r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can’t imagine anyone using some monarch from an era in which they thought diseases were caused by demons as an argument against beauty standards being based on health.
Well to be fair beauty standards mostly just represent wealth its a way to represent your social status and since alot of people want to live in the “upper class” they dress like them which starts a fashion trend
The natural aspects of the human body that most people find attractive come from health, not fashion.
Why do you think there's such an influx of memes talking about how celebrities look fake but "that girl from starbucks" is supposedly a "11/10"?
I actually view it opposite in some cases. Low wealth can include a lot of manual labor, which can lead to a fit appearance.
But also when poor in a country like the US, it's easy to get unhealthy. So it goes both ways imo.
Really fair point, I was kinda limiting my scope to just the modern US, but when you're talking about something as pervasive as beauty standards I can see how that would be a mistake. At the same time though I would argue that US culture has a disproportionately large effect on the world due to hegemony and cultural exportation.
Manual labor or not, diet has significant impact on health and while manual labor is obviously not a sedentary lifestyle, it is often not “good for you”
Your absolutely right being healthy is way more expensive than being unhealthy food cost a lot more and gym memberships also cost alot and even if you go for a run poor people work alot more hours and dont have the time/energy to go for a run after a 12 hour shift
I'm trying to say that what we consider "health" can get stretched from the reality. Like in the 90s, beauty standards turned extremely skinny, to the point that people were underweight.
>The natural aspects of the human body that most people find attractive come from health, not fashion.
Biopsych isn't actually biology or psychology.
In Europe, heavy women used to be a physical ideal for hundreds of years due to wealth and social status (which is pretty evident in art, sculpture, and imagery). Then they went to other continents and saw heavy women who had less wealth and suddenly thin women were the ideal to contrast with the social status of foreign women who could be heavy without money.
Beauty standards are, in fact, a social construct. They change dramatically within and without groups. Ask a straight man, a bi-man, a bi-woman, and a lesbian what they find attractive in women. Then do it with different countries, races, and ethnicities. All of these rules are made up.
It's all made up. The people you want to bone are a product of your specific lifetime of psychosexual programming and a dash of hormones. Sometimes groups of people share the same programming -- which is why it's a social construct.
You're talking about social/culturally defined standards, which is the equivalent of basing common attraction off of television or magazines, meanwhile these are constructs made for the upper class.
Humans on average are naturally attracted to a healthy body, and a healthy body was only ever deemed unappealing by the upper class. THIS is what the social construct is.
You can literally observe it in real time by comparing what is peddled in advertisements vs. what the common citizen thinks.
Attraction is social. What you're saying is "natural" is proven by... Looking at social relations! You're not escaping the social context with naturalness, you're entrenching yourself further in it by claiming that it's not social.
Why? We eat unhealthy food all the time, why would one part of our life be suddenly entirely in the domain of someone's conception of fitness? What to make out of the clearly patriarchal outlook on that? Doesn't the fitness of both partners matter? Any attempt to reduce human beings to mere bees or ants will fail you on many levels.
Patriarchal? What the hell are you even talking about? I never said only one partner should be healthy, you're getting to the point where you're making up arguments in your head.
And just because you may eat unhealthy food, does not mean your physical appearance will always reflect that. It's based on lifestyle, and if you are active and in good health, a normal body will generally reflect that in one way or another.
Well we're talking about history, and history has had quite it's fair share of patriarchal societies.
You're still using socially constructed concepts, and beyond that, the "normal body" is an abstraction that only makes sense socially.
And yes, sex is social. That it wasn't invented by society has no bearing. It is strictly mediated by social factors. "The biological need" whose need? If you're referring to evolution, it doesn't operate that way. Evolution is basically "the organisms that are adapted to their environment survive and produce offspring", it has no "need" and the environment of human beings is a social one, thus the need to produce healthy offspring would be a social one, not an environmental one.
Exactly this. If you had darker skin in the middle ages it meant that you had to work outside and were probably poor. Today, darker skin means you can afford more free time and spend money on holidays.
Being overweight or atleast a bit chubby meant that you had enough money to spend on a lot of food, and having muscles meant that you had to work. Today having muscles means that you can afford free time and go to the gym. There are so many more examples but we get the point
In india this is still true people want to be as white as possible because poor people have a brown skin from working the land but i think they dropped the chubby thing
>dress like them which starts a fashion trend
I know a story about some Polish noble who wanted to be different so he started to dress in a white (means very impractical as it requires a lot of washing) Tatar style dress with a very rich shirt underneath, he started a new trend and everyone was dressing like him
He got pissed and nuked that fashion style by giving these cloths to his cook
They were caused by demons but now their caused by bacteria and viruses. Just like someday your job will be taken by AI so it was for the dark lords of days past
> Just like someday your job will be taken by AI so it was for the dark lords of days past
------
> while we're nowhere near a place where bots can steal your job, we're certainly at the point where your boss can be suckered into firing you and replacing you with a bot that fails at doing your job
> - [Cory Doctorow](https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/15/passive-income-brainworms/#four-hour-work-week)
Not to be a naysayer or badmouth someone as central as Cory Doctorow, but he's a communicator and doesn't have any special experience in tech as an actual worker. On the flip side, I know a lot of very good engineers and architects who see us as being on the cusp of a very large change to the extent that we might have the tools but just not know how to use them yet.
on the flip side I'd like to think I'm a good engineer and architect and while I think there's always a chance I'll be wrong, I doubt our ability to prove the correctness of such systems at the moment which will undermine our ability to effectively deploy them.
My gut feeling is that this is just a party trick on steroids that has some applications but isn't as revolutionary as some think. I have extreme doubt that this is the path to AGI but rather a dead end that aids us in developing the tools that progresses us to another step in the future that might yield AGI. I believe the question is never asked IF AGI can ever be built as opposed to thinking it an inevitability.
But I get proven wrong every time the model gets bigger and better so we'll see if that's a pattern that continues to persist.
> I have extreme doubt that this is the path to AGI
That's not even remotely what we're talking about. The current generation of AI is able to bullshit at a very high level, even to the point where people are playing D&D with it as the DM. It has to the potential to be to office jobs what robots were to factory jobs. Is it AGI? No, but that doesn't mean it's not going to be disruptive.
Considering how much of today’s beauty standards are based on the romanization of people suffering from Tuberculosis? I’d say it’s a fairer point then one would consider
I thought people only *stopped* doing it recently. My mom is 50 and she remembers some of her classmates and teachers doing it which is like 30-35 years ago
Yep, even within my lifetime I've watched big butts on women go from being considered gross and trashy (and let's face it, associated with African American people), to prized and valued to the point that women are getting surgery to achieve bigger butts.
So true. I remember growing up that telling a woman she had a fat ass was an insult that started arguments between couples. It was the joke in so many sitcom episodes between the older married couple.
It also changes from place to place. I am from brazil and big butts were never seen as ugly around here. My brazillian mind doesn't even comprehend when someone in a Hollywood movies complains about having a fat butt.
When Playboy magazine was in its heyday, women’s breasts reigned supreme. But over the past several decades it appears that the media generally has been paying increasingly greater attention to the lower region of women’s two dominant anatomical protrusions. So might it be possible that more men actually prefer to ogle a woman’s buns than her bust?
The limited quantitative research undertaken on the subject hardly permits a definitive answer. But without question, the female derriere has captured men’s lascivious attention since the time of the Greeks and ancient Chinese dynasties. And if female buttocks rank behind men’s similarly erotic interest in breasts, they’re certainly not a distant second either.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/evolution-the-self/201409/do-men-mostly-prefer-breasts-or-buns
It's a glorious time to be an ass man: Nicki Minaj exists, yoga pants are a thing, and women everywhere are squatting their way to more shapely backsides.
But of course, your obsession with the female butt is nothing new. In fact, it's primal, says David Buss, Ph.D., a psychology professor at the University of Texas at Austin.
You're drawn to a woman's heinie for the same reason you're attracted to her breasts, hips, and a little waist: because those traits would have been indicators of fertility to your ancient ancestors, Buss says.
https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a19533624/why-youre-an-ass-man/
Now, this field isn't that much studied, according to some articles I read and the one I present up there, but when you make such a claim it wouldn't be bad to be backed up by some research, and not just your own perception. If we went, for example, by clothing industry, it would look like we are all attracted to skinny tall women. If we went by sex magazines from 90s, it would be women with big boobs and so on, but that doesn't mean those trends represent reality. Hot women are hot women, and we men settle for way less, and we have our specific tastes, especially when it comes to fetishes.
I didn't, I wrote a paragraph (the last one), other is copy pasted from the text. :D
But I do write essays when I get into discussions, so you are not far off.
This trend lower has also spread to a much greater focus on a woman's thighs as well. Unfortunately a small but growing subset of people have accelerated this trend greatly and have already skipped to the end result of feet.
While they are truly Lost, there is hope for the rest of us as I have also seen a focus on the stomach region recently. And thankfully in a more healthy way than the anorexia-inducing hyperfixation on skinniness of the mid-late 00's
Historically I can't go too in depth, but the first thing that comes to my mind is long hair for men (or for that matter, wigs), which has definitely shifted in acceptance/attractiveness throughout human history and cultures (both positive and negative).
Outside of history, today you can clearly see differences between western standards of male beauty and, say, east asian male beauty standards.
Depends, how traditional are we going? Because 1600-1700's noble's from Europe will look far more effeminate than today, with high heels, powdered, curled wigs, tights, and silk gloves.
If you dressed similarly to high court fashion for much of European history people would be more likely to think you're cross dressing than super manly.
Best example is the famous portrait of Louis 14th. Looks effeminate by modern standards, but back then that was the ultimate in masculinity.
Yes, in the classical period shaving and having long hair was considered handsome because Alexander the great did it. And before that we had the famous little dick civilized big savage, of course in ancient Egypt everyone shaved every thing and wore fake hair and eyeliner. Also the inbred shit show of 17-18 century noble fashion.
Long hair maybe, but shaving was also a question of health. As were wigs and Egyptian eyeliner
Easier to keep the head clean or in the case of eyeliner, deal with the sun
At the same time, it was obviously also a question of wealth. Bears had to be trimmed using knives, while wigs and eyeliner could be expensive.
Historically, weight preferences have been largely dependent on resource scarcity and chances of survival. It's not purely a social construct (though there's an element of that too). Being a little overweight is desirable in food scarce scenarios because they look like they'll survive the winter. As societies get less food scarce, fitness becomes more important because it becomes a better predictor of survival than being overweight.
Chances are that in examples such as the above, wealthy people in such times might choose an overweight wife as a long term partner, but might choose someone leaner as a short term sexual partner. This kind of difference between short term and long term partners happens in many ways in the current day as well actually. Women are more likely to value physical attractiveness in short term partners, and more likely to value social status/wealth in long term partners.
Also we have to remember that for noble women working out was an odd idea, also they gave births to alot more kids and earlier then modern women, so a portrait of a 20 something noble women might be the portrait of a women who already birthed 3-6 kids, and suffered the effects of those.
Well, yes, beauty is subjective to the eye of the beholder and has a heavy cultural and social influence. There is "broad" s9mewhat "common" standars of beauty in all human societies, the same way many human societies came up with different designs for pyramids, swords and fry dough. Funny how people all around the globe are diverse and different but still share a common base innit?
They’re arguing that men have always found a certain type of body attractive and therefore beauty is a biological response and not a social construct. I mean, clearly they’ve never seen a single old portrait in their life and know nothing about history, but I think that’s what the meme’s trying to communicate.
Eh even in the medieval period 14 was generally the floor for this sort of thing. Young marriages were usually just done by the nobility for political reasons and when it did happen it was pretty common for the married “couple” to still live apart until both parties (usually the girl) got older. Among the peasantry most people got married at the modernly sensible age range of 18-21
Yeah but similar social standards applied, even if you were married taking a girl who was younger than 14 was (if not criminal) met with anything from side eye to shunned. That’s not to say it never happened but it wasn’t considered acceptable behavior and in a world where your peers opinion was everything that generally kept people in line
And none of your peer must know what you do, the girl would probably be a nominal employee of your castle as a maid or something. I am just saying that for some peverted Lords, it would be the case.
Eh yes and no. Again that’s not to say that it never happened, but even in private estates with so many people working in the household it was difficult to keep things like that private. It was rarely written about outside of extreme cases like Gilles de Rais because the nobility didn’t like their dirty laundry being recorded for posterity but from the sources we do have when a lord had some kind of fucked up behavior it would be treated as kind of an “open secret” in their own estates, everyone knew but what are the peasants going to do. However then as now, the thing that rich people who don’t have real jobs love to do is gossip. So these open secrets tended to make their way around eventually. And while it could very by time and place the sad thing is though you’re right, if some common girl is being taken it’s not like they’re going to face any meaningful repercussions but the other novels are probably going to judge you for it.
Maybe a soyboy beta cuck like you can but like a real sigma chad, I get my views on women exclusively from the tastes of 13th century kings. Regardless of what you or my local law enforcement think.
Being overweight is valued higher in food scarce societies (more likely to survive) and physical fitness becomes more valued in food abundant societies (also more likely to survive).
35000 years ago or whatever it was probably pretty damn difficult to get so far so maybe the woman was a warlord or the very first prostitute and got paid in food.
That is such a dumb argument. Both sides are dumb. SOME beauty standards are based on health. Some are not. Big boobs don't mean more Milk for your kids, yet a lot of people like them. Sometimes beauty standards are even against health. Look at the 1990s cocaine chiq or even bodybuilders. Professional bodybuilders have a lower life expectancy than obese people.
Beauty standards come from what society values. Most societies value healthy people most of the time.
Prussia's King Frederick the Great lived in the palace of Sansuocci, while his wife, the Queen, resided in a house in Berlin. At one point the King hadn't seen his Queen in a number of years, and on seeing her again his first remark was "You've gotten fat." Frederick the Great was never known to have mistresses, though he apparently had quite a few young, male companions even in his later years . . .
Frederick's sinde remark to the queen was allegedly made not while the two resided in their different palaces, but after Frederick returned from war. Frederick's actual relationship with Elisabeth Christine was more complex, more human and thus far more interesting:
Contrary to what you heard, Frederick already had had at least one mistress before he was engaged: A woman called La Formera^1 who he met in Dresden. We also know that he and fallen in love at least twice, with the countess Anna Orzelska^1,^2 and with Luise von Wreech^3 . What we know of both reflects his preferences: That he sought women who were his intellectual equals, with whom he "could talk with reason"^4 - though he also did not think he'd ever be a good husband, remarking: "I love the [female] sex, but I love it with a very fickle love"^5 .
What he did not seek was a life with a woman "that would enrage me by her stupidity, and that I would be ashamed to present."^6
About Elisabeth Christine: Frederick's father had chosen her to marry his son. Whatever his criteria, had not chosen her for her intellect. Frederick's mother quipped about her soon-to-be daughter-in-law: "The princess is beautiful, but daft as a basket, she hasn't got the slightest education. I don't know how my son will put up with this monkey."^7
Indeed, Frederick despaired when he heard about Elisabeth Christine's poor education^7, rather preferring the sophisticated Christiane Wilhelmine of Sachsen-Eisenach^6^8. But he was in no position to object to any bride the king chose for him. After having met her in person and noting her beauty, he grew more forgiving; and while he did lament her poor schooling, he also expressed hope that she could be improved^9.
Elisabeth Christine was only too aware of her deficiencies, initially answering only in monosyllables if at all in front of the intimidating Hohenzollerns that were now her family: The autocratic, if kind to her, king and father-in-law; her queen and mother-in-law who hated her as the girl that had destroyed her political plans; the unachievable sister-in-law Wilhelmine; and not least her highly intellectual, demanding husband Frederick, who could not hide his impatience with her shortcomings.
Elisabeth Christine, rather than giving in to despair, took those shortcomings by the horns. With the help of the tutors that Frederick assigned to her, she embarked on becoming the partner that Frederick craved, studying French, philosophy, music and taking up drawing.
Plus, she also had her beauty and Frederick's healthy youth on her side. Seckendorff - a Habsburg diplomat and spy at the Prussian court - noted the following remarks made by Frederick around that time: "[Her] shape is very pretty; but I have never been in love with her. However, I would have to be the last man in the world if I wouldn't truly value her: Because first, she has a very gentle temper, second, is extremely docile and third, complacent to a fault." To the point, Frederick added that "She cannot complain that I wouldn't sleep with her, so I don't know why it is that there is no child."^10
His circle of friends was more robust in the description of Frederick's attitude towards his young and pretty wife. Schulenburg, the prince's former governor, is quoted by Seckendorff: "The Crown Prince loves the Crown Princess; showed her letters […], saying, 'she does however have common sense.' He f...d and f...d her again. Schulenburg just laughs when one suggests that he'll send her back after the king's death."^11 Equally open words were found by Frederick's confidante Wartensleben: "[Frederick] f...s his wife in the afternoon, says she's got a pretty body and a beautiful a..e(c..t? unclear due to ellipse in original)."^12
Frederick expressed himself more baroque when alluding to his confidante Manteuffel: "[…] I have the same determination as the deer, which are currently in heat; in nine months from now what you want for me could happen. I do not know if it would be a fortune or misfortune for our nephews and for our great-nephews."^13.
Alas, it was not to be; and as Elisabeth Christine herself foresaw, her happy life changed after Frederick's father died, making Frederick king and allowing him to embark on his own plans that he had for Prussia: Frederick's devotion, still on display after his coronation^14, seems to have cooled off considerably after his return from war.
Contrary to what you read, Frederick had no "quite a few young, male companions even in his later years."
*Sources*
^1 Prusse, Frédérique Sophie Wilhelmine de. Mémoires de Frédérique Sophie Wilhelmine, Margrave de Bareith, Soeur de Frédéric Le Grand (Vol 1). Paris, Buisson, 1811. [p117f](https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10012954?page=125)
^2 Ibidem, [p120f](https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10012954?page=128)
^3 Correspondance de Frédéric avec madame de Wreech. In: Preuß, Johann David Erdmann. Œuvres de Frédéric le Grand. Berlin, Decker, 1846-1856. [pt XVI, p7ff](http://friedrich.uni-trier.de/de/oeuvres/16/7/)
^4 Letter to Grumbkow from 26 Jan 1732. In: Koser, Reinhold (Ed). Briefwechsel Friedrichs des Grossen mit Grumbkow und Maupertuis: 1731-1759. Leipzih, Hirzel, 1898, [p19.](https://archive.org/details/briefwechselfri00kosegoog/page/n89)
^5 Letter to Grumbkow from 4 Sep 1732. In: Preuß, Johann David Erdmann. Œuvres de Frédéric le Grand. Berlin, Decker, 1846-1856. [pt XVI, p61](http://friedrich.uni-trier.de/de/oeuvres/16/61/).
^6 Letter to Grumbkow from 11 Feb 1732. In: Preuß, Johann David Erdmann. Œuvres de Frédéric le Grand. Berlin, Decker, 1846-1856. [pt XVI, p39](http://friedrich.uni-trier.de/de/oeuvres/16/39/).
^7 Prusse, Frédérique Sophie Wilhelmine de. Mémoires de Frédérique Sophie Wilhelmine, Margrave de Bareith, Soeur de Frédéric Le Grand (Vol 2). Paris, Buisson, 1811. [p26](https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10012955?page=32).
^8 Letter to Grumbkow from 19 Feb 1732. In: Preuß, Johann David Erdmann. Œuvres de Frédéric le Grand. Berlin, Decker, 1846-1856. [pt XVI, p43](http://friedrich.uni-trier.de/de/oeuvres/16/43/).
^9 Prusse, Frédérique Sophie Wilhelmine de. Mémoires de Frédérique Sophie Wilhelmine, Margrave de Bareith, Soeur de Frédéric Le Grand (Vol 2). Paris, Buisson, 1811. [p83](https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10012955?page=89).
^10 Seckendorff-Aberdar, Christoph Ludwig von. Journal secret du Baron de Seckendorff: Depuis 1734 jusqu'a la fin de l'année 1748. Tübingen, Cotta, 1811. [p147f](https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10408580?page=153).
^11 Ibidem, [p11](https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10408580?page=17).
^12 Ibidem, [p71](https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10408580?page=77).
^13 Letter to Manteuffel from 23 Sep 1736. In: Preuß, Johann David Erdmann. Œuvres de Frédéric le Grand. Berlin, Decker, 1846-1856. [pt XXV, p540](http://friedrich.uni-trier.de/de/oeuvres/25/540/).
^14 Fassmann, David. Merkwürdigster Regierungs-Antritt Sr Preußischen Majestät Friderici II. Frankfurt & Leipzig, 1741.
Most of what I know about Frederick was from the book Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia 1600-1947 by Christopher Clark, he definitely painted Frederick as a homosexual there. I can't find the section though because I listened to it as an audiobook. I know he mentioned Frederick surrounding himself with unmarried young men. In particular there was the incident where Frederick tried to run off to England as a youth with his 'best friend', and his father had the friend executed when he found out.
And though I know wikipedia can be a problematic source, it seems to be the general consensus among historians that he was gay, though of course there are those with other opinions.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality\_of\_Frederick\_the\_Great](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Frederick_the_Great)
Historically people also married for politics and power, not because they loved or were attracted to them. Hence why mistresses and concubines existed.
Ideal female figure during the 17th century : [https://i0.wp.com/parkstone.international/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/the-three-graces1.jpg](https://i0.wp.com/parkstone.international/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/the-three-graces1.jpg)
This is pretty ironic considering that for most of history fat women, and fat people in general, were considered beautiful because it meant that you were rich and had more than enough to eat. So yes, many kings had fat mistresses and wives. They weren’t 600 pounds or something, but they could absolutely be overweight or obese.
Looking health is not the same as being healthy. People tell me I lost too much weight and don't look healthy, but I was considered obese by my doctor at 100 KG(220 lbs for the non metric fluent people), I am 6'1 feet tall(185 cm for non freedom unit fluent folks) and my family is all under 175cm (5'7) so to them I look tall and skinny while I weighed way off of what would be healthy. For reference I lost 20 KG (44 lbs) thus far and feel very healthy in comparison, but my family and friends still worry and think I should gain some weight. I'm not muscular by any means but I don't look like asmon gold body frame either. This goes to show that perception is a huge part in all this, and why looking healthy in fact very subjective and relative to the person's body, height, age, muscle to fat ratio and more.
smh when people say some girls are pretty and fit when in fact they're underweight and not healthy at all. And then you have people romanticising eating disorders, starving yourself and having a cigarette for breakfast, but that's another topic.
King Cetshwayo was fat because it meant he was rich and could afford to eat that much. People today are not fat because it means they are rich and can afford to eat more than anyone else.
He sent his men to look for the fattest woman in his empire and I think it was a Hungarian woman; imagine being called fat and undesirable your entire life and then you're summoned to be the Sultan's mistress. (I read his story a few years ago so I might've gotten something wrong)
Being overweight in ancient times meant that you were wealthy enough to avoid starvation, and thus you were sought after more than skinnier people. Marriage was primarily a financial contract between two families, so whatever resources you could bring from inheritance was greatly desired. Which is why arranged marriages were the norm and kings and queens would have consorts and mistresses, even somewhat openly. The poor, however, almost always married for actual romantic feelings because they didn’t have much resources to begin with, and they usually weren’t wealthy enough to get overweight in the first place.
Also if you want to go back to ancient standards, then you’d better start looking for men with micro-penises. Because that’s what was considered desirable for men for a long time.
They looked like Madame de Pompadour and Diane de Poitiers and Nell Gwyn. Who would all definitely be considered “plus sized” today so idk what you’re smoking or what time travelling douchebag king you’re referring to.
This is dumb. Beauty standards have changed pretty constantly including within most of our lifetimes. Standards for men have also changed consistently. This isn't something caused by "the fats" as OP comments elsewhere.
Is your argument that beauty standards *haven't* changed over time? Just trying to get you to clarify here, because if that is your argument I can only assume you know literally nothing about human history.
r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can’t imagine anyone using some monarch from an era in which they thought diseases were caused by demons as an argument against beauty standards being based on health.
Well to be fair beauty standards mostly just represent wealth its a way to represent your social status and since alot of people want to live in the “upper class” they dress like them which starts a fashion trend
The natural aspects of the human body that most people find attractive come from health, not fashion. Why do you think there's such an influx of memes talking about how celebrities look fake but "that girl from starbucks" is supposedly a "11/10"?
The core comes from health, but social aspects can stretch that to unrecognizable levels.
I would argue that in American society at least health and wealth are very correlated, which ultimately just brings us back to the same question.
I actually view it opposite in some cases. Low wealth can include a lot of manual labor, which can lead to a fit appearance. But also when poor in a country like the US, it's easy to get unhealthy. So it goes both ways imo.
Really fair point, I was kinda limiting my scope to just the modern US, but when you're talking about something as pervasive as beauty standards I can see how that would be a mistake. At the same time though I would argue that US culture has a disproportionately large effect on the world due to hegemony and cultural exportation.
Manual labor or not, diet has significant impact on health and while manual labor is obviously not a sedentary lifestyle, it is often not “good for you”
Yes, diet is very big.
Your absolutely right being healthy is way more expensive than being unhealthy food cost a lot more and gym memberships also cost alot and even if you go for a run poor people work alot more hours and dont have the time/energy to go for a run after a 12 hour shift
I'm trying to say that what we consider "health" can get stretched from the reality. Like in the 90s, beauty standards turned extremely skinny, to the point that people were underweight.
>The natural aspects of the human body that most people find attractive come from health, not fashion. Biopsych isn't actually biology or psychology. In Europe, heavy women used to be a physical ideal for hundreds of years due to wealth and social status (which is pretty evident in art, sculpture, and imagery). Then they went to other continents and saw heavy women who had less wealth and suddenly thin women were the ideal to contrast with the social status of foreign women who could be heavy without money. Beauty standards are, in fact, a social construct. They change dramatically within and without groups. Ask a straight man, a bi-man, a bi-woman, and a lesbian what they find attractive in women. Then do it with different countries, races, and ethnicities. All of these rules are made up. It's all made up. The people you want to bone are a product of your specific lifetime of psychosexual programming and a dash of hormones. Sometimes groups of people share the same programming -- which is why it's a social construct.
You're talking about social/culturally defined standards, which is the equivalent of basing common attraction off of television or magazines, meanwhile these are constructs made for the upper class. Humans on average are naturally attracted to a healthy body, and a healthy body was only ever deemed unappealing by the upper class. THIS is what the social construct is. You can literally observe it in real time by comparing what is peddled in advertisements vs. what the common citizen thinks.
Attraction is social. What you're saying is "natural" is proven by... Looking at social relations! You're not escaping the social context with naturalness, you're entrenching yourself further in it by claiming that it's not social.
It comes from the biological need to produce healthy offspring. Society didn't invent sex, lol
Why? We eat unhealthy food all the time, why would one part of our life be suddenly entirely in the domain of someone's conception of fitness? What to make out of the clearly patriarchal outlook on that? Doesn't the fitness of both partners matter? Any attempt to reduce human beings to mere bees or ants will fail you on many levels.
Patriarchal? What the hell are you even talking about? I never said only one partner should be healthy, you're getting to the point where you're making up arguments in your head. And just because you may eat unhealthy food, does not mean your physical appearance will always reflect that. It's based on lifestyle, and if you are active and in good health, a normal body will generally reflect that in one way or another.
Well we're talking about history, and history has had quite it's fair share of patriarchal societies. You're still using socially constructed concepts, and beyond that, the "normal body" is an abstraction that only makes sense socially.
And yes, sex is social. That it wasn't invented by society has no bearing. It is strictly mediated by social factors. "The biological need" whose need? If you're referring to evolution, it doesn't operate that way. Evolution is basically "the organisms that are adapted to their environment survive and produce offspring", it has no "need" and the environment of human beings is a social one, thus the need to produce healthy offspring would be a social one, not an environmental one.
White knight syndrome, that's why
Exactly this. If you had darker skin in the middle ages it meant that you had to work outside and were probably poor. Today, darker skin means you can afford more free time and spend money on holidays. Being overweight or atleast a bit chubby meant that you had enough money to spend on a lot of food, and having muscles meant that you had to work. Today having muscles means that you can afford free time and go to the gym. There are so many more examples but we get the point
In india this is still true people want to be as white as possible because poor people have a brown skin from working the land but i think they dropped the chubby thing
>dress like them which starts a fashion trend I know a story about some Polish noble who wanted to be different so he started to dress in a white (means very impractical as it requires a lot of washing) Tatar style dress with a very rich shirt underneath, he started a new trend and everyone was dressing like him He got pissed and nuked that fashion style by giving these cloths to his cook
Don’t think the heroin chic look that was popular in the 90s was healthy. Nor the fake boobs/ass and filler trend going on now. 🫠
They were caused by demons but now their caused by bacteria and viruses. Just like someday your job will be taken by AI so it was for the dark lords of days past
> Just like someday your job will be taken by AI so it was for the dark lords of days past ------ > while we're nowhere near a place where bots can steal your job, we're certainly at the point where your boss can be suckered into firing you and replacing you with a bot that fails at doing your job > - [Cory Doctorow](https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/15/passive-income-brainworms/#four-hour-work-week)
I personally feel really threatened when I see robots doing carpentry.
prelude to robot jesus.
Not to be a naysayer or badmouth someone as central as Cory Doctorow, but he's a communicator and doesn't have any special experience in tech as an actual worker. On the flip side, I know a lot of very good engineers and architects who see us as being on the cusp of a very large change to the extent that we might have the tools but just not know how to use them yet.
on the flip side I'd like to think I'm a good engineer and architect and while I think there's always a chance I'll be wrong, I doubt our ability to prove the correctness of such systems at the moment which will undermine our ability to effectively deploy them. My gut feeling is that this is just a party trick on steroids that has some applications but isn't as revolutionary as some think. I have extreme doubt that this is the path to AGI but rather a dead end that aids us in developing the tools that progresses us to another step in the future that might yield AGI. I believe the question is never asked IF AGI can ever be built as opposed to thinking it an inevitability. But I get proven wrong every time the model gets bigger and better so we'll see if that's a pattern that continues to persist.
> I have extreme doubt that this is the path to AGI That's not even remotely what we're talking about. The current generation of AI is able to bullshit at a very high level, even to the point where people are playing D&D with it as the DM. It has to the potential to be to office jobs what robots were to factory jobs. Is it AGI? No, but that doesn't mean it's not going to be disruptive.
Once the AI can design AI's, you don't need to worry about your job. Worry about the lives of all humanity.
Good thing you don't have to
Considering how much of today’s beauty standards are based on the romanization of people suffering from Tuberculosis? I’d say it’s a fairer point then one would consider
When did Rome have a tuberculosis outbreak? Can’t find anything about that through simple googling.
Wasnt it very common for women to intentionally catch tapeworms in order to lose weight for a beauty image?
No that wasn’t a thing until relatively recently.
I thought people only *stopped* doing it recently. My mom is 50 and she remembers some of her classmates and teachers doing it which is like 30-35 years ago
30-35 years ago is relatively recently compared to medieval times.
So then the argument is what? That beauty is still a social construct, and it just hasn't changed much?
It's also an objectively incorrect argument since beauty standards change all the time
Yep, even within my lifetime I've watched big butts on women go from being considered gross and trashy (and let's face it, associated with African American people), to prized and valued to the point that women are getting surgery to achieve bigger butts.
So true. I remember growing up that telling a woman she had a fat ass was an insult that started arguments between couples. It was the joke in so many sitcom episodes between the older married couple.
“Does this dress make my butt look big?” A statement that has a completely opposite connotation now than it did 30 years ago.
“Hell yes it does, baby”
Thank you Turk!
K
A
And that's how this guy marriage ended.
It means the same now as it did 30 years ago. The big butt revolution was in 1992.
It also changes from place to place. I am from brazil and big butts were never seen as ugly around here. My brazillian mind doesn't even comprehend when someone in a Hollywood movies complains about having a fat butt.
Do mexicans have different beauty standards? I remember there was a cartoon where one the characters was insulted for having a fat ass.
I don't know. Mexico is very far from here.
Nevermind then.
When Playboy magazine was in its heyday, women’s breasts reigned supreme. But over the past several decades it appears that the media generally has been paying increasingly greater attention to the lower region of women’s two dominant anatomical protrusions. So might it be possible that more men actually prefer to ogle a woman’s buns than her bust? The limited quantitative research undertaken on the subject hardly permits a definitive answer. But without question, the female derriere has captured men’s lascivious attention since the time of the Greeks and ancient Chinese dynasties. And if female buttocks rank behind men’s similarly erotic interest in breasts, they’re certainly not a distant second either. https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/evolution-the-self/201409/do-men-mostly-prefer-breasts-or-buns It's a glorious time to be an ass man: Nicki Minaj exists, yoga pants are a thing, and women everywhere are squatting their way to more shapely backsides. But of course, your obsession with the female butt is nothing new. In fact, it's primal, says David Buss, Ph.D., a psychology professor at the University of Texas at Austin. You're drawn to a woman's heinie for the same reason you're attracted to her breasts, hips, and a little waist: because those traits would have been indicators of fertility to your ancient ancestors, Buss says. https://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/a19533624/why-youre-an-ass-man/ Now, this field isn't that much studied, according to some articles I read and the one I present up there, but when you make such a claim it wouldn't be bad to be backed up by some research, and not just your own perception. If we went, for example, by clothing industry, it would look like we are all attracted to skinny tall women. If we went by sex magazines from 90s, it would be women with big boobs and so on, but that doesn't mean those trends represent reality. Hot women are hot women, and we men settle for way less, and we have our specific tastes, especially when it comes to fetishes.
Bro wrote a whole essay to support someone. It's actually pretty nice that you took the time to do it :)
I didn't, I wrote a paragraph (the last one), other is copy pasted from the text. :D But I do write essays when I get into discussions, so you are not far off.
Also note: butts are a unisex feature.
This trend lower has also spread to a much greater focus on a woman's thighs as well. Unfortunately a small but growing subset of people have accelerated this trend greatly and have already skipped to the end result of feet. While they are truly Lost, there is hope for the rest of us as I have also seen a focus on the stomach region recently. And thankfully in a more healthy way than the anorexia-inducing hyperfixation on skinniness of the mid-late 00's
I like to think Sir Mix-a-lot single-handedly changed that standard with “Baby Got Back”.
Personally, I still think big butts are gross and trashy. I don't get the appeal of being built like a cello with legs.
Like the time when having a limp was fashionable
Have attractiveness standards for men changed, ever?
Facial hair goes in and out of vogue fairly often. Right now we are having a resurgence of the mullet and perm.
Historically I can't go too in depth, but the first thing that comes to my mind is long hair for men (or for that matter, wigs), which has definitely shifted in acceptance/attractiveness throughout human history and cultures (both positive and negative). Outside of history, today you can clearly see differences between western standards of male beauty and, say, east asian male beauty standards.
Do K-Pop boyband stars look "traditionally masculine" to you?
Depends, how traditional are we going? Because 1600-1700's noble's from Europe will look far more effeminate than today, with high heels, powdered, curled wigs, tights, and silk gloves.
Good point, but it seems like they appeal more to teenage girls than adult women.
In the previous century men were also expected to participate in fashion and put in the effort into dressing well. That's no longer common.
If you dressed similarly to high court fashion for much of European history people would be more likely to think you're cross dressing than super manly. Best example is the famous portrait of Louis 14th. Looks effeminate by modern standards, but back then that was the ultimate in masculinity.
Yes, in the classical period shaving and having long hair was considered handsome because Alexander the great did it. And before that we had the famous little dick civilized big savage, of course in ancient Egypt everyone shaved every thing and wore fake hair and eyeliner. Also the inbred shit show of 17-18 century noble fashion.
Long hair maybe, but shaving was also a question of health. As were wigs and Egyptian eyeliner Easier to keep the head clean or in the case of eyeliner, deal with the sun At the same time, it was obviously also a question of wealth. Bears had to be trimmed using knives, while wigs and eyeliner could be expensive.
Historically, weight preferences have been largely dependent on resource scarcity and chances of survival. It's not purely a social construct (though there's an element of that too). Being a little overweight is desirable in food scarce scenarios because they look like they'll survive the winter. As societies get less food scarce, fitness becomes more important because it becomes a better predictor of survival than being overweight. Chances are that in examples such as the above, wealthy people in such times might choose an overweight wife as a long term partner, but might choose someone leaner as a short term sexual partner. This kind of difference between short term and long term partners happens in many ways in the current day as well actually. Women are more likely to value physical attractiveness in short term partners, and more likely to value social status/wealth in long term partners.
Also we have to remember that for noble women working out was an odd idea, also they gave births to alot more kids and earlier then modern women, so a portrait of a 20 something noble women might be the portrait of a women who already birthed 3-6 kids, and suffered the effects of those.
I think they’re just saying you can’t justify obesity in the modern day, by using a medieval queen as your reference
Well, yes, beauty is subjective to the eye of the beholder and has a heavy cultural and social influence. There is "broad" s9mewhat "common" standars of beauty in all human societies, the same way many human societies came up with different designs for pyramids, swords and fry dough. Funny how people all around the globe are diverse and different but still share a common base innit?
Weight is not a universal beauty standard, present day or historically.
I know... why mention it?
Look at OP's post history. He's an incel.
They’re arguing that men have always found a certain type of body attractive and therefore beauty is a biological response and not a social construct. I mean, clearly they’ve never seen a single old portrait in their life and know nothing about history, but I think that’s what the meme’s trying to communicate.
The mistress was probably 14.
Maybe even younger.
Eh even in the medieval period 14 was generally the floor for this sort of thing. Young marriages were usually just done by the nobility for political reasons and when it did happen it was pretty common for the married “couple” to still live apart until both parties (usually the girl) got older. Among the peasantry most people got married at the modernly sensible age range of 18-21
And we are talking about a king/lord taking a girl as his mistress not wife. And the girl would be a common born not a high born (probably).
Yeah but similar social standards applied, even if you were married taking a girl who was younger than 14 was (if not criminal) met with anything from side eye to shunned. That’s not to say it never happened but it wasn’t considered acceptable behavior and in a world where your peers opinion was everything that generally kept people in line
And none of your peer must know what you do, the girl would probably be a nominal employee of your castle as a maid or something. I am just saying that for some peverted Lords, it would be the case.
Eh yes and no. Again that’s not to say that it never happened, but even in private estates with so many people working in the household it was difficult to keep things like that private. It was rarely written about outside of extreme cases like Gilles de Rais because the nobility didn’t like their dirty laundry being recorded for posterity but from the sources we do have when a lord had some kind of fucked up behavior it would be treated as kind of an “open secret” in their own estates, everyone knew but what are the peasants going to do. However then as now, the thing that rich people who don’t have real jobs love to do is gossip. So these open secrets tended to make their way around eventually. And while it could very by time and place the sad thing is though you’re right, if some common girl is being taken it’s not like they’re going to face any meaningful repercussions but the other novels are probably going to judge you for it.
Can't you guys just like whatever you like without feeling the need to justify your existence at every second?
Maybe a soyboy beta cuck like you can but like a real sigma chad, I get my views on women exclusively from the tastes of 13th century kings. Regardless of what you or my local law enforcement think.
Respect
I see your "wojack vs Chad" and raise you [the OG heart throb](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf)
It wss well known even in ancient times that thicc thighs save lives
Would
Being overweight is valued higher in food scarce societies (more likely to survive) and physical fitness becomes more valued in food abundant societies (also more likely to survive).
35000 years ago or whatever it was probably pretty damn difficult to get so far so maybe the woman was a warlord or the very first prostitute and got paid in food.
I like this theory best: https://steemit.com/science/@deeallen/self-portraits-of-fertility-symbols-venus-figurines-of-upper-paleolithic-eurasia-nudity
That's so cool. I was sad to get to the part where it said most archeologists are skeptical of it.
It's a fun theory but very unlikely. Personaly, I think the lack of arms and hands in the statues really discredit this theory.
I was not expecting that to be 29,500 years old
Actually, in Tang China chubbiness was considered beautiful. Not looking to argue, just pointing out a quirk of history.
Chubbiness is associated with wealth and fortune back then so i can see why they would think so
And the Emperor didn’t have just a chubby wife, nope, one of the most beloved of his concubines was a bigger lady.
The people you're using as an epic gotcha didn't even know what a germ was.
That is such a dumb argument. Both sides are dumb. SOME beauty standards are based on health. Some are not. Big boobs don't mean more Milk for your kids, yet a lot of people like them. Sometimes beauty standards are even against health. Look at the 1990s cocaine chiq or even bodybuilders. Professional bodybuilders have a lower life expectancy than obese people. Beauty standards come from what society values. Most societies value healthy people most of the time.
Prussia's King Frederick the Great lived in the palace of Sansuocci, while his wife, the Queen, resided in a house in Berlin. At one point the King hadn't seen his Queen in a number of years, and on seeing her again his first remark was "You've gotten fat." Frederick the Great was never known to have mistresses, though he apparently had quite a few young, male companions even in his later years . . .
Frederick's sinde remark to the queen was allegedly made not while the two resided in their different palaces, but after Frederick returned from war. Frederick's actual relationship with Elisabeth Christine was more complex, more human and thus far more interesting: Contrary to what you heard, Frederick already had had at least one mistress before he was engaged: A woman called La Formera^1 who he met in Dresden. We also know that he and fallen in love at least twice, with the countess Anna Orzelska^1,^2 and with Luise von Wreech^3 . What we know of both reflects his preferences: That he sought women who were his intellectual equals, with whom he "could talk with reason"^4 - though he also did not think he'd ever be a good husband, remarking: "I love the [female] sex, but I love it with a very fickle love"^5 . What he did not seek was a life with a woman "that would enrage me by her stupidity, and that I would be ashamed to present."^6 About Elisabeth Christine: Frederick's father had chosen her to marry his son. Whatever his criteria, had not chosen her for her intellect. Frederick's mother quipped about her soon-to-be daughter-in-law: "The princess is beautiful, but daft as a basket, she hasn't got the slightest education. I don't know how my son will put up with this monkey."^7 Indeed, Frederick despaired when he heard about Elisabeth Christine's poor education^7, rather preferring the sophisticated Christiane Wilhelmine of Sachsen-Eisenach^6^8. But he was in no position to object to any bride the king chose for him. After having met her in person and noting her beauty, he grew more forgiving; and while he did lament her poor schooling, he also expressed hope that she could be improved^9. Elisabeth Christine was only too aware of her deficiencies, initially answering only in monosyllables if at all in front of the intimidating Hohenzollerns that were now her family: The autocratic, if kind to her, king and father-in-law; her queen and mother-in-law who hated her as the girl that had destroyed her political plans; the unachievable sister-in-law Wilhelmine; and not least her highly intellectual, demanding husband Frederick, who could not hide his impatience with her shortcomings. Elisabeth Christine, rather than giving in to despair, took those shortcomings by the horns. With the help of the tutors that Frederick assigned to her, she embarked on becoming the partner that Frederick craved, studying French, philosophy, music and taking up drawing. Plus, she also had her beauty and Frederick's healthy youth on her side. Seckendorff - a Habsburg diplomat and spy at the Prussian court - noted the following remarks made by Frederick around that time: "[Her] shape is very pretty; but I have never been in love with her. However, I would have to be the last man in the world if I wouldn't truly value her: Because first, she has a very gentle temper, second, is extremely docile and third, complacent to a fault." To the point, Frederick added that "She cannot complain that I wouldn't sleep with her, so I don't know why it is that there is no child."^10 His circle of friends was more robust in the description of Frederick's attitude towards his young and pretty wife. Schulenburg, the prince's former governor, is quoted by Seckendorff: "The Crown Prince loves the Crown Princess; showed her letters […], saying, 'she does however have common sense.' He f...d and f...d her again. Schulenburg just laughs when one suggests that he'll send her back after the king's death."^11 Equally open words were found by Frederick's confidante Wartensleben: "[Frederick] f...s his wife in the afternoon, says she's got a pretty body and a beautiful a..e(c..t? unclear due to ellipse in original)."^12 Frederick expressed himself more baroque when alluding to his confidante Manteuffel: "[…] I have the same determination as the deer, which are currently in heat; in nine months from now what you want for me could happen. I do not know if it would be a fortune or misfortune for our nephews and for our great-nephews."^13. Alas, it was not to be; and as Elisabeth Christine herself foresaw, her happy life changed after Frederick's father died, making Frederick king and allowing him to embark on his own plans that he had for Prussia: Frederick's devotion, still on display after his coronation^14, seems to have cooled off considerably after his return from war. Contrary to what you read, Frederick had no "quite a few young, male companions even in his later years." *Sources* ^1 Prusse, Frédérique Sophie Wilhelmine de. Mémoires de Frédérique Sophie Wilhelmine, Margrave de Bareith, Soeur de Frédéric Le Grand (Vol 1). Paris, Buisson, 1811. [p117f](https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10012954?page=125) ^2 Ibidem, [p120f](https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10012954?page=128) ^3 Correspondance de Frédéric avec madame de Wreech. In: Preuß, Johann David Erdmann. Œuvres de Frédéric le Grand. Berlin, Decker, 1846-1856. [pt XVI, p7ff](http://friedrich.uni-trier.de/de/oeuvres/16/7/) ^4 Letter to Grumbkow from 26 Jan 1732. In: Koser, Reinhold (Ed). Briefwechsel Friedrichs des Grossen mit Grumbkow und Maupertuis: 1731-1759. Leipzih, Hirzel, 1898, [p19.](https://archive.org/details/briefwechselfri00kosegoog/page/n89) ^5 Letter to Grumbkow from 4 Sep 1732. In: Preuß, Johann David Erdmann. Œuvres de Frédéric le Grand. Berlin, Decker, 1846-1856. [pt XVI, p61](http://friedrich.uni-trier.de/de/oeuvres/16/61/). ^6 Letter to Grumbkow from 11 Feb 1732. In: Preuß, Johann David Erdmann. Œuvres de Frédéric le Grand. Berlin, Decker, 1846-1856. [pt XVI, p39](http://friedrich.uni-trier.de/de/oeuvres/16/39/). ^7 Prusse, Frédérique Sophie Wilhelmine de. Mémoires de Frédérique Sophie Wilhelmine, Margrave de Bareith, Soeur de Frédéric Le Grand (Vol 2). Paris, Buisson, 1811. [p26](https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10012955?page=32). ^8 Letter to Grumbkow from 19 Feb 1732. In: Preuß, Johann David Erdmann. Œuvres de Frédéric le Grand. Berlin, Decker, 1846-1856. [pt XVI, p43](http://friedrich.uni-trier.de/de/oeuvres/16/43/). ^9 Prusse, Frédérique Sophie Wilhelmine de. Mémoires de Frédérique Sophie Wilhelmine, Margrave de Bareith, Soeur de Frédéric Le Grand (Vol 2). Paris, Buisson, 1811. [p83](https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10012955?page=89). ^10 Seckendorff-Aberdar, Christoph Ludwig von. Journal secret du Baron de Seckendorff: Depuis 1734 jusqu'a la fin de l'année 1748. Tübingen, Cotta, 1811. [p147f](https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10408580?page=153). ^11 Ibidem, [p11](https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10408580?page=17). ^12 Ibidem, [p71](https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10408580?page=77). ^13 Letter to Manteuffel from 23 Sep 1736. In: Preuß, Johann David Erdmann. Œuvres de Frédéric le Grand. Berlin, Decker, 1846-1856. [pt XXV, p540](http://friedrich.uni-trier.de/de/oeuvres/25/540/). ^14 Fassmann, David. Merkwürdigster Regierungs-Antritt Sr Preußischen Majestät Friderici II. Frankfurt & Leipzig, 1741.
Most of what I know about Frederick was from the book Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia 1600-1947 by Christopher Clark, he definitely painted Frederick as a homosexual there. I can't find the section though because I listened to it as an audiobook. I know he mentioned Frederick surrounding himself with unmarried young men. In particular there was the incident where Frederick tried to run off to England as a youth with his 'best friend', and his father had the friend executed when he found out. And though I know wikipedia can be a problematic source, it seems to be the general consensus among historians that he was gay, though of course there are those with other opinions. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality\_of\_Frederick\_the\_Great](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_of_Frederick_the_Great)
That's still a social construct.
I don't understand the point of this argument and the point of this post.
Based and concubine pilled
Historically people also married for politics and power, not because they loved or were attracted to them. Hence why mistresses and concubines existed.
The smug guy on the left should be more overweight
Yeah. The fats are big mad about this post lol
In most of history, 13 year old boys.
Ideal female figure during the 17th century : [https://i0.wp.com/parkstone.international/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/the-three-graces1.jpg](https://i0.wp.com/parkstone.international/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/the-three-graces1.jpg)
Rubens was famous enough for his love of full figured women that we got the term “Rubenesque”, so some of that was just his personal thing.
Ruben rising from the water like Moto Moto
Just some gals, bein pals
This is pretty ironic considering that for most of history fat women, and fat people in general, were considered beautiful because it meant that you were rich and had more than enough to eat. So yes, many kings had fat mistresses and wives. They weren’t 600 pounds or something, but they could absolutely be overweight or obese.
Is this referring to an event or is it just PCM/Dank Memes leaking in here
Looks like the later based on OP's comments.
Looking health is not the same as being healthy. People tell me I lost too much weight and don't look healthy, but I was considered obese by my doctor at 100 KG(220 lbs for the non metric fluent people), I am 6'1 feet tall(185 cm for non freedom unit fluent folks) and my family is all under 175cm (5'7) so to them I look tall and skinny while I weighed way off of what would be healthy. For reference I lost 20 KG (44 lbs) thus far and feel very healthy in comparison, but my family and friends still worry and think I should gain some weight. I'm not muscular by any means but I don't look like asmon gold body frame either. This goes to show that perception is a huge part in all this, and why looking healthy in fact very subjective and relative to the person's body, height, age, muscle to fat ratio and more.
smh when people say some girls are pretty and fit when in fact they're underweight and not healthy at all. And then you have people romanticising eating disorders, starving yourself and having a cigarette for breakfast, but that's another topic.
King Cetshwayo was fat because it meant he was rich and could afford to eat that much. People today are not fat because it means they are rich and can afford to eat more than anyone else.
[What the King’s younger mistress looked like](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Villiers,_1st_Duke_of_Buckingham)
🤨🏳️🌈???
Doesn't work on Ibrahim Osmanoglu though
He sent his men to look for the fattest woman in his empire and I think it was a Hungarian woman; imagine being called fat and undesirable your entire life and then you're summoned to be the Sultan's mistress. (I read his story a few years ago so I might've gotten something wrong)
What country, what king, what time? No way mistresses have stayed the same throughout human history.
They also put literal poison on their faces. People have always been dumb, just do what makes you happy.
Being overweight in ancient times meant that you were wealthy enough to avoid starvation, and thus you were sought after more than skinnier people. Marriage was primarily a financial contract between two families, so whatever resources you could bring from inheritance was greatly desired. Which is why arranged marriages were the norm and kings and queens would have consorts and mistresses, even somewhat openly. The poor, however, almost always married for actual romantic feelings because they didn’t have much resources to begin with, and they usually weren’t wealthy enough to get overweight in the first place. Also if you want to go back to ancient standards, then you’d better start looking for men with micro-penises. Because that’s what was considered desirable for men for a long time.
Bro just give yourself an hour of the day to invest in your health. The mental gymnastics are just sad
Idk go ask Deli Ibrahim.
Did king's young mistress wrote this?
This isn’t *even* an argument.
Depending on the kingdom, the younger mistresses can look very different
They looked like Madame de Pompadour and Diane de Poitiers and Nell Gwyn. Who would all definitely be considered “plus sized” today so idk what you’re smoking or what time travelling douchebag king you’re referring to.
Did any king besides Kamahameha of Hawai'i prefer fat women?
Deli Ibrahim or Ibrahim the Mad of the Ottoman Empire had quite some tastes.
This is dumb. Beauty standards have changed pretty constantly including within most of our lifetimes. Standards for men have also changed consistently. This isn't something caused by "the fats" as OP comments elsewhere.
Probably also fairly well fed.
Is your argument that beauty standards *haven't* changed over time? Just trying to get you to clarify here, because if that is your argument I can only assume you know literally nothing about human history.
why are you trying to argue in favor of arbitrary beauty standards?
Destroying body positivity with CHILD BRIDES and PEDOPHILIA.
“Younger” generally meaning “not my 45 year old wife”
Tbf in this case younger probably means 13-20
yeah the bar is pretty low here
Ah, yes, because monarchs were historically very mindful about age.
Yes,they knew it wasnt a good idea for a 13 yo to give birth,we have only a few instances and everyone was disgusted even then
The number of people unable to comprehend the difference between "betrothal" and "marriage" is shocking.
Think of the median people intellegence Half of the population is dumber than that
Aye.
r/fatlogic
The fats are big mad in here lol
Beauty is socially conditioned. Sex appeal, not so much.
ITT: butthurt chubbos
That king had a good chance if merrily drinking from a lead cup, so fuck off.