Why do women from hundreds of years ago look butt ugly compared to women now?

Question

It can't just be the makeup and hairstyles because if you look at certain paintings of women from the Victorian age and all that, their bone structure is just off. Was that from inbreeding?

Answer 1

Have you truely, truely looked at some of the women from that period? Not mere paintings but photos. Painting's can easily be attributed to the artist and the style they paint in. Photos give a better look. And there is no difference I find beyond fashion that marks women then as any different from today.

Answer 2

OK, and a woman might say why do men a hundred years ago  look so d**n ugly. And a more mature person might ask about how men and women portrayed in historical portraits look so different.  They look different because you are not considering the context and technical tools available then. Hey why your at it, look at the cave drawings and enjoy. And take an art history course while you are at it.

Answer 3

Hard work, cosmetics few and bad.  Look at russian women in the Soviet era.  They aged very quickly.  A friend of mine falsified her age from 45 to 35 to get a job in Russia, and the Russians didn't notice a thing.

Look at some of the photos of women from the Wild West.  Film star looks, NOT.

FDR married Eleanor for family reasons, not for her looks.

Answer 4

they did not need to impress me

Answer 5

Women went through a lot more back then. Childbirth, smallpox, and a bunch of other diseases take a lot out of a woman's womanliness. Plus, we have a lot more to work with now when it comes to our celebrities. Movie stars, athletes, musicians, politicians, even royalty (through marraige with commoners) are chosen for looks, whereas, in the past, they could've been chosen strictly from the "old wealth", the aristocracy. The same is true of athletes.

And, yes, standards of beauty are somewhat learned; for example, the curveless, high-cheek boned, bleach-white look, highly prized for runway models, can be found repulsive to others (including myself) who prefer a more curvaceous look; the hourglass shape was the definition of beauty for Victorians. However, I believe that there is at least a little aesthetic sense that is born into people. No, I don't think it was inbreeding. I think that that has been known as a dangerous and unhealthy thing for rather long time; there are always a few psychos who break every societal rule, no matter what it era it is. Cures to major diseases, however, are only a recent phenomenon.

Answer 6

Times were harder, people were unhealthy, conditions were unsanitary, etc.  It has nothing to do with evolution, its just things were overall unhealthy back then.

Answer 7

because they weren't your type.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I, too, think that way but, certainly, not all of us.  Who knows, there are some who think they were beautiful back then.

Answer 8

Have you considered that it could be the paintings themselves that are off? Painting isn't 100% accurate. A lot of painters can't capture the realistic effect. If you have someone make a portrait of you, it would look different from a photograph of you.

Answer 9

It just shows you the power of commercial psychological conditioning.

Answer 10

until this century the very skinny was not considered attractive. Women had fuller figures, because that was considered attractive.  I can't understand why you think they were ugly though, cause I've seen many pictures of very beautiful from the past.

Answer 11

Because women hundred of years ago lived harder lives.

Answer 12

Nope. They didn't have airbrushes and photoshop.

Answer 13

Standards of beauty change over time.

100 years from now, people will look at photos of our "stars" and wonder why we allowed women to look like starving refuges and dress like hookers.

Answer 14

You answered your own question.

Most of those women you see featured in paintings were molds for what society found more pleasurable at the time. Being slight and slender just one century ago indicated that one is fragile and perhaps ill. It was an indication that the woman was not wealthy enough to eat properly and probably has not produced any children. And the attire they wore in the Victorian age did not show off one's body as clothes do today. And yes, their hair and makeup probably strikes you as ridiculous. Women wore corsets and smooshed their b***s; everything was hidden and squashed. And yes Mona Lisa is a bit drab looking.

Answer 15

LOL. I think its mostly make-up, new cosmetics, and of course media-airbrushing.

Answer 16

BECAUSE BACK THEN THE WORLD WAS NOT VAIN AND FOCUSED ON BEAUTY..

TIMES WERE HARDER AND A WOMAN HAD TO WORK AND CARRY THEIR WEIGHT JUST LIKE THE MEN..

WORKING IN FIELDS OF DOING HOUSE WORK

THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE WELFARE OF THEIR FAMILY THAN WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE

Answer 17

Evolution, Change in Location, Different styles,

Different Eras of time, etc

What you think beauty is might not be the same as what another person thinks it is.

Answer 18

da vinci was a homosexual, and the mona lisa is sort of a self portrait of him, so he thought her masculine features were attractive. The media and culture has alot to do with what we today percieve as beautiful as well. We are attracted to what we are used to, but also studies have found that people who fit a certain face ratio, in a sense the "perfect face", are usually viewed as more attractive than those who dont.

Answer 19

ugly women would have kid with an ok looking guy then their kids would be a little bit better looking  and then they wouold marry an ok looking guy and have better kidds so on

Answer 20

I know what you mean, and I have a theory about that.  I've seen plenty of old photos of people taken a hundred years ago or more, and there are plenty of portraits of people that are a lot older than that, and you're right, they're pretty awful-looking.  My theory is that most people in the old days weren't very healthy compared to now, so a lot of them were in pain or at least uncomfortable.  A lot of people had bad teeth, problems with their eyesight, malnutrition...and the clothes they had to wear rarely looked comfortable.  It's hard to look good when you feel lousy.  Plus, you have to take into account the fact that life used to be really hard--there were no modern conveniences, there was no health care, not much leisure time--and that's important because if your time is spent completely on survival issues or daily chores, you don't have time to think about what you look like.  We modern folks don't realize how lucky we are to have so much leisure time.  We can actually spend time tweaking our appearances, trying out different "looks" and outfits...and our leisure time gives us a different sense of self-awareness than our great-grandparents had.  It's funny, but even women who were considered the great beauties of the day 100 years ago look a little weird to us now.  There are exceptions, of course...Evelyn Nesbit comes to mind...but there must have been some beautiful women somewhere, or the magazine illustrators, like Charles Dana Gibson, wouldn't have been able to immortalize them.

Answer 21

Evolution...look it up.