Many American stereotypes exist regarding beauty. Good-looks supposedly secure the genetically-favored with all manner of societal advantages: better paying jobs conferring high prestige, which guarantee an easier passage through life, shown through countless serious sounding "studies". Huh. I must have been on the unemployment line when these benefits were handed out.
It can be quite the opposite. I've written before about modeling shows on t.v., which basically humiliate, debase, and lampoon tall, skinny, photogenic girls for the audiences amusement. See? Beauty is supposed to hurt! If that's the case, then Cruelty is a definitely bitch goddess, and Envy is her evil little troll of a sidekick. The truly becoming encounter as nasty a bias against them as someone on the opposite end of the scale; such is the case with extremes in nature.
In certain intellectual circles, like academia, the highly attractive can be seen as suspect, gaining access through their looks and not their credentials, thus making an already vicious and competitive atmosphere downright dangerous and hostile. Given current fears about the economy, the basis for such prejudices directed against a comely colleague can gain widespread acceptance and even thrive, by allowing threats to become particularly nasty, especially if a worker perceives another has a huge, unfair advantage over them.
As I channel-surfed one night, I became vividly interested in a program that featured a plastic surgeon who was at a loss at how best to facially reconstruct the features of the burn victims who came to him for help. He couldn't find a definitive source for facial features that were aesthetically pleasing. Magazines were fine to look through, but there was too much artifice from special effects like lighting and digital retouching. He needed actual anatomical guidelines for a pleasing nose, or a well-placed mouth, something more scientific, that he could refer to while in surgery. It's called "The Golden Ratio", mathematical proportions for symmetry, the key factor in attractiveness.
What we have here is a case of genetics, factors outside of our control, occurring in the womb during gestation. Could you imagine a prejudice that was open and apparent (and actively encouraged) against say, skin tones or eye color, height, or hair color? Nonsense, right? Even further stretching the basis for such rank biases, a doctor from another study has never found a perfect "10" in facial symmetry during her research, and doubts that such a face has ever existed in the human race, as outlined in this article from Oprah.com: http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Measuring-Facial-Perfection-The-Golden-Ratio
You have read correctly, dear readers. Perfection is not part of the human condition, something I have long known. As an artist, I have done many, many nude studies, portraits, and self-portraits. Like a doctor, after awhile you just see light, shadow, skin, muscle, features. You see the person before you, nothing more, nothing less, and you make art based on those observations. It is these imperfections which make us unique, and therefore humanly beautiful.
