Is there a wider range of attractiveness now compared to 100 years ago?

[Jerry18]

This is just out of curiosity. I think 100 years ago, people tend to cluster around the average. However, now with plastic surgery and fast food, more people fall around the extremes of the attractiveness scale. I'm just talking about physical attractiveness.

 

100 years ago, more people worked in farms and other labour-intensive jobs, and those who didn't did not have access to high-calorie foods. You'd still have pretty people in those times, but were rare because it was mostly due to genetics rather than plastic surgery, and/or getting a personal trainer for an hour per day. So attractive people are more common, but so are not-so-attractive people (due to fast food, and not doing exercise).

 

I think there's more segregation of physical attractiveness now, and that's making dating harder for both genders. People who are very attractive tends to have above average "power" in choosing who and how to date, whereas less attractive people have below average "power".

[laRubiaBonita]

i think it's the same now as it ever was- although there may be a wider variety now of what might be considered beautiful AND it still remains that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

generational influences and popular culture generally determine and/ or influence what is considered "beauty". i.e.- in the age of the enlightement women with larger foreheads were considered more beautiful. in the 60's Twiggy was a beauty.

 

in places where hardwork is necessary for survival i do not think as much importance is place on physical beauty, but you can be sure it is still appreciated and probably a welcome sight.

[zebracolors]

100 years ago there was no LS for those poor people:lmao:

 

Seriously, I would think in that era less emphasis was placed on appearance for the sake appearance when it came to living your life, starting a family, and keeping the family line going. Though perhaps the standards of "attractiveness" for both men and women was very different in those days. Of course back then there was no visual media other then the cinima but they didn't use it for the same things as they do in this today.

 

I think the industrial age was just starting to get into full swing at the time, so there was starting to be a big difference between country life and city life no? Those who could not afford good healthcare usually fared badly, but I don't really know how that would affect their social standing.

 

Today I think the standards of beauty have been warped to be honest. Now we have TV, and Movies, and the internet and the fashion industry, including magazines. The images that young girls coming into their teens (and maybe to some extent boys too) see as what society deems as "beautiful" is all over the place. And for many they get it into their heads "I must look like that". However many go about the very wrong ways like starving themselves or if able, excessive cosmetic surgery. And this has been going on for what, some decades now?

[Disillusioned]

Remember, too, now there's more ethnic diversity... more races means more faces.

[laRubiaBonita]

Today I think the standards of beauty have been warped to be honest. Now we have TV, and Movies, and the internet and the fashion industry, including magazines. The images that young girls coming into their teens (and maybe to some extent boys too) see as what society deems as "beautiful" is all over the place. And for many they get it into their heads "I must look like that".

i agree with this....

However many go about the very wrong ways like starving themselves or if able, excessive cosmetic surgery. And this has been going on for what, some decades now?

but people did do heinous things to their bodies for the sake of fashion and beauty- they did starve themselves and then would wear cinching corsets to get that 15 inch waist, and the tiny shoes that people would force their feet into... they would cut off toes to fit into shoes!!!!

the thick make up both men and women wore was toxic to some people, the wigs they wore which did lead to early hair loss for some.

 

cosmetic surgery was, obviously not a norm- any type of surgery was generally not done unless it was extremely warrented.

[laRubiaBonita]

Remember, too, now there's more ethnic diversity... more races means more faces.

 

yes, and it is much more acceptable now for different races to marry and/ or have offspring which in turn produces a mixture of features that are deemed beautiful by society.

 

but it can aslo produce features that are thought of as ugly too, especially by those who may not be so accepting of diversity and inter-ethnic mixing

[Engadget]

It always changes, fat women were once the height of attractiveness for example.

[Disillusioned]

It always changes, fat women were once the height of attractiveness for example.

 

Still are, in some cultures... Samoans, for example, tend to find skinny women ugly as hell.

[ADF]

I don't know the answer to that question, but I suspect that if anything, the range of attractiveness is NARROWER today than it was 100 years ago. Not because people vary less in body type--there probably is more variation now than in the past--but because standards of attractiveness today are so much higher and less realistic. They are even narrower than 50 years ago, never mind 100.

 

It has often been noted that Marilyn Monroe, the epitome of female beauty in the 50s, probably wouldn't even make it as a model today. She'd be considered too fat by today's standards. Leading men like Kirk Douglas, John Wayne or Gary Cooper wouldn't be considered buff enough to meet today's standards. Heck, women--and increasingly men--aren't even supposed to have pubic hair now! It is as if today's standards are inspired by Ken and Barbie dolls rather than actual people.

[Peaceful Guy]

I don't know the answer to that question, but I suspect that if anything, the range of attractiveness is NARROWER today than it was 100 years ago. Not because people vary less in body type--there probably is more variation now than in the past--but because standards of attractiveness today are so much higher and less realistic. They are even narrower than 50 years ago, never mind 100.

 

okay, this is an interesting phenomenon to me. we.. society.. talk quite openly and frequently about culture as if it is not our own. the majority of posts here seem to me to say that the image portrayed in movies and film is unrealistic for a standard of beauty.. and we don't buy it. and yet, at the same time we say that society (us!) is shallower than ever! there is a clear distinction between an extremely small minority of well groomed (or possibly cgi) people/actors/models/whatever and what society deems beautiful. society is far more realistic and cool about image than many people give it credit for. we ARE society people!!

[Feelin Frisky]

100 years ago women didn't run around in slow motion wearing tiny black chick braids like Bo Derek. That evolution sure do work in strange ways.

[Ross PK]

I don't think people that have had plastic surgery (unless it's just something simple like fixing a big nose) look that great to be honest, in fact a lot just look damned right hideous.

 

I think most of the really attractive people we see are natural beauties and haven't had surgery, which would mean we would still have a had a good proportion of them 100 years ago.

 

But I agree, that today we probably have a lot more overweight people, which makes them less attractive (to most people, not me).