Contemporary women have long decried the fact that American male tastes have seemingly shifted from a celebration of the full-formed female, as a Maidenform ad might say, to the anorexic.

But if you look into history, you'll find very few artists who appreciated excess like Peter Paul Rubens, who is lionized by the super-sized set. (And by the way, even his male angels were chubby, too, so he was equally enamored with their girth.)

Look at paintings of women from 16th century Dutch and Flemish artists, and you'll see many stark faced sticks. Their dour countenances spent very little time peering into the pantry or Ben & Jerry's, for that matter.

Picasso's women, while often large, are also known for their oddly placed mouths and noses. This artist's painted females differ from the petite types he chose for intimacy in his private life.

Degas' dancers were not tiny, at least in his pastels, but his sculptures of ballerinas show a true preference for skin and bones.

And if you leap to contemporary era photographers of note, including Helmut Newton, Francesco Scavullo, and Richard Avedon, their muses are more in keeping with Charlotte Rampling than Mama Cass.

The simple fact is that art is about form, and the human form looks better when we see muscle, bone, and a modicum of the F-stuff.

Throughout time, artists have recognized and celebrated this fact. But some folks in this era have tried to rewrite the laws of attraction and beauty, to fit waistlines and politics.