He-man Bgolians and conservative racists have one thing in common...both hate Lizzo for being fat, darkskin and having the audacity to do anything.

First of all..... BAN

Second that is just a picture of an oversized bitch at age 29. This isn't an overweight musician, entertainer, etc trying to pass off her body as sexy.
I already proved my point. You want an exact equivalent of Lizzo from the past and that's not going to happen. It's an unreasonable demand because even skinny women weren't doing anything back then like Lizzo is doing today, at least not in public.

Times were different then. Women weren't allowed on stage dressed like that back then.
 
Not wanting to see her stomach or fat isn't "Objecting". If anything it could be called fat dislike or the disliking of fat or maybe the liking of tact.

Objectification involves viewing and/or treating a person as an object, devoid of thought or feeling. Often, objectification is targeted at women and reduces them to objects of sexual pleasure and gratification.

To objectify someone is to look at her and see an object, usually a sexual one, rather than a fully formed human with opinions and feelings and a sense of humor. When men harass women on the street or, say, share nude pictures of them without their consent, objectification is at work.
There is more than one definition for the word object.

object
/əbˈʤɛkt/
verb
objects; objected; objecting
1
[no object] : to disagree with something or oppose something
 
There is more than one definition for the word object.

object
/əbˈʤɛkt/
verb
objects; objected; objecting
1
[no object] : to disagree with something or oppose something

You got it because I don’t care that much and yes, we ALL still hate Black women.

You got us!
 
If you want to understand the movement behind fat women in art then you need to study the Baroque period. I am at least 25 years removed from my art history courses. I say again, fatness was never a standard of beauty, but more of a "sign of the times." Remember Europe was a fucked up place with famine, plagues and overall filthy conditions. As the conditions and classes changed, so did the art that was commissioned.
A distinction without much of a difference. What's considered beautiful changes just like fashion does. In the 19th Century, tans on white people were seen as low class because it meant you were a peasant who worked in the field. Women even took arsenic to be pale as possible.

In the 20th Century, that all changed. Most people worked in offices or factories outside of the sunshine. Coco Chanelle, a fashion icon, would get a tan when she vacationed in the South of France. Now everyone wanted one because it showed you could afford to vacation in exotic locales and tans became a mark of beauty.
 
I already proved my point. You want an exact equivalent of Lizzo from the past and that's not going to happen. It's an unreasonable demand because even skinny women weren't doing anything back then like Lizzo is doing today, at least not in public.

Times were different then. Women weren't allowed on stage dressed like that back then.


Dude you haven't even come close.

Are you serious? Of course as time went on, what is acceptable has changed. But there were tons of non fat entertainers deemed sexy and or was threading close to the line.

Earth Kitt
Pam grier

 
Dude you haven't even come close.

Are you serious? Of course as time went on, what is acceptable has changed. But there were tons of non fat entertainers deemed sexy and or was threading close to the line.

Earth Kitt
Pam grier

Eartha Kitt and Pam Grier are from the mid-to-late 20th Century. The fact that you even mentioned them shows you missed my point.
 
Last edited:
Eartha Kitt and Pam Grier are from the mid-to-late 20th Century. The fact that you even mentioned them shows you missed my point.


Your point been shredded many times over. The Simple fact you had to post a faceless prehistoric sculpture trying to prove your point speaks volumes.
 
Your point been shredded many times over. The Simple fact you had to post a faceless prehistoric sculpture trying to prove your point speaks volumes.
You didn't even understand my point but you said it was "shredded." :lol:

Point the post that "shredded" my point.

To reiterate my point, here's my original post:
Historically, that's false. Larger women ("Rubenesque") were definitely the standard of beauty in the West in past centuries. It's still true in many parts of Africa where they firce young girls to overeat to gain weight.
I posted Western sculptures from the past and named an art style created by an influential Western artist to bolster my point. Still not seeing where my point was "shredded" or how it "speaks volumes" to post examples illustrating what I was talking about.
 
Last edited:
There's a time and a place for everything, that wasn't the time nor place to be dressed like this

lizzo-flute-library-of-congress-092822-1-2000-25b5c0ae5f68466b89f352bba416d4bd.jpg


And many time's that's the problem.

I'd say the same thing if Beyoncé or any other female artist was there dressed like that
Man, there is never a time or place for that water buffalo to be dressed like that.
 
"Standard of beauty" is an ideal. It doesn't mean most women were shaped like that. It is what society considered the best looking form.

Obviously, without a poll, there's no way to know what most men considered beautiful in any point in history but art gives a good idea of what the society at the time considered the ideal standard of beauty.
Ok I get all that. That second paragraph redundant as hell lol but it's also correct.

Can you show me the Lizzo shaped art from the period that is the basis of your own opinion?

What I'm trying to get at is I and anybody with a cursory knowledge of history should accept and agree with your statements about thicker women being the wave at various points throughout history, but that there is a difference between that and Lizzo shaped.

I'm saying that I cannot find the point in history where LIZZO SHAPED hoes was the WAVE.
 
Ok I get all that. That second paragraph redundant as hell lol but it's also correct.

Can you show me the Lizzo shaped art from the period that is the basis of your own opinion?

What I'm trying to get at is I and anybody with a cursory knowledge of history should accept and agree with your statements about thicker women being the wave at various points throughout history, but that there is a difference between that and Lizzo shaped.

I'm saying that I cannot find the point in history where LIZZO SHAPED hoes was the WAVE.
I think you're too focused on getting an exact carbon copy of Lizzo from the past. Humans are diverse and I'm sure one probably exists but I, as of yet, don't know about one.

That wasn't my point though. I was speaking about full-figured, heavy set women in general. Like CPT Callamity also pointed out, you'll find portraits of them, clothed and nude, from the Baroque period (16th and 17th Centuries).

Peter Paul Rubens is a particularly famous artist who painted big women but he wasn't the only one. If you're looking for big, Black women in particular being the standard of beauty, then you'd likely have to look to Africa.
 
theres always been a lightskin/darkskin divide in the black community lets not act like there isn't or hasn't been. And outspoken heavyset darkskin women have always been a source of irritation and embarrassment in the black community as well as some factions on bgol.


Is Lizzo darkskin? Compared to whom? Definitely not compared to Viola Davis, Lisa Leslie or Lupita Nuyongo to name a few.
 
Back
Top