>>18523814Unironic question: Babes used to have such tight bodies back then. The curves were just right, they were the right amount of skinny and the asses were petite, yet curvy enough.
In the span of 15-20 years we've gone from that to fat, cottage cheese asses. Female wrestlers and females generally who are supposed to be considered sexy look more bulky overall and big boned. "Fitness" is now looking like an instagram gym rat with too much muscle and again, too fat asses that are cartoonishly sticking out. Even females with a generally small torso frame still have huge thighs and bubbly asses
Anyway sorry for being long winded. With what I said above in mind, my question is simply: have we experienced some kind of short term rapid evolution where the phenotypes of female bodies have changed drastically? Or is the classic tight female body that the Stacy Keiblers, Torrie Wilsons and Trish Stratuses possessed so extremely underrepresented that it's forcefully and systematically suppressed? Is there a biological or sociological reason for the extinction of one female body type replaced by another one? This question applies to any era in human history really. When did Victorian female body types get replaced? When did we go from Greta Garbo and Audrey Hepburn bodies to Nicole Kidmans, to Pamela Andersons and Cindy Crawfords to Brie Larsons or fat "curvy" (read: overweight) brazzer bodies?
