Why in the past was big cleavage okay but ankles were forbidden?

Why in the past was big cleavage okay but ankles were forbidden?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=UpnwWP3fOSA
youtube.com/watch?v=nUmO7rBMdoU
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Different places, different times. At the same times you had places were going nude was normal.

so women could judge you by the way you look at her tits

Everyone had feet fetishes in the past

Why is showing the lumps of fat which provide nutrients to infants even bad? There is literally nothing sexual about tits. If you claim it get's people aroused and that's why they should be covered then so should the face because the only reason tits are attractive is genetic superiority in a partner which is also why you find a face attractive.

...

My point exactly. Either make women wear Burkas or learn to live with tits, either way be consistent.

They're considered secondary or accessory sex organs. They are not directly related to fertilization, so they're not primary. They are obviously linked to sexual behavior in most cases.

Damn, she's gorgeous. Is she the best historical qt ever, purely in terms of looks?

Feet = sexy.

No, she is.

No they're not. You're attracted to them because they give your child nutrients and that is important for passing on your genes. Same reason you're attracted to that thicc ass. Thicc is good for child bearing. Don't pretend like you're anything more than an animal who's only purpose is to propagate their genes.

>Don't pretend like you're anything more than an animal who's only purpose is to propagate their genes.

Except this guy. He replied with a wojack, so you know his IQ is somewhere in the 180+ range. His purpose is to figure out quantum mechanics. That's why he's here on Veeky Forums with the rest of us world changers. Idiot.

stinky french farts

>This
If you think a girl showing her ass in a swimsuit at the beach is acceptable than so is showing her tits.

why do women like their breasts and nipples caressed during sex then

how do you know that?

>Falling for postmodern caricatures of differing philosophies
>Especially regarding women

Well I have sex regularly

Why do women like their lips kissed, ears blown into, neck sucked/squeezed, hips caressed or anything else of this caliber during sex? Cuz touching another human's flesh in an intimate way makes Oxycontin, especially if it's someone you find attractive and/or love. Plus a woman can't have an orgasm from you just playing with her breasts you mong.

Because nipples are sensitive. Same reason some people like feet and some people like red heads etc. You're still a human and you still have preferences, but also remember you're still an animal and you have natural instincts. That's what it means to be human friendo. We're nothing but animals, just with a little spark of something else.

> Plus a woman can't have an orgasm from you just playing with her breasts you mong.
I´ve seen women feeling their nipples while masturbating or during sex, it´s quite obvious that helps them reaching climax

Then why are you here mr.chad?

BLACK TEETH

no chad, I just have a penis and a basic vocabulary that´s all

So does being choked, are you gonna claim necks are sexual now?

>necks aren't sexual
t. soyboy

This. It's 2018 why aren't you guys using tinder. I have a hard time believing even you bunch of autists couldn't score with 1/100 women.

no, necks aren´t sexual
as a lesbian, do you find tits sexually attractive or not?

>Why in the past was big cleavage okay but ankles were forbidden?

Assuming we're talking about the 1750s-1780s era:

The reason why cleavage was acceptable was because at that particular point in time, breasts--or rather specifically, décolletage, which is the upper chest, shoulders and neck--were considered to be an elegant, beautiful part of the body but not one that was inherently sexual.

Ankles were not forbidden in the18th century, they just weren't commonly on view for most fashions, especially formal gowns, which is what you tend to see in full length portraiture. Women were allowed to show their ankles, either for style or practicality (lifting dresses to walk up stairs or walk over puddles) though the ankle-showing styles tend to be hyper focused in the 1770s-1780s than other periods. Of course, the woman would have been expected to wear stockings--a bare ankle would have been seen as impropriety.

Though it should also be noted that the amount of cleavage exposed in portraiture wasn't always reflected in real life. Portraiture was symbolic and thus women might be willing to have themselves painted with very low necklines or even a nipple or entire breast showing to symbolize their femininity and motherhood, though they wouldn't have walked around with their breasts hanging out.

I'm not a lesbian you fucking dipshit.

This.

Also, bare elbows were considered crass for both genders. Lady's gowns never went highter than the forearm, and men that were not in immediate labour never rolled sleeves higher than the forearm either.

Well you're sure acting like a bitch in heat

Huge nose. Looks like a tranny.

>ankles were forbidden
meme

> large noses are unattractive
Plenty of cultures historically would completely disagree with you.

Only sith deal in absolutes.

>t. obvious virgin

Because patricians know legs are hotter than tits

>”Only a Sith deals in absolutes”
>Ironically an absolute statement

What did he mean by this?

The Jedi were the bad guys

She is absolutely beautiful. Please post more pretty portraits from this era

Traditional art is boring af

I prefer modern art, which actually has some soul in it not just "lol realistic art" stuff

Oy gevalt

I would like to see beautiful women in old clothing.

no that would be pic related

Necks actually have nerve endings which could be considered erogenous, as do the armpits and ear-lobes (in women, in men de-nada)

traditional art is better to admire, but modern art makes better decoration with modern furniture as long as it's not too ugly

You haven't fucked enough women kiddo.

some more Mary Robinson

...

...

Because it's progressive.

It's exaggerated. Oftentimes it's just an artistic style in paintings showing off a woman's femininity and matronly qualities.

Look at how women dressed for everyday, however.
>youtube.com/watch?v=UpnwWP3fOSA
And
>youtube.com/watch?v=nUmO7rBMdoU

Note that the cleavage is always covered by a kerchief.

Although vulgar working women often removed them in summertime or working in the field.

Because it's not what Feminazi, SJW want.

lrn2greentext

>lying on the internet

No one asked faggot.

Modern art is just throwing shit on a canvas and calling it art. In fact I bet there is a piece made of literal shit.


I fucking hate people who like modern art.

they had taste

>miscarriage
>mysterious illness
>died poor
Now I'm sad.

>ankles were forbidden

Never understood this.

>At the same times you had places were going nude was normal.

In 18th century Europe?

wat

Compare OP's pic to the lumpen sluts of modern society

how the mighty have fallen

>postmodern caricatures of differing philosophies

?

>thicc
Are you talking about girls who have pounds of useless fat on their legs because of the modern fast-food diet? That's not attractive. Men are attracted to wide hips, not fat legs. They only look similar superficially.

kill yourself degenerate

?

Its because they (especially nipples) become very sensitive as a woman becomes sexually aroused. The more you play with them the more sensitive they become and women start making really funny faces and make funny noises. Its really fun.

This is bait, but I'll bite anyway.
Modern art is the most vapid and devoid of soul for one reason: it tries to communicate nothing. At least, the vast majority of it does. The artist splashes shit all over his medium and then asks the viewer to find something in it. And when some critic who isn't busy sucking his own dick takes the time to look at it, he creates some transcendant 2deep4u reason about why the art is the way it is, and the artist rubs his hands and nods emphatically while screaming "yes, yes, very good!"
This is not entirely the case for early modern art, like that guy who tried to render emotions in their most abstract form on canvas. Using color, arrangement, and texture to capture feelings like anger. That I like, because it's trying to communicate something.
But modern art? I read an article not too long ago where a nigga dropped a leather glove on the floor of an exhibit, and people were avoiding it because they weren't sure if it was an art piece. They create realistic depictions of mundane objects, with no artistic flair (dynamic or dramatic positioning as is the case in most "realistic" older art). Look at pic related. Her hair is unrealistic, but there's dynamism and energy in her stretching pose that just doesn't exist in a shelf of pill bottles. In some art documentary I watched about using trash from the largest dump in the world to make art, a fucking shelf of pill bottles was expected to be the highest selling art piece. Ridiculous. It's just a demonstration of how modern art has become a "super meta" 2deep4u club of snobs. It's so vapid and, frankly, fake. There's nothing there. Just arrangements of matter crafted without soul or care, masquerading as art.

>a bare ankle would have been seen as impropriety

Why?

>bare elbows were considered crass for both genders.

Why?!

You're so ugly, you could be a modern art masterpiece!

>vulgar

Why such a negative word?

>Oxycontin

>lol realistic art

yeah, because you could just take a photograph and it would turn out the exact sa- ooooohhhhhh

Ancient greeks considered women with unibrows attractive. Like wtf man..

I've had sex before you mong. I just don't get diamond every time I look at a woman's specific anatomy cuz I have a more refined taste than that.

>not covering hair
Absolutely Haram.

>Plus a woman can't have an orgasm from you just playing with her breasts you mong.
Maybe you're just not that great of a lay.

Especially if she has pierced nipples. It really is fun af.

that's Josephine

Oxytocin whatever (Fuck autocorrect).

>He thinks playing with nipples is full on sex

>In 18th century Europe?
In Sweden and Funland, nudity was/is more tolerated.

>the only reason tits are attractive is genetic superiority in a partner which is also why you find a face attractive.
sexual selection doesnt have to be selecting for good genes

...

It was in NY. The director of the museum had to call the artist in person, and we can now use this anecdote to prove that it's not 2deep4U but that modern art is bullshit. Sometime literally.

Not true. Read accounts from tbe time. Certain men stopped frequenting playhouses because the women’s necklines were too tempting

ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING

In the 18th century?!

Was that sculpted by Mattel or something?

Bare legs without stockings were considered immodest at worst and, at best, it meant you weren't fully dressed. In the Victorian era, it was a little more dramatic. Bare ankles meant bare legs, and bare legs (or clothed legs, in the Victorian era) meant that people would be thinking of what you had between those legs.

>Read accounts from the time.

I have. Most of the scandalized comments come from clergy (who objected to just about everything) who were especially mad about women coming to church in regular fashions instead of covering up completely ("do you come to church as to a ball?") and older men from the previous generation.

>Most of the scandalized comments come from clergy
Who mentioned scandal?

>Who mentioned scandal?

I didn't say scandal. I said scandalized.

>Certain men stopped frequenting playhouses because the women’s necklines were too tempting

The men you're referencing were scandalized. The handful of comments similar to that which I've read are almost all from clergy or old men.

The ones I hand in mind were not offended.

Then they were flagellating themselves for being tempted, or...? Unless you provide a quote it's difficult to know you mean.

The ones you had in mind seem like an even smaller niche of the few comments which regarded the low necklines as improper, then, since the low necklines were not considered immodest by the general population (always disapproving clergy and very old men notwithstanding) during that time period.

>The more you play with them the more sensitive they become

That works on men too.

>fucking seat belts.

My point is that it was in fact sexual. Whether or not such necessarily sexual displays were considered scandalous at the time is another matter entirely.

tell me more wise user