Kim kardashian and amber rose are fat to me, I am not attracted to their bodies. I like thin lips on my women also.
Kim kardashian and amber rose are fat to me, I am not attracted to their bodies. I like thin lips on my women also.
I don't know about women, but I know that, for example, at the end of the 18th century overweight men were considered attractive, because being overweight was associated with wealth and high position in the society. That's just one example of change; there are hundreds, depending on the culture we are talking about, taking globalization into account, technological evolution, etc. It is the same with women, too: if a Gyaru appeared on the streets of New York in, say, 1900, people would think that the girl needs to visit a mental health hospital, while today the same Gyaru will probably be considered very beautiful by the most. And while Gyaru doesn't have anything to do with body image, I fail to see why for body image it should be different: beauty standards are beauty standards, they relate to everything people can see with their eyes.
I love this "just go visit the art museums" as if that represents anything but the people who were rich enough to eat enough calories to get fat.
I could point you to ancient egyptian paintings where the monarchs were always showed in their prime. Some monarchs would get fat and would still be represented as physically fit because they did not consider it beutiful to be fat, just like today.
Fienden sitt våpen kastet, opp visiret for,
vi med undren mot ham hastet, ti han var vår bror.
Drevne frem på stand av skammen gikk vi søderpå;
nu vi står tre brødre sammen,
og skal sådan stå!
Slight changes always happen, but when we look at only few decades there is not big change in average human species. I am ready to change my opinion if you manage to find studies where great body profile change has occured in that time frame. Most of human evolution in recent times has happened on brains.
Kind of relevant to the thread and pretty accurate, especially when you look at older paintings and bodies that are sought after today.
You have literally no scholarly basis for that last sentence. None. We have no fucking clue what "most of human evolution" has been doing in the last 50 years. Collecting and parsing that data is literally the work of a lifetime, and nobody is actually doing it.
And again, body types don't even have to change, variations in body type have always existed within the human race. As time advances, body types, like any physical attribute or accoutrement, fall in and out of fashion. We could have the exact same body types as 500 years ago, and yet the idea of what is beautiful could literally be different tomorrow than it was today, as far as the "norm" is concerned.
3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.
No, no you do not. You aren't even fucking reading my replies. Humans don't share a single body type. Yes, we have the same basic form, but there's significant variation in numerous areas that make person a look very different from person b. Today, person a is closer to the current ideal beauty standard. Next week, it might be person b, depending on cultural factors that are way too complex to fully trace. All with no change in the course of human evolution whatsoever.
3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.
Are we talking about beauty standards or physiology? Yes, in physiology, nothing changed significantly over the last few decades, aside, maybe, from heights and other characteristics. Have beauty standards changed though? Absolutely. Will they change over the next few decades? Countless times.
ops point is this
the human body has not significantly changed over time therefore beauty standards have also not changed
"Evolution" has not happened. We did not evolve to be 10-20cm taller, people started getting nutrition so we can reach our genetic potential. If you look at north korea you will find that the people who live there are actually shorter than people in the south even if they are practically identical with only 60 years of separation.
Fienden sitt våpen kastet, opp visiret for,
vi med undren mot ham hastet, ti han var vår bror.
Drevne frem på stand av skammen gikk vi søderpå;
nu vi står tre brødre sammen,
og skal sådan stå!
I argue with common sense, that since human body hasnt changed much physically in recent times, hence what people on average find beautiful has stayed the same. It doesnt matter what paintings people draw, or what kind of models are "in" in modelling houses(which are dictated by few people), they dont represent whole populations ideas about beauty.
Take any woman from today, and put her in 50s or vice versa, I bet this person would be viewed similarly.
My body is considered fit by today's standards: I exercise and run regularly, eat mostly healthy food, etc. And yet, say, 5,000 years ago I would almost look disabled, since the physical standards back then were different, people had to put in a lot of physical effort just to survive, and what was considered fit back then nowadays is only achievable by doing professional sports. Now, 5,000 years is a large time chunk. But since huge transition from physical work to automated one happened exactly in the last 150-200 years, it would be foolish not to expect standards (including "ideal body image") to change.
But it is wrong. Body hasn't changed much, but what is considered a beautiful body might have, and probably has. What people find attractive is based on more than just physiology, there are all kinds of cultural biases, ads affecting people's perception, etc.
Except you're ignoring the impact of culture on our standards. Our culture is massively important to us, and so as the "higher" echelons of society converge on a given beauty standard, that standard tends to disseminate to the rest of the population. This has been demonstrated, again and again, throughout history. Evolution is not necessary for a cultural shift, at all.
And we've been over this. Absolutely nothing represents the whole population. You're lucky if what's "normal" covers over 50% of the population in most instances.
3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.
You're the one that made a thread with grandiose claims. You show us your research and findings. You don't get to just walk in, claim something without facts to back it up and then say anyone that disagrees with you is wrong if they don't "prove" it. That's not how this works.
Signature not found
This is not really accurate, since even if we are offered "images" by different agents, we still have people around us and we see advertisements are not reality. People have no choice really, but to just get along with people they live with and quiet frankly, instead what people like to say about todays culture, people still like everyday humans.
- - - Updated - - -
My stance is more like "god isnt real", i dont even have to prove that.