Historical standards of Beauty

>>1513980
>Has there been any period in Western history when thinness was an ideal of beauty?
All periods.

>>1514052

But that isn't congruent with the fact that whites have a stronger genetic risk of obesity than other races.

WE WUZ FAT AND SHIET

>>1514212
And? What has that to do with anything related to beauty?

>>1514227

I didn't understand your message.

>>1514232

If thinness had been historically an ideal of beauty, then the reproductive success of thin people would have been higher, thus decreasing the genetic risk of obesity.

>>1514239
People historically married and reproduced for financial/status reasons, not because they thought the other person was attractive. Otherwise gingers and young bald men wouldn't exist.

>>1514258

But the financial ability of people genetically predisposed to an overweight phenotype and people genetically predisposed to a lean phenotype should be the same.

>>1514239
How the hell does a 2% risk mean Europeans were jumping at the bit to fuck fatties? There's hardly a large enough difference between them and other groups when you're talking about a .4% gap at the most. I'm sure it has more to do with Europe's climate rewarding the storage of excess fat.

File: 1470447721253.jpg (72KB, 552x633px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 552x633px

Is this you, OP?

>>1514326

No, in fact I'm neither female, nor fat. X-D

The non-working upper class is usually the basis of all pre-modern society's beauty standards.

Pale skin, thin waist, chubbiness, small soft hands and feet are all symbols of a life of leisure, free of hard work.
Look at female athletes, they never have thin waists, but are bulging with muscles there instead.

>>1514326
She spelt honey wrong

>inb4 spelled

No, because beauty is only one half of the gene pool. A woman may be chosen as a mate because she is beautiful but a man chooses and here power is all important, not beauty.

being fat in the past = not being a part of the toiling peasant strata. You still see this with male obesity today, poors were leaner since they did the manual labor while the desk cucks grew waistlines.

>>1514212
0.2 difference isn't anything, With genetic risk.

If you had 1000 white, 1000 asian, 1000 blacks, etc. You'd still 16 obese blacks, 16 obese whites, 14 obese east asians.

Genetic risk is nothing compared to cultural/civilization's consumption. In most historical times, most people weren't fat. Therefore the standard of beauty was that of thin girls.

The only people that really got fat were the genetic mutants that had the risk and the aristocrats that could afford tons of food. Both of whom make a tiny minority and thus irrelevant.

>>1514722

It's true lol, even current society doesn't seem to reward typical slow-life behaviors and traits in men (such as eating less/having a lean body, being more restrained in general, having a long-term orientation, etc.) For some odd reason these traits are favored in women, but not men.

>>1513980
>Has there been any period in Western history when thinness was an ideal of beauty?
the entire classical era?
Greeks and Romans valued toned athletic women, not pudgesters.

>>1514052
ERROR: [CITATION NEEDED]

Wasn't it a status symbol if you were a fat fuck?

Like if you got fat you had money to buy plenty of food?