How the standards of beauty changed over the years

[beats95]

Recently my hubby told me some things which puzzled me. It is all about the standards of beauty. Of course, they may differ. With a flow of time they use to chenge radically. So, I would like to hear some opinions on that topick. Who may be considered beautiful? Or handsome? At nowadays?

I have read a phrase that a man is handsome already if he looks a bit better than a monkey. I do not agree. What are the suggestions about that?

Dear fridgepants, I just meant what standards are common for years to estimate somobody's beauty? Does everything change or there are some traits which are some kind of eternal nature?

Symmetry. It's been proven that the more symmetric your features are, the more beautiful you're perceived to be.

That's despite what is fashionable at the time, e.g. Twiggy type boyish thinness in the '60s contrasted to curvy Kardashians now. A symmetrical face wins out in the beauty stakes every time.

I am always surprised at how plain looking the great beauties of the Tudor courts were in their portraits. Thin lipped and pale

Why do not I agree? Well, because I do not like monkeys. It is the first. The second is, I think, a monkey can not be a ground base for estimating a beauty. The standards must be much higher. I think this phrase originates somewhere in the Mevieval Ages. At that time the most of men really did not differ from monkeys a lot. Now the things have changed.

Didn't the ancient Greeks have some sort of ratio of features of the face, to which a face had to conform to be considered beautiful?

(I think that's bollocks but perhaps there is something inherently pleasing about regular features, or something).

OP, you are a hoot!

BeeFarseer, I do agree. As for a outer look, the symmetry is on the first place. What about a soul and its reflection on a face or the appearence as a whole? Does a kind and generous soul make a person more beatiful? And attractive, of couse.

or a bot.

Lillie Langtry was considered a great beauty in her day. Would the same be thought today?

How small is her waist

Yeah I'm glad that squeezing yourself into a miniscule whale bone corset has gone by the wayside!

I would assume health/fertility markers would be popular no matter what time period.
Symmetry, good hip-to-waist ratio also, I don't believe the "golden ratio" for the face always applies but there's that.
There have been a lot of scientific attempts to quantify beauty over the years.
Personally I love the unibrow and small dicks of the ancient times 👍🏻

The monkey comparison makes me laugh, mainly because many of my friends think that Rafael Nadal is the epitome of male beauty...and I've always thought there's something distinctly Planet Of The Apes about him...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

And changes with fashions.

The hoops we are expected to jump through in the name of 'beauty' have certainly changed...

NB I am not fan of over-grooming.

I'm sure Lilly Langtree did have an artificially small waist but that photo has been retouched.
Standards have changed but enhancing by airbrushing or painting a flattering portrait has always existed.

Weren't Reubens subject matter, plump women, of their time but just considered fat now?

There are fashions and trends in beauty as well as everything else - the Victorians liked heart-shaped faces and small mouths and would probably not understand our current preoccupation with large, beestung lips. Lady Diana Cooper was considered the most beautiful woman of her generation and was a silent movie actress after WW1 - pic attached. I don't think she adheres to current standards of beauty. As for looking like a monkey, I have read that humans are programmed to find the face of a baby infinitely appealing so large eyes and a symmetrical round face will always be thought of as attractive.