msbelle! Sleep tight! don't let the bed bugs bite Crunchy yummy salad soon. Son sooner!

Missed msbelle. Son tomorrow. That's just... wow.

msbelle!!!

Anyone having oddness with WX?

It was inaccesssible for me almost all of Friday and has been intermittently slow since, but I am seeing all my know posts. (That I know of.)

Beauty as indicators of status or wealth or value to the family is, I posit, a practical definition and using physical traits as shorthand--we're back to dowry and ability to bear children expressed visually

The western values you're contrasting them to likely have similar inspirations... pale women didn't have to work out doors because of their wealth, a shapely figure meant she'd be good for carrying babies, etc. And the fertility argument only goes so far... a woman who's had kids would be at a PREMIUM if that's what "beauty" was short-hand for, but you certainly don't see much in story and song about the lucky guy who snags a widow.

"Once upon a time a man had six really fertile daughters. One was more fertile than the next. And boy could they thresh! The eldest was exceptionally funny and would make a husband a happy man by making faces and whistling through the gap in her teeth that she lost while killing the largest boar the village had ever seen. Her tall sister with a limp had three fat sons and though she could not thresh, she could weave fabric that brought a high price, etc. The youngest sister was exceptionally lovely but only ever talked about her hair and shoes but her father was confident she's wed eventually (albeit dead last) since odds are she was a fecund as the rest -- put pitty the poor son-in-law who was married to that dope."

But beauty for beauty's sake has always been prized -- and romanticized. Yes, songs and poetry about a woman's beauty have always been around, because why not? Beauty touches us all -- whether it's a woman's beauty, or a summer day, or a piece of art.

Henry VIII was definitely prone to the lure of beauty. Anne Boleyn is a perfect example. But would he have married her if she hadn't been of the right family? Nope. He would have simply slept with her, the way he did with plenty of other pretty women he lusted after.

This probably won't help msbelle NOW, but when my aunt was living in Cairo, she discovered she was terribly allergic to sand flea bites. She acquired a bunch of flea collars she wore around her ankles, and that worked better than anything else. Oh so attractive, but better than swollen, oozing calves.

The western values you're contrasting them to likely have similar inspirations... pale women didn't have to work out doors because of their wealth

I know. I said precisely that. I talked about weight and skin shade and how those factors have shifted the idea of beauty.

And the fertility argument only goes so far... a woman who's had kids would be at a PREMIUM if that's what "beauty" was short-hand for, but you certainly don't see much in story and song about the lucky guy who snags a widow

A woman not at the start of her childbearing phase is more valuable than one just about to embark? I don't see it myself.

There is certainly beauty for beauty's sake--don't get me wrong. Hey, that's what mistresses are for, I guess. But it would be weird to omit dowry and childbearing ability (wives got cast off for not bearing heirs and workers, didn't they?) from the list of things that make a woman valuable.

I know. I said precisely that. I talked about weight and skin shade and how those factors have shifted the idea of beauty.

So I'm unclear as to what point you were arguing. My premise is "historically, nothing is more important to a woman's value than her beauty" and your response was "there are lots of standards of beauty".

A woman not at the start of her childbearing phase is more valuable than one just about to embark? I don't see it myself.

Women died in childbirth, babies died, it was a crap-shoot to say the least. I'd think a woman who had shown her ability would be very valuable... just not as good looking. Yet you dont see them much sought after historically.

I never omitted money and fertility, I beauty was pirmary.

What YOU said is that beauty didn't matter except to the gentry and the poor would be ga ga for strong-handed chicks. I don't see any evidence of that anywhere.

your response was "there are lots of standards of beauty".

No it wasn't.

YOU said is that beauty didn't matter except to the gentry and the poor would be ga ga for strong-handed chicks

No I didn't.

I'm saying that beauty often reflects other things about a woman. Beauty can be saying "Healthy, lives a life of leisure, should live through childbirth." It's just code, in that case. If you pick that woman, you're picking her because she's rich (dowry) and can bear you heirs or a pack of hand labourers.

Now, there are also standards of beauty that have nothing to do with some other sort of value, and values that aren't reflected in a woman's physical presence. Never denying that.

But to say that a woman's currency is less her beauty now ignores that there were times when her beauty was either not her primary value, or it reflected other factors that made up the primary value.

Thriftiest/ smartest/ most hard working/ kindest/ proven fertile/ best cook/ brillinat at weaving are all clearly valuable and have never, in any big way, been more important than pretty. They aren't the subject of story, song, and legend. Beauty is. Just about always.

Can you name an example otherwise?

Jacob wanted Rachel over Leah because of her beauty, they had the same dowry, etc. Leah ended up giving him bunches of sons and Rachel was still his favorite. That story is not seen as some wild stunning exception to the way of the world, its not deemed silly or unrealistic.