• ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    One thing I fucking love about this is the man’s hat. Like it fits so well with his speedo/loincloth thing it is perfect. The artist probably had a lot of fun with that.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Ok, but it had to be difficult to imagine in 1914 that basically everyone in the 50s would be smoking cigarettes. The inciting incident for the change had begun (WW1), but it’s “they’re giving the soldiers shitty poor people tobacco so they can at least have some comfort and because it’s more logistically convenient than to give them pipes”. And idk if they had started issuing cigs yet in 14.

            This is the equivalent of predicting that in the 2060s wealthy people about town will rather than enjoying a nice whiskey on their nights out or on a lovely night in, they’ll be (like everyone else) maintaining a solid drunkenness on malt liquor the majority of their waking life because the trump administration got so bad that it took free malt liquor to keep people productive in the majority of the developed world and now everyone there is an alcoholic with shit taste.

  • athairmor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    2 days ago

    It seems like futuristic utopia fashion predictions always feature less clothing. Whether something like this or sci-fi like Star Trek TNG.

    Maybe, they’re prescient shades of the coming global warming or people’s imaginations are just unavoidably horny.

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    Why was a cane ever considered essential accessory? Was it related to needing a weapon?

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s a device that can be made fancy and beautiful that serves as a weapon when needed, and is an assistive device for the disabled. We’re talking 1914, so it’s not the most disabled the men of the western world have been, but four years later will be.

      And even without the war, you’re in a time where there’s no joint replacement, and there’s a lot of people with injuries from industrial accidents and people who’ve had diseases of industrialization. You have the beginnings of recreational sport (a good way to get injured if you don’t know how to prevent it) and not much other exercise except walking places. The newfangled “safety bicycle” is still a death trap by modern standards but compared to a pennyfarthing without pneumatic wheels it earns its name. Also there’s no antibiotics so you’ve got a lot more people sporting a single leg than in modern times, especially if you’re in America where veterans of the Civil war are still around at the time.

    • ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      At some point in the 19th century and maybe towards the early 20th century a cane was a common accessory for well-to-do individuals even if they never needed it.

      The first ever mixed martial arts system, bartitsu, made heavy use of walking canes as weapons specifically because of how often people carried them.

    • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      I think navigating an urban landscape a century ago was just generally more challenging than it is now.

      Having a stick to fend off rats, dogs, or livestock would be essential.

      Also muddy streets, gutters etcetera, are easier to navigate with a walking stick.

      Finally just carrying a cool stick around with you while you conduct your affairs doesn’t seem terrible. I find myself kinda wishing it was still a thing.

    • Gaja0@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Why isn’t a cane considered an essential accessory? We could all use personal lightsabers at all times.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think I know why we stopped using canes. Also from the depth of my madness I just remembered that Dudley in had a cane in the Harry Potter books.

    • AlexLost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Weapon, balance wet cobblestone streets, ease on your legs from a long day waiting on the trolley. Pick upreach device. Also, another thing for people to sell, i.e. hat, pocket watch, bracelet, necklace, etc… that’s mostly what “fashion” and “fads” are, a new gimmick to sell and distract people from the horror of everyday life.

      Seriously though, a walking stick while hiking is a game changer. I’m not talking ski poles, those are mostly useless outside light balance stuff. I do so much with my walking staff and have never had a fall or trip while on the trail. A third leg can be a godsend sometimes, especially in muddy swampy sections. Creek crossings are a breeze.

  • HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 days ago

    Its actually surprisingly on par considering the clothing at the time. The bikini came about in the late 40’s and the miniskirt was around by the late fifties although the term had not been coined.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        Weight loss drugs don’t immunise you against food though.

        And usually the people who are on drugs for weight loss arent exactly close to the figure represented.

        • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Weight loss drugs don’t immunise you against food though.

          The new ones like ozempic literally kill your cravings and desire for snacking, so in a way they do.

          And usually the people who are on drugs for weight loss arent exactly close to the figure represented.

          You’d be surprised at the figures of some of the people I see at the doctor’s for weight loss drugs.

          • Dasus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            In a way, they attempt to moderate the hormones that usually are the cause behind snacking. But it won’t eliminate habit.

            You’d be surprised at the figures of some of the people I see at the doctor’s for weight loss drugs.

            I don’t think I would, but if some anorexic person gets weight loss drugs instead of a referral to a psychiatrist, somethings gone wrong.

            • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              But it won’t eliminate habit.

              Obviously anecdotal, but from what I’ve seen and heard it actually does. Those using it have almost no cravings, you can stick their favourite snack in their face and they’ll politely decline.

              some anorexic person gets weight loss drugs instead of a referral to a psychiatrist,

              Didn’t mean it that way, but slim and shapely.

              • Dasus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                I mean, it will help eliminate the habit.

                The person doing the snacking is addicted to a feeling usually associated with eating because of a hormone that your stomach releases which makes you hungry. (Ghrelin iirc) This medication on either ocunteracts that or helps it’s counterpart, leptin, which signals satiation.

                Usually people with severe obesity have those signalings all fucked up.

                But like with smokers, nicotine patches will help people quit, but some just like still smoke on them and don’t even reduce, you know? Those people are more addicted to smoking than dependent on the nicotine, really.

                Similar thing goes for food addiction. It can be either or, addiction or “dependence” (I put it in airquotes because it’s still not “really” required but your body certainly will make you think it is because it doesn’t know we live in modern times and a bit of fasting is completely safe).

                Usually it’s a mix of both, obviously, like with everyone. But if the psychological component is far larger, than these sort of meds perhaps won’t help as much, and you’d need something combined with therapy perhaps.

                but slim and shapely.

                Yeah eh, if they’re being cautious and abiding by the instructions on the medications, I guess why not.

    • Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Obesity in the 50’s was more like 10-15%, today it’s closer to 35%, but 40 is close enough.

      Interestingly, the spike started in the mid-1980’s, timed too closely to the low-fat craze to not make me suspicious, especially since that adds up metabolically.

        • untorquer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Eating sugar doesn’t either unless you’re at a calorie surplus but yeah sugar does mess with you hormonally in a way that you’re more likely to put yourself at a calorie surplus vs fats.

        • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          Pretty sure fat digests pretty easily for humans, while we are omnivores we lean more towards the carnivore side of things. Remember our big evolutionary advantage is our ability to throw things good and just keep walking, persistence hunting was our big fuck you advantage.

          • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            Another advantage that we developed later on is our ability to seamlessly shift from small to big team organizations, sometimes working without any apparent hierarchy. Gobleki Tepe is one of the prime examples of prehistoric cities

            Too bad the world as a whole kinda stuck with super rigid top down hierarchies for the past 500 years

    • kautau@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Nowadays burning man is just like the tech bros corporate retreat, so if it’s today’s burning man we just skipped some steps toward technofeudalism