Is there such a thing as being "objectively beautiful?" Meaning there is a set standard of beauty?

X=beautiful.

Evidence suggests so:

1. Adonis index for men.

link

2. Hips to waist ratio in women.

link

"Beauty, they say, is in the eye of the beholder. But it is actually far less subjective than that, research suggests.

A woman's attractiveness relates to the size of her waist compared with her hips, it has been found.

Scientists have discovered the ratio which, they say, makes for the perfect figure. "

3. Golden mask:

link

"This ratio was used by architects and artists throughout history to produce objects of great beauty (like Michelangelo's "David" and the Greek temples.)"

Even in countries where women who are "overweight" still contain one of these traits.

And therefore even in all time periods where the "standard" of what is attractive appears to differ, in fact they have remains constant with one if not all of these elements.

If however beauty is merely subjective or in the eye of the beholder, then how does "ugly" exist?

That too must be subjective then?

If anything is merely subjective and based on the individual it loses intrinsic meaning.

If I say beauty is a sandwich with rye bread I cannot be wrong.

If scientists say beauty is these mathematical proportions used by evidence proved in nature, they can't be wrong either.

If two people are neither wrong nor right and you compare them to find an answer, how can there be an answer?

Wouldn't one of them have to be wrong?

Updates:
at┬Ětrac┬Ětion

link

noun

1.the act, power, or property of attracting.


Beauty:

link

the quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (as a personality in which high spiritual qualities are manifest).



You can be ugly and still be "attractive."

Ive been attracted to guys that are physically not good looking at all.


Because they are not the same thing and not what I'm talking about.


link

"Skeletons and written records show that human beings today are inches taller than humans just a century or two ago."


That was for people who as "anon user" pointed out who still have yet to develop a cognitive ability over the age of 15.

But as an experiment, I set up a basic simulation to approximate the conditions that you lay out:


1. Starting mean heights of 5'8" (172.72 cm) and 5'4" (162.56 cm) with standard deviations of 2.8" (7.112 cm). I used cm, because it's easier than dealing with inches.

2. Males will not mate with females that are taller than themselves.

3. Females will not mate with males more than 8" taller.

4. Males will not mate with females more then 8" shorter (follows from #3 above)
Human height is one of the most studied quantitative traits, going back over 100 years to some of the very first statisticians (Fisher, Galton). Height is a polygenic trait with very high heritability (h2 = 0.8)1. Genome-wide association studies have reported 54 genes involved in determination of human height2.


Imagine that each of these 54 genes has just two alleles: a and b. a gives a +1 to height. b gives a -1 to height. So aa would be +2, ab or ba 0, and bb -2.


0|0
31

Most Helpful Guy

  • I agree. All it means is that you're not attractive "physically". I.e. you're ugly.

    But you can still be an attractive person "on the inside."

    Therefore beauty is NOT in the eye of the beholder.

    Because beauty is physical, and has been proven by science as you have thoroughly proven.

    You can however be attractive, and if someone says this :"you are beautiful on the inside".

    What they mean is that you are an attractive person and is therefore using the word "beauty" incorrectly.

    1|0
    0|0

Recommended Questions

Loading...

Have an opinion?

What Girls & Guys Said

30
  • Yes, they are considered the universal standards of attraction. But they aren't saying it's the ONLY standards of attraction.

    That doesn't mean those who don't meet those standards are ugly or not attractive though, that's why "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

    0|0
    0|0
    • so attraction and beauty are the same thing?

    • Show All
    • omg you're a psychotic troll

      OBVIOUS TROLL

    • Trolls don't block people.

      blocked.

  • i do think there is objectively beautiful that certain people are considered beautiful by most

    0|0
    0|0
    • stop posting updates

  • Ummm duh lol no offense but...I thought everyone over the age of 15 understood that.

    0|0
    0|0
    • Yeah I though that too and yet some people still think "beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

      Go figure.

    • lol, no it's not.

      Not in this generation at least.

      Maybe it was generations ago when that saying was created, but not in today's world

The only opinion from guys was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!

Recommended myTakes

Loading...