Seven billion people. Some are beautiful or handsome, some are considered ugly, most are relatively plain.
Is there some definable set of facial characteristics that make a man or woman attractive? Symmetrical features, straight teeth, and smooth skin would seem to be prerequisites, but many plain-looking people have all of that, too.
I’ll stipulate that beauty might be in the eye of the beholder, but most beholders of the likes of, say, Cameron Diaz or George Clooney would agree that they are attractive. Can attractiveness be defined mathematically in the ratios or proportions of facial features that distinguish the truly good-looking from the rest of us?
There have been studies that try to identify attractiveness in terms of facial ratios, most of which tend to focus around the Golden Ratio. A 2009 study showed that various proportions in attractive faces reflect this, and there’s also a supposedly universal “beauty mask” based on the same idea that purports to show that ideas of attractiveness are universal across cultures and time. Beauty in the Human Face and the Golden Ratio
There’s also the idea that the closer someone is to the average, the more attractive they are, the “beauty in averageness” theory, which has been pootling around since the 1800s. Here’s an example of a large number of women’s faces, digitally morphed into an average, which seems to bear this out: Duck Soup: Averageness
Personally, I don’t doubt that there’s some biological hard-wiring in what we find attractive, but I find the analysis above a bit too neat and pat. Not having studied the subject of beauty in much detail (except, you know, in uncontrolled field experiments…), perhaps I’m not qualified to comment, but I feel it’s more complex than that.
One other point not yet mentioned is sexual dimorphism. Some traits look masculine, and some traits look feminine. In general, the more masculine a man looks, the more attractive he’ll be, and similarly for the more feminine a woman looks. Hence, for instance, facial hair in some form is often regarded as attractive on men, but never on women, and large breasts are often regarded as attractive on women, but never on men.
Of course, go too far with this, and you run afoul of deviating from the average, and end up looking like a caricature.
Even if the majority of people would say their not someone will disagree.
For example as you mentioned Cameron Diaz or George Clooney are seen as attractive. To me their not. When I was younger I though Marilyn Manson was beautiful. A lot of people would ask if I was being serious. I really believe beauty is in the eye of the beholder and not just based certain features people have
Obviously not everyone will agree. But the significant majority of people usually will, and so it makes sense to ask what’s attractive to that majority.
For example, most women consider a strong, angular chin to be attractive in men: most men consider a soft, rounded chin to be attractive in women. Likewise, women of a particular ethnicity tend to have slightly lighter skin color than their male relatives (due to more subcutaneous fat) which is why light skin, in women, is cross-culturally considered attractive.
Women also generally select for indicators of strength and social dominance (strong jawline, muscular build, height), men select for indicators associated with youth and fertility.
Of course, beauty is subjective and any general rules tell you very little about the range of individual preferences, which are going to be different for every person.
There’s a certain waist to hip ratio that’s considered pretty much universal, .7 to 1 I believe. This is partly how a rather heavy woman can “appear” thinner to men. Similarly, having a slender face that is symmetrical, lacks a double chin with clear shin devoid of blemishes is nearly universal.
A woman that weighs 130 lbs and a woman that weighs 230 lbs both having flat stomachs, slender faces, and consistent proportions will not look 100lbs apart, particularly if seen separately.
While some cultures favor women heavier than other cultures, I think blemishes, cellulite, etc are not considered attractive regardless of weight. Dark patches on skin, for example, are an indicator of diabetes.
Characteristics that indicate health tend to be favored. Clear skin, symmetry, and a proportionate body indicate good genes. Nobody wants to have offspring that’ll look like Quasimodo!
One study I read said that facial symmetry also plays a significant role. While asymmetry is not often obvious, it is a subtle cue that the person did not develop properly, and so indicator of disease, bad genes or some such. Thus, other failings like buck teeth or crooked teeth, excessively out of proportion facial features, etc. also look “unattractive”. One important purpose of attractiveness is to help evaluate potential mates; so we gauge attractiveness by how it indicated good genes and adherence to our perceived “normal”.
How much of our preference is learned? Unless I’ve been whooshed all my life, there are (or have been) cultures that deliberately do things like bind their feet, or put plates in their lips, to make them more attractive, but to other cultures, they look grotesque.
If someone was raised by wolves, would she think that Jo-Jo the Dogfaced Boy is more handsome than Brad Pitt?
Also, what does physically attractive actually mean. I can appreciate why people like the looks of conventionally attractive people, but some (me included) find that sort of conventional ‘attractiveness’ a bit of a turn off. This is the Bimbo/Himbo axis- people who are not only really attractive, but know it and there is the possibility that it is the only attractive feature they have.
So I am in the position of understanding why people find certain other people attractive, but myself, I prefer the interesting and the quirky the French have a term for it but I cannot bring it to mind.
Also, as many have remarked, the most important sexual organ is the Brain. Attractiveness is more than beauty.
If conventional physical attractiveness is the main reason for finding someone attractive, then aging will soon disappoint them!
It is perhaps interesting that Hollywood puts so much effort into teeth and hair. One suspects that obvious clues about the state of health are a big factor. So, add to that skin complexion, and lack of obvious health issues in body mass. This is contradicted a bit by the cult of the almost waif like thin female ideal - but one notes that you won’t find a catwalk model in a “men’s interest” (OK porno) magazine photo spread. Female photographic models intended to appeal to the two sexes are almost mutually exclusive when it comes to body mass. I have no insight as to whether there is any such dichotomy between male models.
I think cultural exposure is a big factor. Humans don’t look much like the way nature built us, we wear clothes, makeup, alter our hair, whiten our teeth, exercise simply to change our physical appearance, pierce an incredible number of body parts, tattoo skin, stretch earlobes and necks, and cut off offending looking bumps. We do a lot to camouflage our natural appearance. Most of that would be pointless if our perception of attractiveness wasn’t influenced by what we see around us in life.
Being told by others that a person is attractive will make them more so. Most Hollywood and theater performers are not particularly attractive. However, notoriety, nice clothing and abundant publicity will make them seem attractive to many.
Also, speaking from experience in the military and working in industries where there are few women, scarcity can heighten appeal. If there are relatively few of either sex in a situation, there appearance will be granted a deal more latitude than it would where that’s not the norm.
I once read there was an entire study about the left side of the face vs the right side of the face.
I don’t know if it was true. But it was very interesting anyway.
Part of the theory concerned how attractive someone’s face is.
In short, if you split the human face into the right side and the left side by drawing a straight line down the middle and then make a copy of each side and reattach the two right sides together as well as the two left sides, the result is a markedly different looking face.
The face comprised of the two right sides looks remarkably masculine whereas the face comprised of the two left sides looks remarkably feminine.
The theory also states that the more similar the left side is to the right side, the more attractive the face is - in general. I can’t vouch for this theory one way or another. But it sure was interesting to look at some examples and to think about it.
Really? Take a look at this actress who appears regularly in a Hollywood TV show. She is not a major star. But she is much more of a star than just a bit player. Here is a link to her page. Click on “official photos” to see a bunch more of her pictures.
This woman has been called “ugly” by some of the actors on the show. They did not call her ugly in real life. The writers wrote an episode in which one of the characters implied that another character called her ugly and that seemed to hurt her feelings very badly. The person did not seem to have hurt feelings. It was the actor within the script who appeared to have hurt feelings.
I have read some controversy about this woman. I don’t mind telling you my personal opinion is that she is indeed ugly. However, most people seem to disagree with me and they seem to have the opinion she is **not **ugly.
I think most of the reason I find her ugly has to do with her nose. It seems very ugly to me and fits the description that I remember as a child of the “ugly witch” with the ugly nose.
But, I’d like to ask what you think about her - outside of the realm of the TV show.
Given that you have not been influenced by the TV show, what do you think about her looks based on the above pictures - irrespective of the TV show?