Is anything about beauty universal?

[bodhesatva]

So I thought I'd start a discussion about what aspects of beauty -- if anything -- are universally appreciated. The list is smaller than you think!

 

For example, you might think that tall men always have it good in every culture. That's wrong: there are indeed studied cultures where taller men do not have a distinct advantage.

 

Or that skinny people are more attractive than obese people. Also wrong: many cultures prefer obesity to thinness, and even Western cultures had a long phase where this was true, up until the 1800s. Being fat was considered more attractive than being thin.

 

Smaller breasts have been considered more attractive in many cultures, including American culture in the early 1900s.

 

So the point is this: lots of things we think of as "naturally" or "inherently" attractive -- such as women with large breasts or tall men -- are really just things culture has decided upon and which we soak up without even knowing it.

 

However, there do appear to be at least a few things that cross virtually all cultural lines. For example, symmetry seems to be universally appealing; both men and women across culture and across time have preferred faces with symmetry, and the very understandable reason for this is that a symmetrical face is one that has avoided serious injury or disease, and thus should be healthier.

 

What else is simply cultural (Besides tall men, skinny women with big boobs)? What else seems to be inherent or universal (like a preference for symmetry?)

[Mrlonelyone]

Without contradicting your assertions there are a number of other things that are known to be measures of beauty. Certain mathematical ratios which appear not just across cultures but in one case across the cosmos.

 

The more down to Earth measure of beauty is the waist to hip ratio. Not the specific measurements but their ratio. 36 24 36 or 90 60 90 are just one example of this. Even in cultures where they like their women big and beautiful they still like a wasit to hip ratio of between 0.667 and 0.7.

 

The ratio which appears across nature, not just life, but even in the stars is known as the golden ratio. 1 to 1.618. These two pictures explain it.

 

http://valuesaustralia.com/blog/golden_hypatia.jpg

 

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8efBVjY1bYU/Tc2_SYph2wI/AAAAAAAAAGE/zfMV6F2EjyM/s1600/d0789b3d92bcef6eecb3e569f2aeca1c.jpg

 

There are certain body proportions which are most often demonstrated using a woman's body which are common across cultures. This is a truly universal constant because it can be observed in life as different from us as the snail. and even in the structure of galaxies.

 

http://journalofcosmology.com/images/Goldenratio.jpg

 

So odds are even in an alien life form, the golden ratio will appear in some way.

 

Yes there are certain absolutes to beauty. Symmetry and certain mathematical ratios. So long as those ground rules of beauty are satisfied sexual attractiveness is possible.

[january2011]

I seem to remember reading that those who had a distinguishing feature outside the "norm" were considered more beautiful than those whose features were all proportional (the Golden ratio, I believe).

 

One explanation is that faces that are outside the group norm indicate more genetic distance, thereby minimising the likelihood of people who are too closely related being paired up - a situation that increases the chances of genetic defects. Another explanation is that someone who looks different is considered rarer and therefore more valuable.

[FitChick]

Every culture has their own standard of beauty and not everyone will fit it. If you don't like it, your choices are:

 

1. Change

2. Move to a place that appreciates your look

3. Get over it!

[Feelin Frisky]

Greeks called it the golden ratio. It's a ratio of perpendicular intersecting axis as it relates to the human form and it was used in architecture to guide the direction of building. Leonardo Da Vinci iterates it in the circle with the man's body in it.

[Mrlonelyone]

I seem to remember reading that those who had a distinguishing feature outside the "norm" were considered more beautiful than those whose features were all proportional (the Golden ratio, I believe).

 

One explanation is that faces that are outside the group norm indicate more genetic distance, thereby minimising the likelihood of people who are too closely related being paired up - a situation that increases the chances of genetic defects. Another explanation is that someone who looks different is considered rarer and therefore more valuable.

 

Within limits this can be true. The distinguishing feature can't be too extreme though. It's like having ratios that are 1.617 instead of 1.618.

[KathyM]

I think facial semetry is considered universally attractive, as is high cheekbones, smaller ears, a defined chin (not receding), clear skin, a smaller nose.

[somedude81]

Here is an example of someone that is universally beautiful.