Evolution making women more beautiful, men remain as ugly as ever

[Drakken]

Ok skinny women are now some sort of ideal, which is sad, but men hardly reject curvy women.  That is bullshit we love us some curvy women but they just are not on the cover of vogue.  Who cares?  What dude reads vogue?

Women read Vogue, which is more than enough. Just look at the crazy diets and the shock therapies, or bogus pseudoscientific bullcrap like MonaVie. We have to work with the influence these chick magazines have on women because many of them give creditence to what they spew.

Vogue and Cosmo write what the demand wants to read and believe. For many hip or wannabee-hip women, what Vogue says goes, and being very intra-competititive, they all wanna look the bestest to be the most attractive, thus the higher in social hierarchy and power. So women who do not correspond are, for better or for worse, deemed unattractive by the bitch leagues and ostracized, just like many, many, many HBs or very attractive women are put down as Beta females by the mother hens and queen bitches of this world.

We know that what is in Vogue is bullshit, yes. But even males are no better, as the object of our dreams, the hot babe, is 99 out of 100 corresponding to the current criteria of beauty: lithe bodies, symetrical, long legs, proportional to big boobs, etc. But they are rare, so most men go (or attempt to go) for what is the best and most attractive women around, many of them are not skinny at all. And it's okey like that, as long as the attractiveness is there.

Also skinny women got lots of play back in the day.  Heck people were far far far faaaaaar more skinny back in the 19th century so that kinda shits all over your theory.  If women are becoming skinnier then why are they, in fact, becoming far faaaaar fatter?

Well, like you said, fatter women at the time were rarer. And thus they were valorized at least among the poorer, rural communities in which having lots of children was a necessity. And even in the Western society, many unions were a match organized in great part by the future in-laws (and sometimes directly arranged by the parents).

That didn't mean that skinny women didn't get any, on the contrary, just like today fatter women get as much any. But the ideal of beauty and fertility as changed, with the latter taking the backburner now that having lots of children is something of a kink frowned upon.

As for corset, keep in mind the target audience in which corsets were imposed: the courts and social salons, with their own closed standards of attractiveness (and social hierarchy) which wasn't dependent on multiple child-rearing as a factor of social success. No one in rural communities wore corsets, however.

[Drakken]

And I'm just tired of the seduction community propaganda.

Propaganda, you say? 

[garbon]

Yeah, and now with your most recent post, you've recast some vintage feminism...for a purpose that is most unclear to me.

[Drakken]

Yeah, and now with your most recent post, you've recast some vintage feminism...for a purpose that is most unclear to me.

Well, you said propaganda. I was just kidding you about it with this horrible piece of vintage misogynistic (and, arguably, could be used as Conservative retro anti-seduction community) propaganda.

It was all deadpan, of course.

And doesn't it resemble the kind of argument used in "sex eds" classes in the Bible Belt, like "sex is going to kill you and you save your live by abstining" kind of nonsensical argument?

[garbon]

Sorry by most recent, I actually meant your text diatribe before that image.

[Drakken]

Yeah, and now with your most recent post, you've recast some vintage feminism...for a purpose that is most unclear to me.

By arguing that women themselves are as much faulty as men for remaining slaves to the current criterias of beauty, because of their group intracompetitiveness?

I don't understand your point. That's certainly a point someone like Camille Paglia would agree with.

[Valmy]

As for corset, keep in mind the target audience in which corsets were imposed: the courts and social salons, with their own closed standards of attractiveness (and social hierarchy) which wasn't dependent on multiple child-rearing as a factor of social success. No one in rural communities wore corsets, however.

Um...wouldn't the cities and the salons and the courts be a place where what is considered fashionable be defined?

Besides I see pictures of my 19th century ancestors on Iowa, Alabama, Texas, and Arkansas farms and they are wearing corsets (and hats...big hats...what was up with those hats?)

[Valmy]

Yeah, and now with your most recent post, you've recast some vintage feminism...for a purpose that is most unclear to me.

Well still anything that keeps Americans from becoming obese, even unrealistic body images, cannot be all bad.

[Barrister]

Besides I see pictures of my 19th century ancestors on Iowa, Alabama, Texas, and Arkansas farms and they are wearing corsets (and hats...big hats...what was up with those hats?)

I was up in the Klondike last week, looked at lots of old gold rush pictures.  In every single one people were wearing hats.  All of them.

Oh how I miss those days.

[Drakken]

As for corset, keep in mind the target audience in which corsets were imposed: the courts and social salons, with their own closed standards of attractiveness (and social hierarchy) which wasn't dependent on multiple child-rearing as a factor of social success. No one in rural communities wore corsets, however.

Um...wouldn't the cities and the salons and the courts be a place where what is considered fashionable be defined?

Besides I see pictures of my 19th century ancestors on Iowa, Alabama, Texas, and Arkansas farms and they are wearing corsets (and hats...big hats...what was up with those hats?)

I wasn't speaking about the 19th century, but more of the 16-18th century era in which the gap between social classes, and even gaps in education, made the standards easier to keep separated. Corsets were part of the elite. To have corsets, you had to actually afford them.

In the 19th century, however, with the appearance of more population-wide media and publicity (at least in ads and newspapers), I agree with your point. Cities became more important as points of fashion reference as its means became more accessible.

[Drakken]

Yeah, and now with your most recent post, you've recast some vintage feminism...for a purpose that is most unclear to me.

Well still anything that keeps Americans from becoming obese, even unrealistic body images, cannot be all bad.

But morbidly obese is beautiful: It's the inside beauty that counts. 

[Drakken]

Besides I see pictures of my 19th century ancestors on Iowa, Alabama, Texas, and Arkansas farms and they are wearing corsets (and hats...big hats...what was up with those hats?)

I was up in the Klondike last week, looked at lots of old gold rush pictures.  In every single one people were wearing hats.  All of them.

Oh how I miss those days.

Even the bordello girls? 

[jimmy olsen]

Besides I see pictures of my 19th century ancestors on Iowa, Alabama, Texas, and Arkansas farms and they are wearing corsets (and hats...big hats...what was up with those hats?)

I was up in the Klondike last week, looked at lots of old gold rush pictures.  In every single one people were wearing hats.  All of them.

Oh how I miss those days.

Even the bordello girls? 

They wore hats and only hats.