Evidence suggests so:
1. Adonis index for men.
2. Hips to waist ratio in women.
"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:
"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?
1.the act, power, or property of attracting.
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).
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.
"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.
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)
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.
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.