Introduction:​

 

         Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, or so the familiar idiom insists. At first glance, it appears harmless, even generous, suggesting that beauty is limitless and that people may appreciate unconventional forms of it. But this idea is fundamentally flawed. Rather than liberating us, it shifts the emphasis away from the individual and onto the viewer. It mirrors the way beauty standards dictate what we should find attractive, whether conventional or not, and how we should alter ourselves to satisfy the so‑called beholder. Beauty, then, is not subjective at all; it is socially constructed, externally enforced, and historically shaped by patriarchal power.

​

Analysis:

 

         Beauty standards are constantly evolving. They contradict themselves, recycle old ideas, and rebrand them as new. Consider women’s fashion in early‑20th‑century America. Around 1910, the ideal emphasized curves and overt femininity: cinched waists, steel‑boned petticoats which were socially accepted torture devices that prevented women from sitting properly and the exaggerated S‑bend silhouette. A decade later, the Flapper era arrived and reversed everything. Curves were out; a boxy, boyish figure was in. From a modern vantage point, these shifts may seem charming or nostalgic, but they were deeply oppressive and often dangerous, rooted in patriarchal expectations of how women should present themselves. Historically, beauty standards harmed women physically. Today, the harm is psychological--- but no less pervasive.

 

         Modern beauty standards are no longer confined to garments or silhouettes. They are amplified, globalized, and algorithmically enforced by the internet. Platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube dictate who to be, how to look, what to say, and even what to think — all shaped by what a male‑dominated society deems “in.” Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, they say. But why, exactly, is the beholder the patriarchy?

 

         The enforcement of beauty ideals on girls is not new, but modern society has intensified the sexualization of young girls in a way that creates a vicious cycle affecting daily life. Walk into an H&M, Abercrombie & Fitch, or nearly any mainstream retailer, and you will find clothing marketed to six‑year‑old girls that many adults would hesitate to wear themselves. This is not accidental. Corporations profit enormously from targeting young girls and normalizing sexualized aesthetics from an early age. Even major brands have faced backlash: in 2024, H&M pulled an ad after public criticism that it sexualized young girls, and Abercrombie & Fitch has previously marketed padded bikini tops to seven‑year‑olds, a significant example of how deeply rooted and normalized these pressures are. Bernard Arnault’s luxury group LVMH— which owns dozens of beauty and fashion brands— generates over $80 billion in annual revenue. That number reflects not empowerment, but the monetization of insecurity on a global scale.

 

         These pressures do not remain confined to advertising. They seep into professional settings and even into school. Many of my peers and I feel compelled to wear makeup to be taken seriously or perceived as professional. This is yet another manifestation of sexist beauty standards embedded into the foundations of society. Consider Sephora: founded by Dominique Mandonnaud and now owned by LVMH. The brand markets itself as empowering women, yet its advertisements feature models who appear impossibly flawless, promoting anti‑aging products to audience of primarily children barely old enough to need such products (BBC, Philips 2026).

 

         Some argue that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” empowers individuals to define beauty for themselves. But this interpretation ignores the reality that the beholder does not exist in a vacuum. The beholder is shaped by culture, advertising, patriarchy, and profit. When society cannot even decide what it finds beautiful, why should it dictate anything to you?

​

Conclusion:

 

         Every person should have the freedom to dress as they choose, look as they naturally do, and be appreciated rather than diminished for their individuality. Our appearance is a form of self‑expression, not a flaw to be corrected or a deviation to be judged. So let me be clear: beauty is not, in fact, in the eye of the beholder. Beauty is what you make of it and is entirely relative, entirely personal, and far too complex to be captured by a vague, antiquated idiom. Wear what you want. Emphasize your figure or don’t. Show your muscles. Show your softness. Show your age. Show your youth. You are not the problem. You are, quite literally, beautiful.

Bibliography:​​​​
 

Wallhead, G., McClelland, A., & Furnham, A. (2025, April 22). The influence of idealised and
non-idealised models on ... Frontiers.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1
529650/full

​

Neue Studie: TV-Werbung Zeigt Neue Frauenbilder – Aber nur bis 45. (n.d.). https://www.htw-berlin.de/einrichtungen/zentrale-referate/kommunikation/pressemitteilungen/neue-studie-tv-werbung-zeigt-neue-frauenbilder-aber-nur-bis-45/

​

Billionaire Bernard Arnault’s LVMH soars to new heights as sales hit record $86 Billion. (n.d.-a). https://www.forbes.com/sites/kevinrozario/2023/01/26/billionaire-bernard-arnaults-lvmh-soars-to-new-heights-as-sales-hit-record-86-billion/

​​

Padded bikini top for 7-year-olds draws parents’ ire - ABC news. (n.d.-c). https://abcnews.go.com/US/abercrombie-fitch-padded-bikini-top-year-olds-parents/story?id=13236904

​

H&M pulls ad accused of sexualizing young girls. (n.d.-b). https://www.dw.com/en/hm-pulls-ad-accused-of-sexualizing-young-girls/a-68059701

​

Italy investigates Sephora and benefit over marketing skincare to children. (n.d.-e). https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3dlk93m7jyo