View Single Post
Old 02-08-2018, 01:55 AM   #12
agouderia
Library Girl
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,154
agouderia keeps pushing the rep limit!agouderia keeps pushing the rep limit!agouderia keeps pushing the rep limit!agouderia keeps pushing the rep limit!agouderia keeps pushing the rep limit!agouderia keeps pushing the rep limit!agouderia keeps pushing the rep limit!agouderia keeps pushing the rep limit!agouderia keeps pushing the rep limit!agouderia keeps pushing the rep limit!agouderia keeps pushing the rep limit!
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by quantumbits View Post
Sorry for interrupting with all this. The only thing I can think of historically are some stereograph photos I have from 1890's and early 1900's. The KeyStone company made stereograph viewers in the 19th and 20th century. When you look through the eyeglasses, the photo becomes 3-dimensional. One of them shows a wedding. The woman is mildly overweight. She's looking in the mirror at a friend. In the next frame, some time later, he's holding her. I love the history.

EDIT: I found this. Miss Universe 1927. Nobody's fat, but they look fatter than they do now:


Here's the one from 1926:
This is a prime example of a-historic thinking.
Even using the term "fatter" in relation to these beauty pageant contestants shows you are mentally straight-jacketed into todays beauty standards.

These women were considered completely normal and slim by the standards of the 1920's. And they are "thin" compared to what would have been the standard in 1910 - because the post WWI period with flapper dresses and short hair already brought a considerable push towards more androgenous ideals for women.

It was not until the 1960s mini-skirt fashion - think Twiggy - that the ultra-thin ideal for women really permeated into the mainstream.

You never do the past justice by applying todays standards.
agouderia is offline   Reply With Quote