Were women in past uglier than today?
And don't get me wrong, I don't mean le curves and that bullshit, but mainly face, teeth, etc.
Yeah I know this is difficult question.
Yes. Kind of.
I don't know, but when I look at old photos of famous and beautiful women pre-1950s, they were all supposed "gorgeous and to die for", yet they all kinda looked lumpy and homely.
They had nice smooth skin, and symmetrical features, but nothing extraordinary. Compares to the likes of Scarlett Johannson or Jennifer Love Hewitt, women of past were downright butterfaced.
Oh, and I don't know why I restricted myself to women, we can discuss men too.
However, was food of better quality then, if you were upper class?
It was practically free of various shit they put in food today.
About plastic surgery, most women today don't have plastic surgery either, and makeup existed even in ancient Egypt as far as I know.
Consider the following, maybe different eras had different standards for what was considered beautiful, so you'll prefer the women of your own time. Or, since aesthetic standards are now subject to a highly efficient industry that provides endless novelty, you'll prefer the way women looked when you hit puberty.
Sure, but people didn't brush their teeth. Read about Napoleon's first wife.
Make up did exist but it only came into real fashion in the 1920s. That's another thread.
Rich and poor had different diets and suffered from different problems. There is also our increased exposure to estrogen today.
>tfw there will never be such a beautiful woman like Prinzessin Viktoria Luise von Preußen again
She is the love of my life. Pure perfection.
I read somewhere that people nowadays are much prettier than in the past, mostly due to better hygiene, diet and medicine. Also now we're more aware of what is healthy and what isn't, so we make better choices, or at least should.
I know people like to whine about "unrealistic beauty standards", EDs, high heels and breast augmentations, but it's nothing compared to corsets, footbinding, giant wigs, flammable crinolins, tapeworm diet, lead based make-up and killer collars.
Men were absolute breath-taking, though. Take for instance, Albert. His portray is accurate in regards to his looks, specially if we compare it with Victoria's letters and other primary sources at the time. Frankly, I doubt we'll ever see men this beautiful ever again.
People generally grew up in worse conditions with less food and less comfort. This tends to make people more ugly. So yes they were generally uglier than today.
It even goes back to the 60s and 70s, the "Beauties" on TV back then were fugly by today.
I'll throw in my two cents in an unorthodox way. This is a picture of a young negress from a tribe that paints themselves red. I've forgotten their name sadly but they get posted a lot. They are fully tribal and live in the wilderness.
Look how pretty she is. I have more pics and basically even the plain girls look at the very least healthy and full of vigor. I believe the same was true elsewhere, and in less harsh climates even more so. What you fail to understand in most cases is that modern women are tarted up 24/7 and have no modesty. In Europe and the USA (as elsewhere) modesty was a core value, so your average girl wouldn't look "great" by our standards because our standards are damaged and unrealistic, not in a muh patriarchy way but in a wholly artificial way women themselves perpetuate with constant use of make up, clothes and so on.
Perhaps as a teenager I wouldn't be taken when I see these old pictures like the ones of our beloved Princess Louise, but being older (30) and understanding something about the world, history and life though this is always a bold claim I find myself drawn more and more to the authentic and feminine rather than shallow and tarted up duckfaces.
You're also divorcing the body from the soul so to speak. Our Princess for instance might've been like most women of the era - warm, friendly, caring and nurturing. I'm certain there were men wholly smitten with her who'd die for her at a moments notice and expect nothing in turn. And the plain peasent girl of the Middle Ages, with humble clothing, a strong body and fierce devotion to her husband is in my opinion infinitely more valuable that say Paris Hilton or whoever people regard as "beautiful" nowadays.
And here we have a 14 year old aristocrat girl, with a wonderful "disdain for plebs" look in her eyes.
Only on average due to lesser living conditions. Genetically, 2000 years is nothing and nothing would change. With good nutrition and managing to stay healthy, an ancient woman wouldn't look any different. So it's the food that matter most, especially since historically poor people had troubles in getting all the vitamins and trace elements like iodine which would affect their looks.
Yeah, but this is fucking obvious. In any online dating thing, the number of men is going to be much greater than the number of women, thus the women can afford to be more selective because of their increased value. Not to mention men's overall higher desire and demand compared to women's...
Actually, peasants used to have better teeth than upper classes, because they ate lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, while aristocrats consumed sugar and white bread. In 1500's there was a brief period when it was fashionable to have blackened, rotten teeth, because it indicated you could afford to eat sugar.
People living away from the sea and on soil with very low amounts of iodine would suffer from thyroid problems which affect the health of entire populations. Nowadays, iodine is artificially added to salt just like milk is fortified with vitamin D to avoid avitaminosis due to a lack of sun exposure.
I don't know where this "peasants ate a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables" meme comes from. Maybe england was the garden of Eden, but here the peasant's daily food was some wine, some bread of dubious quality and some olives or grapes. Later maybe some potatoes.
Yeah, that's right, all this is fruits and vegetables, but hardly "lots of" and hardly a good diet.
Yeah, they were all super sexy
>Look how pretty she is.
With her tits covered, I could believe she's a dude if you told me so. I can agree with some of your points, but you couldn't have chosen a worst example to make your argument.
Possibly but that's only due to the shit climate for growing anything in England, that's why their main crop was cabbage and they could only raise sheep. There's a reason England was so expansionist, they needed land that could grow food which is why they fought so hard for French land and colonized the Far East and the New World so heavily.
they did have less cavities, but due to lack of cleaning, they had teeth ossification, so, luck of the draw...
You could argue that different standards of beauty makes us think so, but even without that the lack of hygiene, poor alimentation and some other things that could be improved (dental health for instance) would mean they were. Not to mention that most women were working, and working more and harder than we are today, which does use the body.