[AlexandrB]

While I agree with this overall, this list in the middle of the article was unsourced and presented as "just-so":

> Here is a list of features that are objectively beautiful, and their absence, objectively ugly. Facial and body symmetry; proportional anatomy, height (particularly among men); a full set of straight, white teeth; a full head of hair; clear, evenly-toned, taut, skin; a well-toned physique; proportional features; large eyes.

Of these, the "well-toned physique" is probably historically incorrect[1] - excess weight signified wealth and health for much of human history. Likewise, "a full head of hair" is somewhat gender-specific - super important for women, but many men can rock a bald head pretty well.

Overall, I think beauty ideals are somewhat more flexible than this article assumes. This is especially true for romantic attraction and especially in some communities.

[1] Searching for this yields a lot of spam, best I found after a few minutes: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/07/health/body-image-history-of-...

[kiplkipl]

I find the CNN examples tenuous. If the same logic was applied to today's relics in the future, historians might say that 8 foot tall anime women were idealised beauty, in the same way newly discovered buildings tend to be called temples. In reality (from the male perspective) preferences vary massively between individuals.

If Rubens' women are an ideal, why aren't Picasso's?