dathwampeer said:
Yea I was actually going to add the obesity as a stature through medieval thing in but I decided it would be just bombarding.
When I say big I don't mean fat though. I mean large build muscular. Large skeleton. i.e. broad shoulders and the like. The traits associated with strength in the western world. That's ran as far more of a constant through our history than obesity has.
And the point about a tribal woman prizing leanness was also what I was getting at. It's entirely cultural. As someone else quoted me on. In places like Norway. A large build and even slightly chubby would have been prized because it is a quality someone in a much colder climate would want.
I think what has contributed to our, frankly bizarre idea of generic beauty has been a mix of multi culturalisation. With people from all backgrounds forming large communities near each other. And their idealisations of beauty being broadcast via media. Films, Music ect. It's created some sort of hybrid of many cultural preferences. Most of which these days can be attributed to wealth. Advertising is one of the best forms of brainwashing out there. Easily.
In the 20-21'st century. I'd say celebrities and stars can be blamed for influencing our current ideals. Much more than cultural background in some cases. Especially seeing as in the western world. Survival is practically a given. There's no need to fish for genetic traits that allude to it any-more.
Whilst you make a good point, I would counter saying that that leanness in, say, central Plains Africa would be prized not for cultural reasons .... but merely because it's simply better to be lean, agile and cunning.
Its basic survival ... the guy whose huge and bulging with muscle is much more likely to be detected, and strength is meaningless because it only takes 28 lbs of pressure per square inch to throw and penetrate a rather sharp spear half a foot into the side of a fleshy herbivore.
A lean, well toned hunter occupying half the space of a muscular behemoth like a modern bodybuilder will beable to get closer to his prey, therefore strike more accurately, therefore hunt more efficiently and successfully. In the end feeding his tribe better and therefore being seen as a favourable mate because he can provide.
It's simple pre-coin economics. The lean, agile guy is 'richer' than the bulging He-Man.
And I would still debate your qualities of muscular being seen as better in Europe. Afterall you have the rise of 'the Gentleman' (which is why I referencesd the esquires of Britain). If they were young they were characterized as lean.
During the early modern era you had a lot of nobles who wore archaic armour such as breastplates under (or over) their corselets.
For Example, King Carlos I of Espania (Charles the Fifth of Holy Roman Empire) at the birth of the Enlightenment (albeit of which had yet to truly progress past the bouyndaries of the northern citystates of what would eventually be known as Italy).
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.s9.com/images/portraits/5506_Charles-V15000000-15580000.png&imgrefurl=http://www.s9.com/Biography/Charles-V15000000-15580000&h=459&w=354&sz=360&tbnid=sJvqFl77U4xW-M:&tbnh=128&tbnw=99&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPortrait%2Bof%2BCharles%2BV&zoom=1&q=Portrait+of+Charles+V&usg=__35zMLMIsMiy6X8OK-Ifg7P5jOzA=&sa=X&ei=uUaVTNCNC8ikcZbaraQF&ved=0CCoQ9QEwCA
As we can see his enflamed jaw (of which is exagerated as to give him even greater credibility as a inheriter-King of the Habsburg states)
He is possibility the finest examplar of power at the Birth of European dominance and colonialism.
But as we can see ... his armour archaic (as was a popular look in portraiture ... as many nobles associated themselves with the romance of the 'militarized noble' trying to recapture elements of chivalry and honour from tradition) ... but he isn't exactly a domineering figure. Despite sporting the red plume of war (gotta remember this was a particularly brutal period in European history that he lived within) his stature is refined and graceful.
http://www.wga.hu/art/t/tiziano/10/21/12charle.jpg
He's not exactly an imposing figure. To give you an idea of how eligible Charles V was ... he was the man who controlled the world's first true Superpower ... an Army in excess of 340'000 troops, at the time Europe's greatest naval force, and an empire that stretched across the world thanks to Spain's early conquests in the New World.
So I would debate your assertion that everybody in Europe tried to look tough. I don't think thats an attituide that has ever changed in some extent in the majority of males... I just don't see it as important as proving nobility. I mean Charles V could have ordered Titian to make him look better built and more fearsome, but the only thing he asked of titian was to exagerate his jaw and chin a little more in order to solidify his inherited claims in central Europe.
.
