>>119312768This image completely contradicts the first one. Now fat women were considered attractive on a societal level, but Rubens thought them knuckle draggers and was just in it for Catholic dosh?
>>119312891Yes, you clearly posses basic knowledge. The whole concept of a fetish object is that it's imbued with a power or significance informed by societal beliefs like superstition or religion or spirituality or whatever. A fertility idol like the Venus is theorized to have been passed around from person to person to encourage, you guessed it, fertility. Notice that it doesn't have feet to stand on, likely because it was commonly carried around instead of displayed. These people lived in tribes, privacy wasn't exactly a common survival tactic. It also could be something an artist jerked off over in secret for all we know, but you have to ask where was the fetish informed from? I agree that fat women weren't common in ancient times, I don't think anyone was ever trying to say that, but they must have existed or had some cultural significance (more likely given their probable rarity) to inspire such a depiction.
And Venus of Willendorf isn't the only object of its kind. For a series of similar objects to exist implies a trend of some kind, and that many others existed and didn't survive to this day. If future historians find more diaper porno than solo POVs then I'd be concerned, but that's highly unlikely. Plenty of figurines of thin women exist in prehistory too, but the amount of fat women is of a margin significant enough to consider as a more accepted trend. Who even knows if fertility connections immediately meant sexual attraction though? It could have just been believed that fat women were more likely to bare healthy children or survive childbirth, not inspire boners.
Who even knows anything? That's my whole point. Don't try to say anything's definitely wrong when anything could be possible given such ancient objects with so few answers.
