PornBox.com

Just remembering an old Swedish girlfriend, & I find traces of her face in both following pictures, one, bizarrely of Dalglish, the geat Scottish footballer, another of Charlotte Rampling, almost certainly both relics of 'dark ages' migration from Scandinavia to edged corners of France & British Isles, when that tribe found itself 'pushed out'. I'm convinced that the beauty of tribes has utterly declined through centuries. OK, we've all better teeth, so what, but I'll bet if we all saw Scythians, or Goths, or Celts, from 2000 years past, we'd be shocked at their raw provincial / parochial beauty, that liberals / progressives would sneer at as being 'inbred'. Now its being pushed multiracial hotspotch resulting in well, look at any advertisement pushed on us daily really. I'd love go back in time to verify...


I think even Philip Larkin said it best...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26SaY6s3IaM

Those long uneven lines
Standing as patiently
As if they were stretched outside
The Oval or Villa Park,
The crowns of hats, the sun
On moustached archaic faces
Grinning as if it were all
An August Bank Holiday lark;

And the shut shops, the bleached
Established names on the sunblinds,
The farthings and sovereigns,
And dark-clothed children at play
Called after kings and queens,
The tin advertisements
For cocoa and twist, and the pubs
Wide open all day;

And the countryside not caring:
The place-names all hazed over
With flowering grasses, and fields
Shadowing Domesday lines
Under wheat’s restless silence;
The differently-dressed servants
With tiny rooms in huge houses,
The dust behind limousines;

Never such innocence,
Never before or since,
As changed itself to past
Without a word – the men
Leaving the gardens tidy,
The thousands of marriages,
Lasting a little while longer:
Never such innocence again.

No, I think it's all random, and we're all mongrels.

Different cultures and also different eras in history see beauty differently. Different individual people see beauty differently. There are no absolute standards.

I think every ethnic group and every possible mixed permutation contains beautiful and ugly people and most of us are somewhere in-between.

I imagine girls looking prettier when I was younger, but I think that's just my soppy nostalgic wishful thinking. Also, my eyesight was better.

Personally I think the average female beauty standard has gone up considerably in recent years. When I look at the amount of stunningly hot 18(ish) year olds wandering around it's pretty gobsmacking. However, I'm not sure how much this has to do with 'natural' beauty, or just general trends in make-up, hair styling, and the general fitness levels expected in today's social media-obsessed competitive world (plus of course, plastic surgery). Once you scrape the makeup off and see what's underneath, who knows?

Obviously, if we are talking online images, then a lot of them will have some level of photo fakery cleaning them up - but even back before lockdown you could see hundreds of hot girls wandering around town on an average night out with bodies and faces which are far in advance of the average professional model from 30-40 years ago. The downside of this, is that a lot of these people are both very vain, and insecure about their looks, and obsess about them constantly. I know girls who literally can't get into a lift without looking in the mirror and posing for 10 selfies, but just as a male observer it's a good thing.

The question doesn't really require an answer because it's not the point of the thread, which is to act as a platform for the poster to give us his romanticized notions of racial purity and posit some imaginary unbroken link back to a world of Neolithic hotties when men were men and women had great cheekbones. Interracial people tend to be pretty good looking, for what it's worth - and that is not a cue for endless pictures of ugly interracial people, by the way.

davebowman wrote:Personally I think the average female beauty standard has gone up considerably in recent years. When I look at the amount of stunningly hot 18(ish) year olds wandering around it's pretty gobsmacking. However, I'm not sure how much this has to do with 'natural' beauty, or just general trends in make-up, hair styling, and the general fitness levels expected in today's social media-obsessed competitive world (plus of course, plastic surgery). Once you scrape the makeup off and see what's underneath, who knows?

Obviously, if we are talking online images, then a lot of them will have some level of photo fakery cleaning them up - but even back before lockdown you could see hundreds of hot girls wandering around town on an average night out with bodies and faces which are far in advance of the average professional model from 30-40 years ago. The downside of this, is that a lot of these people are both very vain, and insecure about their looks, and obsess about them constantly. I know girls who literally can't get into a lift without looking in the mirror and posing for 10 selfies, but just as a male observer it's a good thing.

Go back longer than 30-40 years but centuries, which the poster would seem to be suggesting we do, to when most people were living hideously stressful, disease ridden and precarious lives and I'd be surprised if people looked better. A few (idealized) paintings of royalty, aristocrats and courtesans gives us no clue as to how most of us would actually have looked.

If by good looking girls you mean skinny and tanned, then those would be the poor ones working on the fields. I imagine the royal aristocrat women were pale and fat as the paintings suggest.

Without going too far back, only 120 years ago I have seen images of girls from Netherlands before and after having kids. They looked normal before kids, and after kids they were all fat, but that's just a random example of only around 30 women, it doesn't really mean anything.

The thing is that beauty comes in different shapes and forms. There are tall girls that are hot, there are short girls that are hot, there are skinny girls that are hot, there are thick girls that are hot, there are dark girls that are hot, there are pale girls that are hot, there are tons of girls in the middle of those things that are also hot, etc..

You can't really define it because beauty comes in different shapes and colors.

Iddaoeeok wrote:The question doesn't really require an answer because it's not the point of the thread, which is to act as a platform for the poster to give us his romanticized notions of racial purity and posit some imaginary unbroken link back to a world of Neolithic hotties when men were men and women had great cheekbones. Interracial people tend to be pretty good looking, for what it's worth - and that is not a cue for endless pictures of ugly interracial people, by the way.

I know what you're saying, Iddaoeeok, I get your point, & I accept it. But I still think theres an awful lot in what I say. And its like the unspeakable beauty of the 100's of individual languages, & how one day there may well be about just 3 or 4 - all infinitely more basic, & we'll be told thats progress.

Again racially, I accept the charge that what I say has a Euro-centric ring. But I'd feel the same if it were say the beautiful 'Pakistani' or 'Nigerian' races under threat, believe me. The fact is they're not.

These unspeakably beautiful characteristics I allude to, invoke poetry, great visions that invoke great artistic endeavours, have always done so. Its an opinion, thats all, & I respect your answer.

netzerkaiser wrote:

Iddaoeeok wrote:The question doesn't really require an answer because it's not the point of the thread, which is to act as a platform for the poster to give us his romanticized notions of racial purity and posit some imaginary unbroken link back to a world of Neolithic hotties when men were men and women had great cheekbones. Interracial people tend to be pretty good looking, for what it's worth - and that is not a cue for endless pictures of ugly interracial people, by the way.

I know what you're saying, Iddaoeeok, I get your point, & I accept it. But I still think theres an awful lot in what I say. And its like the unspeakable beauty of the 100's of individual languages, & how one day there may well be about just 3 or 4 - all infinitely more basic, & we'll be told thats progress.

Again racially, I accept the charge that what I say has a Euro-centric ring. But I'd feel the same if it were say the beautiful 'Pakistani' or 'Nigerian' races under threat, believe me. The fact is they're not.

These unspeakably beautiful characteristics I allude to, invoke poetry, great visions that invoke great artistic endeavours, have always done so. Its an opinion, thats all, & I respect your answer.

Theres always going to be something about driving to a corner of Scotland, or Norway, & linking up the family faces in the neighbourhood that were there for centuries. But I guess thats all going to be in the past now as things stand.

Go back longer than 30-40 years but centuries, which the poster would seem to be suggesting we do, to when most people were living hideously stressful, disease ridden and precarious lives and I'd be surprised if people looked better. A few (idealized) paintings of royalty, aristocrats and courtesans gives us no clue as to how most of us would actually have looked.

It is definitely a wake-up point, I'll give you that. In old days poorer people were chattel, had no real rights, raped, downtrod, bought & sold. I do tend to romanticise. One day post-Covid, you & me might have a drink together in an old English pub, & leave with even greater respect for each other. Kudos Idaooek.

It’s a pointless question imo. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What’s beautiful for one person, is average for the next and vice versa.

YumYum74 wrote:It’s a pointless question imo. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What’s beautiful for one person, is average for the next and vice versa.

Maybe. Who's the beholder?

Different on a case by case situation. That's the whole point. Were people more beautiful in the past? For you maybe yes, for me maybe no.

I saw a travel documentary many years ago in Russia. The presenter asked an old babička why there were no good looking men in Russia. She said all the good looking one's died in the war! I know we're talking about women here, but Russian men are the ugliest men to ever live, apart from Turks.

I think there are plenty good looking women around now, but the mixing of peoples in recent decades certainly has watered down the gene pool and there's a lot more ugly people in the world than before, what I call Morlocks.

You certainly dont get the classic beauties that one used to get in the golden era of Hollywood. The quality of girls you get in porn now has certainly deteriorated, but this is a more recent phenomena. The women in porn during the golden era of porn in the 2000's were super hot. Now porn is full of too many pasty, malnourished, tattooed skanks; many of which are not particularly attractive. Always amazes me how ugly girls always decide to make themselves even more ugly with terrible clothes, tattoos and piercings.

That's my two cents anyway. Just my opinion of course, we're all entitled to one

Also it is important to mention a very important point which is that if you look at many porn actresses on LP just to give an example, there are some really incredibly good looking women that have been featured during the last 5 years.

Obviously not all of them are like that, but many are truly gorgeous and beautiful. It is just very hard to notice it because of the tattoos, so it is kind of tricky.

But if you take a closer look you can notice that many of these women are pretty up there in terms of raw beauty, it is just hard to tell because of the tattoos, but if you can imagine them without those, some are quite spectacular looking.

Leaving aside the racial/genetics discussion, the bottom-line still is that you can go to somewhere like Tushy and see a whole parade of girls who a few years ago would have been considered 'too beautiful for porn' taking it up the old poop canal. That alone tells me that general beauty standards have risen. A girl that would have had Maryln Monroe-like impact at the time, is now just kinda average.

davebowman wrote:Leaving aside the racial/genetics discussion, the bottom-line still is that you can go to somewhere like Tushy and see a whole parade of girls who a few years ago would have been considered 'too beautiful for porn' taking it up the old poop canal. That alone tells me that general beauty standards have risen. A girl that would have had Maryln Monroe-like impact at the time, is now just kinda average.

Dave, the crazy thing in my eyes is the new force is coming from USA & has been for past 5 years. The beauty of some of these women who could easily find alternate livliehood is something thats completely upset my applecart theory that poverty with no other options leds to porn career. The US is blazing the field today IMHO. Thanks.

My 2c.

1. Someone who thinks the models on Tushy today would have been considered too pretty for porn in the past, could treat themselves by watching some of the many classic beauties who made porn in the past.

2. Women today can enter porn for a quick paycheck, but also to advertise themselves and pursue many opportunities for escorting or camming or [spam] or feature dancing or whatever, in a society obsessed with internet celebrities. Some can even cross over into mainstream entertainment roles as actresses, pop singers etc.

I'd say that people might seem more beautiful in the past because of imperfect memory. People often remember the past as being better than it actually was.

But if you find the pictures of past and present porn-stars for comparison now, without any reliance on memory, then I'd say that today's porn-stars are better-looking. I think one big reason for this is improved plastic surgery, which many porn-stars have. With today's computer technology and enhanced surgical instruments, materials, and techniques plastic surgery often makes ordinary-looking women into real beauties. And in the future, improvements in plastic surgery might make porn women even better-looking.

You see, I would say exactly the opposite. The porn stars of yesteryear looked far more natural whereas today’s look more.....well, plastic. I don’t see it as an improvement.

number1s wrote:You see, I would say exactly the opposite. The porn stars of yesteryear looked far more natural whereas today’s look more.....well, plastic. I don’t see it as an improvement.

Porn-stars were doing lots of plastic surgery in the past too. And for breast enhancement, their plastic surgery looked crude. You could see right away that they had artificially enhanced tits. But now such surgery is done more tastefully and less obviously. Today's artificially enhanced boobs look more natural and better than before at the same time.

Facial plastic surgery has also improved due to better computer modeling and software and automation in surgery aided by better computers and more sophisticated software. Nowadays, even Artificial Intelligence is being used to design and execute plastic surgery.

101mike101 wrote:Porn-stars were doing lots of plastic surgery in the past too.

The best ones looking weren't, which was the point of the guy's post - that and there was less plastic surgery going on, so whether it's better now is irrelevant to his argument.

I have a particular dislike for facial cosmetic surgery which, in my opinion, has never once made any model look better than she did before. I've noticed there's some sort of circle being closed whereby surgical procedures used by transexuals to look more like women are being used by women who, as a result, are beginning to resemble transexuals. I won't mention any names of specific models in case they happen to read this.

Iddaoeeok wrote:

101mike101 wrote:Porn-stars were doing lots of plastic surgery in the past too.

The best ones looking weren't, which was the point of the guy's post - that and there was less plastic surgery going on, so whether it's better now is irrelevant to his argument.

I have a particular dislike for facial cosmetic surgery which, in my opinion, has never once made any model look better than she did before. I've noticed there's some sort of circle being closed whereby surgical procedures used by transexuals to look more like women are being used by women who, as a result, are beginning to resemble transexuals. I won't mention any names of specific models in case they happen to read this.

If you compare only the best-looking porn-stars from the past and from the present, then perhaps there isn't much difference. They were and still are really hot and beautiful.

But overall, I'd say that porn is now better than before. Because now there are a lot more women in porn than before. So, instead of counting on your fingers all the porn-stars you liked, you can now find countless porn stars who are good-looking enough and who do all kinds of stuff that you might want to see.

So, now you have a greater number of good-looking women. And these women are more willing to spread their cheeks for anal dicks.

I don't know if there are more women doing porn now or not, it's hard to tell. One thing I do know is that there are some countries that supplied lots of good looking models in the past which hardly seem to produce any now - I'm thinking specifically of Hungary here, but also possibly Romania.

Iddaoeeok wrote:I don't know if there are more women doing porn now or not, it's hard to tell. One thing I do know is that there are some countries that supplied lots of good looking models in the past which hardly seem to produce any now - I'm thinking specifically of Hungary here, but also possibly Romania.

A lot of porn women nowadays are working behind paywalls at various websites. And they sometimes don't even appear in DVDs. So, there is no single place where you can see all current porn-stars and have an idea how many there are.

And now there are far more amateurs than before. Because now lots of people post their amateur videos on Pornhub and other such places. They are making their own films, instead of depending on VHS and DVD producers, the way it was in the past.

Iddaoeeok wrote:I don't know if there are more women doing porn now or not, it's hard to tell. One thing I do know is that there are some countries that supplied lots of good looking models in the past which hardly seem to produce any now - I'm thinking specifically of Hungary here, but also possibly Romania.

Yeah, Hungarian and Romanian pornstars were some of the best, now they are few and far between.

Overly simplistic but maybe before cameras and storage were so prevalent, people only took photos of the truly beautiful people? A picture today is worthless almost, can't say the same thing 30, 40 years ago.

[quote="avanfurwet"]My 2c.

1. Someone who thinks the models on Tushy today would have been considered too pretty for porn in the past, could treat themselves by watching some of the many classic beauties who made porn in the past.

I didn't say that Avanfurwet. But apart from the Czech explosion with LP 2014-2016, it applies to Czech, Hungary, Russia that the amount of beauties entering porn decreases as a combination of loss of anonomyty / rise of living standards occurs. But USA which I directly stated has as many beauties coming into industry now as it ever did, which bucks the European trend. We might need finetune this further, I'm not sure.

netzerkaiser wrote:

avanfurwet wrote:My 2c.

1. Someone who thinks the models on Tushy today would have been considered too pretty for porn in the past, could treat themselves by watching some of the many classic beauties who made porn in the past.

I didn't say that Avanfurwet. But apart from the Czech explosion with LP 2014-2016, it applies to Czech, Hungary, Russia that the amount of beauties entering porn decreases as a combination of loss of anonomyty / rise of living standards occurs. But USA which I directly stated has as many beauties coming into industry now as it ever did, which bucks the European trend. We might need finetune this further, I'm not sure.

As someone who kinda wants to quit porn, as time thief, just like say, "I've got my history of rock music basically completed, since theres been nothing new since Smiths/Stone Roses/Suede"... its kind of a personal quest to close the book. But the current USA scene is just dragging me back in, Carlitos way, if that makes sense, dunno. Cheers.

netzerkaiser wrote:

avanfurwet wrote:My 2c.

1. Someone who thinks the models on Tushy today would have been considered too pretty for porn in the past, could treat themselves by watching some of the many classic beauties who made porn in the past.

I didn't say that Avanfurwet. But apart from the Czech explosion with LP 2014-2016, it applies to Czech, Hungary, Russia that the amount of beauties entering porn decreases as a combination of loss of anonomyty / rise of living standards occurs. But USA which I directly stated has as many beauties coming into industry now as it ever did, which bucks the European trend. We might need finetune this further, I'm not sure.

@Avanfurwet: genuine apology here to you, I thought you'd misconstrued my own point. Sorry about picking bone on that.

netzerkaiser wrote:@Avanfurwet: genuine apology here to you, I thought you'd misconstrued my own point. Sorry about picking bone on that.

It's OK. I was too lazy to quote individual posters and just rambled on generally.

sarthakmoftu wrote:Overly simplistic but maybe before cameras and storage were so prevalent, people only took photos of the truly beautiful people? A picture today is worthless almost, can't say the same thing 30, 40 years ago.

Interesting logic.
But, also ...
1. Rich people have always had family portraits done, also wedding, graduation etc. pictures, regardless of how ugly they are.
2. News and documentary photojournalists have always made images that capture the story, whoever happens to be in it.
3. Amateur photographers have always made images of whatever interested them, often just random people around them.

Same applies to painting and drawing in previous eras before photography.

jackthetreacleeater wrote:

Iddaoeeok wrote:I don't know if there are more women doing porn now or not, it's hard to tell. One thing I do know is that there are some countries that supplied lots of good looking models in the past which hardly seem to produce any now - I'm thinking specifically of Hungary here, but also possibly Romania.

Yeah, Hungarian and Romanian pornstars were some of the best, now they are few and far between.

Is this generally, or just shooting for LP/Analvids/Pornbox?

I'll stick to the European arena because thats clearly what inspired my thinking. I think that we need to understand the effect of demographic catastrophies through the ages. I am an amateur historian but I like to try to imagine the mindsets of people in the past where their essence was formed mostly by localised or military experience. There was no mass media, no ways of uniformly projecting mindsets upon people, unless by church, military, fuedal hierarchy... until schools came along in a big way about 150 years ago.

But to the point about beauty. If we take France alone in past 250 years. The Napoleonic wars devastated the male stock, which happened again 1914-1918. In Germany 1914-1918 the male stock was also devastated. How it was even capable of having an adequate military in 1939 is crazy since so many babies that should have come along between 1914 & 1925 simply didn't. Then 1939-1945 really decimated the German male pool of child producing age.

This meant, as in post-war Russia, the potential for women finding partners took a massive hit, with women having babies by men in general, that they wouldn't in a society that hadn't seen such a demographic imbalance.

avanfurwet wrote:

sarthakmoftu wrote:Overly simplistic but maybe before cameras and storage were so prevalent, people only took photos of the truly beautiful people? A picture today is worthless almost, can't say the same thing 30, 40 years ago.

Interesting logic.
But, also ...
1. Rich people have always had family portraits done, also wedding, graduation etc. pictures, regardless of how ugly they are.
2. News and documentary photojournalists have always made images that capture the story, whoever happens to be in it.
3. Amateur photographers have always made images of whatever interested them, often just random people around them.

Same applies to painting and drawing in previous eras before photography.

Super points Avanfurwet. Military photos give insight. Families all had them done. How handsome so many young men were circa pre-WWI, pre-WWII. RE: pre-WWI this is is hard to see with Germans because of ludicrous moustaches, but you can see it in the British lads who were more cleanshaven. Now, today, flabby fat junkfood jowls, but I'm not talking about that, its not question of diet here or 'lifestyle' but as per previous post, that the genetic pool would have weakened greatly. You have to read previous post to understand what I'm saying, because I'm using on-screen keyboard so its painful to repeat myself.

As a counterbalance to that, take a look at photographs of almost any footballer pre 1960s and guys in their 20s look about 40.

You don't even need to look at footballers, OP literally Posted a photo of an ugly rugby player.

I can't say how can someone look at those russian girls from NRX and GIoLab and say things like that. WhiteNeko looks like she walked out of a fashion model shoot. Veronical Leal is our all time best-seller exactly because she is so pretty.

I particularly don't like a bunch of models who are clearly on this site because they are willing to do extreme things with their orifices, but the few who are pretty are very pretty.

Iddaoeeok wrote:As a counterbalance to that, take a look at photographs of almost any footballer pre 1960s and guys in their 20s look about 40.

Exactly. It is a counterbalance but I had already conceded to your point Iddaoeeok, in previous posts. The counterbalance between diet, stress, impovrishment, tyranny / locality / status dictating partner choice VS the weakening over the centuries of the male half of the genetic contribution caused chiefly by war related issues - I'm talking mainland Europe. The only area there that doesn't agree with my theory is Scandinava itself, whch didn't under such traumas since great northern war of early 1700's.