer the best woman the tribe had as a gift. Maybe the writer did not intend it that way but it is the way I see it because I have old ideas about women, if it wasn't then it should have been in keeping with the historical beauty of women in that period.
-
gjordan77 — 10 years ago(February 19, 2016 11:16 AM)
Many years late, but
The ridiculous assumptions from armchair historians in this thread are out of hand, but I think the one you replied to here takes the cake.
They were painting portraits. Probably commissioned. That does not speak to what people found to be generally attractive, no more than the effigy of the "earth mother" does; Or are to believe that Buddhists believe Buddha had the ideal body, too? These guys are ascribing so many preferences to people so far outside the purview of historical knowledge that it's total revisionist lunacy. This is what happens when people who read wikipedia think they are now a wealth of historical knowledge, taking about what are, AT BEST, loose theories and framing them as fact. The only correct answer to ANY of these questions is 'I don't know'. -
Captain_Augustus_McCrae — 17 years ago(June 27, 2008 12:03 PM)
Same with the risque photos from the mid to late 19th century. It appears that Civil War and Crimean War soldiers, cowboys, as well as Victorian era gentlemen, preferred larger women with hefty hips, thick thighs and large breasts. I'm inclined thataway myself, so I don't see what all the controversy is about. The evidence is plain. Rake-thin women being considered sexy is a very recent phenom. Get over it.
-
englisher101 — 16 years ago(May 04, 2009 07:05 PM)
That is simply untrue. If you took Kate Moss or any of the other anorexic looking models of today back in history, they would not have been considered attractive. Look at the nude paintings from the early 1900's or earlier. All the women in them were plump. Why, becuase that is what was considered to be attractive at that time. It has only been recently in the history of the human species that a skeleton-like frame has been considered attractive.
I don't think you can say with such certainty in this matter. Bouguereau's paintings have some very slender women, for instance, and his paintings are from the late 1800s.
Another thing to consider is diet and health. Today someone can be quite skinny and still be healthy and have a balanced diet (the most universal sign of beauty is cleanliness, good health, and young, healthy skin). Hundreds of years ago, that was probably not the case. If someone was slender, they were probably malnourished. That doesn't mean that someone who is very slender but in good health will be considered unattractive by their standards. She might just be one of the most beautiful women anyone has ever seen, like Cleopatra to the Romans (someone considered so beautiful to the point that she was considered a dangerous rival for Caesar's affection).
Why do you think corsets were invented? Slenderness was considered to be a sign of beauty and grace, even as early as 1700BC by the Minoans when the first corsets were worn. Why was Cleopatra considered so beautiful, even among the Romans? All original paintings of her from Egypt depict her as incredibly thin.
Finally, if you study art history and the way old masters would construct figures from interlocking forms and oval masses, it naturally leads to a sense of plumpness just on its own. In the case of Raphael, this plumpness was often exaggerated to the point of being physically impossible.
Also being as skinny as Kate Moss isn't necessarily a sign of anorexia. This belief only seems to be widespread in places like the U.S. where there are more overweight people than there are not. I live in Japan and I'm surrounded by so many incredibly thin girls with tiny breasts who eat more than I do. My girlfriend is one of them and she weighs 43 kilos (about 95 pounds) and she's 1.7 meters (almost 5'6) and I can't believe how much food she can eat when we go out for dinner. She doesn't even exercise that much except for all the walking she does to and from work every day. -
ankharra — 16 years ago(October 12, 2009 12:34 AM)
Corsets weren't created to make women appear thin. They were created to create an hourglass figure, to make their breasts and hips appear larger. If you look at the outfits that usually came with corsets, they had large, bell skirts which made the hips even bigger which was considered a sign of fertility. Large hips equal enough space to carry children.
Love isn't brains, children, it's bloodblood screaming inside you to work its will.
-
plugpray — 18 years ago(March 14, 2008 11:33 PM)
"I think you're wrong there; overweight women have never been considered more desirable than those who are physically fit."
Totally wrong on so many levels. Notions of what is sexually appealing have been in a constant state of flux since day one.
In primitive societies in particular, well-fed women are a sign of prosperity and large breasts and butts are associated with successful childbearing.
For example, all of the women of the Zulu tribe in South Africa (prior to the arrival of white men and for a while afterwards) had humongous butts. That wouldn't have happened if the men of the tribe didn't find it attractive. -
frightfan — 18 years ago(March 15, 2008 12:06 PM)
Too little, too late, plugpray. I'm not getting dragged back into explaining myself AGAIN here.
Next time, try reading the responses that have been left already, before posting your own. (if only to save yourself the typing)And that's the kind of day it is here in the mind of FRIGHTFAN!
-
plugpray — 18 years ago(March 17, 2008 11:03 AM)
"Too little, too late, plugpray. I'm not getting dragged back into explaining myself AGAIN here."
Don't flatter yourself. I wasn't addressing you personally. I was addressing your incredibly ignorant remarks, such as this little gem: "overweight women have never been considered more desirable than those who are physically fit."
Never say never or always. And in this case your statement is totally absurd.
"Next time, try reading the responses that have been left already, before posting your own. (if only to save yourself the typing)"
I was adding to the conversation, not repeating what others have said, so you needn't concern yourself with how I decide what to post. -
Noirkiss_3 — 17 years ago(November 20, 2008 05:02 PM)
I take it you haven't seen a fertility goddes. Archeology 101.
This one is one is from the Neolithic people of atal Hyk
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/862/PreviewComp/SuperStock_86 2-1568.jpg
Or the famous Venus of Willendorf from aprox 23000 BC
http://www.geocities.com/zen_appeal/Product_Fertility_Goddess_Venus_sm all.JPG
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Courses/Religion/Resources/lespugue.jpg
I think it is all relative to a societies wealth.For a time the aristocracy of various countries found plump women desirable because it showed they came from wealth. Just like hairstyles, what was attractive won't always be so.
When there are two, one betrays-Jean-Pierre Melville
