Why are all young girl suddenly good looking?

[PodcastFunFair]

I'm 40 in the 90s I was reasonably attractive by 90s standards.
I was a size 12 blond curly hair, outfit deom topshop and put on nice make up with some Charlie perfume.
I look at my nieces all identikit long smooth hair, make up perfectly put on with false eyelashes, tiny sized, super stylish all could be models from their insta accounts as could their mates is everyone better looking these days or better tools?
Do I need a make up tutorial from one of them so I'm not such an old dog 😂

[quote ColdTattyWaitingForSummer]@Gwenhwyfar I’m not sure.. I’m 40 this year and the pressure was definitely to be super skinny, I was a size 10 (probably a modern 8 accounting for vanity sizing) and definitely felt fat! So I think the modern trends for women with breasts / hips / bums is probably healthier. Although I agree that obesity is a very real problem.[/quote]
I agree. In the 90s I was 36 26 38, 9 stone 6 and wore a size 12. I was much larger than the desirable size at the time and was once called 'the chubby one' in my group of friends. There were certain styles I 'couldn't' wear because my stomach was round and bum was big, and any signs of fat needed to be hidden away at all costs. Now I measure 37, 24, 37, am 9 stone, size 8 (6 to fit waist) and get comments ranging from 'you're perfect' to 'you're too thin'. Yet I'm only 6lb lighter.

@MrsHookey I once read a book about luxury and apparently that market exploded in the 1990s with the advent of the single professional woman. We are also having children later and often working post kids. Your Granny was able to get away with just using Ponds cream and probably yardley perfume as a full beauty routine, but she probably didn't work post marriage and had DC very young. Today, women can choose not to have children or to have children later and even a LV bag costing in excess of a thousand pounds basically translates to only 1 month of childcare. So I don't think these expensive beauty routines are unaffordable without DC and when you do have DC, there is hopefully a man to help you shoulder the cost.

I do think childcare has always been expensive though; my rabbi said her nanny + food cost her entire salary basically and she is 65, but I think fewer women had to use it in the past as you could support a family on 1 income. Its getting harder nowadays and even if possible in some areas of the UK, I probably wouldn't advocate it with the 50% divorce rate.

" I think the modern trends for women with breasts / hips / bums is probably healthier."

Big breasts and bum, but a small waist is impossible for most people. The Kardashian bum is mainly implants. I really don't think it's healthier than being a normal slim person.

" Stupid crash diets were everywhere and eating disorders were almost fashionable."

Eating disorders were considered a mental illness as they are now. Do you have any proof that there were more in the 90s than now?
And the supermodels were not all skinny like Kate Moss.

I think acknowledging that women have hips and bottoms is a good thing. The fashionable 90s look was basically 'boy with breasts'; very slim but with breasts as big or as perky ('Hello Boys') as possible.

The Kardashian look may be as unattainable and the Lara Croft look but I think the curvier norm is kinder to more women and girls.

Sorry, 'as unattainable as...'

"I think acknowledging that women have hips and bottoms is a good thing. "

Yes, every woman has hips and a bottom, but only a minority have a naturally hour-glass figure. It's usually achieved with implants/padding as it was in the days of the bustle, etc.

"I think the curvier norm is kinder to more women and girls."

If by curvier you mean curvaceous, it's just as unattainable, even more so than being slim. If you mean fat, it's not something that should be promoted.

No, I mean having female hips as part of ones skeleton.

A lot of British women are naturally pear-shaped and retain that shape whether fat or thin. Some are naturally curvaceous (not the same as hour-glass, which is a specific sub-set), likewise whether fat or thin. I think the current trend is kinder to both than was the 90s trend.

Apple shapes lose out in both decades, though I'd say fit in better to current trends, as despite not having a small waist, there is far greater acceptance of curves in all parts of the body.

As I say, the 90s ideal was basically 'boy with breasts' i.e. Y-shaped body with wide shoulders and tiny bum, plus breasts. Not many women are that shape, some teenagers are but it encouraged thinness and breast enhancement (surgical or padded bra based).

"A lot of British women are naturally pear-shaped and retain that shape whether fat or thin. Some are naturally curvaceous (not the same as hour-glass, which is a specific sub-set)"

Can you explain what you mean by curvaceous if not hour-glass?
The pear-shape doesn't fit with the currently fashionable Kardashian look so I don't see how it's easier.

"As I say, the 90s ideal was basically 'boy with breasts' "

Evidence for this? Kate Moss doesn't look like a boy does she? And the other supermodels Cindy Crawford, etc. certainly didn't unless you look just at their height.
I think it's better to encourage thinness (within the healthy range) than overweight.

Oh well, I think pear-shape fits in better now, as curved hips with a smaller waist seem to partly fit the current fashions. Certainly far better than was the case in the 90s.

Curvaceous = prominent hips and breasts, in whatever proportions.

Hourglass = hips and breasts appear to be the same size as each other (actually very rare), with a small waits in between, like an hourglass.

'Boy with breasts' comes form my experience of being a teenager / early 20s in the 90s, reading teen magazines, seeing what the fashions were and who they suited.

To be perfectly honest, I've just dropped into the thread to make conversation. I haven't read the whole thing, so have missed you setting out the thesis you seem dead set on defending. In that sense we're talking at cross purposes, as I'm not really arguing, just chatting.

"Curvaceous = prominent hips and breasts, in whatever proportions."

But if you also have a thick waist then there are no real curves so I'd argue it does mean hourglass.

I am a very lopsided pear with legs like treetrunks (normal BMI). My body has yet to come into fashion!

Looks like we understand curvaceous and hourglass differently then.

I think, in regard to the curvy/hourglass debate…
All hourglass shapes are curvy but not all curvaceous women are hourglass shaped.

@AllTheUsernamesAreAlreadyTaken

I think, in regard to the curvy/hourglass debate… All hourglass shapes are curvy but not all curvaceous women are hourglass shaped.

Right, but a pear or an apple is not curvaceous no?

because for there to be a curve there has to be an in and out shape if you see what I mean

A pear can be, an apple no, IMO.

@Gwenhwyfar

because for there to be a curve there has to be an in and out shape if you see what I mean

Not if you are one continuous curve I.e. spherical.

Curvy can be top-heavy or bottom-heavy. Hourglass cannot.

So curvy requires a waist that is smaller than hips and bust but not necessarily a small waist or flat tummy.

Not if you are one continuous curve I.e. spherical.

That would indeed be a curve, rather than curvy!

Gosh, this is taking me back to Outnumbered and Karen's 'but they can't be an octagon, can they?'!

@lottiegarbanzo

Curvy can be top-heavy or bottom-heavy. Hourglass cannot.

So curvy requires a waist that is smaller than hips and bust but not necessarily a small waist or flat tummy.

Hmm. I'm pear shaped so my hips are bigger than my waist and my waist is (a bit) smaller than my bust, but no way am I curvaceous. I just look like a rectangle with hips sticking out a bit. I'd need a smaller waist for the curve to be obvious and if I get a smaller waist, I'll be smaller everywhere else too so not really possible. I have more chance of being thinner than being curvier. If you lose weight you at least have a chance of looking like Kate Moss whereas it would be very difficult to make yourself look like Christina Hendricks.

"Not many women are that shape, some teenagers are but it encouraged thinness and breast enhancement (surgical or padded bra based)."

And now they're wearing padded knickers to get a big bum. How is that any better?

Hourglass refers to hips and bust/shoulder width of almost equal size, with a waist measurement of at least ten inches smaller than both hips and bust. Kim Kardashian is actually slightly pear shaped as her shoulders are narrower than her hips.
Curvy used to mean wonen with hourglass figures, (that old coke bottle shape drawn in the air) but is now more commonly used as a more positive way to describe overweight, for example referring to midriff rolls as 'curves'.

I think to be curvy, a pear-shape has to have quite a prominent bust.

As a fellow pear I could never look like Kate Moss because my pelvis will not shrink away, however thin I am. I'd just look like a thin person with wide hips.

Padded pants, bras, shapewear, fine. The 'problem' is when the padding is surgical (from my pov, which is that cosmetic surgery is rarely worthwhile).

Over all, I prefer the current trend because I think, in its widest sense of what fashion is available and looks ok, it encompasses more people than the 90s (esp. early 90s) styles did. More people are a bit curvy, or pear-shaped than are very thin and I think encouraging thinness gets unhealthy for a lot of people.

Obvs the specific fashionable shape now is not just a large bum, it's a very particular shape of bum, which most people do not have. It's always in the interests of the fashion business to sell something unattainable.

Like people have said, they're not better looking, just have better tools at their disposal. Better makeup, contouring tutorials, lip fillers etc. They know how to dress better. Yes they look better than we did on their instagram pics but in real life you can tell they are ordinary underneath it all, and it all looks very fake in the bright daylight.