Flutterby™! : 1890s dancers

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

1890s dancers

2012-03-07 22:34:32.993679+00 by Dan Lyke 4 comments

[ related topics: Sexual Culture ]

comments in descending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2012-03-13 15:15:05.113039+00 by: Dan Lyke

This has gotten around to MeFi, where Sidhedevil asserts that:

Lillian Russell, by the way, was 5'3" and weighed 180-200 pounds at the height of her It Girl fame. So the "Oh, those women aren't obese" people commenting at Sociological Images can suck it--"obese", at least in BMI terms, was indeed an ideal for professional beauties in that era.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-03-08 18:17:20.687143+00 by: Larry Burton

In spite of the way it looks I do try to avoid certain conversations on Facebook. I didn't think "fat bottomed girl" comments would go over too well with certain family members and friends or I would have commented on the relative size of these models to the models we see today. I think that the ladies in the pictures are a lot more typical of the ladies I spend my days around than fashion magazines and the media in general try to portray as typical.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-03-08 17:47:05.169188+00 by: Dan Lyke

Larry's got a thread going on one of these pictures over on Facebook, but I guess one of the things that strikes me, beyond the corseted waist size, is that they tend to be carrying more weight on their hips and thighs than we think is fashionable now.

I wonder if the current "BMI" craze is linked to a relatively recent historical abberation...

#Comment Re: made: 2012-03-08 03:26:30.140259+00 by: jeff

Well, they were certainly sturdily built!