This is not going to be your usual diatribe on the superficiality of beauty. Well, okay it basically is, but hopefully it's my usual jaded twist.
It's interesting to think that, during times of the Renaissance, "beautiful" women were women who were huge. I mean the fatter the better. It kinda made sense too --- in a time wrought with plagues and such, when horses were part beast of burden and part menu item --- it was a status symbol (and damned sexy) to clearly have ready access to enough food. Basically, being fat was being rich.
So my question isn't how we got where we are today, or why chickies today are held to the standards they are etc. etc. Though that in and of itself could be an interesting diatribe. My question...
Controlling for, oh, surgery and airbrushing and such, some women today are just born what we would consider pretty. There's only a certain combination of characteristics women can have, especially if you're talking specifically about white women of European heritage.
So, were there Cindy Crawfords and Rachel Hunters wandering around 15th century Europe, regarded far and wide as hideous and ugly, and wallowing in self-pity because they have good metabolisms?