Attractiveness is not at all evenly distributed among races. Neither is height or weight. And "attractiveness" is still massively influenced by cultural perceptions.
1. My point was inside any group, there is a certain distribution of attractiveness relative to the attractiveness "standard" of that group. And that somehow, a certain level of (culturally defined) attractiveness is somehow not enough to constitute a group (or used to be not enough at least)
Or maybe is that because attractiveness is relative enough at the individual level so that it is hard for an individual to be systematically identified by others ? Or is it because to self-identify as unattractive/attractive tends to have a negative social costs in social relationships ? I must admit I don't know. I am just throwing hypotheses now.
Of course, now there is a form of more or less globalized standard of attractiveness that is more influenced by group that have the more power but that also has to open itself, the more globalized it becomes. But that globalized standard also challenges locally defined attractiveness. I take this is what you mean when you say that "attractiveness is not evenly distributes among races".
(Instagram seems to be the symbol of that struggle for cultural dominance in the realm of attractiveness standards as it is massively used as a tool to capitalize on one's own attractiveness.)
2.Which is why I wrote "a little less" because I did not want to digress too much.
Of course, now there is a form of more or less globalized standard of attractiveness that is more influenced by group that have the more power but that also has to open itself, the more globalized it becomes. But that globalized standard also challenges locally defined attractiveness. I take this is what you mean when you say that "attractiveness is not evenly distributes among races".
(Instagram seems to be the symbol of that struggle for cultural dominance in the realm of attractiveness standards as it is massively used as a tool to capitalize on one's own attractiveness.)
2.Which is why I wrote "a little less" because I did not want to digress too much.