While I take Virginia Postrel's general point that beauty is as genetic as any other attribute, I think that there's a slight category error here, in that it is much more subjective than the other characteristics (taller, more agile, smarter). For this reason, we have a better shot at all being beautiful, since it might be possible to be beautiful to someone, and this isn't subject to objective dispute.

I think attractiveness is part of the 'sexual selection' process. You tend to have genes that lead to females drawn to a certain attractor linked to genes that lead to males with that attractor. And vice versa.

That said, symmetry seems to be a universal attractant, from what I've read

If you don't have symmetry, cash is a pretty good substitute.

Of course, the problem with the Dove "Evolution" video is that most guys would say that the girl was pretty darned hot to begin with, and I'll bet that at least half of the men who saw it secretly thought "I thought she was better looking at the start". I know I did...

the best study of attractiveness i saw found averaged
features were the most attractive.

Some researcher used photoshop to merge 500 faces and
the resultant images were considered most attractive
to the subject pool

Now that's funny. Sort of the ultimate collectivist beauty padgent. Not surprising that AM would find that the "best" study.

Sorry all you doubters, but beauty is indeed an average.
" A knockout face possesses features that approximate the mathematical average of all faces in a particular population."
Mike

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n19_v137/ai_9028391

Hence the popularity of the "Girl next door" look.

Now, Simberg in some bizarre ayn rand belief system
will denigrate this, but, it remains a fundamental truth.

I think Rand gets a grand slam home run here. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But it seems most younger men have bought into the "thin is in" thinking. Look at the "beauties" of 2007. Then look at the beauties of 1967 or 1957.

I for one, at 52, like the beauties of olden days. I like Monroe, Lollabrigida, Loren etc. The babes of 2007 bring only one thing to my mind.

"For God sake woman, EAT SOMETHING!!"

Paris Hilton, her buddy Nicole, Angelina Jolie, et. al. They all have monrey, so I know it's an acquired look, they strive to look hungry. It grosses me out. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and my eyes like Rubenesque.

It seems to me that with the emergence of the homosexual agenda in Hollyweird this thin is beautiful thing took effect. The gay designers, dressers, reporters and the rest all LIKE 14 year old boys. So that image is what they push off as the new beauty. Well just yuck! I'm an big old, hairy, hetero, knuckle dragging neandrethal. I don't like boys!

Betty Grable, where are you.

the best study of attractiveness i saw found averaged features were the most attractive.

Some researcher used photoshop to merge 500 faces and the resultant images were considered most attractive to the subject pool

I know about that study. The caveat is that an "average" by that definition face is actually quite uncommon. The Photoshop averaging removes all out-of-ordinary charactersitics and leaves an "ideal face" with nothing standing out. Which turns out to be very attractive (and rather androgynous, by the way), but even though any individual measurement is more often than not in the middle of bell-shaped curve, faces with EVERY measurement at the middle of bell-shaped curve are very rare in real life. And all it takes is for ONE measurement (eye separation, lip thickness, you name it) to deviate from the "norm", to turn androgynous beauty into something utterly plain.

I'm inclined to agree with Steve. (due perhaps in part to being a hear older than he)

While nothing good can be said for obesity, yes, women SHOULD have curves. And not be at risk of disappearing when walking over a storm drain...