thecel
narrow-orbits brachy-skull ogre
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Posts
- 23,215
- Reputation
- 48,051
Lots of “modern” female face types never existed 100 years ago.
I can’t imagine a woman in 1920 looking like her. Yeah she has makeup on, but you still can see her face has a “modern” form that can’t be found in any historical photos.
Women in history appear distinctly “old” (as in time period and not age).
Why do modern women have different craniofacial morphologies compared to women in recent history?
This kind of female face never existed in the 1700s:
Furthermore, the “natural ceiling” of female sexiness has risen substantially. Centuries ago, a top 1% woman looked like this:
Now, women who’re merely above average who obliterate her are common:
Common today, such women fog top-1% women from the 1500s.
Although average women today and average women from the past are pretty much equal in looks (without makeup), the top-1% women of the modern era are lightyears above the top-1% women pre 1800s. Consider famous high-PSL Stacies—Megan Fox, Adriana Lima, Madison Beer, etc.—they simply couldn’t exist in 1650.
And seems that modern women tend to have different BODY morphologies as well. I can’t fathom a woman in the 18th century, of any ethnicity, having a giant ass and huge tits.
To people ITT who say that their faces didn’t change,
Watch videos that show women trying on vintage and historical hairstyles, makeup, clothing, etc. Look up modern women dressed up in antique clothing or costumes. Their faces look modern despite their old presentations.
See, she looks like a modern-day person dressed up like she’s from the past. Her craniofacial structure doesn’t look old-timey.
I can’t imagine a woman in 1920 looking like her. Yeah she has makeup on, but you still can see her face has a “modern” form that can’t be found in any historical photos.
Women in history appear distinctly “old” (as in time period and not age).
Why do modern women have different craniofacial morphologies compared to women in recent history?
This kind of female face never existed in the 1700s:
Furthermore, the “natural ceiling” of female sexiness has risen substantially. Centuries ago, a top 1% woman looked like this:
Now, women who’re merely above average who obliterate her are common:
Common today, such women fog top-1% women from the 1500s.
Although average women today and average women from the past are pretty much equal in looks (without makeup), the top-1% women of the modern era are lightyears above the top-1% women pre 1800s. Consider famous high-PSL Stacies—Megan Fox, Adriana Lima, Madison Beer, etc.—they simply couldn’t exist in 1650.
And seems that modern women tend to have different BODY morphologies as well. I can’t fathom a woman in the 18th century, of any ethnicity, having a giant ass and huge tits.
To people ITT who say that their faces didn’t change,
Watch videos that show women trying on vintage and historical hairstyles, makeup, clothing, etc. Look up modern women dressed up in antique clothing or costumes. Their faces look modern despite their old presentations.
See, she looks like a modern-day person dressed up like she’s from the past. Her craniofacial structure doesn’t look old-timey.
Last edited: