These sources are supposed to support the idea of an objective perception of beauty that is wired into our DNA, that is indicative of mating-potential/health (presumably?), and that is independent of culture/geography/time-period:

  • evo-psych (e.g., large firm breasts are true/unfakeable indicators of youth/fertility)

  • videos like this that lay out objective/scientific criteria for hotness (these videos just assert scientific criteria; they don't offer evolutionary explanations)

  • websites where you submit a selfie and it tells you how you rank based on your face's mathematical ratios (my face was "OK," according to the app, whereas Brad Pitt's face was "God-like")

  • sites/subs like "Hot or Not" or "RateMe" where there appears to be a lot of consensus about who is an aesthetic winner vs. loser

Suppose that you construct some ultimate Chads and Stacies based on the four sources above.

1: Would these ultimate Chads/Stacies be considered "10/10" across all geographic regions? (What sort of differences in opinion might you see as you move away from the West and away from advanced civilization itself? What would isolated tribespeople think of the Chads/Stacies?)

2: Would these ultimate Chads/Stacies be considered "10/10" across all time-periods? (What would people in the various centuries think of the Chads/Stacies, given the weird trends that have existed, such as admiration of overweight women or beauty-moles or whatever strange thing?)