15 Pictures Of Renaissance Women With Spectacular Gravity-Defying Boobs

Five hundred years ago, gravity didn't exist, according to these boobs.

1. Do your boobs look like this?

Leda and the Swan, Cesare da Sesto, 1515-1520 / Creative Commons / Via en.wikipedia.org

2. Are they perfectly spherical?

Judith, Jan Sanders van Hemessen, c. 1540 / The Art Institute of Chicago / Via artic.edu

And seemingly immune to gravity?

3. Are they so far apart from each other that they look like they're trying to run away from each other?

Night, Michelangelo, 1526-31 / Kunsthistorisches Institut Florenz, Florence, Italy / Via nejm.org

4. And are they just so dang perky that they're almost in your armpits?

Vertumnus and Pomona, Francesco Melzi, c. 1518-1522 / BuzzFeed / Via commons.wikimedia.org

5. Because if so, you might just be a woman in a Renaissance painting.

Lucretia, Lucas Cranach the Elder, 1538 / Creative Commons / Via wikiart.org

Who were basically presented just as a woman's face on a man's body, with boobs attached as an afterthought.

6. To be fair, gravity wasn't a thing people really knew about yet.

A Satyr Mourning Over a Nymph, Piero di Cosimo, 1495 / Creative Commons / Via wikiart.org

Boobs move when lying down? Who'd have thunk it.

7. "Women basically look just like men but with two orange halves on their chests? Yes that sounds about right."

David and Bathsheba, Jan Matsys, 1562 / Creative Commons / Via en.wikipedia.org

Art historians HAVE noticed these weird Renaissance boobs, don't worry. Some of them say that the reason why they're so weird is because the (mostly male) artists of the time just didn't have access to female models, so they basically just had to guess what women's bodies looked like.

8. Tfw your boobs need to move out of the way to make room for your sick eight-pack.

Leda and the Swan, Jacopo Pontormo, 1512-1513 / Creative Commons / Via wikiart.org

Another theory to explain their weird-as-heck boobs could be that women's bodies were basically just seen as imperfect versions of the "original, canonical" body, i.e. the male body.

9. "Yes. Definitely canonical," said Eve, checking out Adam's cannon.

Adam and Eve, Hans Baldung, 1524 / Creative Commons / BuzzFeed / Via wikiart.org

After all, the Bible said God made Adam first, in his own image, and Eve out of Adam's rib.

10. To be fair, the boobs aren't the weirdest thing in this painting.

Leda and the Swan, Paolo Veronese, c. 1560 / Creative Commons / Via wikiart.org

So if men's bodies were the ~perfect, original human form~, then the ideal female figure would be as masculine as possible, because that would make it more ~godly~.

11. "Mammary glands? More like perfectly spherical milk balloons, amirite ladies?"

Madonna Surrounded by Seraphim and Cherubim, Jean Fouquet, 1452 / Creative Commons / Via en.wikipedia.org

Perhaps none of the painters had ever actually seen a boob before?

12. Women that did have droopy boobs had to hide their non-spherical boobs behind clothes and six younger versions of themselves.

The Seven Ages of Women, Hans Baldung, 1544 / Creative Commons / Via wikiart.org

This painting is called "The Seven Ages of Women", btw, and clearly demonstrates that a woman's boobs will suddenly lose their perfect roundness immediately after her fifth age, and that she will then be banished to the background.

13. But, who knows, maybe 500 years ago women just had mega-perky boobs and lounged about naked all the time?

The Birth of Cupid, Master of Flora, mid-16th century / Creative Commons / Via commons.wikimedia.org

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

14. And apparently their weird perky boobs occasionally sprouted branches?

The Victory of Virtue, Andrea Mantegna, 1502 / Creative Commons / Via wikiart.org

15. At least weird boobs didn't stop them from battling the patriarchy.

Judith with the head of Holofernes, Jan Massys, 1543 / Museum of Fine Arts Boston / Via mfa.org

Yaaassss, Judith, slay (literally).