Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm
Age wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:08 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 12:28 pm
We see things differently in some ways. You see a change in the ideal of 'beauty' whereas I see a change in what is considered socially acceptable. However, I think we both agree that the individuals pictured on the right are generally less 'beautiful' (or "uglier") than the ones in the pictures on the left.
AND ANY one here could have CHOSEN OTHER pictures in the same date range, and then WROTE, 'Why is everything so Beautiful now?', and you STILL would have AGREED that the individuals pictured on the left are generally more 'beautiful' (or less 'uglier') than the ones in the pictures on the right.
That is true, in some ways,
I ABSOLUTELY and TOTALLY MESSED 'that' UP. I was MEANT TO have SAID and WRITTEN, 'right' INSTEAD OF 'left', and, 'left' INSTEAD OF 'right'.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm
however, in terms of media and culture, beauty (especially for women) was highlighted or emphasized more (to whatever extent) in the early to mid part of the 20th century in the US than it is today. If there were people who deliberately tried to be ugly (tattoos, body piercing, deviance in various forms)
WHY are you UNDER some sort of DELUSION that 'this' IS 'ugly'? Some people might see 'this' as 'beauty' or 'beautiful'.
WHY can you NOT JUST SEE and UNDERSTAND that 'beauty', and thus 'ugliness', IS IN 'the eye of the beholder', as some say, or IS 'absolutely RELATIVE TO 'the observer'?
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm
they were not featured in fashion as prominently then as now. It seems to me that there are a few constants in terms of beauty that are more or less biologically (reproductively) bounded.
'Attractiveness', or more Correctly and more Accurately, 'attraction', itself, IS an INNATE 'instinct', which has been around FOREVER, and which is ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY NECESSARY in the Natural Order of 'things'.
'Beauty' and/or 'ugliness' ONLY came-into-being with the evolution of human created 'arts', 'modifications', and/or 'creations'.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm
I suspect a physically and mentally productive or healthy female is always going to be viewed by the majority of males as more attractive and an extremely obese and unhealthy individual is going to be seen as less attractive.
What about the MOST so-called and so-labeled 'mentally productive' and thus 'MOST mentally healthy' female but who is also in the MOST largest female body?
Do you find 'this one' MORE or LESS 'attractive'?
AND, more or less 'attractive' to WHO and/or WHAT, EXACTLY?
Furthermore, are 'you' YET AWARE that what you find 'attractive' "others" may well NOT AT ALL, and vice-versa?
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm
I suspect that overeating is a biological indicator to us that there is no need to become sexually active.
Thus, 'this' 'diagnosis of human thinking and perception', which you have just shared here with us, might be the very reason WHY 'you' are NOT sexually attractive to ANY woman. 'you' may well appear to have NO need to be 'sexually active' ANYMORE.
By the way, do you REALLY BELIEVE that the human bodies that weigh more than others are ACTUALLY an indication of NO need to become sexually active or are NOT sexually active?
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Jul 01, 2023 1:20 pm
There is plenty of food and no need to overpopulate to the point where food would become scarce. However, if there is widespread scarcity and shortage, then sexuality is heightened to accommodate for shortened life expectancy and infant mortality.
REALLY?
Here we have a GREAT example of WHERE, WHEN, and HOW these people, back then, WOULD say just about ANY 'thing', which they HOPED WOULD 'fit in WITH' what they were ALREADY currently ASSUMING or BELIEVING was true.