Quote:
Originally Posted by myopicsunflower
What violetpretty said about smiling could definitely be part of it, but the difference could also be partly due to the hairstyles. Hair frames a face and can downplay or accentuate features (both good and not so good), creating illusions in some cases. Many of the hairstyles from 100+ years ago make the women look older than they actually are, for example.
Another reason for the difference could be that 100 years or so ago, women generally didn't go out in the sun, and now, many women not only go in the sun, they also use tanning beds or do the fake bake. A tan traditionally has given the impression of being healthy and athletic -- or, in the 40s, that you were wealthy enough to enjoy a vacation in a nice, warm place.  |
I think NOW a tan gives a healthy athletic impression---before your skin turns to leather. (Ok, I'm showing my bias
. I like my dark hair and fair skin!) A tan was definitely not in style 100 years ago. The idea was that if you are fair, it's because you are wealthy enough to not have to work outside (probably moreso in the agriculturally driven South than an factory driven North). I always thought it wasn't until the 1960s that tans became fashionable. You don't need to be able to afford a vacation in a warm place to get a tan...just go outside and let your skin cook.
I don't think it's so much the lack of a tan that makes women look different, but the lack of makeup. I think it wasn't until the 1920s that it was acceptable for everyday women to wear makeup, and even then, it was mostly the younger "rebellious" flappers. Before then, only "ladies of the night" wore makeup and the connotation of makeup was as such.
Threaded Mode
