The Beauty Constant - The Objective Subjectivity

[The Pink Panther]

Is there such a thing as an objectively beautiful man/woman? Is there a constant state of beautification that one can attain to that ascends beyond that of even the subjectivity of mere mortals to the point where everyone no matter what taste can/will consider them beautiful? Incels like to throw around this ideal structure because they're so obsessed with facial features and how malforming it can attract a mate and boost their confidence, but that's not what I mean. This is less a discussion about them and more about the existence of common agreeable objectivity in the subjective nature of human beings. Literally all I am asking is, do 10/10s exist? I've never seen one, but can they?

Discuss.

 

[Just A Butt]

As far as objectively 10/10? I don’t think they can exist. Everything about physical attraction is incredibly subjective.

 

[Peach Pit]

no. we're all 1/10s. anyone who says otherwise is pulling a massive cope.

 

[No Exit]

Yes.

 

[trashbat]

you can be objectively beautiful but not objectively attractive

 

[The Pink Panther]

you can be objectively beautiful but not objectively attractive

how

 

[epigenes]

how

I see what he's getting at but disagree with the use of "beautiful" and "attractive" as separate concepts, there's another word for it I can't think of
stereotypically "beautiful" traits like facial/bodily symmetry, aesthetically pleasing eye/nose/mouth shapes, and other stuff you can't change without plastic surgery are things that can be objectively quantified via 3D modeling, etc. the incel community does this a lot with facial measurement and it's something the makeup industry has done for decades because makeup is a cope for "less than perfect" women
that being said, I'm gonna posit that there are no objective 10/10s because what turns a 9/10 into a 10/10 depends on a person's specific tastes. a guy might like a girl to have (for example) an upturned nose, or green eyes instead of blue, or something else that might bump a girl down to an 8 on the "objective" scale if you were to use it, because those quirks are not what the majority of people find attractive

 

[DumbDude42]

yes of course
"beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is just ugly people cope

 

[Lemmingwise]

Tell me if anyone would disagree with which is the more beautiful man or woman.

There's some wiggle room when people are close and some personal interests might skew things one way or the other. But overall, yes, beauty is objective.

Spoiler: men

Spoiler: woman

 

[SSF2T Old User]

Objectively beautiful women was something that existed long long ago when they were making sculptures/statues out of them. The majority of women portrayed in these sculptures/statues were curvy/slim-curvy women with average looking faces, and this was something that was just widely accepted.

Now, everyone's opinion of beauty is all over the place, no matter if it's a fatty fat fat, or a skinny thot made out of fake shit. So its basically what the average person considered beautiful rather than a collective group think.

 

[Peach Pit]

Objectively beautiful women was something that existed long long ago when they were making sculptures/statues out of them. The majority of women portrayed in these sculptures/statues were curvy/slim-curvy women with average looking faces, and this was something that was just widely accepted.

Now, everyone's opinion of beauty is all over the place, no matter if it's a fatty fat fat, or a skinny thot made out of fake shit. So its basically what the average person considered beautiful rather than a collective group think.

that's like judging what american culture finds attractive by looking at solely the victoria's secret catalog. every culture generally has an idealized beauty standard, but it doesn't define what every one of its people gets off to.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

There has actually been quite a lot of academic research on this.

What's generally been found is that the more a face conforms to a statistical average, the more attractive it is deemed to be on average. In evolutionary biology, this is referred to as assortative mating, where potential mates will naturally look for characteristics which are common within the population.

Researchers at the University of Glasgow founded a face research lab, where they compiled thousands and images of people from different countries, and they digitally merged them together to create an average composite. The results were as follows:

Average male face:

Average female face:

What the researchers found is that with each of the images above, the faces were deemed in surveys to be "more attractive than average", despite them literally being the average.

Another interesting way of measuring beauty is with the golden ratio, which is where the ratio between two quantities is equal to the ratio between the total sum and the largest quantity. See the compilation of rectangles below:

The interesting thing, from an observational standpoint, is the frequency with which this appears in nature:

To see if this has any relationship to beauty, some researchers have attempted to find out if faces which conform more heavily to the golden ratio are deemed "more attractive" on average than faces which conform less heavily.

I believe research is still ongoing, but in numerous studies of celebrity faces, two people who's faces have been found to conform almost perfectly to the golden ratio are actor Jensen Ackles:

and actress Amber Heard:

Personally, I think there may be something to this standard, since they both strike me as incredibly attractive.

 

[Peach Pit]

There has actually been quite a lot of academic research on this.

What's generally been found is that the more a face conforms to a statistical average, the more attractive it is deemed to be on average. In evolutionary biology, this is referred to as assortative mating, where potential mates will naturally look for characteristics which are common within the population.

Researchers at the University of Glasgow founded a face research lab, where they compiled thousands and images of people from different countries, and they digitally merged them together to create an average composite. The results were as follows:

Average male face:
View attachment 1322310

Average female face:
View attachment 1322311

What the researchers found is that with each of the images above, the faces were deemed in surveys to be "more attractive than average", despite them literally being the average.

Another interesting way of measuring beauty is with the golden ratio, which is where the ratio between two quantities is equal to the ratio between the total sum and the largest quantity. See the compilation of rectangles below:
View attachment 1322300

The interesting thing, from an observational standpoint, is the frequency with which this appears in nature:
View attachment 1322313
View attachment 1322316
View attachment 1322317
View attachment 1322320

To see if this has any relationship to beauty, some researchers have attempted to find out if faces which conform more heavily to the golden ratio are deemed "more attractive" on average than faces which conform less heavily.

I believe research is still ongoing, but in numerous studies of celebrity faces, two people who's faces have been found to conform almost perfectly to the golden ratio are actor Jensen Ackles:
View attachment 1322395
and actress Amber Heard:
View attachment 1322397

Personally, I think there may be something to this standard, since they both strike me as incredibly attractive.

so

a 5/10 is actually a 10/10?

 

[Harvey Danger]

Beauty can be subjective, but it's never arbitrary. "In the mind of the beholder" is nice poetry, but an absurd metric.

The best discussion I've seen on beauty was an eloquent examination by a theoretical physicist. You kind of have to work in STEM to grok what he's getting at in the first chunk, since he starts by arguing for beauty in mathematical equations. But it's written to be accessible, and it avoids listing out specific features of a beautiful object in order to propose a framework for judging whether anything is objectively beautiful.

Eventually, he applies that framework to humans:

Spoiler: Read the article first for the buildup

The only proposed scientific explanation of this fundamental aspect of Nature is that the origin of beauty is sex. Sigmund Freud reduced beauty to an instinct: “Psychoanalysis, unfortunately, has scarcely anything to say about beauty… All that seems certain is its derivation from the field of sexual feeling.” In the same vein, Charles Darwin declared that the beauty of present-day animals resulted from sexual selection: “the more beautiful males having been continually preferred by the females.”

Sexual selection, of course, does not explain why we humans find nightingale songs, pheasant tails, and rainbow trout beautiful. Or, why we delight in the sparkle of a diamond, in the shape of the filigreed wing of a housefly, or in the elegance of Euclid’s demonstration of the Pythagorean Theorem.

...Darwin was too great a scientist not to be enthralled by the abundant beauty of Nature. “Delight itself,” he said, “is a weak term” to describe the deep pleasure a naturalist experiences in a Brazilian rain forest. In the concluding words of The Origin of Species, Darwin invoked beauty as a proof that his theory is true: “from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” But to speak of the “most beautiful and most wonderful” organic forms is nonsense, if beauty “depends on the nature of the mind irrespective of any real quality in the admired object.” To get out of this contradiction, beauty must be a real property of Nature.

(Emphasis added)

Fashion changes, personal preferences vary, but each person who declares something beautiful must be observing some aspect which aligns to an underlying sense of objective beauty. Even if they have to ignore all the ugly parts to see that aspect.

 

[Gar For Archer]

There is definitely no universally objective standard of beauty. I think it can be argued that individual cultures can have somewhat of an objective standard based on the things that they value, but that standard is very much based on their cultural background and development.

The easiest example to make is that Eastern Asian cultures generally idealize light skin because it’s a sign of being “upper class” (e.g. not having to do manual labor) while Western cultures generally idealize tan skin because it’s a sign that one has the freedom to live an outdoorsy lifestyle instead of being a 9-5 wageslave.

Even something as seemingly “basic” as being fit and healthy is far from universal, as plumpness (or outright obesity) is also seen in some cultures as a status symbol and something to strive towards, rather than something to avoid. That on its own should put the nail in the coffin of any possible notion of “universal” aesthetic appeal.

 

[trashbat]

how

if we agree that attraction is roughly speaking a desire for intimacy (physical or emotional) with someone, then i think it's clear that the experience of beauty doesn't necessarily cause the feelings that foster attraction. intimacy doesn't happen if you can't be vulnerable with someone or don't find them sensual, but beauty isn't always comforting or provocative in a sexual sense. i think that if you gathered a bunch of men to watch and opine on something like a grace jones music video, you'd see some consensus that she -- or the image she portrays -- is beautiful in the sense that she appears statuesque, inaccessible, and a little alien. i don't think you'd get as many men making cartoon googly eyes and going "hubba hubba," though.

you can draw an analogy to the portrayal of nature in art: not every landscape is a garden of eden. we look at paintings of landscapes that are indifferent, even somewhat threatening, and appreciate their beauty as a function of their greatness; but most of us wouldn't want to live in these places. similarly, we find beauty in the greatness and presence of another person's appearance and manner, but the one we take to bed will probably be softer and more welcoming. what exactly we find welcoming will depend on the things that are familiar and safe to us, and how much we desire that comfort relative to how much we crave to be challenged. both of these things are shaped by life experience, whereas health, strength, and often virtue are universally recognizable

 

[Watermelanin]

Beauty is a lot like morality: Just because the concept as a whole is inherently subjective doesn't mean certain standards aren't (nearly) universal.
With morality, there's a wide range of different standards all in competition with one another. Both Bentham and Mills had slightly different views on utilitarianism. Kant rejected any notion that morality depends on the results of a decision. Different religions have differing takes on divine command theory. But I think it goes without saying that killing someone for shits and gigs is bad and so is raping babies.
If your standard of morality allows those two things, there is something wrong with your standard.
Same goes with beauty: Some like blondes, others like redheads, others still love raven black hair. Some people prefer short and petite women while others gravitate towards women with a large set of breasts and child bearing hips. But these variations in people's preferences aren't an indication that there is no tentative consensus on undesirable features. Chubby chasers certainly exist, but they're a weird outlier. Acne is certainly not a desirable feature according to the majority of the population either.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder in the same sense that morality depends on your personal values. We can argue about whether certain actions are right or wrong until the end of time. We can argue about whether kpop dancers are more attractive than American models. But there are certain standards that anyone who's right in the head can agree on.

 

[Wraith]

Well all of you know red eyes are the sexist male eyes.

 

[Bleeding Heart]

you can be objectively beautiful but not objectively attractive

This. If we’re being honest, there is objective beauty. We may not all find some model attractive, they may not be our type, but we can see they have facial symmetry, balanced features, look youthful and healthy... Even if we're not attracted to them personally.

Just don't confuse objective beauty with perfection. That doesn't exist. Beautiful people all have some flaws, and who decides if perfection is blonde or brunette?

What the researchers found is that with each of the images above, the faces were deemed in surveys to be "more attractive than average", despite them literally being the average.

Everyone is asymmetric in some way and has some flaws, but because they are not consistent, by combining different faces those start to disappear. They balance each other out. The average human does not look like the human average.

 

[Watermelanin]

Everyone is asymmetric in some way and has some flaws, but because they are not consistent, by combining different faces those start to disappear. They balance each other out. The average human does not look like the human average.

This, I think, is an evolutionary thing. All of our features exist on a bell curve: whether it's nose size or the placement of our eyes or how our ears look. Obviously, if humans weren't attracted to "normal" proportions, sex would be less common and so would be breeding. So we naturally gravitate towards "average" human features because those are the peak of the bell curve. If we liked eyes that were slightly closer/farther apart than average, that would reduce our acceptable dating range more than seeking a happy medium that most people do not exhibit would. There's a lot more overlap in the peaks of the curves of several different traits than there is in one half of the outliers. All (or at least most) of our sexual partners had some characteristics that we thought were "eh..." because they were a bit outside of the average. But because most of their features conformed, you thought they were attractive enough to roll in the hay with. Liking abnormal features would only reduce your acceptable dating pool.