# Standards of beauty: Innate vs Cultural **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 19, 2018, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380 "2018-06-19T14:10:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/1 "2018-06-19T14:10:13Z")
Over yonder in the [Incel thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=21030121#post21030121), we seem to have come into an interesting side discussion about physical attraction. To wit: Is beauty a human construct, and to what degree? It kinda sorta went like this: > [@Incels, terrorism, and preventative measures](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incels-terrorism-and-preventative-measures/816002/261): > > Further – standards for looks and appearance are extremely strongly influenced by culture and society, including all the biases (racism, classism, colorism, sexism, etc.) within. If someone isn’t attracted to black women, but they are attracted to white women, for example, then it’s quite likely that this is influenced by broader society and culture, which dictates that lighter skin and European features are more attractive, in addition to the general vague (and sometimes not-so-vague) dehumanization that often afflicts societal representations of black people. > > FWIW, in my personal experience, once one recognizes how strongly influential the biases of society and culture are, then it’s possible to overcome them and actually change what one finds physically attractive. > [@Incels, terrorism, and preventative measures](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incels-terrorism-and-preventative-measures/816002/280): > > Not “all” but “most”. > > He said that any given person who is more attracted to white people can be assumed to be influenced by the culture etc. This only follows from an assumption that it’s unlikely the person might just happen to prefer white people’s appearance. > > I agree that it makes sense that at a societal level there’s some influence, but there’s no reason to assume that other factors might not be just as strong or stronger, so that there’s no way to say that it’s more likely than not that a given individual preference is the result of societal preference. > > [Same goes for all styles and appearance preferences. Tattoos, hairstyles, etc.] > [@Incels, terrorism, and preventative measures](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incels-terrorism-and-preventative-measures/816002/286): > > “Might just happen to prefer” is an interesting turn of phrase. What mechanism other than environment would you think holds greater sway over our attractions, our preferences, or our kinks? Would you hold that being more attracted to tall people, or white people, or blue-eyed people is (to whatever degree) an innate biological drive? > . > [@Incels, terrorism, and preventative measures](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/incels-terrorism-and-preventative-measures/816002/289): > > Absolutely. What people are attracted to definitely has innate biological elements. > > It may be easier if you think about it in terms of animals. Animals don’t (for the most part) have much of an environmental influence over attraction, but they have clear preferences, much like people. > > In general, creatures - whether human or animal - are programmed to be attracted to mates who offer them or their offspring some sort of advantage. > > In the case of tall mates, the advantage is pretty obvious. For the other traits it’s not as apparent. However, it would seem logical that whatever survival advantage spurred the development of these traits to begin with would have the same impact on the development of innate mate preferences. > > It’s also worth bearing in mind that traits can sometimes be advantageous in one narrow circumstance but evolve in a broader manner. So for example, suppose an innate preference for lighter colors was advantageous in some context, then this could transfer to mate preferences even if there was no advantage in that context. So we’re at the point where at least _some_ of what determines whether we find another human personally (not necessarily sexually) attractive is culturally derived, while _some_ is innate, biological, hardwired. I suggest that as upright, sentient thumbmonkeys the latter is much smaller than the former. Specifically, I suggest that when it comes to skin color, **iiandyiiii** hits the nail on the head–the idea that white people are often considered more attractive is a _purely cultural construct without biological basis._ But I do see some validity in the “biological drive to reproduce” argument, which could explain in part the perception that taller or stronger people (particularly men) are hotter. Where’s the line between societal perceptions of beauty and the Darwinian urge? . ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/2 "2018-06-19T14:26:19Z")
If my understanding of art history, cosmetics history, and marketing history are correct, then standards of beauty for both men and women vary incredibly wildly across space (i.e. different countries/regions) and time (different eras). This is a pretty strong argument that culture is hugely influential on who we find attractive. There might be common features to most or all of these wildly different standards – perhaps height for men (up to a point, at least), clear and unblemished skin for women (though perhaps ritual scarification and body art throws a wrench into this one), and physical strength, stamina, and agility for men – if so, then these might be some of the less culturally influenced and more biologically influenced features for attractiveness, though I’m not sure how this could be confirmed eithe rway. But it seems clear to me that the weight/girth, skin tone, hairstyles, eye color, and most other features considered most attractive vary extremely widely depending on the region, culture, and era in question. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/3 "2018-06-19T14:27:18Z")
We don’t know, because ethical committees keeps blocking my “Raise children in specifically designed bubbles”-studies. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/4 "2018-06-19T14:31:24Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Specifically, I suggest that when it comes to skin color, **iiandyiiii** hits the nail on the head–the idea that white people are often considered more attractive is a _purely cultural construct without biological basis._ > > But I do see some validity in the “biological drive to reproduce” argument, which could explain in part the perception that taller or stronger people (particularly men) are hotter. Please explain why you would disagree with the following statement (quoted in your OP): _It would seem logical that whatever survival advantage spurred the development of these traits to begin with would have the same impact on the development of innate mate preferences._ ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/5 "2018-06-19T14:43:20Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If my understanding of art history, cosmetics history, and marketing history are correct, then standards of beauty for both men and women vary incredibly wildly across space (i.e. different countries/regions) and time (different eras). This is a pretty strong argument that culture is hugely influential on who we find attractive. There’s another factor, which is also social, and it is the difference between (and please excuse the free verse format, it makes things clearer in my mind): who we consider attractive in the privacy of our own brains, who we declare attractive when speaking with other people, which is influenced by who comes up in conversation as potentially attractive, which in turn is influenced by who is declared attractive when speaking with other people. Heeey, didn’t this get mentioned already? One of the things that got me declared “weird” repeatedly by my classmates was that I refused to agree that any person who’d been declared gorgeous by the teen mags was, indeed, gorgeous, by exactly as much and as long as the teen mags said so. Take into account that almost anybody who sang was declared gorgeous, the exceptions being vocalists for metal bands and guys with real bad acne. The first year Wham! were famous, I was called “weird” for pointing out that once George Michael got a decent dermatologist, he was going to kick his partner off the posters… anybody remember the other guy’s name? Without looking it up, I mean. I see similar shit as adults. Famous, distant people are more likely to come up in conversation about “who looks yummy” than Joe down at the lab - nobody is going to go to some actor in the other end of the world and tell him “hey dude, Soandso is crazy about you, man!” Dissecting the looks of those famous, distant people is a bonding mechanism. Providing targets for the dissection is one of the services media provides. And there is a reinforcement loop. Ryan “the Jaw” Reynolds becomes bigtime famous so he’s declared gorgeous (his looks apparently being so much more different post-DP than post-GL) so guys with long chins become fashionable so you get more pictures of long-chinned guys to discuss so… The loop isn’t always the same; we’ve had square-faces periods, and long-faces periods, and more and less muscular periods… but it exists and it influences, maybe not our personal tastes so much, but those we’re willing to acknowledge during bonding sessions, or to hire if we’re the kind of people who hires models/actors? Oh yes, big time. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/6 "2018-06-19T14:44:22Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Please explain why you would disagree with the following statement (quoted in your OP): > > _It would seem logical that whatever survival advantage spurred the development of these traits to begin with would have the same impact on the development of innate mate preferences._ Light skin color requires a simple mutation and in a species with no skin color preference will spread in an area where it offers a survival benefit. A preference for a specific skin color is presumably a more complex trait, and offers no survival benefit without the skin color mutation. It’s not logical to look at evolution and assume all traits are equally likely to randomly arise. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/7 "2018-06-19T14:44:36Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Please explain why you would disagree with the following statement (quoted in your OP): > > _It would seem logical that whatever survival advantage spurred the development of these traits to begin with would have the same impact on the development of innate mate preferences._ To which traits do you refer? Skin color? Facial structure? Height? . ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/8 "2018-06-19T14:45:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Please explain why you would disagree with the following statement (quoted in your OP): > > _It would seem logical that whatever survival advantage spurred the development of these traits to begin with would have the same impact on the development of innate mate preferences._ I am not a biologist, but in my understanding [sexual selection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection) works very differently than (and sometimes at cross purposes to) selection for survival. The classic example is the peacock. Further, that’s just the biological aspect. Add in the complexities of culture, and you get the incredible variations in what weight/girth, skin tone, eye color, etc., are considered most attractive for different groups of humans (and at different times). ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/9 "2018-06-19T14:46:33Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If my understanding of art history, cosmetics history, and marketing history are correct, then standards of beauty for both men and women vary incredibly wildly across space (i.e. different countries/regions) and time (different eras). You know, people say that, but I think it’s overstated. The \*ideal \*may change, but if I personally met someone who was considered highly attractive 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000 years ago, from anywhere in the world, I’d probably still think they’re pretty hot. Exotic, maybe, but hot. (And don’t show me ancient paintings and statues, unless you can prove they’re photorealistic. Don’t mistake artistic convention for reality). ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/10 "2018-06-19T14:53:32Z")
> [@naita](#): > > Light skin color requires a simple mutation and in a species with no skin color preference will spread in an area where it offers a survival benefit. A preference for a specific skin color is presumably a more complex trait, and offers no survival benefit without the skin color mutation. > > It’s not logical to look at evolution and assume all traits are equally likely to randomly arise. I don’t know which is more simple and more complex. But ISTM that what you’re saying is at most that the pressure won’t impact both aspects to the same degree. But it would still impact both and in the same direction. So you’re not really disputing the point. > [@andros](#): > > To which traits do you refer? Skin color? Facial structure? Height? > . Skin color,and anything other than the “taller and stronger” that you do agree with. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I am not a biologist, but in my understanding [sexual selection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection) works very differently than (and sometimes at cross purposes to) selection for survival. The classic example is the peacock. I believe the peacock theory is controversial. (If not, then it should be.) > [@](#): > > Further, that’s just the biological aspect. Add in the complexities of culture, and you get the incredible variations in what weight/girth, skin tone, eye color, etc., are considered most attractive for different groups of humans (and at different times). This does not relate to the issue. ---
**Author:** ![Covfefe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Covfefe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Covfefe)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/11 "2018-06-19T14:58:58Z")
Level of exposure matters, and that isn’t necessarily baked into cultural bias factors. Suppose a random teenager has never seen a person with dark skin. Their family gets a tv and they see a random black person. The teen goes on to see 1000 more blacks. Chances are, it’s likelier they now see more that is attractive in the first person than the initial impression. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/12 "2018-06-19T15:07:40Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I believe the peacock theory is controversial. (If not, then it should be.) In my understanding, there are multiple theories/hypotheses/ideas, none with an overwhelming or clear consensus, to explain features (like the giant tail feathers on the mail peacock) that are clearly maladaptive from a survival point of view but advantageous for mate slection. > [@](#): > > This does not relate to the issue. I thought it was addressing it head on, but okay. We’re just talking here. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/13 "2018-06-19T15:26:59Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > So you’re not really disputing the point. I’m saying it’s disputable that it exists. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/14 "2018-06-19T15:32:43Z")
There is beauty which is innate and there is fashionable which changes all the time. [Babies](http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/news_features/2004/baby_faces.shtml)stare longer at attractive faces than unattractive faces and the rating of attractiveness across cultures is highly [correlated](http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1995-17400-001). ---
**Author:** ![Ashtura](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ashtura/32/2963_2.png) [@Ashtura](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ashtura)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/15 "2018-06-19T15:40:17Z")
There is no line, it varies from person to person. I can have a bad experience with a redhead and then have an aversion to redheads. Likewise I could theoretically find a V shaped woman just as or more attractive as the classic wide-hipped pear shaped “fertile-looking” woman. There is no line. It’s preference based on experience and upbringing. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/16 "2018-06-19T15:46:01Z")
IIRC I was watching one of those David Attenborough nature shows (or one like those) that discussed human measures of beauty. They mentioned there were only two universal metrics of beauty across all human cultures: 1. Health 2. Youth (post puberty youth of course) ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/17 "2018-06-19T15:48:57Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I thought it was addressing it head on, but okay. We’re just talking here. It relates “head on” to the general topic of this thread, but not to the specific point you were responding to. You’re observing that there’s a lot of variation in attractiveness by culture. This supports the notion that there’s some cultural element. OK. But the point you were responding to was questioning how one might deny that there’s also an inherent aspect as well. Pointing to cultural variation doesn’t address that. > [@naita](#): > > I’m saying it’s disputable that it exists. So as I understand it, I’m saying that it would make sense to assume that it exists, since there would be survival pressure in favor of it. You’re saying that doesn’t mean that it actually does exist, since there could be survival pressure in favor of something which may nonetheless fail to come about. From my vantage point, if you see that something actually does exist, and it’s easily explainable as a survival adaption, then it doesn’t make sense to assume that the survival mechanism had no impact and the phenomenon exists solely for other reasons. (Absent other compelling evidence, of course.) If you just want to point out that it’s technically possible, then I wouldn’t disagree with you. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/18 "2018-06-19T16:05:49Z")
Women are attractive in general, and cross-culturally if they have the signals of health that **Whack-a-Mole** mentions, like clear skin, symmetrical features, and a waist-to-hip ratio of about 1:1.3. Men are attractive also if they are healthy, but more if they have the social signals that show high dominance, high status, and greater access to material resources. (Those signals vary widely across cultures, but they all are towards the same end.) People also tend to be attracted to people who look like the people they grew up with. In post-modern America, that includes people who appear on TV and in movies, and since whites dominate there, whites are going to be judged as more attractive overall. These are general trends, obviously. But there are no cultures where a 60 year old woman using a crutch and with no teeth is going to be a cultural ideal, or where a male beggar is considered a desirable mate. All other things being equal, which they never are. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/19 "2018-06-19T16:25:50Z")
The fact that virtually every human culture on earth has mixed and mingled with every other human culture on earth and they all fucked each other and produced millions of offspring over the past several thousand years, suggests to me that when it comes down to the biological imperative to breed, neither culture nor beauty matters very much. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2018, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380/20 "2018-06-19T16:53:02Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > From my vantage point, if you see that something actually does exist, and it’s easily explainable as a survival adaption, then it doesn’t make sense to assume that the survival mechanism had no impact and the phenomenon exists solely for other reasons. (Absent other compelling evidence, of course.) If you just want to point out that it’s technically possible, then I wouldn’t disagree with you. The problem is that you are starting with a conclusion, picking some evidence, and then stopping. Light skin is only a positive adaptation in the northern temperate zones. In the tropics it is clearly detrimental. And yet we see a preference for lighter skin in many cultures in the tropics, for people with genetics that should, by your simplistic model, be biased against it. And in those cultures it can be clearly seen as a cultural result of light skinned rulers and colonizers. It is very clear that standards of beauty have extremes and variability that cannot be explained be explained by genetics. It’s also clear that it has basic elements that are in conflict with each other, attraction to what is familiar, and attraction to what is exotic. With that in mind what you’re doing is dressing a “just so” story up with “logic”. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/standards-of-beauty-innate-vs-cultural/816380.md?page=2)