"Ideal woman body image" hasnt changed really over time.

[SandMax]

Every now and then we read articles about how womans body image has changed over time, particularly over last 100 years. Then they go on to show cherry picked examples on Marilyn Monroe, Kate Moss, and Twiggy etc from different decades and make thise false statements how "women in 30s werent allowed to have curves" etc. This is simply false. Even when there are certain trends in modeling agencies or what might be "in" at times, for the most part what people have viewed as beautiful regarding human body has pretty much stayed the same, since human body itself hasnt changed at all during this time.

I think this is just another flawed rhetoric of feminists trying to convey the old idea how women are constantly "objectified" and "judged", (even though those who most judge other women, are women themselves).

[Noradin]

Apparently you never went to an fine art gallery for paintings by famous artists of former centuries.
You could look up Tizian's "Venus von Urbino" for example and compare her to contemporary models and that one is one of those that are very close to the ideals of our days.

[SandMax]

Apparently you never went to an fine art gallery for paintings by famous artists of former centuries.

What did I just say?

[Chrysia]

Every now and then we read articles about how womans body image has changed over time, particularly over last 100 years. Then they go on to show cherry picked examples on Marilyn Monroe, Kate Moss, and Twiggy etc from different decades and make thise false statements how "women in 30s werent allowed to have curves" etc. This is simply false. Even when there are certain trends in modeling agencies or what might be "in" at times, for the most part what people have viewed as beautiful regarding human body has pretty much stayed the same, since human body itself hasnt changed at all during this time.

I think this is just another flawed rhetoric of feminists trying to convey the old idea how women are constantly "objectified" and "judged", (even though those who most judge other women, are women themselves).

Well, I mean you're pretty much wrong on all points. Ideals of beauty have changed, and so have human bodies. Just in the last 2 centuries average height across most of Europe and America has increased by anywhere between 10 and 20 centimeters. That change inevitably leads to other changes in the normative body type.

[SandMax]

Well, I mean you're pretty much wrong on all points. Ideals of beauty have changed, and so have human bodies. Just in the last 2 centuries average height across most of Europe and America has increased by anywhere between 10 and 20 centimeters. That change inevitably leads to other changes in the normative body type.

Height has grown yes (but not that meaningfully during last century), but overall body type of women and men have stayed pretty much the same. Women have always have breasts, curves and so on. To say that "in this decade people didnt like curves on women" is just false.

[Noradin]

Height has grown yes (but not that meaningfully during last century), but overall body type of women and men have stayed pretty much the same. Women have always have breasts, curves and so on. To say that "in this decade people didnt like curves on women" is just false.

There were times where the ideal body image pictured women with a lot more curves--and approximately three times the weight than what is the average (in most countries) today.

[SandMax]

There were times where the ideal body image pictured women with a lot more curves--and approximately three times the weight than what is the average (in most countries) today.

Only if you cherry pick you "images", what I am arguing is that what most people have liked lets say 50 years ago, would be the same as today. Even if we look at Marilyn Monroe (your cherry picked woman), most people would find that beautiful today.

[Chrysia]

Height has grown yes (but not that meaningfully during last century), but overall body type of women and men have stayed pretty much the same. Women have always have breasts, curves and so on. To say that "in this decade people didnt like curves on women" is just false.

Well, again, you're factually wrong. The USA appears to be an outlier, probably due to immigration.

When you describe "beauty standards" so ludicrously broadly they become meaningless. Yes, females are still females, but body types have diversified throughout human history, and which body type is "in vogue" has shifted.

[Destinas]

This video has a lot of true information about this topic, historically from writings and clothing styles from those periods.

I've heard from older family members how in the 1950s (and maybe onward a bit) women were somewhat expected to be on the heavy side. It showed you were wealthy enough to afford more food than average households. In the 1960s, Twiggy was a major fashion icon, and many girls wanted to look like her (my mother was a preteen/teenager at the time, and was obsessed with Twiggy herself). People, historically, have wanted to be like celebrities they like, even in body image. Things like larger breasts and butts, for women now, are the "in" thing to have - when I was younger, that wasn't much of a thing at all - in fact, girls wanted a smaller butt (I had friends ask me, seriously, if the jeans they were wearing made their butt look big, negatively).

Ideal body types have changed time and time again, for men and women. That's why both genders wore corsets in the 19th century - a cinched waist was beautiful to people at the time. Men wore them to appear slightly slimmer with a larger chest, while women wore them very tightly. They even wore them several months into their pregnancy at the time. Look at historical paintings, clothes, or even how ideal body types are across the world now. In Asia, being heavy is seen as a major negative aspect, and super thin girls are seen as highly attractive - and even then, the eastern Asian idea of what makes a person "heavy" varies from the way the western world sees it.

So, yeah. It has changed. And, no one's saying the standard doesn't come from women judging other women, as well.

[SandMax]

This video has a lot of true information about this topic, historically from writings and clothing styles from those periods.

I've heard from older family members how in the 1950s (and maybe onward a bit) women were somewhat expected to be on the heavy side. It showed you were wealthy enough to afford more food than average households. In the 1960s, Twiggy was a major fashion icon, and many girls wanted to look like her (my mother was a preteen/teenager at the time, and was obsessed with Twiggy herself). People, historically, have wanted to be like celebrities they like, even in body image. Things like larger breasts and butts, for women now, are the "in" thing to have - when I was younger, that wasn't much of a thing at all - in fact, girls wanted a smaller butt (I had friends ask me, seriously, if the jeans they were wearing made their butt look big, negatively).

Ideal body types have changed time and time again, for men and women. That's why both genders wore corsets in the 19th century - a cinched waist was beautiful to people at the time. Men wore then to appear slightly slimmer with a larger chest, while women wore them very tightly. They even wore them several months into their pregnancy at the time. Look at historical paintings, clothes, or even how ideal body types are across the world now. In Asia, being heavy is seen as a major negative aspect, and super thin girls are seen as highly attractive - and even then, the eastern Asia idea of what makes a person "heavy" varies from the way the western world sees it.

So, yeah. It has changed. And, no one's saying the standard doesn't come from women judging other women, as well.

This is exactly what I was talking about, cherry picking at its core.

[gobnobbla]

Do not use Buzzfeed as a valid source; it's notorious for its slanted bias.

[Chrysia]

This is exactly what I was talking about, cherry picking at its core.

It's not "cherry picking." It's literally the source of beauty standards. Someone is held up as the pinnacle of desirable, for whatever reason, and so women, in general, try to copy that person in every aspect, hoping to become/remain desirable to men. That's how beauty standards start and end, because eventually a new desirable one comes along.

[SandMax]

It's not "cherry picking." It's literally the source of beauty standards. Someone is held up as the pinnacle of desirable, for whatever reason, and so women, in general, try to copy that person in every aspect, hoping to become/remain desirable to men. That's how beauty standards start and end, because eventually a new desirable one comes along.

There have always been different tastes, but I am certain that overall what most people have viewed as good looking woman, has been the same for recent times atleast when the body form has been comparable to todays humans.

Lets talk about past few decades since this is where most people talk about changing body images. I have hard time believing, that those models in 50s magazines arent seen as beautiful by todays people.

[Noradin]

Only if you cherry pick you "images", what I am arguing is that what most people have liked lets say 50 years ago, would be the same as today. Even if we look at Marilyn Monroe (your cherry picked woman), most people would find that beautiful today.

No, not really. That is just the narrative you made up in your head.
Go visist some arts galleries.

- - - Updated - - -

There have always been different tastes, but I am certain that overall what most people have viewed as good looking woman, has been the same for recent times atleast when the body form has been comparable to todays humans.

No, it hasn't.
Unless you are you have some eye problem and are unable to distinguish anything exceeding "it has a head, boobs, arms, and legs".
Oh and you would have to be colour blind, too.

[Deleted]

I don't get the deal with cherry picking in here. An ideal is always gonna be cherry picked, isn't it?

[SandMax]

No, not really. That is just the narrative you made up in your head.
Go visist some arts galleries.

- - - Updated - - -



No, it hasn't.
Unless you are you have some eye problem and are unable to distinguish anything exceeding "it has a head, boobs, arms, and legs".
Oh and you would have to be colour blind, too.

I am not interested in what some "art galleries" have, they have never represented the whole populations ideas.

Prove me, that human body has significantly changed over last few decades.

[Chrysia]

I am not interested in what some "art galleries" have, they have never represented the whole populations ideas.

Prove me, that human body has significantly changed over last few decades.

Nothing represents the entire population's ideas. There's the norm, the minor deviations, and the major outliers. Which body type exists in which of these three groupings shifts with cultural shifts.

I already linked you the graph that, at the very least, shows a marked height increase in much of Europe that's part of a steady trend over the last 200+ years. Such changes rarely, if ever, happen in a vacuum. If that is changing, so are other things.

[SandMax]

Nothing represents the entire population's ideas. There's the norm, the minor deviations, and the major outliers. Which body type exists in which of these three groupings shifts with cultural shifts.

I already linked you the graph that, at the very least, shows a marked height increase in much of Europe that's part of a steady trend over the last 200+ years. Such changes rarely, if ever, happen in a vacuum. If that is changing, so are other things.

Last hundred years height average has changed about 10cm, not really game changing. Also that goes even more insignificant when we look at closer decades. Also, when people talk about thise "beauty standards" it has nothing to do with height.

From evolutionary stand point, human body frame has not evolved in meaningful way during last few decades.

[Chrysia]

Last hundred years height average has changed about 10cm, not really game changing. Also that goes even more insignificant when we look at closer decades. Also, when people talk about thise "beauty standards" it has nothing to do with height.

From evolutionary stand point, human body frame has not evolved in meaningful way during last few decades.

Evolutionarily significant changes never happen on the scale of decades, but you're absolutely bonkers if you think 10cm isn't significant in and of itself. That's just one thing that's easily verifiable. There's not a lot of information on historical bust and hip sizes, dude, but if height changed, there's absolutely no reason they wouldn't have. That doesn't mean they did, but I'd bet on they have, to some degree or another.

[Independent voter]

Being fat was a sign of wealth at one time. Poor people worked hard and often didn't have enough to eat.