> This really isn't at all true. Whether or not you think the quest to improve
> one's appearance is a worthy one, people whose looks can't be improved by a
> little bit of effort -- either by the things you mentioned, or by better or
> more flattering clothes, more makeup, less makeup, better or more frequent
> haircuts, more sex, more sleep, better nutrition or any number of variables
> - are in a tiny minority.
Improved, yes, but not by much in most cases. This debate really can't continue long, because I suspect all the emprical evidence supporting both sides is purely anecdotal, but I can't recall ever seeing someone who looked substantially better or worse with a particular hair cut, and my friends (at least the ones I've spoken to about this issue) agreed with me that the time their partners spend gussying themselves up goes to naught.
And Miles, I'm not going to defend objective standards of human beauty (I don't think that hairy scalps are intrinsically more beautiful than bare scalps, or that it's written into the fabric of the universe that a .7 waist to hip ratio is the best), but it's seems very hard to deny (in light of the research on the subject) that there's remarkably little variation in cultural beauty norms. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder (and when it comes to the sort of beauty that tends to induce lust, I'm inclined to agree), but the beholders have seemingly been looking for pretty much the same things from time to time and culture to culture.
-- Luke