this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2025
352 points (100.0% liked)
History Memes
1256 readers
1349 users here now
A place to share history memes!
Rules:
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.
-
No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.
-
Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.
-
Follow all Piefed.social rules.
Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world
OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:
- !historymusic@quokk.au
- !historygallery@quokk.au
- !historymemes@piefed.social
- !historyruins@piefed.social
- !historyart@piefed.social
- !historyartifacts@piefed.social
- !historyphotos@piefed.social
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a trap to think 1) there's just one standard of beauty and 2) one objective standard spans all centuries.
The best example of this not being the case is found in renaissance art. Beautiful women were depicted as chubby by our standards because extra weight meant being wealthy. This standard changed during the Reformation when gluttony started being seen as a sin and a sign of depravity of the Catholic church. From then on, the standard of female beauty shifted towards thinness.
It doesn't matter. We're talking about the possibility of a woman existing that had 100 different men who thought they could defeat her in a wrestling match, wagering up a thousand horses each. A challenge that spanned over years. As her reputation if defeating all these dudes would spread and be known, after the first ten or twenty guys were defeated, the only challengers (if they were actually intending to win) would have been almost nothing but large and strong guys experienced in wrestling.
There just isn't any way that would happen.
Those goalposts far enough back for ya, or do you wanna keep movin' 'em?
You're the one who tried changing the argument off of my original post, bro.
You're the one taking this waaay too seriously, my guy.
Classic