Haven't seen QFF in many years, so I may be remembering this wrong, but.
-
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 -
englisher101 — 16 years ago(May 04, 2009 07:46 PM)
- Fertility goddesses weren't always plump. See Ishtar, Hathor, and Isis for examples of ones whose depictions were often not.
- Fertility goddesses are just that, symbols of fertility. It is only conjecture to assume that these were also signs of beauty, and who's to say what would happen if someone considered so beautiful today were to go back in time?
If I were to create a symbol of a fertility goddess today, I would naturally be inclined to emphasize the vulva, breasts, and lower abdomen. That doesn't mean I want my mate to look anything like that. It is a symbol, that is all.
Finally, for a personal example, I lived in Japan from birth to the age of 6. During that time, I never saw anyone with blonde or red hair, even in television or movies (this was during the early 80s in a rural part of Shizuoka unlike today where I can see Cameron Diaz on cell phone ads all over the place). When I came to the states, I saw my first blonde, and I thought she was the most beautiful and interesting thing I had ever seen. I can't see how society influenced me there, and I fail to see how people from other cultures with varying canons for what is considered ideal can still go to another country and fall in love with someone who looks considerably different from that canon if society is ultimately responsible for determining who we consider to be attractive.
While I do think society is very influential, I don't think beauty is completely dictated by society. If so, we would have never arrived at any sort of canon for beauty in the first place as there would be no origin to what things or people are considered beautiful.
-
Aerial87 — 16 years ago(June 14, 2009 04:43 PM)
Actually until quite recently, skinny women were a sign of weakness a sickness. Thicker women were more desired. Just look at all of the art from back in the day. Most of those women were quite curvy and healthy. It wasn't until the dawn of the supermodel, namely twiggy, that the skinny phenomenon came to be.
In regards to the movie, they were just using him for his genes. They noticed he was big and strong and wanted their offspring to be big and strong as well. The native americans did the same with black men and I'm sure many other tribes have shared in this practice. It was survival of the fittest and in order to survive, you must be strong, smart, or both. their tribe was already advanced mentally but lacked brute strength.
Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them. I don't give a beep how crazy they are! -
jewishman1966 — 16 years ago(August 27, 2009 01:07 AM)
I will lay down the FACTS (since many of you are so clueless, you wouldn't even last 5 minutes back in "cave men" times)
There are UNIVERSAL desirable traits to men and women.
MEN:
Women prefer tall muscular handsome confident men with great leadership ability's. Men with those desirable traits have the best rate off survival and reproduction.
Women:
Men prefer women that are youthful as well as attractive. Women are UNIVERSALLY desired to be of a certain measurement range. SLIM to be exact. Fat women have NEVER been preferred. It's about hip to waist ratio and overall body slimness.
Women with those desirable traits have the best rate off survival and reproduction.
Those obviously aren't all of the universal traits, just a few of the major ones. There traits go further than 4 million years ago, they go further than 500 million years ago when the Dinosaurs lived.
The UNIVERSAL traits developed when life began on this earth. -
activista — 12 years ago(January 24, 2014 01:17 AM)
@frightfan
No one 80,000 ago was tripping out over who was fat and who wasn't. That's just your opinion, and that's also just a late 20th-century obsession,to be honest. Up until the early or mid-20th century, big women were considered just as desirable as small women (do your research.) And,yeah, big women can be healthy (if they're not over 300 pounds) but you could say the same thing about big men. Thee were no Weight Watchers in those days anyway, so projecting our current ideas of attractiveness on that historical era is just a waste of time. As far as I'm concerned, there's WAY too much damn pressure on women to constantly lose weight all the damn time anyway. I mean,s***, it's just as damn unhealthy to starve yourself into a skeleton-looking size 4, and unrealistic to think that ALL women should damn near kill themselves to be that same size (which is basically what the media has brainwashed us into doinghell, even young guys are getting bulimia or jacking themselves up with steroids just to fit into what they're told society's idea of a man should look like.) -
frightfan — 11 years ago(May 07, 2014 12:23 PM)
@activista
I guess the lesson here is "Never use 'never', especially online". People with an agenda are likely to take you very literally to use it against you. Did the woman in question really look "healthy" to you? Did the other, more slight women all have no other variation among them except "skeleton-looking size 4"?
Please. You people are completely transparent. Beauty is beauty. Some have it through hard work, some through luck, some don't have it for long and some never have it, but it is NEVER (there I go again) the only thing people have to offer. Being thought of as something less than sexually desirable doesn't keep you from being valued in other ways unless YOU choose to pine away at it and lament your situation. I am no movie star myself and I accept that it's just not my lot in life. Stop whining, goddamit.And that's the kind of day it is here in the mind of FRIGHTFAN!
