Why the fuck do girls from the past look so ugly? All the paintings and sculptures of women and girls from the past...

Why the fuck do girls from the past look so ugly? All the paintings and sculptures of women and girls from the past, they look like 5/10s at best. Yet in our time 2 out of 10 girls look like supermodels basically. Was everyone in the past hideous?

Breeding/artificial selection

To the people in the past, modern day girls probably look like clowns....

In the span of 500-2000 years? Doubtful

-Regular usually healthier diet
-Less back breaking work
-Better health care
-Make up
-Also different standards of beauty

You'd only need 2 generations.

Makeup

Photography allows you to capture the minute details that make up beauty. Paintings and sculptures are only attempts to emulate what God has created, the photograph is the direct image. A painter's brush or a sculptor's hands, even the best at the craft, can only capture so much.

Cosmetics have been used regularly since Sumerian times.

>Cosmetics have been used regularly since Sumerian times
That's a lot of time for development of better, cheaper and less toxic substances.

>cheaper and less toxic

But not necessarily prettier. Vermillion still produces one of the best red pigments. We don't use it anymore because it's mercury sulfide. That doesn't mean it wasn't effective as cosmetic. Romans loved it for their triumphs.

OP is a faggot

>-Less back breaking work
this, modern women just sit on their asses. You don't realize how ugly a woman would be if she did manual labor everyday for her entire life.

>this is a 9/10 in 1500

Vermillion wasn't used that much, it was more of a paint rather than cosmetic, and I'm fairly certain nowadays there are better alternatives of the same quality.

Makeup makes the difference.
Try to look how pornstars and models look without makeup.

also plastic surgery, fillers, and botox. When done right can keep people looking youthful well beyond their prime

>of the same quality

So the same prettiness. Ancient peoples gave no fuck about toxicity.

>it was more a paint then a cosmetic

Out and out lying.

Photography killed romanticism. Deal with it.

>Ancient peoples gave no fuck about toxicity.
Their minds may have not, but their faces did.

>Out and out lying.
Even back then people knew it's not the best thing to put on your face. For what would they need red paint anyway? Lips were coloured by different shit.

>Photography killed romanticism.
Huh?

That's a painting.

Putin got some killer botox
Before:

After

It looks more like if he was replaced by Finnish look-alike.

Another possibility. He looks much more Slavic before the swap if there was one.

Because 99% of women couldn't be painted or sculpted, you dipshit. Nutrition helps, too.

Anyone saying manual labor makes people ugly is mistaken - minus skin damage from the sun or damage from exposure to toxic shit

And I thought I was stupid

Yeah because you are 2000 years old to know how girls used to look, right?

/thread

I think I can explain. In the modern era with the internet it is easier to diseminate images of beautiful girls, since any of them can upload pics of themselves to faceberg, instagoy, pinterest, dumblr, tindr, etc.
The "ugly" girls do not upload photos of themselves for obvious reasons, (could be shy, self conscious, or more wholesome though this goes both ways) and the pretty girls are more easily noticed and posted/spread than the not pretty ones.
Also there are more people so there is a net increase in pretty people.

There are quite a few old paintings and sculptures of beautiful women, but they are more rare because beautiful women weren't simply a hot click and a url away.

You could argue beauty standards, but beauty isn't objective and people often mistake sentimentality for beauty.
none of those really have a significant effect on beauty.
>he thinks capitalism is progressive
It is, except for when it isn't.

mean't to say beauty is objective.

>I think I can explain. In the modern era with the internet it is easier to diseminate images of beautiful girls, since any of them can upload pics of themselves to faceberg, instagoy, pinterest, dumblr, tindr, etc.
>The "ugly" girls do not upload photos of themselves for obvious reasons, (could be shy, self conscious, or more wholesome though this goes both ways) and the pretty girls are more easily noticed and posted/spread than the not pretty ones.
>Also there are more people so there is a net increase in pretty people.

You know, there is a place called "outside" that lies beyond your front door, where girls walk around doing various activities. If you were to venture there, you would find that most girls in the 16-30 age range are fairly attractive.

It's the fluoride in the water

>are fairly attractive
I'm sure there are mythical goddesses who dwell in the unknown lands beyond my doorstep, but in regards to history, they didn't have a large pool of women to draw from, the chances that they would find a beautiful woman, 10/10 like we see today, would be rare.

beauty is not a universal standard. times change.

They don't. Take 100 selfies at different angles and lighting and even your neckbeard ass will look good in one

>faceberg, instagoy

>being a kissless /r9k/ sperg virgin unoironically

Changing beauty standards over time, my dude

Lots and lots of makeup

Are you retarded?

Manual labor for 12+ hours is stressful on the body. Stress is a yuge contribution to aging quickly.

Maybe he just got old?

What did he mean by this?

...

>So the same prettiness. Ancient peoples gave no fuck about toxicity.
I don't think you appreciate just how much fucking subtlety goes into modern cosmetics. Women spend hours on that shit, with shaders, base tones, blush, etc. If makeup isn't done with a subtle touch it makes the woman look like a trashy whore

Also, you think women are badly misbehaved today, imagine how bad they were in the days when they were all lead poisoned from a lifetime of smearing colorful lead powder all over their faces

...