Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> The Social Scene
What body-type was considered attractive back then?



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

Bambamama




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 01 2008, 7:30 am
I was just thinking about how some guys want these super-skinny girls who are like skeletons... and how there was a time when what we would call fat today was once considered beautiful.

Does anyone know if there are references in the Torah to what body-type was considered beautiful in those days? I would love to take a time-machine back and see what the women we know to be beautiful... like Sarah Imenu, Rachel Imenu, Esther Hamalka...... wouldn't it be funny if it turns out they were all huge?


Last edited by Bambamama on Tue, Jul 01 2008, 1:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

ChossidMom




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 01 2008, 7:58 am
It would!

Somehow I doubt it though...I'll bet they never over-indulged in anything Surprised
Back to top

Chocoholic




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 01 2008, 8:52 am
Interesting q..

nevertheless it is a mitzva to be healthy so one can do mitzvot to his best ability.. and being very overweight is not healthy...
Back to top

Ruchel




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 01 2008, 9:15 am
I was told Lea was considered unpretty because she was thin lol
Back to top

Tefila




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 01 2008, 9:59 am
1. Why the imahos we don't compare beard lenghts with the avos now do we?

2. Take genrations back and look there are different dimensions of fat too you know
Yes at one time a big bosom with a small waist and huge hips was in. But they had to have a waist of some sort so too fat could not have been in. UHHHHHHHHHH do I make an ounce of sense Twisted Evil
Back to top

ChossidMom




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 01 2008, 10:32 am
I actually find it an interesting question.
Back to top

Lady Godiva




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 01 2008, 10:59 am
I'd bet she had a perfect hourglass figure. Not too much fat on her but enough to make her a woman. What an interesting thought!! Confused
Back to top

louche




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 01 2008, 4:27 pm
AFAIK there are few references to specific physical attributes in the Torah. Leah was considered ugly because her eyes were "soft" from crying, Esther supposedly had a green complexion, but other than being described as yefat toar viyfat mar'eh, most of the women in the Tanach are not described at all. (not much for the men, either. Shaul was exceptionally tall, David in his youth was slightly built and of ruddy complexion, Yoseph was extremely good-looking and proud of his hair. Not much to go by.) This is no accident. 1. beauty is in the eye of the beholder; 2. an actual image of such great personalities would probably distract us from their spiritual greatness; and 3. cultural norms of beauty change over time. If we knew that Sarah imenu had black hair, was pale, tall and big-boned, and we lived in a culture that valued petite, tanned blondes, would we not argue with the Torah's description of her as a beautiful woman?

if you want an idea of the ideal of feminine beauty in Mesopotamia circa 2000 BCE, go to an art museum and look at the art of the times. a lot of the art features fertility goddesses, whose attributes are obviously exaggerated, but it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that they appreciated curvaceous women with generous hips and bosoms. In societies where food is hard to come by, plumpness is a positive trait.

However, the Imahot were very special women. It's hard to imagine their being judged by the same standards as the pagan women of the times.
Back to top

louche




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 01 2008, 4:32 pm
Highly unlikely the Imahot were "huge". Plumply rounded, possibly, but certainly not "huge", which comes from overeating and underexercising. Neither gluttony nor sloth are traits one would associate with the Imahot.

Of course, OP, if you're one of those people who considers anyone who can't clasp her own hands around her waist to be "huge", then it's possible.
Back to top

flowerpower




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jul 01 2008, 5:57 pm
Well in Europe before the war they were considered healthy and attractive if they were not thin. They looked well fed when they had skin on thier body and you couldn't see thier bones.
Back to top

mama-star




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Jul 09 2008, 11:17 am
I think this super-skinny stuff is nonsense. real men want a woman they can hold on to! I'm not talking huge, but normal up until "pleasantly plump" (hey, there's a reason why that expression got it's name - because people find it "pleasant!") also, remember that "zaftig" in yiddish means "juicy," and it's considered quite complimentary!
Back to top

morahg




 
 
    
 

Post Wed, Jul 09 2008, 11:19 am
flowerpower wrote:
Well in Europe before the war they were considered healthy and attractive if they were not thin. They looked well fed when they had skin on thier body and you couldn't see thier bones.


Bingo. They were also concerned about TB, which causes weight loss. My grandparents can't understand this "thin as a rail" mishugas.
Back to top
Page 1 of 1 Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> The Social Scene

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Long black skirt casual- slinky type
by amother
0 Today at 12:04 am View last post
I want my $40,000 a month paycheck back…
by amother
148 Yesterday at 9:46 pm View last post
How to prevent wig from tangling in the back
by amother
0 Yesterday at 8:24 pm View last post
Please help me dress for my new body type
by amother
10 Wed, Mar 27 2024, 5:33 pm View last post
Hurt my back
by amother
3 Wed, Mar 27 2024, 4:19 pm View last post