Post: #1

*Please move if dupe. Couldn't find anything with a search*

As a redpill man I should know better but I admit that my leftist education in sociology which claims everything is a social construct puts me at a disadvantage in this kind of debate.

I'm not talking about debating with feminists, ain't nobody got time for that. Sometimes this argument resurfaces even with cute thin girls. These girls can be saved from the sway of feminism, we just need to give them one convincing argument to think about.

We were having this discussion the other day and my girl pulled that bullshit again:

"but fat women were considered attractive once. Look at all those paintings from the Renaissance with fat nude women"


I told her that was just an isolated period and a more thorough analysis would still find that most beauty ideal represented throughout the ages still hold a thin women with good hip/waist ratio beautiful. She said: "yes, but that just go on to show that beauty standard change. So it can change for our time too"

I pointed out that for every painting with a fat woman there was another of a beautiful thin woman of the exact same era. Then the discussion start running around in circle.


Pretty sure we never had a sculpture/painting of a fat man as beautiful but some artists thought it was a good idea to start painting nude fatties en masse in the Renaissance era.


What would be convincing argument to give in this case, both historically, intellectually and sensically?

Post: #2

I was under the impression that Renaissance art featured plump women due to the fact that they were seen as more aristocratic and had better status. It didn't have much to do with actual aesthetics. I doubt Michaelangelo was actually banging fatties (bad example, I know).

Post: #3

(09-28-2015 09:44 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  *Please move if dupe. Couldn't find anything with a search*

As a redpill man I should know better but I admit that my leftist education in sociology which claims everything is a social construct puts me at a disadvantage in this kind of debate.

I'm not talking about debating with feminists, ain't nobody got time for that. Sometimes this argument resurfaces even with cute thin girls. These girls can be saved from the sway of feminism, we just need to give them one convincing argument to think about.

We were having this discussion the other day and my girl pulled that bullshit again:

"but fat women were considered attractive once. Look at all those paintings from the Renaissance with fat nude women"


I told her that was just an isolated period and a more thorough analysis would still find that most beauty ideal represented throughout the ages still hold a thin women with good hip/waist ratio beautiful. She said: "yes, but that just go on to show that beauty standard change. So it can change for our time too"

I pointed out that for every painting with a fat woman there was another of a beautiful thin woman of the exact same era. Then the discussion start running around in circle.


Pretty sure we never had a sculpture/painting of a fat man as beautiful but some artists thought it was a good idea to start painting nude fatties en masse in the Renaissance era.


What would be convincing argument to give in this case, both historically, intellectually and sensically?

Dude women and logic do not go together.

Post: #4

A lot of the fat chicks you see in art from the enlightenment until now were imitations of classical antiquity to truly ancient pre-civilization depictions of fertility. I'm no art history major but I know enough about historical representations to know that the fat chick, with big tits, laying down was representative of fertility. Healthy fertility back in those days meant not looking like a runway model. However, the one fundamental misunderstanding people have is that this is a representation of attractiveness. You'd have to look at representations of actual sexuality and beauty icons like goddesses/divas/courtesans to really understand what was considered attractive during that era.

If you look at old Indian artwork depicting sexuality or kama sutra scenes (which WalterBlack links from time to time) it shows demure, thin, and voluptuous women which is not too different than what we find attractive now. Even temples in SEA which were known for basically being housing for courtesans the icons were all very sexually appealing (even for the modern day) thin figures with nice bust/waist ratios. You don't see fat blobs with tits adorning doorways in most temples unless it specifically has to do with fertility.

Another realistic example is that in NEA/SEA historical artifacts the beauty standards have really not changed much in the past 1000 years. People still like very porcelain skinned women, demure, and with long slender figures. This has not changed at all in 1,000+ years..if ever..just think about that. The proof is in the ancient scrollwork. You don't see any Chinese emperors depicted hanging out with fat yoga posers doing fake handstands on their jelly rolls.

Post: #5

(09-28-2015 09:44 AM)Dalaran1991 Wrote:  *Please move if dupe. Couldn't find anything with a search*

As a redpill man I should know better but I admit that my leftist education in sociology which claims everything is a social construct puts me at a disadvantage in this kind of debate.

I'm not talking about debating with feminists, ain't nobody got time for that. Sometimes this argument resurfaces even with cute thin girls. These girls can be saved from the sway of feminism, we just need to give them one convincing argument to think about.

We were having this discussion the other day and my girl pulled that bullshit again:

"but fat women were considered attractive once. Look at all those paintings from the Renaissance with fat nude women"


I told her that was just an isolated period and a more thorough analysis would still find that most beauty ideal represented throughout the ages still hold a thin women with good hip/waist ratio beautiful. She said: "yes, but that just go on to show that beauty standard change. So it can change for our time too"

I pointed out that for every painting with a fat woman there was another of a beautiful thin woman of the exact same era. Then the discussion start running around in circle.


Pretty sure we never had a sculpture/painting of a fat man as beautiful but some artists thought it was a good idea to start painting nude fatties en masse in the Renaissance era.


What would be convincing argument to give in this case, both historically, intellectually and sensically?

The evidence about renaissance women being fat and thus attractive is all sorts of shenanigans. Interestingly enough, this bullshit myth even persists in some of my social science courses as proof for socialization causing changes in perception. Ridiculous.

Now, the unfortunate thing is there is a mixed based of literature on the topic, but most likely, it has to do with the artists of that time's perceptions of gluttony. At this time there were radical class differences, and while artists were paid well, they did not necessarily agree with the class-gaps between the rich and the poor. Also being a particular religious period, the artists would be commissioned to paint religious themed photos for the rich incorporating the rich, and resultantly, the artists would paint the women in these photos as being more-than plump. This may have been due in part to the fact that the women were probably a bit more plump being rich, but mostly because the artists were trying to say these women were the result of gluttony; in a way the artists were painting a silent protest.

The proof lies in that many artists did not depict normal women in this matter, the name slips me, but he painted two "Venus'" one commissioned from the rich, and one he did on his own based on prostitute models. The difference is dramatic, the rich painting depicts a large woman, and the prostitute model is skinny. Now it is easy to say that the artist was simply painting what they depicted, but the "skinny" Venus painting, and ones like it, were often sold as almost "pornographic" to the upper-class people's. They would keep these paintings in their homes with a curtain in front, and then when other males came by, they would show them the painting in private. In other words, these were the renaissance periods porno's, and what we conclude from this is that the skinny body types were still the sought-after ones for men of that period.

Post: #6

I just dug through my bookmarks, this post explains what you're asking in detail:
http://www.femininebeauty.info/medieval-...references

Post: #7

(09-28-2015 10:16 AM)RouteBackwards Wrote:  I just dug through my bookmarks, this post explains what you're asking in detail:
http://www.femininebeauty.info/medieval-...references

Related is the following image. http://i.imgur.com/T77QfoK.png

Even the women painted by Paul Ruben weren't anywhere close to the planetary status of the modern "women" who use this argument.

Being obese has never and will never be widely considered attractive by men.

Post: #8

To be quite honest Dalaran i'd stick to just stuffing your chick and ignoring whatever garbage she has coming out of her mouth. As people in southeast Asia say.."don't think too much." You're not going to convince her otherwise. She sounds like the standard indoctrinated moron.

Just acknowledge and enjoy it while it lasts. When it's time to move on then start bringing up all this stuff for debate that way you will have a good way to "alienate" her through logic. There's nothing women like this hate more than to be proven wrong again and again. Women can't separate criticism from debate.


Just rain logic down on some trivial historical topic and watch her wither.

It's a nice clean exit when you get tired of the pussy.

Post: #9

Beauty has in fact changed with time. However what humans consider beautiful is basically whatever is the hardest to attain at that very moment. However, the reason the fat lards of the past were considered attractive was because of the following:

Back in those days, food was scarce. Everyone was thin by default. Plump people were wealthy people and being plump meant you were well fed. Well fed people survived longer because of the obvious. A well fed woman could also bear children and survive childbirth.

However it should be noted that the ideal of those days especially Rubanesque women was this:


She's not really fat. More plump and as you guessed it "well fed". Dare I say it, I would bang.

Compared to this
trigger warning!


Would never have flown or been painted. This isn't attractive.

Fun fact, if you type in "fat woman" and go to Google images, the first result is from RoK!

In short , a fat woman in a time of famine is impressive. A fat woman in a time of plenty is disgusting.

Post: #10

(09-28-2015 10:32 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Beauty has in fact changed with time. However what humans consider beautiful is basically whatever is the hardest to attain at that very moment. However, the reason the fat lards of the past were considered attractive was because of the following:


However it should be noted that the ideal of those days especially Rubanesque women was this:
[img]http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/ep/web-large/DT11.jpg[/img

I really think this is a misconception. She's depicted as having a child putting on a crown and a man attending to her. It's not so much a depiction of sexuality but of fertility. Renaissance art up until the victorian era idolized classical depictions of fertility. There are various reasons for that but rebirth was a major theme in the renaissance..because that whole period was considered a rebirth.

Post: #11

(09-28-2015 10:28 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  To be quite honest Dalaran i'd stick to just stuffing your chick and ignoring whatever garbage she has coming out of her mouth. As people in southeast Asia say.."don't think too much." You're not going to convince her otherwise. She sounds like the standard indoctrinated moron.

Just acknowledge and enjoy it while it lasts. When it's time to move on then start bringing up all this stuff for debate that way you will have a good way to "alienate" her through logic. There's nothing women like this hate more than to be proven wrong again and again. Women can't separate criticism from debate.


Just rain logic down on some trivial historical topic and watch her wither.

It's a nice clean exit when you get tired of the pussy.

She is indeed an indoctrinated moron, but the other way around! She refused to eat anything that is not whole food, or has even the slightest chemical component in it. Is very thin with great accessories. Guess its the better devil then.

But I think you are right. Women are anathema to logic one way or another, and since she's not going to get fat (I hope...) there is little point in arguing.

Still it never hurts to augment knowlegdge in matter like this. Answers on this thread has been very insightful!

Post: #12

(09-28-2015 10:35 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(09-28-2015 10:32 AM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Beauty has in fact changed with time. However what humans consider beautiful is basically whatever is the hardest to attain at that very moment. However, the reason the fat lards of the past were considered attractive was because of the following:


However it should be noted that the ideal of those days especially Rubanesque women was this:
[img]http://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/ep/web-large/DT11.jpg[/img

I really think this is a misconception. She's depicted as having a child putting on a crown and a man attending to her. It's not so much a depiction of sexuality but of fertility. Renaissance art up until the victorian era idolized classical depictions of fertility. There are various reasons for that but rebirth was a major theme in the renaissance..because that whole period was considered a rebirth.

That's just one example, google around more and you'll see the same thing. Relatively plump women.

Post: #13

Paul Ruben was probably a fat fetishist.

I guess you could always bring up the concept that a lot of paintings back then were of fantastical things like dragons and shit. There would be no need now for Paul Ruben to paint fat bitches because they have since escaped the realm of fantasy to stand in line at the nearest cronut shop or McDumpsters.

Speaking of which if its the medieval ages and you live through times of famine just the concept of fat hoes would represent the easy life with plenty of food to go around and would have precisely fuck all to do with beauty standards. Its a statement of our times and how easy we have it this is what comes to mind when we see these paintings.

So you have to flip the script. You can tell her its her sexist objectification of women slanting her perception into believing rubenesque paintings are about beauty standards when they really represent freedom from want.

Then you can troll her into believing she has to deprogram herself from her internalized misogyny if she wants to see the world as it really is.

Post: #14

(09-28-2015 10:53 AM)Hades Wrote:  Paul Ruben was probably a fat fetishist.

I guess you could always bring up the concept that a lot of paintings back then were of fantastical things like dragons and shit. There would be no need now for Paul Ruben to paint fat bitches because they have since escaped the realm of fantasy to stand in line at the nearest cronut shop or McDumpsters.

Speaking of which if its the medieval ages and you live through times of famine just the concept of fat hoes would represent the easy life with plenty of food to go around and would have precisely fuck all to do with beauty standards. Its a statement of our times and how easy we have it this is what comes to mind when we see these paintings.

So you have to flip the script. You can tell her its her sexist objectification of women slanting her perception into believing rubenesque paintings are about beauty standards when they really represent freedom from want.

Then you can troll her into believing she has to deprogram herself from her internalized misogyny if she wants to see the world as it really is.

You can see a similar effect right now.

In America and Europe, people who have tans are considered attractive whereas in Africa, India, and parts of the Caribbean people with light skin are the ideal. Why? In America everyone works indoors while those in warmer and poorer areas see pale skin as ideal because they work indoors.

Post: #15

Poor Rubens. He would have broke his paintbrush in half, burned it, and prayed to avoid perdition, if he had known his name would live on mainly so fatties could happily chow down and end up on a scooter in Walmart before they were forty.

Post: #16

This is the Babylonian goddess Ishtar from around 3000 years ago



Persian goddess Anahita(1500 years ago)



I see no fatties here.

Post: #17

Agreed.

Venus Demilo is pretty much a 10 in the definition of 'thick women' with those hips but is definitely not fat...I've got to remember this one for when chicks claim to be 'thick'

Post: #18

This article would be of help. http://www.rooshv.com/long-hair-in-women...and-health

There is an objective measure of beauty. Long hair, wide hips and being young, all with evolutionary advantages. Long hair (above), wide hips makes women give childbirth easier and being young is a factor that men emphasise on as women aren't fertile their whole life.

Post: #19

I have heard the same argument from males... (difficult to call them men)

They argue just as emotionally as well and now consistently start these sort of arguments with me, because they know I have a 'bad' view point. I try to avoid these conversations at all costs, but it is difficult now that they like to pick these fights with me.

Recently I got fed up of calmly defending my position and explaining points about evolution, while I was being shouted over by two males going "you can't say that! you can't use that word! thats shameful! you shouldn't think that way". That I eventually gave up and said "yep, you know what you're right. Im a horrible person, well done you two for being such good people, pat yourselves on the back". This pretty much ended the entire argument.
When one of them later on called something I said 'shameful' again, I just agreed and said 'yes sorry I'm so shameful and not more like you'. This drove them crazy they said 'its not about that !!' but it clearly made them realise that it was about that. The argument stopped right there. Hopefully they won't bother me with that shit again.

It does raise a question though, should these people be treated as females? or should we hit them over the head with logic? or are they too stupid, feminine and emotional that most liberals shouldn't even be engaged with this way?

Post: #20

(09-28-2015 02:12 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  Agreed.

Venus Demilo is pretty much a 10 in the definition of 'thick women' with those hips but is definitely not fat...I've got to remember this one for when chicks claim to be 'thick'

Hmmmmm. This is interesting.

Somehow Venus' measurements have changed from the early 20th century to the early 21st.

A 1916 New York (before it was Beta) Times article listed her as a height of 5'4" (which would have been tall for a girl in ancient Greece) and measurements of 37-26-38, https://www.quora.com/Art-History/What-a...us-de-Milo

However, a host of more recent articles insist she is 34-31.5-40. Was the older article wrong or are the more recent articles doing the same kind of size inflation that modern women's clothes makers have been caught doing recently (i.e. to keep our modern female population from getting bad feels about their continued fattening)?

Even if the latter measurements are correct, WB Venus even without her arms. Sorry ladies, most of you are not "thick" like Venus. You're thick like Lena.

Post: #21

We had this covered multiple times already.

Beauty standards are identical throughout history since they are endemic and instinctive.

The only times where some fatter women are preferred is during times of hunger and when many women and their children die in childbirth. There were such periods in recent decades in Africa and then men actually preferred plumper women, but that was just pure survival. As soon as the food situation improved, then the men returned to preferentially fucking slim women.

The Renaissance likely was such a period where most women were almost concentration-camp thin. Being fat back than meant that you would likely not die in childbirth and have mostly healthy children before kicking the bucket. Back then there were multiple times where the black plague hit the cities.

So yeah - when everyone is starving and dying, only then do men prefer fat women. We don't have such a situation existing anywhere in the world. Even the Arab men who seemingly prefer plumper women consume most of the West's porn and the hottest escorts - all very cute girls - some at best being a bit thicker with big ass, but that is not fat.

Beauty standard in fact cannot change, since it's intertwined with instinct and survival. The same goes for women - muscular, broad shoulders, taller than her, symmetric face, dominant in nature and behavior - that excites women and it will do so in 100.000 years. If it stops, then the sexual instinct is doomed and humanity will die out.

Post: #22

Rubens works is impressive. He actually got the fat folds and skin wrinkles more accurate than greek sculptures in my opinion and he has a great sense of movement in his works and excellent composition of characters. The woman tend to still have a very masculine muscles and back proportions. It would be fun to sketch and sculpt them as some point.