Do you think different generations have their own unique sets of defining physical characteristics, in the same way that different ethnic groups do? Thinking of different celebrities, I find that people born in the 70s, for example looked pretty different from people my age (born around 1985-1995 say) when they were my age.
Today’s high school and college kids also have a much different appearance than youth in the 80s and 90s, who had a much more mature look. The actors in Sixteen Candles were about the right age for their characters, but they look older than many of today’s 20 year olds.
Millennials also seem more intersexual in appearance to me than previous generations. The younger celebs like Miley Cyrus and Miranda Cosgrove look kind of “manly” compared to Melissa Joan Hart or even Hilary Duff. Metrosexuality in men is way more widespread too. In fact metrosexuality is so mainstream that the term “metrosexual” isn’t even relevant anymore.
Lastly, people in old movies looked different from people today and I don’t think it’s just the fashion because modern people don’t look exactly the same in movies where they don the style. There is something about their bodies that’s different, I think it’s a combination of different mannerisms and diet/work habits.
A lot of people do tend to stick with the same style of dress, hair styles, and such after a certain age. If you keep dressing the way you did just after you got out of college, that is going to give you a distinctive generational look.
I think most intergenerational change is due to changing social mores and fashions being reflected in the media. I’m pretty sure, stripped of clothing and makeup, people look about the same over time.
We are getting fatter, though. That makes a big change in people’s faces. I’ve heard places say that testosterone levels in men are declining over time; that would result in more androgynous faces, but I’m sure of the validity of those claims. There’s also demographic change, with a substantial rise in the percentage of Hispanics and Asians over time (blacks have been about 12% of the population for decades IIRC).
Improvement in diets made some large changes over the years. People were often shorter and suffered different diseases due to diet deficiencies. In the USA this really hasn’t been a major issue since the 1970s for most of the population.
Now the problem with diet is too much of a good/bad thing. People are getting fatter. Even babies are getting fatter.
Another issue is the lack of exercise. My younger co-workers are in much worse shape than my generation when they were the same age.
There could be an issue of better medical care having unintended consequences. There are some issues that medicine can overcome; however, these issues sometimes are genetic and are now passed on to the next generation. For example one of my daughters couldn’t get pregnant by the normal means. So she did invetro. Will that mean her children might have similar issues? I’m certainly not espousing eugenic solutions.
The prevalence of cigarette smoking years ago would also have an effect. Smoking ages a person, so younger people years ago may look older than their contemporary counterparts because they were more likely to have a smoking habit.
I’ve watched a few of the old shows that I watched as a kid in the 1980’s. Wow, did we really dress like that? And have such huge hair? It was like its datedness became suddenly apparent and my memories of it being normal just sort of dissipated.
I’ve been told that I look a lot like my uncles (my mother’s brothers). On pictures that were taken when they were in their late 30s,they look older than I look today (being in my late 40s). However, both men worked in hard, physically demanding jobs (like lumberjack) throughout their lives and both spent time in Soviet POW camps. I, on the other hand, have never experienced war and hunger and I have spent my entire working life sitting behind an office desk. Go figure.
Some of it is manner of dress and hairstyle - some of the teenaged boys in the 50’s looked like they were in their 30’s because of those crewcuts, for example. (Especially since if you’re getting a bit of male pattern baldness a crewcut will not allow you to hide it.)
Of course if you go back far enough you get “people in old photographs have a certain look to them because they had a lot of dental problems” and such.
I think roughness of life and diet can have an affect as well.
It seems like whenever I see really old photographs (1910s and before) the middle aged women look a bit rough/homely (sure, there are always exceptions).
One example is the famous afghan girl from the national geographic cover. She was re-photographedat 30 and she definitely looks rougher than a typical upper class young professional woman at 30. She had a pretty hard life.
Another factor: To compare people across generations, you have to either look at photographs, or rely on your memory. Looking at photographs will depend on the culture of posing for photographs: Most pictures you’ll see of today’s youth will be spur-of-the-moment selfies, while most older pictures were deliberately set up. Plus, the older pictures that were kept will be the ones that looked better.
On the other hand, if you’re going by memory, then you have to account for your own perspective changing. When I was in elementary school, high schoolers were hardly distinguishable from adults, but now, college students look like children to me. It’s not the high schoolers who have changed; it’s me.
Either of these effects would make the youth of yesteryear seem more mature than the current crop.
I totally agree with this. Metrosexual did not exist when I was a teen - the closest thing to that term would “pretty boy,” which isn’t exactly a compliment.
Other things seem different too.The female models today are much less waify; in my wary 20’s heroine chic was all the rage. There was really no such thing as plus sized modeling approaching anywhere near mainstream.
People actually watched the Miss America patent 3 decades ago; I imagine some people in their teens and early 20’s even know what it is; much less care.
I think Justin Beiber and Molly Cyrus are actually the same person.
Obviously looking at people in movies and on TV is useless because those differences can easily be explained by changing trends in casting.
When you look at people from say before 1970, their body types look different from what’s common now. But then when you see period movies/TV shows today’s actors look like that, too.
But it’s not impossible that you’re right. For instance, girls hit puberty younger and younger. That’s probably also one of the reasons young people today are actually shorter than previous generations.
Differences in smoking are also important, it ages the skin. The routine use of sunblock and the rebounding of the ozone layer have the opposite effect.
My parents took a pic of me in the zoo around 85’.
:eek:Men’s fashions, wow! You’d think it was a gay pride parade, skinny sleeveless tees, short shorts worn tight! I can’t imagine anyone being willing to out in essentially a speedo.
I have seen nude or nearly so males photographed in the late 1800’s by Baron von Gloeden, from 1950’s ‘nudist/health’ magazines, from 1960’s California beach/surfer boys, 1970’s-80’s bodybuilders/Playgirl models, 1990’s gay nudes, and current (often amateur cellphone) photos.
But it seems to me that it’s fairly easy to identify roughly when each picture was taken. And there is minimal of no clothing in these photos to give clues. Possibly viewers are guessing from the poses and background (though there is often little background shown). Hairstyles do give clues, though some (like crewcuts) were seen all through this century & a third.
Might be an interesting study to take pictures of current men in the same poses/backdrops as some of these historical ones, and see if viewers can reliably distinguish them just based on the body appearance.
I lived in China in 2006/7, and then last year for three months. In the first instance I was head and shoulders taller (6’1") than 95% of everyone there, in the second not so much.
Also, the photographic technology used may itself “age” the photo for you, either consciously or unconsciously. You can even do this intentionally - when was this photo taken? The color saturation seems to imply a different time - maybe late 1930’s/early 1940’s when color photography was still pretty new?
I find the 90s are starting to look more like the 70s and 80s too. Even movies from 1999 have a clearly non-contemporary feel to them now and look “weird” and “cheesy”.
I’ve noticed people (men) used to have bigger ears and bigger noses in proportion to their face than these days. I’m talking about say the 1920s
I think it’s because they were generally smaller than today but for some reason the facial appendages weren’t.
There’s also the issue that ears and noses keep growing slowly more or less for life, so older men at least have obviously bigger ears and to some extend noses than the junior population.
