The Beauty Delusion: it's soo last milennia

‘Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder’. If that is the case, then beauty ideals are far too subjective to be given definition, and are therefore non-existent. Some prefer blue eyes to brown, some prefer pale skin to tanned. However, there seems to be some universal agreement in what people find beautiful, and thus a set of objective criteria that make someone beautiful. But mankind in Western societies seem to be deviating from traditional beauty, and even promoting images that directly defy historical ideals. I therefore propose that a political and social revolution is occurring – we are omitting the beauty delusion.

Granted, there are innate preferences for the archetypal attractive person. In females, this is generally large eyes and a small nose and chin, which shows youth and thus fertility. It’s also an hourglass frame, also indicating fertility. From an evolutionary perspective, the increased desire for youth and fertility is seen as a male’s desire for successful reproduction, and passing on heir genes. It has been shown that each time a male remarries; he marries a woman younger than the last.  In men, attractiveness is translated as muscular with prominent features, like jaw and brow. This implies high testosterone levels, and therefore an increased chance of survival amongst our ancestors, as they will be successful huntsmen and protectors. Symmetry of facial features is a universal trait of attractiveness as it indicates either good genetics or successful resistance from harmful things; both being good traits in a partner.

prominent brow, jaw and cheekbones are a sign of high testosterone levels in men, and therefore increases survival chances

With this instinctive checklist tainting our judgements, it can be argued that beauty can be defined, and affects our interactions with others. To some extent, this is true. It takes as little as 0.7 seconds to determine if you find someone as attractive or not, and if someone who falls into these ideas of beauty come within a certain proximity of us, we unknowingly change our behaviour. Therefore, we cannot deny the influences of biologically inbuilt mechanisms. However, we are not primitive organisms controlled solely by endogenous behaviours; we have a high degree of social conditioning which, particularly in recent years, encourages us to be inclusive and non-judgmental of someone’s looks. So even if beauty could be defined, modern people will try not to let it corrupt their judgements. Gone are the ages of physiognomy and assuming the deformed are devil possessed; people are resistant to let someone’s looks affect their interactions with them, whether it is their level of beauty or a visible disability. Humanity is, now more than ever, conscious of others’ feelings and aware that personality can often overrule looks in sexual selection.

  

Furthermore, there has been a shift in beauty ideals that contrast our innate tendencies. As seen in the urns of Ancient Greece, the painted portraits of the Renaissance and the starlets of the twentieth century such as Marilyn Monroe; feminine beauty has been epitomised by a curvaceous figure and youthful features for millennia, but in the last few decades, thin physiques and strong bone structure have dominated media ideals. As seen in the world of high fashion, beauty trends are often about making a statement or standing out rather than trying to enhance historically stereotypical beauty or to impress potential mates.

Historical beauty ideals still influence our behaviours, but so does our attraction to abnormality and uniqueness. Similarly, people are enforcing new, unconventional beauty ideals, as well as people overlooking physical appearances altogether. This shows that in this age where desire for uniqueness, originality, equality and sensitivity has risen, changing the face of beauty so that it is not only unrecognisable, but unidentifiable.