On another thread a poster mentions that beauty is subjective. Used to be I’d agree, but I watched a PBS (I think) program about beauty, and it got me to thinking. They showed an experiment in which babies preferred to gaze at people who would be considered attractive by average measure. Also, beautiful people of other cultures are as beautiful to me as those in my culture.
What I’m trying to say is, don’t we all pretty much agree on those qualities which make one attractive?
So, is beauty truly subjective?
Peace,
mangeorge
I forgot to link to Biggirl’s thread, where she ask’s about discrimination against the ugly.
I vaguely remember a (I think) National Geographic article on the subject a few years ago. IIRC, they concentrated on faces, and angularity was one quality they identified.
Personally, I’ve been surprised to learn that people I’ve considered exceptionally good looking were considered ugly by others.
But there are others whom are nearly universally perceived as, well, ugly.
When you say “physical beauty” I have to wonder what you mean. We’ve all seen the rocket-bod babe who really doesn’t have a memorable, or appealing, face. As well, most of us have probably seen or met a BBW with the friendly smile and the twinkling eyes and the body that met no critical angle criteria.
We’re mostly aware that cultural standards constantly change. “Rubenesque” ain’t the way these days.
I don’t know who’s setting the standards today. Do you like how you look?
I saw a show dealing with that topic on discovery channel. One thing they pointed out was traits caused by higher levels are estrogen in women. They were facial shape, shape of eyebrows, eye shape, and ect. When given a choice, most men generally choice the trait that was caused by the higher levels of the hormone. I found that kinda interesting 
You’re as right as rain, Ringo, I did leave that open.
I was thinking of faces, mostly. Eyes, brow, mouth, etc.
Women with abs? Nah, lets stick to faces. 
Bodies are more about sex. And sex surely isn’t about beauty.
I agree, beauty does not mean skinny. I would say most of that has to do with facial structure. I doubt the babies in that study were looking at breast/waist/hip ratio.
Consensus - if it exists - doesn’t mean that beauty is unsubjective. If it turned out that EVERYONE liked chocolate more than vanilla, that wouldn’t mean chocolate was objectively better.
The movie, The Gods Must Be Crazy, indicates a strong subjectivity. There, the natives did not see a blonde Anglo woman as attractive.
I suggest that by discussing the beauty of other people, we are unavoidably intermingling the concepts of beauty and sexual attraction.
If we discuss beauty in another context, perhaps we can get closer to a defensible answer beyond an IMO – but probably not.
What about the beauty of a rose, a rainbow after a rainshower, white clouds against a blue sky? It seems possible that you could have a higher level of consensus that a given nature photo is more “beautiful” than a photo of a selected human ideal.
I remember seeing something on a program called the Human Face. It was actually on TLC, hosted by John Cleese…was that the one you saw, mangeorge? My apologies if it isn’t, but the one I saw was quite fascinating. It suggested that there was even a ratio for beauty. They made up a face model with lines and so forth in perfect ratios (sp?) and attractive faces tended to fit the pattern really well, whereas non-attractive ones didn’t. (Using the word attractive in the subjective sense, here.) Sorry if this isn’t making sense–if you saw the program, it’s a lot easier to relate to. They also mentioned that this perfect ratio was found all throughout nature, in flowers, for example.
Of course, you could argue that the perfect pattern for the face was formed through the subjective opinions of scientists/whoever made up this face model. That is, maybe it’s a case of looking for evidence that backs up a preconceived notion.
Boyo Jim–you bring up a good point. Often sexual attraction and beauty do often get mingled. For example, beauty often = youthfulness because having a healthy looking mate is desirable. What about beautiful children? Children aren’t (for the most part) looked upon as sexual, and yet we can consider them good-looking without the lust factor. Although children do grow up into beautiful adults, often, so I could be completely off…
I have no cites at hand, but three “beauty” constants found across cultures and eras are
- health
- youth
- physical (particularly facial) symmetry.
- The Golden Mean. Google ‘golden mean beauty’ without the quotes for more info.
The more symmetrical a face is the more attractive it appears. Even babies know this
This link explains it all.
I realize that Clay is outselling him, but he still won American Idol… 
Its NOT!
actually, the definition of physical beauty (in people) can be heavily influenced by culture and (pardon the expression) racial type.
can’t give you an exact cite, but i recall reading an article (probably from The Washington Post several years ago) that was dealing with the mixed-race children that resulted from the Korean War. American soldier dad/native mother type thing. the facial norm for the oriental population has a much flatter facial plane than for Westerners. many of the mixed-race children had what, to the Western eye, would be almost stunningly beautiful faces, once that combined the greater facial angles of the Westerner with the oriental features of the Koreans. the native Koreans, however, tended to discriminate heavily against these people, viewing them as “outsiders”, unattractive, and undesirable as marriage partners. so even though, to our sensibilities, these folks would seem desirable for their looks, to the rest of the native population this departure from the norm was not attractive, not desirable, and might even bring their owners unnecessary hardship because they were physically “marked” as having mixed ancestry.
Nope. All my friends agree that my wife is a total babe. Or, at least, that’s what they tell me when I ask them…
Barry
I like what you’re saying here, and I’m still thinking about whether it’s correct. My inclination is no, you’re wrong, and I have a half-assed mathematical conception of why. If, in the real world, everyone thinks chocolate is better than vanilla, then it IS objectively better. Why? We can say (I think) that not only must chocolate be better overall, it must be better by every possible standard. If not, at least one person for each standard who valued that standard to the exclusion of all others, would have selected vanilla. If, by any scale whatsoever selected by the observer, chocolate comes out ahead, then we can speak about mathematical certainty. That’s kind of the heart and soul of objectivity(which in itself is just another human concept that may or may not exist, but let’s not go there today).
However, if there is a single legitimate example of a person who prefers vanilla, then all this goes the tubes because it becomes possible to have two different outputs from the same input.
The show was ** The Human Face ** on TLC. I think the ratio was something like 1.00 to 1.30. They did demonstrations with adults and babies cross-culturally. Very cool show.