Hacker News Reader

Comment by narag | Hacker News Reader

Since "beauty" is a social construct...

When did that happen?

There are elements of beauty that are universally shared across the human species, such as facial symmetry, and there are components that are socially constructed.

At the risk of saying something slightly controversial, I'd say the universally shared elements tend to top out relatively early, in the sense that once one has a symmetrical face and "reasonable" proportions, it's not like you can just tweak a nose slightly and suddenly you've got someone head and shoulders above the rest on appearance alone. Or, to put it another way, there's a very large range of "the best looking people" by sheer appearance alone and not a lot of objective distinction amongst them. Legendary beauty pretty much has to contain significant elements above and beyond literal appearance. Nowadays those elements are "three hours in the makeup chair and a hefty dollop of expensive CGI", but even within my living memory someone who desired to be famous for their beauty would still expect to need some other skills to cut through the crowd, like musical ability or something.

There are elements of beauty that are universally shared across the human species, such as facial symmetry, and there are components that are socially constructed.

Don't forget the eye of the beholder or, to avoid misunderstandings, individual taste.

There are of course the examples of chubby vs skinny preferences between cultures.

But it's not just women. I'm also trying to remember- once skimmed a bit about a late-1800's/early-1900's European king of Austria/Czech/Hungary/(can't remember), who was supposedly considered a model of manliness, strength & attractiveness at his time. Significantly, you can see in bare-chested photos he did not have the massive decorative pectorals and biceps currently considered attractive. (Anyone remember whom this was?)

Happens about once a decade or so. Look at fashion trends; look at the women being portrayed as desirable in music videos. Hell, look at the different genres of music videos.

The type of women Sir Mixalot was singing about have an entirely different type of beauty from the kind that appear in goth and punk videos.

You're talking about fashion, not beauty. When I see 70s-era pictures of a beautiful girl (in bell-bottoms, with flowers in her ridiculously-tapered hair) I think her fashion looks silly, but I have no trouble recognizing the physical aspects of her face that made her attractive over timelines of at least centuries.

I was specifically talking about body shape.

A few hundred years ago, the notion of beauty was significantly chubbier than our current notions. I've heard of this particular example being used as proof that beauty is a social construct. Not sure if there's more to it.

I suspect that more than a proof, it's the cause of the controversy. Never heard of any other factor that has been relativized.

It would be helpful if you'd make a substantive argument instead of just assuming that your position is obviously the correct one.

If you're just interested in being snarky, there are other communities that value that sort of thing more.

It would be helpful if you'd make a substantive argument instead of just assuming that your position is obviously the correct one.

You are assuming too much. You are assuming that I am "defending a position" when I'm just doing exactly what it seems I'm doing: asking a question.

If you're just interested in being snarky, there are other communities that value that sort of thing more.

Wow!

You're asking a question that presupposes a position, and your other comments here belie your awareness of that.

Wrong and wrong. I wanted clarification about WhompingWindows' assertion, that I had not heard before, much less in such an absolute terms. There is a big difference between thinking some option is more probable than others and defending one of those options as the only valid. In any case, if there have been studies showing that beauty is without any doubt a social construct and only that, I want to know.

Also you are not being reasonable about your criticism to tone. If someone express an extraordinary and strong opinion off-handedly, I feel no obligation to write several paragraphs to request a more detailed explanation.

You seem to like to criticize others, while your attitude in this thread has not been productive at all. You didn't add anything to the discussion, hid your own opinion, tried to guess what I didn't say, failed, jumped to unwarranted conclusions, then invited me to go away. So nice!

Always?

It is highly related to status. Places where many work outside correlates with a beauty standard of paler skin. Where many work inside we like tanner skin. Some places desire mates to be fat, others prefer skinny. And this depends on many parts of the society, with a lot dealing with social standing.

Evan Hadfield (The astronaut's sun) has a good video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exeUTS9ZElM

You seem to imply that beauty is the sum of certain traits. Are all the women you like very similar? Not my case at all, on the contrary. Also in my circles there are many different tastes.

Not OP, but considering that what is considered varies greatly between country, usually based on what is rare (think fat in Africa vs skinny in the US) and that we don't have a general agreement on what is objectively beautiful it is safe to say that it is indeed a social construct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com