Do you think there were hot girls during the first half of the 20th century? (1900-1950)?

[MCSchubs]

When I looked at all the girls during the time period almost all the girls I saw were so average and plain. I wonder how guys back then managed to deal with those type of girls?

[northernligths]

Hot gilrs:
Nina Mae McKinney - Actress/Dancer/Singer
Betti Mays - 1940's Singer/Dancer
Anne Wiggins Brown - Concert Singer/Broadway Actress of Porgy
Blanche Thompson - Dancer
Ethel Moses - Dancer/Actress
Mauri Lynn - Actress/Model
Dolores Brown - Singer/Recording Artist
Louise Franklin - Movie Dancer/Actress
Evelyn Preer - Actress/Singer
Marion Egbert - Cotton Club Chorine
Lavada Carter - 1930s Singer/Dancer
Valaida Snow - Singer/Dancer/Trumpeter
Hilda Simms - Actress
Hazel Scott - Singer/Pianist
Margot - 1930's Ballroom Dancer of Margot and Norton
Joyce Bryant - 1950's Singer
Margaret Whitten - 1930's/1940's Actress
1930's/1940's Dancer
Jean Parks - 1940's Singer
Marie Bryant - Dancer
Ellen Holly - Actress
Marva Trotter Louis - Model/First Wife of Joe Louis
Una Mae Carlisle - Singer/Pianist/Songwriter
Gladys Snyder - 1940's Actress
Edna Mae Harris - Actress/Singer/Dancer
Anna Mae Winburn - Singer/Bandleader of The
Sahji / Madeline Jackson
Connie Harris - Exotic Dancer
Ida James - Singer/Actress
Rita Christiani - Dancer
Meta Cardoza - Dancer
Madelyn Green - Singer
Carroll Chilton - Dance Team of Chilton and Thomas
Eunice Wilson - 1930s Singer/Dancer
Neeka Shaw - 1930's Entertainer
The Pope Sisters - 1930's Sister Singing Group
Vivian Dandridge - Singer/Actress
Sheila Guyse - 1940s Singer/Actress
Judy Carol - Dancer/Singer
Dorothy Van Engle - 1930s Model/Oscar Micheaux Actress

[zombiebabe]

woah! nice list

[northernligths]

Yup, I dont understand how she couldnt find beautiful hot women of this era... C'mon now... Allez! un peu d'effort!

[MCSchubs]

I'm just being honest, these girls are not attractive at all. Joi Lansing is the only legit hot girl of the 1900-1950. She would mop the floor with all these girls.

[northernligths]

Whose standard of beauty are we using here? Joi Lansing may be attractive to some but unattractive to others. Just as the women in my list will be attractive to some and not others. Haven't you ever thought a guys was attractive but your friend thinks he is disgusting. Well... same thing.

[MCSchubs]

Na, most guys (not girls) will agree that if you compare Joi Lansing with one of those girls in your picture, they will say that Joi Lansing is on average hotter than these girls.

[northernligths]

The only way you'll know is to ask a poll question! "Among these two actress who do you find hotter Joi Lansing or Dorothy Dandrige?"

[MCSchubs]

Ok. Ill do a poll on my next question.

[Izzy2102]

well ya, just by chance. The media was different though. First of all we weren't as close together as we are now. Today we compare ourselves to prettiest of prettiest models from all around the world, which is why so many girls have a negative body image
Those days you'd compare beauty based on what you see everyday. Possibly one ad you see somewhere, but overall their idea of beauty was pretty normal. There was little make up, no plastic surgery, no photo shopping, in most cases no airbrushing either. Those girls were very natural. I think out generation has lost track of women naturally look like, so that you pretty much can't be considered gorgous without any of these today

4.bp.blogspot.com/.../Miss+America+012.jpg

Miss america pageant in 1933 clearly preferred very round faces, which is usually a sign of health, so a good thing. Maybe you can't compare those girls to a VS poster but I think they are beautiful. They also reflect reality, they have different bodies, are differently thick and have different height. Compared to today where pretty much everyone looks interchangeable, similar heavy make up, ultra thin and toned body with big fake or pushed boobs, bleached teeth...
untetheredmusings.files.wordpress.com/.../...s.jpg

[MCSchubs]

Are you kidding me? The picture you showed with the girls right now are better and still have natural bodies. The 1930's women in the picture are a little on the heavy side and they had some makeup like the girls in the current picture, haha. So overall, this is no competition. Today's girls win by a landslide.

[Izzy2102]

Because your ideal is stick thin, with as much fake as you can get?
There is nothing healthy about that. And earlier generations realized that. You have a totally distorted image of what real women look like. There is little natural about those women in the second picture.

[MCSchubs]

"There is little natural about those women in the second picture."-Nope, their pretty natural, but they do have make up on just as the women in the first picture.

[Izzy2102]

please, they have fake tan, bleached teeth, bleached or dyed hair, push up bras, hair extensions, are in most cases clinically underweight and the photo is photo-shopped. Not the mention the plastic surgery some of them may have had.

The goal of all that is that you can' tell reality apart from Inclusion, which I guess worked in your case and for so many other girls.
As for the guys, I'm not so sure they'd really prefer the second picture. May ask a question about it later

Yes they had make up then too, which in most cases included a bit lipstick and powder. Not a foundation, lipstick, cover up, blush, contouring, concealer,3 different colors eye shadow, mascara, eyeliner, lip liner, bronzer, powder and finish all at once

[MCSchubs]

"please, they have fake tan, bleached teeth, bleached or dyed hair, push up bras, hair extensions, are in most cases clinically underweight and the photo is photo-shopped. Not the mention the plastic surgery some of them may have had."-Well I don't know about that but here are some real girls:
blog.rottenecards.com/.../4JidjUj.jpg
media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/.../...d7f8f375fc5e.jpg

[Izzy2102]

You don't get what I mean, I guess?

Well first of all two different pictures. And there is little natural about both. The first had a boob job. Can't tell for sure it much looks like it. And she trained her butt in a way that you wouldn't get naturally or from any kind of sport other than specifically training your butt. And she did that, as well as the boob job, presumably to please men, which is very sad on it's own, but ok.
Men like wide hips and butt on women, because it indicates fertility. But these days being thin otherwise is also in style. So women try to get that wide hipped look, that would usually be fat, by increasing muscle size there or getting butt implants. And there is the bleached hair, tons of make up and possibly other things we can't see. And I would not for sure say that it isn't photoshopped.

The second picture, well that girl is just underweight. I'm sorry but she is. I know underweight is ideal these day but

[Izzy2102]

but notice how there is practically nothing between her rib cage. Skin just seems to fall into a hole there. I don't know exactly how to call that area. But it's not supposed to happen. She can't have a BMI higher than 17. I'd guess around 16. That's a body you get from under eating. And I'm sure men of the 40s and 50s would have looked at her and thought "a woman that thin, that's disgusting. She looks like she is starving" Or on the first girl "hard stomach like that on a woman? That's way too masculine"
And that's my point, beauty standards change, you can't directly compare women from then to women today, because people then thought other things were ideal.

The girls in the first picture may seem ugly to you, but guess what, there are and were many other people on the planet. And a bit bigger and healthier was once was ideal and still is in many countries. It doesn't mean that women there are ugly, they just have a form that isn't ideal to you but it IS to others

[MCSchubs]

Na, these girls I posted are natural and have the genetic lottery. And what's wrong with getting a butt, or entire body in shape just to look good especially for men? You think these girls maybe skinny, but I guess you like girls that are a little bit on the heavy side but I know most men will find the girls I posted more attractive than most women of the 1900-1950s, even if you think the comparison with women from two different generations is subjective, ya some will pick women from the 1900-1950s but most men will agree that if they compare the girls I posted to the women from the generations before asking them who is more physically attractive, they would choose the first over the latter.

[MCSchubs]

Such is life, life is such.

[Encolpius]

The women from 1933 are FAR more healthy looking than the anorexic women in the second photo.

[MCSchubs]

@Encolpius The women in 1933 may be more natural, but they have low sex appeal compared to women in the second photo.

[Izzy2102]

according to you, as I said before, yours isn't the only opinion in the world. It isn't all about you, which you seem to be hard believe
He also said healthy, not natural, which is a good point

[Anonymous]

yes i think there were hot girls in the first half of the 20th century. Fashion and hairstyles change over the decades but if you really look at the bone structure and faces of people in the 1900-1950 time period... its the same.

Ginger Rogers upload.wikimedia.org/.../...gers_(early_1930s).jpg

Grace Kelly www.versusbattle.com/.../grace-kelly.jpg

Hedy Lamarr b-i.forbesimg.com/.../Hedy-Lamarr1.jpg

[MCSchubs]

These three girls have average faces with average bodies. But they're not ugly, I can tell you that.

[Opinion Owner]

haha if thats average then you have HIGH standards for what is considered pretty

[MCSchubs]

haha, yup, that's me.

[jeanbean]

Um, entirely different standards? Beauty had a different definition back then, fashion was different. Many men from that time would cringe if they saw today's women.

[MCSchubs]

I know right?

[MCSchubs]

I think they would feel more arouse than cringe if they saw today's women.

[jeanbean]

They would call us self-entitled harlots. To show as much skin as we do today was unthinkable back then. They'd call our clothing tasteless, our makeup styles would be outlandish in their eyes, and our attitudes would be all wrong to them. I really believe they'd think us strange and mildly repulsive.

[MCSchubs]

That could be another possibility.

[Realistic07]

Honestly i don't think much has changed the only real difference is that there is more availability for cosmetics and more products for grooming purposes. Its funny how thing are though back then with less the women had more self respect and where less insecure. Now in days women have more, but have less self respect and are more insecure. Statistically speaking although physically there is a higher level of attractive women there is also a lower level of psychological self worth in the female community.

[Izzy2102]

ya what he said

[Realistic07]

thank you izzy2102

[MCSchubs]

You're right but I was only talking about physical attractiveness, which you did back me up on. Thank you.

[Izzy2102]

Well I understood what he said that the higher level of attractivness was due to all the fake stuff we have, such make up, plastic surgery, fake tan/ teeth and I don't know what else, and of course Photoshop. Or simply that the beauty standards they had back then don't apply anymore. As you said, women were bigger then, but image that... shocker... people then thought that was ideal.

Thinking that women, as a whole, objectively speaking increased in attractiveness in one or two generations, is ridiculous. That's not how evolution works

[MCSchubs]

Tell me if these girls are photoshopped.
media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/.../...d7f8f375fc5e.jpg
blog.rottenecards.com/.../4JidjUj.jpg

[MCSchubs]

My previous comment is for Izzy2102.

[Realistic07]

lady's I'm sorry i made a controversial statement so let me clear it up. Are they beautiful? To us as a society now no, to them as a society then yes. Why do we think in today society they would be ugly well because women use all this fake crap. Why is it not okay to use fake crap because you're trying to be something your not instead of loving what you are. Why is it okay to use some fake crap because back then they smelled and had supper bush. So is it bad to use fake crap or not? yes if being beautiful is the only thing you care about, and no if you use it a little but don't judge yourself. Besides we as men get turned on by both the home on the range girl and the stripper if you're a good in between from those two things and use it with out abusing it then we may fall in love. remember its okay to doll up but have some self respect and know your beautiful that's all I'm really getting at.

[Realistic07]

altough some to me looked very beautiful, but that's just me.

[madhatters4]

yes there were. there were movie stars, models, etc during that era who were very attractive and obviously that would mean that the population at large had attractive people in it

if people were unattractive in the early part of the 1900s people now would more than likely also be unattractive today

[PrinceofFoxes]

Of course. I think you could go back to to ancient Greece and find hot girls. That is how the generations continue.

The fashions were different. But if they took off all their clothes, they'd look good. The idealized image of woman back then was probably a bit meatier, but, no doubt, the woman were much slimmer on average because they got more exercise.

Only real drawbacks were the average clothes, I think, and the not shaving part.

[MCSchubs]

Think about it. Our standards of beauty changed for the better due to the fact that humans have become more critical of beauty. That's why women are getting skinnier fitter and healthier than women back then, which concludes that hot women now are even better looking than hot women back then.

[PrinceofFoxes]

But you are wrong: both woman and men are fatter now, than they were then -- much fatter. Female models may be thinner though on average.

[PrinceofFoxes]

One thing you'd be right about is teeth, probably.

[MCSchubs]

You're right, the "AVERAGE" women are fatter now than they have been before but "HOT" women today are better looking than "HOT" women before.

[Vegvisir]

There were, the way they dress was plainer though, so you see beauty in its more natural state. Ava Gardner in the 40s is a good example. Or Grace Kelly...

I know it's a bit later but Linda Harrison in the original Planet of the Apes was crazy hot

www.luispita.com/.../LindaHarrison-747282.jpg

[MCSchubs]

Grace Kelly and Ava Gardner are average to me. Linda Harrisn doesn't count. She lived most of her life in beyond the 1950s, which is the 2nd half of the 20th century.

[Vegvisir]

Beauty is entirely subjective, you asked me if there were hot girls in the 50s so I gave two names. I didn't know I had to answer based on who YOU find attractive 0_o

Also, I say Linda was after the 50s, hence "I know it's a bit later but"

[MCSchubs]

I gotta admit. Linda Harrison is gorgeous. But, Grace Kelly and Ava Gardner did had class and respected themselves unlike women today that are w*oring it up. Lol. Their bodies are more natural, which I think is a plus. But I guess when it comes to the value system, these girls are at the top of it.

[Vegvisir]

Yeah, I guess. The way girls dress and go crazy on the makeup is a bit much sometimes. It's all about sex appeal now. I think mid 50s fashion with the summer dresses was the best. A girl in a dress like that can be modest but still pretty damn hot

[MCSchubs]

But you gotta admit, most men now are more turned on and attracted to sex appeal then by the modesty of before.

[MCSchubs]

which makes their attraction turn towards our women over the women of previous generations.

[Vegvisir]

Yeah for sure, we love to see tits and ass. Supply and demand and all that. It's like letting a kid go loose in a candy store though, there must be repercussions

[Anonymous]

What would you call "plain"? Compared to nowadays' girls there was a large number more of what you would call a "dream girl"...

They'd be more loyal, not sleeping around everywhere but still, from the stories of the time, you read what they did in bedroom. Nowadays' girls sleep with anybody at any occasion but once they're committed to somebody, sex life dies a gruesome death.

They had actual curves, not like nowadays' necrohpilia-figures ("f*cking a skeleton").

[Anonymous]

Of course everyone was ugly and plain. Black and white photos truly depict the time period. Not only did everyone see black and white but colors did not exist then. But happily somewhere in the 50's color and color television was developed. Around this same time attractive people began being born. We are still in the prime of beautiful people and sadly they will die of extinction in the year 3035 (so scientists claim).

[Encolpius]

Hahaha! This is full of win.

[Opinion Owner]

I couldn't help myself after I read this 5 star question. :)

[Anonymous]

It depends... do you mean natural beauty, or fake beauty?
Naturally beautiful, the girls back then were.
Nowadays, girls do everything they can to ruin their natural beauty and become as fake as possible. Not all girls, but a lot.

[MCSchubs]

This.

[molan]

I know there was, the gens young girls have today descent from them, therefore they were there.

Besides just look at old movies and see the pretty girls.

[MCSchubs]

Ya but do see any girl in the 1900-1950's that look like Marisa Miller, Brooklyn Decker, or Blake Lively?

[molan]

Yes a young Katharine Hepburn was quite a delightful sight, just to mention another celebrity. How about a young Marilyn Monroe or a young Vivien Leigh and the list is long with just American movies starts alone.

[MCSchubs]

Katherine Hepburn's face and body is ok, while Vivien Leigh is kind-of pretty with a decent body, so I'll give you props on that one. Marilyn Monroe, she is average face with not so good body. Guess which girl during the 1900-1950s is the only one I see who can compete with the girls at this generation? Her name is Joi Lansing.

[molan]

Marilyn Monroe, had the right shape, very nice body it would seem. I only have old picture to judge from, but she seemed very fit.

Girls today are not any prettier than the generations preceding them, on average.

The style is different, and if you like moderns style better then yes, but regarding natural beauty, not altered by makeup or surgery, it's about the same. Have to be, it's in the genres.

Of cause, better dental care or better food can make a difference, but it's more about wealth and health care than anything else.

[MCSchubs]

Wow, Marylin Monroe? It's either your standards are low or my standards are too high. I'll show you a good body=
www.dirtyandthirty.com/.../...q2xzo1_400_large.jpg
2.bp.blogspot.com/.../...oujkfRls1r9z7fco1_500.jpg

[molan]

The body's you show is not even close to average, but photomodels, probably even photoshopped a bit to boot.

Your stand is a fancy, nor reality now or then.

[MCSchubs]

Here are some real girls:
blog.rottenecards.com/.../4JidjUj.jpg
media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/.../...d7f8f375fc5e.jpg
These are not photoshopped.

[ShaeNielson]

'Real' girls. right.

[MCSchubs]

@ShaeNielson Yup. Did you look at my last comment before yours?

[molan]

First one is too thin for my taste, the second one have fake boobs. Both girls are pretty though, but when talking body's they are despite the imperfections still above average.

I'll say 10% of women and maybe 25-40% of young girls from wealthy environments, are having bodies like that. Not really representative from a entire generation.

It's also not just differences in generations, but rather differences in health and wealth - also known as socioeconomic factors.

[MCSchubs]

@molan, the second girl has real boobs. There is such thing is a natural perky breasts.

[princesswitch]

Girls now aren't any better looking, generally. We just have makeup, hair extensions, and cosmetic surgery now.

[princesswitch]

And we wear significantly less clothing.

[molan]

They had makeup, hair extensions then as well. Cosmetic surgery is still today not something most women do.

Besides most women, look better without makeup or with very very little use of it.

[princesswitch]

They may have had basic makeup, but I'm pretty sure contouring wasn't nearly as common as it is today. Contouring makes a women look almost completely different and perfect. Cosmetic surgery is far from uncommon.

Your last point is subjective.

[Tractorbeam]

There were certainly some pretty hot movie stars, and the average woman in those days wasn't overweight from consuming all the toxic chemical obesogens that modern women do.
The average woman now is only a few pounds short of being obese.

[abundantlyrich]

Yes there are! Grace Kelly, Audrey Hepburn, Katherine Hepburn, Rita Hayworth, Greta Garbo.. etc.

[MCSchubs]

Rita Hayworth and MAYBE Katherine Hepburn I can give a C- grade, their bodies are like a C- to D+ grade. The rest of the girls overall are F's.

[abundantlyrich]

They are more healthy looking than today's females.

[Anonymous]

Girls who wore dresses, don't shave half of their head for fashion, and didn't have access to 13 pounds of makeup for day to day use?

I know I was born in the wrong generation, but damn.

[Anonymous]

Different eras value different appearances. In 15th century Europe, for example, a skinny tanned woman would be considered ugly next to a larger paler woman. Time changes everything, so it's not unusual that we wouldn't be attracted to people of different times with different physical focus is and values.

[Anonymous]

There were more hot women back then than there are today. They were just as naturally beautiful but they didn't paint their faces with tons of makeup and of course Photoshop didn't exist. But they knew how to be women back then, which is huge.

[JustinX]

but many girls before are not as slutty as today... and that is attractive trait... most of the girls try to be slutty to get noticed from guys

[JustinX]

in addition there was no boob jobs and skeleton figures before, girls were more reserve than today and more of a voluptuous figure

[UlsterScot]

Sure. Appearance standards were different. But Lauren Bacall was hot at any time.

[MCSchubs]

Lauren Bacall can't hold a candle to Joi Lansing.

[UlsterScot]

I beg to differ. Lauren Bacall was better looking even in 2013
pmctvline2.files.wordpress.com/.../...-guy-300.jpg
than Joi Lansing was even 40 years earlier in 1973. But that's just me.

[MCSchubs]

Joi Lansing in her prime is better than Lauren Bacall in her prime.

[UlsterScot]

Joi Lansing was a classic 50 ' s blonde, big titted sex bomb like Jayne Mansfield. Bacall was far more complex and sultry with teacup sized boobs. It all depends on taste. Grace Kelly surpassed both. She could fit in today.

[MCSchubs]

Most men would pick Joi Lansing over Bacall or Kelly, because of her being a SEX BOMB.

[AnimeDreama]

1922-1958 is my peak of beauty in the 20th century. Those girls were HOT!

[PalmWave]

He'll yeah! I'm sure there were a lot of pretty looking and beautiful girls during that time. More natural looking than what they look like now.

[steveisbored]

It all depends on the times in how guys feel attracted to certain body types etc. Not many women from that era are "hotties" when I see picutres of them, it was just a different time. Mary Tyler Moore was a total hottie though when she was young

[rthomas43]

They looked the exact same then as they do now. Only difference would be hair, makeup, and clothing.

[zombiebabe]

loool nice question... maybe guys were into those type of girls before

[molan]

Guys still are, girls today are just as plain as they were - no difference whatsoever. It's simple genetics, new genres are not magically created. Whatever genes you girls have today you inherited from your ancestors.

[zombiebabe]

yeah true

[yesmylove]

What people considered beautiful back in those times is way different than what we consider beautiful today in 2014