THE human fascination with beauty has always existed, driving us to conceive and adhere to differentstandards of attractiveness. Historically and internationally, some features, such as perfectly proportioned faces, small noses and appealing eyes, are considered universally attractive. This preference raises an essential question: is our perception of beauty innate or conditioned? Furthermore, is it not unfair that the anatomy lottery can determine success and love in life? Scientists argue that our perception of beauty may be both instinctual and culturally influenced. Some features, like symmetry, are universally admired due to evolutionary psychology.

Symmetry is often seen as an indicator of good health and genetic fitness, which would make an individual a desirable mate. This preference can be seen in other species, too, suggesting that it is deeply rooted in evolutionary biology.

Meanwhile, smaller features like noses are considered attractive due to their prominence in neoteny, the retention of juvenile features in animals. From an evolutionary standpoint, neoteny is perceived as a sign of fertility and youth, further enhancing attractiveness.

Conditioning also plays a role in shaping beauty standards. Culture, media and societal norms can drastically influence what we consider beautiful. This influence is particularly noticeable in how beauty standards vary across different societies and historical periods.

For instance, in Western societies, tanned skin is often associated withhealth and leisure, making it desirable.

Conversely, in some Asian cultures, pale skin is considered beautiful because it is associated with refinement and the absence of manual labour.

Thereis aninherentunfairness associated with beauty standards. One`s appearance, largely determined by genetic lottery, can significantly impact one`s life experiences, creating a `beauty bias`. Studies show that people deemed attractive are more likely to be successfulin their careers,receive better treatment, and even be perceived as more intelligent or likable.

This bias does not just affect individuals, but also perpetuates societal inequalities. For instance, standards thatfavourlighterskin can contribute to colourism, which is discrimination based on skin colour.

It is fair to say that while there may be some biological basis for universal beauty standards, much of our perception of beauty is socially constructed and varies across cultures and times. This emphasises the importance of challenging these standards and promoting inclusivity and diversity. By doing so, we can start to dismantle the harmful effects of beauty bias and build a society where people`s worth is recognised beyond their physical attributes.

LordByron Dubai