|>>|| No. 3340
>That's bollocks though, as >>3335 pointed out historically it could just as easily be seen as a sign of health.
Someone who was fat (hard define fat (I will say that gluttons were punished and disliked)) was seen as wealthy and therefore desirable, in much the same way that pale skinned people were desirable (as they didn't work outside). It may have had very little to do with sexual attraction (which often wasn't the motivator of marriage in many cases). The actions of the well documented aristocrats probably didn't reflect the behaviours of the badly documented plebeians, which is a problem when looking at past trends: plebs of course made up most of the population.
To go far as call it "bollocks," shows you are foolish and easily jump to rash conclusions. It certainly is possible that it is societal and it is certainly possible that it is biological.
For me, the fact that fat people are generally disliked in nearly all cultures and the evolutionary benefit of disliking fat women (who are less capable of child birth and less likely to survive for multiple children) and men (who are were worse providers, at least outside of the aristocracy) shows that it is biological, at least to a certain extent.
I will dismiss societal influence, which I am sure is there but I believe it is mostly biological. Although I will say that I think it all comes to the question, "how fat are we talking here?"