Author Topic: From around 1890, if I remember correctly  (Read 463 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

martincisneros

  • Guest
From around 1890, if I remember correctly
« on: October 21, 2008, 01:58:49 AM »
This illustrates how many hormones are in the food supply these days, when you're dealing with foods that aren't organic or that are overly processed in bags, cans, or boxes.  The girl on the left was supposed to be 14 years old when Renoir painted this, while the girl on the left was supposed to be 17 years old.  To me, the girl on the left, by today's standards, looks 4 years old and the girl on the left, by today's standards, looks 7 years old, yet they're 14 and 17!!  If you experience difficulty with seeing the picture below, or if you want to have a closer look at a bigger version of this picture, this is the link to visit for the image: The Circus Fernando by Renoir This image is 1187 X 1600 pixels in it's original form online so that even with visiting the link, you can probably still blow it up with your mouse.  For some reason, with seeing this picture below, I have to right click it with my mouse and select "Show Picture" about 3 or 4 times to get it to show on my computer on this discussion board page below this text.  Remember this was a 14 year old on the left and a 17 year old on the right from nearly 120 years ago.  It's everything about them that's radically different from modern teens.  Some girls even today develop slower, occasionally, but if you were to see the full size painting in front of you, it's very obvious that Renoir was painting both with both baby faces and baby bodies.  I looked at other older pictures online to see if these were just short, but it genuinely seems as though it was typical back then for girls to look like what we'd consider babies these days.  This may not speak to everyone at these boards, but if you've been noticing articles and various stories through various media outlets about the rapid maturity of kids these days, with many little girls experiencing serious breast development as young as 7 or 8 years old, then this painting is just one more thing to startle you with "historical perspective."


The Circus Fernando by Renoir

Offline studier

  • Restricted
  • *
  • Posts: 1805
  • Gender: Male
Re: From around 1890, if I remember correctly
« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2008, 06:28:49 AM »
First it is a circus, and circus's usually had rather odd people working in them. The children don't look normal, in fact they look like children with GHD or growth hormone deficiency.

Children with GHD may be sad or upset about their height, weight, or other aspects of their life, because of their shortness and body image. Children with this condition also tend to look younger than other children of the same age and may be slow to show signs of maturing sexually at the age of adolescence.

I don't think it is enough proof for anything, the painting is also not of very good quality or realism with perspective.

martincisneros

  • Guest
Re: From around 1890, if I remember correctly
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2008, 07:03:13 AM »
Yeah, I know.  For a few years now, though, I've liked looking for photographs from the 19th century and it's something that I'd been noticing in several different pics.  And I was wondering how much of it was poverty related that I was seeing, quality of the film back then, etc.  But then again, when you look at photos of the time period with much older women, the cameras were able to discern the ones that were built like a refrigerator!  So, cameras really weren't that kind for years and years! :laughing7:  And it's stuff that I've been noticing from the much older movies as well, a few silent films, and some with the earliest attempts at movies with audio.  What I'm wanting to research further is if the beauty expectations of today would have existed back then, if a size zero was the standard back then.  It was closer to a 12 in the 1950s and I've seen examples of slightly thinner women from some movies that may have been made in the 20s. 

I'm just wondering what was considered beautiful in the late 1800s because that could also prejudice the choices in photographs, like anybody a hundred years from now having access to a couple dozen magazines from today might assume we were all anorexic!  I'm aware of historical factors and preferences of time periods and of researchers that can skew the data.  But there is data like with cookbooks that our recipes from today have three and four times the numbers of calories of recipe books from a hundred years ago -- back when lard and rich, rich butter was a bit more of a norm!  There's a lot of things to look at like that, where some of the folk tales are supposedly that everybody's grandparents and great grandparents would eat 12,000 calories a day and burn off 95% of it working the land or whatever.  The cookbooks and various other things, like old family recipes, really aren't baring that out when you crunch the numbers on total number of calories. 

Plus, as I'd previously observed, the food additives issue.  Canada is supposed to have banned a certain type of plastic this week that was used as the liner for cans, for certain types of baby bottles, etc. because they concluded it was DANGEROUS. 

That's not the only material currently in use that people have lobbied against for years.  Splenda, Saccharine, aspartame, aluminum in antiperspirants and baking mixes, etc.  The issue with the plastic included hormonal disruption in the body, fertility issues, and possibly cancers.  Whether or not all of that's been a part of this week's news about it, I've been tracking the subject via a number of naturopathic doctors that have been speaking out against it and a couple of documentaries that have been shown about it on our local PBS television station.  The local news here claimed that Canada was the first to ban it, but I was under the impression that the EU forbade the importation of it into their countries.  Perhaps they allowed a homegrown variety of it, though, if the news report was accurate about Canada being the first to put their foot down about it.  This is a very very interesting subject when you look into it. 

This subject of the hormonal issues being caused by food additives and even hormone injections into various products and animals is like every other subject where you'll have those that'll blow it off on one extreme with an opposite extreme of chicken littles, but plenty in the so-called middle ground advising caution and further investigation and perhaps limiting one's exposure to inorganic foods.

Wint O Green

  • Guest
Re: From around 1890, if I remember correctly
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2008, 07:38:37 AM »
You know Martin you mentioned the hormonal issues with like animals that we eat and stuff...i think the reason so many are being attacked with cancer is for that reason, all the bad chemicals being placed in the food that we eat, its hurting humanity. I think its interesting how the life style of back in the days was...i think it must have been more relaxed than what it now is...some family of mine told me that they could leave the house door unlocked and no one entered the house, now a days if you leave your house or cars open people get into them and stuff is gone! Now thats sad!  :bigGrin:

Offline studier

  • Restricted
  • *
  • Posts: 1805
  • Gender: Male
Re: From around 1890, if I remember correctly
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2008, 07:51:18 AM »
The only proof I have found of hormone problems is homosexuality and transgendering in species due to high amounts of birth control estrogen pouring into the ocean. A southern Californian flatfish not only has sexual confusion, but the males are developing empty egg sacks. Animals who have eaten the tainted fish, also have been developing the same problems.

« Last Edit: October 21, 2008, 07:15:45 PM by SOtW »

Wint O Green

  • Guest
Re: From around 1890, if I remember correctly
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2008, 07:58:17 AM »
Oh wow thats interesting. Yeah thats possible. Thanks for sharing!