Genetics

Attractiveness is such a subjective trait, though, isn't it? Except for very specific traits which signal better mating partners than others, the idea of "pretty" and "cute" is completely cultural. So more or less homogenous gene pools would really mean very little.

See I don't agree.  I think there are certain traits that are classically more attractive.  Like larger more far set eyes, as opposed to small eyes set closer together.  A smaller nose, as opposed to a large nose, and also fuller, red lips are more attractive.  I've watched those shows on Discovery where they scan thousands of images to come up with the most beatuful traits.  Also having a symmetrical face is found to be more attractive.  And like you said the signs of high fertility, which would be a waist to hip ratio of 0.7 or smaller.

I definitely agree across extremely different cultures, that idea of beautiful will vary.  However, I think that the British culture and the American culture think very much alike when it comes to the defnition of beautiful.  Hence our celebrity cultures intertwined.  American celebrities are always in the British news and visa versa with Jude Law, Sienna Miller, David Beckham, etc.

If you are talking about gene pools that have no or very little contact with other cultures or cultures very similar, say like in Africa, then yes, the subjective traits for beautiful might be different.  But when the small gene pool has access through tv, internet, etc, their definition will merge with the mainstream, I think.  And to be honest, I don't think there are many places in America or in Britain where people don't know who at least one celebrity from either the British or the American culture.

And now I'm off on a tangent... I have no idea where I'm going with this... random thoughts      

See I don't agree.  I think there are certain traits that are classically more attractive.  Like larger more far set eyes, as opposed to small eyes set closer together.  A smaller nose, as opposed to a large nose, and also fuller, red lips are more attractive.  I've watched those shows on Discovery where they scan thousands of images to come up with the most beatuful traits.  Also having a symmetrical face is found to be more attractive.  And like you said the signs of high fertility, which would be a waist to hip ratio of 0.7 or smaller.

Attractiveness in terms of fertility is, at one and the same time, intertwined with cultural mores and completely separate from them. You may find certain features attractive - and some of those are secondary sexual traits - but this is, again, subjective. If it wasn't, the beauty ideal would be the same across the world. The fact that some features are found to be more valued in the majority of cultures means, with few exceptions, that these are features which alert potential mates to desirable partners.

I definitely agree across extremely different cultures, that idea of beautiful will vary.  However, I think that the British culture and the American culture think very much alike when it comes to the defnition of beautiful.  Hence our celebrity cultures intertwined.  American celebrities are always in the British news and visa versa with Jude Law, Sienna Miller, David Beckham, etc.

I'm not sure about this. Celebs are sold to us. The public plays catch up with what is "beautiful" this year. In this case, beauty values flow up, not down, I'm afraid.

If you are talking about gene pools that have no contact to the outside world, say like in Africa, then yes, the subjective traits for beautiful might be different. 

Africa is a gigantic continent with an vast array of genetic variables. The people of Africa vary in pigment, hair, eye colour, stature, etc to an astonishing degree. If Africa had "no contact with the outside world" for another 10 000 years the genetic variability throughout the entire continet would still be sufficient to ensure viability.

But when the small gene pool has access through tv, internet, etc, their definition will merge with the mainstream, I think.  And to be honest, I don't think there are many places in America or in Britain where people don't know who at least one celebrity from either the British or the American culture.

I think what you're describing is subjectivity. Only the conduit in this case is the media.

Africa is a gigantic continent with an vast array of genetic variables. The people of Africa vary in pigment, hair, eye colour, stature, etc to an astonishing degree. If Africa had "no contact with the outside world" for another 10 000 years the genetic variability throughout the entire continet would still be sufficient to ensure viability.

Oh yes I agree Africa is definitely HUGE, but it doesn't necessarily mean that small tribes will intermix if they don't have proper transportation, etc.  But then again, when I started this discussion I wasn't talking about 3rd world countries.  I was talking only American/British.  And yes the media has an enormous effect on what we think is beautiful. 

In the case of beauty, I was just talking the classic traits of someone who is beautiful (I also realize this changes across cultures and time hence the recent anorexic craze) and there are certain traits that I mentioned earlier, that are more desireable to the general population.  IMO I just think that there are traits that remain, throughout history, to be considered beautiful, again speaking American/British.

Simply, I just meant that it might be healthier, more beautiful etc. to have a mixture of genes rather than a more homogenous pool. 

Who knows, maybe my future kids will turn out with all kinds of health problems and deformed... maybe I'm wrong about the whole thing. 

I believe, however, that the combination of two blue-eyed blondes will produce another blue-eyed blonde.  This is, of course, provided both blondes are telling the truth about being blonde.

unless the blue-eyed blondes have an ancestor or two who was ginger/brunette and/or had green/brown eyes. Recessive genes can randomly appear.

Simply, I just meant that it might be healthier, more beautiful etc. to have a mixture of genes rather than a more homogenous pool. 

Absolutely!!