well, I think you're demonstrably wrong on the later, such that even if we accept there is something like a "universal" sense of human beauty (which I'll take

well, I think you're demonstrably wrong on the later, such that even if we accept there is something like a "universal" sense of human beauty (which I'll take as a highly debatable point) , there's also a learned/adaptive component that can't easily be separated from an individual's experience: it seems it can interfere, override or accentuate the first. We can see this in various cross-cultural and historical comparisons where it's not clear that any inherent or obviously individual property should be considered beautiful in a universal sense. Is foot binding beautiful? Is clear skin or scarification and body modding beautiful? What about lighter skin? is it beautiful because it suggests aristocracy and not working in the fields, or is a sun tan beautiful? or does white skin, to use a phrase from darker skinned indigenous populations make people "look like a corpse". Is it the anorexic, the aenemic, the flushed, the athlete, the labourer, or the obese? The weirder thing I've noticed talking to people is this IDEA that physical beauty must be objective is so entrenched in some, that they will actively deny or remove reported data points to the contrary (no, he doesn't really think that's beautiful/ he's lying about his perception of that beautiful man/woman).