I don’t think that’s true. Big breasts and big rump? Sure. I would say plenty of men do. But the waistlines are still on the thin side.
And, again, I think that’s basically the same shape most average joes, of any race, are attracted to.
Supposedly, some Polynesians admired rotundness as a sign of wealth. But I have a hard time believing that was the only body type considered beautiful in a culture that invented hula dancing.
Certainly not “those that normally use mobility scooters to get around” as mentioned in the original post.
We have those in the US, but women go there to get fat AFTER marriage. We call them Dairy Queen.
(rim shot)
But we live in a society of abundance, with arts and crafts everywhere. Paleolithic folks made very few enduring art objects. Given their limited resources and the amount of effort involved, it’s safe to assume that these objects were of far greater importance than toys.
Kind of like how years ago a pale caucasian equated money (because they didn’t have to work) and thus was more ‘attractive’? While today tanned skin is more prized?
My first thought was Tonga. Wikipedia mentions: “large bodies are often revered”.
Samoans can be pretty large, men and women, and I’ve heard that although politically getting in shape is encouraged, socially being large preferred.
I read somewhere (no cite, my own memory) that beauty often consists of what’s difficult to attain. When reliable, consistent and abundant food sources are somewhat difficult to obtain in the general population, large bodies are beautiful because they represent a level of nutrition and eating that’s not common for the vast majority of people. When food is overly abundant (as in modern American society) and relatively cheap, it’s easier to overeat and be large, and therefore skinny is more beautiful because it’s harder for many people to resist the siren song of food.
Similarly, it was more difficult to be pale when most work was out-of-doors, and paleness implied a leisure class. Now, with most of us working indoors during the day, tanning implies either a need to not work and therefore be outside sunning or playing, or the money to pay for a fake tan.
Glossy perfect hair, smooth skin, etc. - all are difficult to obtain, and therefore of higher beauty.
Before I got married I visited my (now ex) husbands family, who was Egyptian. I was 5’3", 125 lbs. About a year after we married, we went back, and I was probably 145ish. EVERYONE made comments about how “fat” I was and how “happy” I must be and how “great” I looked.
It had something to do with wealth=money=food=fat
(I must add: 145 is NOT fat… I’m 160, now… which is um, shitty… and I’d do anything to be back at my “fat” 145)
My culture, whatever that is.
The people of Fiji apparently considered big to be beautiful, at least until they started getting American TV shows.
I doubt there’s ever been a culture where women literally too fat to walk were generally considered the most desirable, but I also don’t believe anyone on the SDMB has ever claimed this was the case.
Exactly. The first thing that came to mind when the countries given as examples of bigger being more attractive was that these are poor nations, and being overweight is likely viewed as a sign of wealth or prestige. In one of the links, they even say outright that fat is associated with wealth.
Just an observation but when I was in Malta some years ago they had plump women advertising certain products such as Sprite on billboards etc. I don’t know much about Maltese culture or their biases with regard to weight.
Most of these points don’t quite answer the OP, as we’re more talking about the “curvy” than the truly obese.
Or maybe obesity (by today’s standards) didn’t happen at all in ancient times ?
It happened, but you were generally so rich that no one cared.
I wish I could remember who I’m thinking of, but I think they wound up being assumed pregnant.
No, smooth skin is one area where all human cultures essentially agree. Pockmarks are a sign of disease. Whether most people have them or most people don’t, they’re never desirable.
Well, I was in a rush and that seemed to be the most information rich page produced by a quick googling of the words “Hottentot Venus,” dredged from the depths of my memory. I did not take the time to do more than skim it very quickly for a few relevant points, or to vet it for racism, or to look at any any other pages on the site.
Sorry.
But, replete with nutty racism as it may be, the page does contain some information relevant to the OP’s question. The point is that at least some of the most desired women of this culture are distinctly fat (albeit in a quite peculiar way). If you want a less ideologically contaminated (but rather sketchy) account of the Hottentot Venus, there is always Wikipedia.
I’ve always wondered if paintings from previous eras really portray the ideal of beauty of the time, or if there was a (for lack of a better word) political aspect of it. Could it be that painters were encouraged to portray their patrons’ wives’ body type as the ideal, even if it wasn’t the real ideal?
I’ve read many footnotes in Shakespeare plays that point out how The Bard was pandering to his queen in this passage or another. Why would painting be any different?