Wednesday, February 18, 2009

2009 vs. 1909.

What constitutes a beautiful woman? According the New York Times, it is not a small waist line.

The article "Small Waist No Longer a Mark of Beauty," author unknown, was published on December 5 in the New York Times, December 5, 1909 that is. "The small waist died hard and some women still think that the hourglass figure is the mold of form," the article said. "But they look hopelessly outclassed by the woman with a healthy figure."

The early part of the 20th century was a time where women were squeezing their waists down to 20 inches. To readers in 2009 that sounds insane. And it makes me wonder if what we think of as beautiful now will be viewed as strange or down right crazy generations from now. My money is on fake tanning and breast augmentations.

To all those healthy TU students (particularly girls) who feel inadequate for not being able to squeeze into a size 2, have faith. In a couple years there will probably be an article in the NY Times reading: "Tan skin and shapeless bodies no longer a mark of beauty." Love who you are, don't feed into the fads (they only last about a decade anyway).



Yeshh! Good post.,23739,24856593-23272,00.html I also read somewhere that size 14's have been polled as having the best sex life. I don't think it's any suprise; happiness and confidence show.

Anomaly said...

I like this post. It would be a great topic for your feature story, I think. I know that I will want to read it.

Caitlin said...

Very interesting post. I enjoy reading it