Laura's boyfriends
How she had so many boyfriends is beyond me, the poor girl was ugly as hell and not very bright. What they saw in her is a mystery.
shareShe was the focus of the show after all. She also was written as fairly outgoing and spunky which is something we very seldom saw with the other school girls. Further, the show made Charles fairly successful as he started off with 100 acres and then bought 40 acres in the debut of the banker Sprague. This would make Laura more attractive as a wife as a boy could come in as a son in law. Even though the Oleson's were one of the most successful families of Walnut Grove the thought of Harriet as a future mother in law made a lot of boys think Nellie was definitely not worth the effort. While people did move around back then it was far more common to stay in the community that you grew up in. Can you imagine being a son in law going to the Oleson's for dinner a majority of the nights on a weekly basis to hear Harriet tell you everything that you are doing wrong? Especially if Nels and Harriet were financing your farm. Lastly, I would say that Melissa Gilbert grew into her looks and she is not out of the Pam Anderson mold if that is your preference.
share That OP is rather harsh! To judge someone mostly on their looks?
Beauty does have its appeal but back then when life was MUCH harsher, women didn't use cosmetics, visit beauty salons or use sunscreen as they toiled on farms, well they just weren't that "pretty".
The same goes for the men. Have you ever SEEN any pictures of the real Charles Ingalls? He was far from the hunk that Michael Landon was! And he managed to find a wife.
We tend to apply today's beauty standards to people from centuries ago. There was a Bonanza episode which starred Stephanie Powers as Calamity Jane. When I saw a a picture of the real Martha Jane Canary, yikes! She looked like she could've been Stephanie Powers brother.
But Calamity Jane lived a rough life in the west. She raised her five younger siblings when their parents died. With no formal schooling, she did any job she could to support them. She was an Army Scout, ox team driver,etc. She wore men's clothes. Her hard life showed in her face. Yet she married twice.
It's just not fair to say that someone is "ugly", therefore they don't deserve to be loved.
And as BiffGG pointed out, Laura would be considered a good catch if she came with a dowry. Folks were a lot more practical minded when it came to marriage back then. Today too many people (of both genders) fall in love with a pretty face, nice body or that obnoxious trite reason I used to hear by young brides on "Say Yes to the Dress". He makes me laugh. He's funny and cute and smart. Yeah so is Bugs Bunny!
women didn't use cosmetics, visit beauty salons or use sunscreen as they toiled on farms, well they just weren't that "pretty".
Good point pjpurple. Cosmetics were not very commonly used at the time, with the exception perhaps with the dance hall girls, or the “soiled doves”.
You do on occasion though see some old photographs of some strikingly beautiful females. Such women were true beauties without the aid of make up, such as the girl in the link below.
Beautiful Victorian Girl
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ff/22/6c/ff226cc65925cbc54c68a3f01ca282e7.jpg share
Beautiful picture! Yes, I didn't mean to imply that there were NO beautiful women. I have seen pictures of some very attractive gals who didn't have the use of cosmetics. But mostly they wouldn't fit the standards of modern "beauty". Most hairstyles were rather severe and women wore high collars, bonnets and other clothes that didn't exactly flatter, at least not according to our modern standards.
It's just that the working class folks, farm women like the Ingalls women, led hard lives under harsh circumstances. I've seen many pictures of farm women in the 1800's with all their young children around them. In most cases they could not have been older than thirty five but they were weatherbeaten and old looking before their time.
I just don't think men in those days expected to marry airbrushed Cosmo cover girls. lol
Haha! No, I understood what you meant pjpurple. They were more practical times, with 80% of the population having to resort to agriculture in some form for sustenance, so looking pretty would have been a luxury.
Fortunately for the Victorians, the cost of a photograph at the time, along with the absence of social media, spared them from having to look at stupid selfies day in and day out 😀