Originally Posted by HSG
the plumpness necessary to beauty . . .
It's so extraordinary to read the excerpts from this work, this apotheosis of the timeless ideal of femininity, and to discover that in every age prior to ours, "plumpness" was considered just as essential to perfect beauty as blonde tresses, or sapphire eyes. Why are those traits - blonde hair and blue eyes - still considered marks of beauty, while being full-figured is not? Why the other characteristics, and not this one? Why shouldn't
today's actresses and models be idealized for the same traits for which women were glorified in the past - well-fed curves included
Our modern standards don't make any sense, while the timeless ideal just instinctively feels...right.
All of these posts about Medieval, Renaissance, and Victorian Beauty show that the feminine ideal was an organic whole that developed naturally, over time. The withered, ropy-muscled look that is advocated for women today is clearly the "odd one out," a deviation from the natural ideal. No wonder women suffer so much trying to attain it! Their bodies are rebelling, instinctively desiring to attain the fuller, softer state that is natural to them.
Think of how much happier, healthier, and more beautiful women would be, if they aspired to these natural womanly ideals of perfection, rather than today's artificial, unfeminine standards.