Not just love.
Ancient cultures sometimes seemed to worship obese fertility goddesses.
The reason I ask is, the use of ‘Rubenesque’ to describe large women didn’t appear until 1913. I would be surprised if there was a Dutch word in common usage for 250 years with no English equivalent.
From what I recall of several science articles, the thing that most men apparently used to evaluate “desirable” was a waist to hips ratio of 2:3 - basically the classic 36-24-36 shape, but chest size optional. Scientific thinking was this indicated a hip width suitable for childbearing but not too much fat of the morbidly obese variety. (like Sue Johannson’s sex show where she asked the fat caller “do you have an apron”? Meaning something other than a garment. ) it’s the shape not the size.
It’s often been pointed out that Marilyn Monroe was a size 14 or 12, not like today where a 6 is considered fat (sadly).
Men look for young and healthy, basically good breeding stock. If they appear to have many years of childbearing left, better. So what appeals to men is more likely than not, teens and early twenties. (or, anything with a pulse…) if the laws of some states have conspired to make this illegal in some cases, well, it’s evolution vs. Puritanism. Wonder which wins in the long run?
plus, evolution plays the game too. See an earlier thread on age of menses… Girls will develop secondary characteristics to attract a mate usually a while before they begin ovulating, menstruating, and can actually reproduce. For some reason, often by default attributed to nutrition, this age has gotten significantly younger in the last century or two.
A certain amount of subcutaneous fat both creates the aesthetically pleasing curves and softness in women, and also subconsciously signals she has the resources to bear a child even if food becomes scarce. After all, before Roe v Wade, once a woman started on her bundle of joy, she was stuck on that path for the next nine months. Having some fat reserves helped.
Finally the biggest sex organ in the human body is between the ears. What things appeal to some people… There’s a mind numbing variety.
A size 12 in Marilyn Monroe’s day was the equivalent of a size 6 today.
Snopes says 8-10.
Jezebel says 5’5.5" and 118-140lb. with somewhat unorthodox distribution… 
So while she was not one of Reuben’s favourite models, she certainly was not Olsen-twins or Nicole Ritchie or most of the anorexia-obsessed current celebrities. Thankfully…
5-5 and 140 is probably not what most modern women are told is acceptable by fashion magazines and popular culture.
5’ 5" and 140 pounds:
http://www.cockeyed.com/photos/bodies/505-140.html
Some of those pictured have a little “chunk”, but they’re not fat or obese by the standards of most. 5’ 5" and 118 pounds is DEFINITELY not obese by anyone’s standards.
You can’t equate women who are 5’5"/140 with those who are BBWs, OkCupid curvy, obese, or whatever.
Nor was she huge, either, which is what some would have you believe. “Everybody lusted after Marilyn Monroe in the 1950s, and she was a size 12/14/16. Plus-sized models today are usually around size 12. Thus, they liked them much bigger back then.” Bullshit.
In a brief period from 1973-1975, female models would slather themselves with sauerkraut and Thousand-Island dressing so they would look “Rubenesque.” The fad died out when someone pointed out the spelling error.
That’s hot.
Regards,
Shodan
It took me 3 seconds, but was totally worth the brain delay. 