Do you still find women in old paintings attractive, compared to what is percieved as ideal today

[Anonymous]

I'm not usually into art, so I'm not sure about the era but I mean paintings like this link link link link link link like not overweight, but not as skinny as models, p*rn actresses or actresses today link link link

I'm just wondering what you guys think, because I feel in many ways the potrayl of female bodies in old paintings is a lot more realistic and attainable. When I look at those pictures I'd say that realistically this is how most women look like. They show lot of flaws too. Obviously they were attractive once, but are they still?

Not quite sure I posted this into the right category

Updates

+1 y

I orginally posted it into style not sexulity, not quite sure why it ended up here

[MrOracle]

When those paintings were painted, the average woman lived a rural life and worked 12+ hours a day doing some kind of physical labor. Having enough food to just SURVIVE was often a challenge, and few had enough food to overeat.

Only the wealthy had plentiful food, and that was a small pool of people. The wealthy people were looked up to as the model of beauty, so from that perspective, the most beautiful women would be "soft" and just slightly chunky, while the "average" woman would look more like a short runway model does today (i.e., noticeably underweight). Note that these (painted) women are also very pale; that was also considered VERY desirable, because having a tan meant you had to work outside, while the wealthy socialites could stay indoors or afford a carriage or parasol to keep the sun off of them. The idea that pale was desirable was also the reason women used to powder their faces.

To answer your question: the women in those paintings are still attractive, and in real life, I think MOST guys would date those girls if they were otherwise cool people. Sure, our tastes have changed, and many guys would *prefer* a girl who was a bit thinner, but none of those girls are "fat" or "obese" by any means. They're just slightly larger than what we consider to be the most desirable size today. I'd say that the AVERAGE 30 year old woman has more-or less the same body as the paintings.

[Asker]

I know all of what you sid, but I wasn't asking that

[madhatters4]

I think there is a happy medium. Obviously the girls in the paintings have more attainable bodies but they are also rather lumpy. whereas the pictures of modern girls also aren't all that attractive either. I'm not really a fan of seeing rib cages, boob jobs, nose jobs, etc.

So there is a happy medium I believe. Women don't have to be lumpy like the gals in the paintings and they don't have to look like mannequins like the girls in the pictures.

[Asker]

I'm not really sure what you mean with lumpy? Could you link something that you'd consider a happy medium?

[madhatters4]

link ... that one is lumpy. honestly the first three are not, and it probably is more the texture of the painting. I agree with you in that the chicks in modern photos are not really or shouldn't really be the idea of the attainable body. but something a tad slimmer than this link I think is ideal...IMO

[Asker]

Ok I think I know what you mean, thx.

I think that would be good body type too. That's normal. I used to model for quite a while and a lot of the girls were struggling with eating disorders. VS models are kinda the curviest among models and even they have BMI of 16-18, it's taking ridicoulous porportions. On the other rubenesque era girls weren't the healthiest either . The ideal image of women changed a lot over time, while it oddly styed fairly constant for men

[madhatters4]

i heard an insane story from a girl who used to model. she said that the girls would dip cotton balls in like juice or something like that and swallow them so they would feel full

[Asker]

I personally haven't seen that one. That sounds as if it would kill you pretty quickly, but I've seen girls dip cotton ball in water or tea (not juice, that's just sugar) and then kind of suck them empty to distrct from the hunger. Or licking ice cubes all day to distract from it. I've also seen girls eat baking powder with water to fill up their tumiies. But Uultimatley there is really no way to feel full if you're hungry unless you eat

[Hyped_up_on_coffee]

well Venus de millo and Leda and the swan are way hotter than a lot of p*rnstars. Their breast are natural and their skin is smooth and the most important thing is that they don't make atrociously loud moaning sounds that sound like a dying cow.

[abundantlyrich]

No they look okay but not really necessarily attractive.

In today's world, people looked aesthetically better. Their styling and fashion sense of hair and clothing look heaps better.

[Anonymous]

I was just thinking of that a few weeks ago.

Honestly. No.

I think most guys would consider even the more slender women in old paintings to be fat and less desirable.

[martyfellow]

Maybe I'm prejucied because of being a personal trainer, but I always think, 'Gee, today's women are so much more fit.'

Of course, rarely did the working class or farm women ever get immortalized in classical painting. We're looking at the wives of the rich, the Ivana Trumps of their day.

[Anonymous]

The women in some of the old paintings are attractive, but not nearly as attractive as the actresses of today. Today most women have access to better healthcare and beauty products than women in the past. So I would say the average woman today looks better than the attractive women in the past. Hollywood can also choose from a far greater number of women than the artists of the past had access to.

[Asker]

I used to model since I was 14 and believe me, beauty does not equal health.

Ya of course they can choose from more women, but that's the point. Hollywood chooses the prettiest girls they can get which raises the bar for all women and makes a lot of pretty average girls (that look a lot like in the paintings) completley unattractive, so I'm asking are they attractive?

[Opinion Owner]

Healthier people do tend to be more attractive, but yes there are exceptions.

[kheserthorpe]

Back when they were painted, the modern model physique was more obtainable then the paintings.

I guess the edge of what I find attractive is somewhere in the middle of those paintings - some were attractive some not so much.

[sa230e]

I find the women in those paintings attractive.

Using the word p*rn probably got this moved to sexuality. GaG has some sort of filter.

[Anonymous]

I don't find the women in those paintings unattractive but I wouldn't want to be that size. I prefer the second set of links, but something somewhere between the two but leaning more towards the second set would be ideal.

[kitkat1991991]

I like the way the people of today look a lot better. I have never thought that any pictures of people from the past looked very good.

[Anonymous]

i like them I think they are gorgeous even if they aren't what society likes but I guet how they were attractive and interesting

[Anonymous]

i get how they were attractive becasue of how their skin look and how curvy they were. I guess its how society changes, in the 90´s the hot guys were like shane west or the guy from dawsons creek and now they aren't that hot.

[Asker]

I think they're still pretty hot, if they got a new haircut maybe

[Anonymous]

I think all of the girls in the old paintings are unattractive

[pickledxtofu]

No, I do not find their bodies attractive

[Anonymous]

Not really. I don't find any of them attractive.

[Anonymous]

i think normal women are more attractive

[Anonymous]

I find there bodies attractive.

[Opinion Owner]

*their

[Anonymous]

No.

[Anonymous]

Some women are...