Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

having the right "physique" for the golden era?

green papaya

One Too Many
Messages
1,261
Location
California, usa
I think it's also very important to try and maintain a fit and trim physique if you want to look correct for the golden era, you seldom see a obese person back in those days, since people did more things manually back then and also did more outdoor activity instead of sitting in front of a computer all day or watching television.
 

MK

Founder
Staff member
Bartender
really?

sam_rick_ferrari2_jpg.jpg


egrobin2.jpg


LairdCregar.jpg


georgewestinghouse.jpg


aligallery09a.jpg
 

The Wolf

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,153
Location
Santa Rosa, Calif
I have the perfect golden age physique

I don't have Alan Ladd's or Randolph Scott's physique.
I do have William Powell's physique.
If you've seen him being showered in "High Pressure" then you know the shape I'm in.


The Wolf
 

varga49

One of the Regulars
Messages
247
Location
Central Texas
No offense but..

green papaya said:
I think it's also very important to try and maintain a fit and trim physique if you want to look correct for the golden era, you seldom see a obese person back in those days, since people did more things manually back then and also did more outdoor activity instead of sitting in front of a computer all day or watching television.
you must be twenty or maybe thirty-something! not that there's anything wrong with that, as long as I can see my belt and shoes when I'm at the urinal I feel ok with it all!
 

Sefton

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,132
Location
Somewhere among the owls in Maryland
Another thing about those times is that the heroic types (Movies,books,and the real ones i.e, servicemen) while fit, would be considered small by todays skewed "standards". We let ourselves become grossly obese yet we elevate steroid 'hulks' as heroes.


Let's not forget to give honorable mention to Mr. W.C. Fields, Mr. Lou Costello and Stan Laurel!
 

Mimi Thomas

New in Town
Messages
25
Location
Mobtown, USA
You may be speaking of the gentlemen, greenP, but the ladies were considerably more voluptuous in days past. While there was a brief trend toward more slender body types in the late 20s/early 30s, right through until fairly recently, women who looked like 12 year old boys were not considered attractive.

So I don't consider myself obese, but at 36-24-36, I most certainly do not fit today's standards of beauty.

Much as like any time in history, it seems that there were all body types, but most matinee idols were trim and athletic. But not all.
 

scotrace

Head Bartender
Staff member
Messages
14,378
Location
Small Town Ohio, USA
YES!

Mimi Thomas said:
...ladies were considerably more voluptuous in days past. While there was a brief trend toward more slender body types in the late 20s/early 30s, right through until fairly recently, women who looked like 12 year old boys were not considered attractive.
...

Bingo! I do not consider a woman of any age to be attractive who has no hips, no bottom or pencil legs. Women should have Shape! SHAPE I say!

The hip hugger pants that continue to be worn today are H I D E O U S! Especially with a bulge of backfat poking out the top. What are they thinking? That same shape, with some high waisted pants (see J. Peterman's "Glamour Pants") or better, a dress with some poufe' is extremely flattering.

OK, off soapbox.
 

jitterbugdoll

Call Me a Cab
Messages
2,042
Location
Soon to be not-so-sunny Boston
For women, I think they are very identifiable body types for each era. But remember, those who did not fit the mold could be 'helped' with foundation garments (which were sold for men, too.)

I'd say the truly voluptuous, hourglass figure was not in vogue until the late 40s-1950s. In the 1920s women wanted to have boyish slim figures (a less 'hardened' version of the figure in vogue currently.) Women of the 1930s were still expected to be quite slender, all the better to carry off the figure-hugging clothing. Women of the 1940s wanted natural but 'controlled’ figures and were still expected to be quite slim-hipped. I would say that the biggest difference is that women once were expected to be 'soft'; in other words, they would exercise but they did not strive for the muscular, athletic body of today.

So, I agree with Mimi in that the 36-24-36 of today is different then those same measurements 50 years ago. As a woman who shares a very similar build, I can attest that it is nearly impossible to find pants that fit correctly. Gone is the era of wasp waists, at least for now!
 

Angelicious

One of the Regulars
Messages
190
Location
Rainy ol' New Zealand
green papaya said:
I think it's also very important to try and maintain a fit and trim physique if you want to look correct for the golden era, you seldom see a obese person back in those days, since people did more things manually back then and also did more outdoor activity instead of sitting in front of a computer all day or watching television.
Not to mention that whole starving-in-the-depression thing... :p

I think that apart from the fact that back then you could actually make a living from manual labour (instead of needing an undergraduate degree to be a filing clerk), the main point is that food was natural (covered in pesticides, and occasionally enhanced with awful chemicals, but compared to today, natural) instead of refined and full of corn syrup.

Food today isn't really food. Low-fat food is full of sugar. Sugar-free food is full of fat and carcinogenic artificial sweetners made from petroleum by-product. Nutrients are bleached out and then inferior synthetic vitamins are added. Unprocessed foods are expensive, processed simple carbohydrates (with delicious MSG) form the basis of many people's diet, and flavoured, caffeinated, aerated sugar-water is cheaper than milk.

Since this awful food leads to low energy and ill health, which in turn lead to physical and mental inactivity, which result in obesity and depression - is it any wonder we are, on average, 60% more likely to be overweight than our ancestors, who lived with sports, leisure time, PT, war, manual labour, the Depression, and real food that they actually had to work for? :)
 

zeus36

A-List Customer
Messages
392
Location
Ventura, California
Mimi Thomas said:
...So I don't consider myself obese, but at 36-24-36, I most certainly do not fit today's standards of beauty...


Well you certainly fit MINE.

Give me Rosalind Russell, Mamie Van Doren, Mae West, and Marilyn Monroe any day!
 

Forum statistics

Threads
107,379
Messages
3,035,587
Members
52,806
Latest member
DPR
Top