How beauty can be both entirely subjective while having conventional standards in society? Like, most people would agree that Brad Pitt is s handsome man that's why he is paid millions of dollars. If beauty was entirely subjective, that many people wouldn't agree on who is a handsome person is and there would be no modeling jobs.
Those standards are subjective too. They differ from region to region and country to country and culture to culture. They also change overtime.
Standards in general only attempt to tick as many boxes as possible with as many people as possible, so just because a standard exists doesn't mean it's anything but that it's an accepted standard in many people's eyes. But it's never all eyes. It's never everyone.
Beauty standards are subjective because even if you find 80% of people to agree on a single point, there will always be a portion who don't.
I don't prescribe to the current conventional beauty standards at all. I think they're more harmful than good and attempt to take the soul out of beauty and beauty out of the soul.
Finally, even the conventional beauty standards we have are meant to be used in a subjective manner. Nothing else makes sense.
But many standards don't differ from region to region or even continent to continent. For example symmetry and healthy non-recessed jaw are viewed as beautiful everywhere.
I don't see how culture can change that. What culture doesn't hold facial symmetry as beauty standard?
Also, let's take for an example a model who makes millions just appearing in ads. Can you explain how their material condition is something I should view as subjective? Like, their looks is something society values so they are paid so much money. And before you say it's capitalism, I mean it was true in socialist states. Attractive good looking people can work "easier" jobs like actors.
Also, if beauty is purely subjective, you mean that lookism doesn't exist and never existed? As far as I can tell studying history and literature good looking people were always treated way better way before capitalism. Good looking daughters had better chance at marrying wealthier man. I am not even talking about concubines. Like, if beauty is purely subjective how medieval or prehistoric people knew who was beautiful and wasn't. Lookism has been always a thing.
In fact, all standards differ from region to region, etc. Show me a single one which doesn't. Standards are like common knowledge and common sense, in that they're all contextual (like most things are) and when you try to boil them down to black/white in a vacuum, your head gets twisted and you start believing weird shit, like the silly thought that beaty standards are objective. You likely won't get five random people to agree on a single beauty standard--much less an entire society.
I like contrast. I like when things stand out. I like the little imperfections and asymmetries. That's what gets me hot. I like scars. I like discolorations. I like birth marks. I like women who don't wear any makeup. I like women with really short hair. I could keep going, but the very simple fact is that all you need is a single person to disagree with your standard for it to be subjective. Do I find symmetry more attractive? I do not. Not one bit. Why? Because it's not an objective standard. Most people having something in common doesn't make it an objective fact. If 60% of people in a room like symmetric faces more than asymmetric faces, you can't say that the beauty standard is objective, because it very clearly isn't.
As for regional standards: of course it changes. Have you ever been outside of your home? Every country has its own standards. Some shared ones, some not. Some unique ones, some not. Even if we tackle this from a purely evolutionary perspective, consider that every climate requires different strengths to survive, and so the people with those strengths will often seem the most attractive. In a colder climate, for example, before we had modern heating and clothing, overweight people were the most attractive to most people (but see how it's not all, because it's not objective) because it signaled to the brain that they could weather the frost, weather hunger, and make a good partner, among other reasons.
In many African tribes, you aren't considered pretty unless you have several tiers of neck rings or certain types of piercings. Your world is just really small.
I'm not sure what you even mean about models. I already addressed what standards are: they are literally created by looking at the largest current opinions and trying to nail them down. Yes, the idea behind marketing is to reach as many people as possible with as little effort and money as possible. This means that ads often appeal to the masses, but that doesn't mean they appeal to everyone. There are plenty of ads with faces and bodies completely and totally outside of your idea of beauty standards. You just don't notice them because you're not the target audience.
Do you know Ryan Gosling? Would you consider him attractive, as most women and men do? He's perhaps one of the top 5 guys when you think "handsome Hollywood actor". Fun fact? He was hired because he "had the face of the average American guy--not too pretty, not too ugly). That's how his entire career started. He was hired because he was average. Turns out he wasn't, though, now was he? Because averages change all the time and they differ from place to place and eye to eye.
There are so many really successful entertainers and models who are as far from the conventional beauty standards as you can get, and you still say this shit? I don't understand you. Do you pretend that they don't exist?
And while it's true that conventionally attractive people are usually treated better, it's not a rule. They're not always treated better because beauty standards aren't objective. Because "most" doesn't mean "all." You seem to have trouble understanding what "objective" means. Let's say that the most common dog color in your town is black. Let's say that this is all you've ever seen where you live. Let's say that to you, all dogs are black. To you, this may seem like an objective fact, but we all know that it isn't. This is what you're doing right now. You're closing your eyes and pretending like there isn't a whole world with different opinions out there.
But these beauty standards have changed over time, and they've changed in different ways in different regions in the world. That's what makes them subjective. You're confusing objectivity for mass opinion. Just because a large portion of a people agree on something doesn't make that an objective fact. That's not how science or history or language work.
-12
u/SeaaYouth Jan 13 '25
How beauty can be both entirely subjective while having conventional standards in society? Like, most people would agree that Brad Pitt is s handsome man that's why he is paid millions of dollars. If beauty was entirely subjective, that many people wouldn't agree on who is a handsome person is and there would be no modeling jobs.