The role of societal pressures in shaming varies. The foundational problem lies less in body shaming than in an instinct to compete and desire validation with a ‘better than average’ ranking. In recent times, ‘pick me(s)’ has garnered intense scrutiny. Unless men and women stop trying to be better than others, there will always be others with whom they are more than likely to converge. It is one thing to acknowledge and glorify the top 1% as who she is, but another to be jealous to the point of wanting to get to that stage and inevitably failing because they are not. The culture of judgment, ranking, and having the average person trying not to be average will inevitably lead to the majority of average Joes and Karens failing to not be themselves.

This essay explores the inherent contradiction of having an exclusive beauty standard and purporting the universality of the standard. It will move on to prove the a priori deductive impossibility of reconciling the two. It ultimately suggests that no amount of self-improvement will enable everybody to meet that standard, and for the majority of people who do not meet the standard, the only reasonable solution is to fall back on self-acceptance so as to extricate oneself from this endless quandary.

First, it is crucial to distinguish between the two frequently conflated ‘beauty standards’. The first is an objective assessment that beholds metrics such as the golden ratio, the Vitruvian man, and so on. The second is rooted in everyday common diction, as a diplomatic social nicety that ‘everybody is beautiful’. In critically analyzing the situation, both standards should be considered separately, without undue cross-over confusion.

The former standard is considered objective, and yet it belies a degree of subjectivity. For example, medieval Princes who were ‘tall, dark and charming’ were but around 165cm, based on the relative heights of armor in museums or in Valletta, Malta (the base of the crusaders, consisting of a Christian band of Princes and aristocratic men). At 165cm for a grown male, by 21st century’s standards, no one would regard that as ‘tall’. Hence, it is not an objective timeless standard, but a relative standard that shifts with time. In both the medieval period and the 21st century, there is a preference for tall men, though the modern benchmark for tall males has shifted to over 180 cm.

This common objective standard is not only relative to the time period, but relative to the existing population. In other words, it is exclusively putting the top n% on a pedestal and is not meant to be an inclusive standard where everybody or the majority of people meet that standard. A useful parallel could be most standard examinations. It is possible for everybody to get above 50 since it is not a comparative standard relative to anyone else, but it is not possible for everybody to be within the top 3%. A priori, 97% can never be in the top 3% at any given time.

The same can be said for objective standards. If the bar were set at 9 out of 10, then 90% of the people cannot be in the top 10% at any frame of time. And if this benchmark ascends to a celebrity level—represented as 1 in 10,000—then except for some 3,300 individuals, the vast majority in America would fail to meet this standard.

For this vast majority, no amount of self-improvement can ever enable all of them to meet that standard. It is possible that another 3,300 may entirely replace that previous 3,300. But what about the remaining roughly 330 million, and the formerly ‘top’ 3,300? The standard is parallel to being an Olympian or a Nobel Prize winner, or at least a qualifier. So perhaps the root cause is forcing oneself to meet a standard that is not meant for everybody, and expecting everybody else to also meet the standard. It is as delusional as expecting everybody to win the lottery. If everyone did, then they would not be winning anything more than the lottery ticket price. After all, $1 multiplied by 330 million people, and then divided again by 330 million is still $1. That is to say, expecting everyone to meet a common denominating standard merely means the standard is very low- the common denominator. It is as useful as saying everyone has skin or a fingernail.

Thus, rationally, if we expected everyone to meet a certain standard, then that standard is likely to be quite low. A standard that is quite low, that is possible for everyone to meet, is hardly laudatory. Bars that are not at a laudatory standard are not virtues or positively regarded values above the norm, for they are the norm. This concept of universal acceptability contradicts the philosophy of ‘top n%’ objective attractiveness standards.

For ordinary folks who form the bell of the bell curve, no amount of self-improvement will help all of them. When that happens, the only way forward is to realize that an exclusive standard is not meant for everybody to meet, and to not hold everybody to that standard. It is self-acceptance in understanding that there is the top n% and that necessarily excludes the remaining 1-n%, which will help in the emotional journey to reconcile the desire to be objectively attractive and the reality that average people are averagely attractive.

This is in practice achievable. As it is, most people do not hold themselves to being a balance beam somersaulting Simone Biles or an air-walking Michael Jordan. However, the challenge escalates when it comes to beauty. Most people are not NBA players or Olympic gymnasts, but are on a different court- the dating pool court. This serves as a catalyst for competition, similar to LeBron comparing himself to Jordan or Yuzuru Hanyu comparing himself to Nathan Chen.

The environment also plays a part. When such values of ranking and competing concretize, it leads to a society that judges and pressures others, even if these other people did not buy into the original culture of ranking and placing unrealistic expectations on themselves.

In a century of normalized moral decadence, such judgmental ranking and tendency to compete can manifest in direct body shaming such as name-calling. It can also include indirect body shaming that is technically within the freedom and prerogative of an individual, such as simply not dating an unattractive person. Alternatively, it could be an inverse effect, such as praising one but not the other. Or hyping a celebrity as a “blonde and blue-eyed ‘beauty’”, inversely implying the inferiority of brunette or ginger qualities. Other subtle body shaming could take the form of social media fights where fans assert that their celebrity is ‘not average’ or ‘nowhere like a commoner’, inversely reinforcing the notion that it is not ok to be average even though the majority are, by normal distribution standards, within the average bell curve.

The road to reconciling that only a few meet the objective attractive standard and the emotional complex of not meeting that standard is a difficult path. The path to self-acceptance can and should be made more pleasant by a reinforced sense of moral decorum; that one should be generous with his or her praises to someone truly beautiful, but should not hold everybody else to that standard or lash out disrespectfully to those who are not.

The competitive ‘pick me’ desire to trudge over those who do meet that standard, for instance when both less attractive men and women try to ‘bring down’ a more attractive person because they know they do not stack up, should be socially regulated as well. Socially deleterious behavior such as men destroying a beautiful woman’s self-esteem to brainwash the person into thinking she is at his lower level, and thus willing to date, should face sufficient societal backlash or be eradicated. Other pick-me ‘self-improvement’ behaviors such as being easy, sleeping around, dressing provocatively, or more to ‘out-attract’ those more desirable than them by compensating in such ways also breed an unhealthy environment lacking in self-respect and self-acceptance

The major standard of objective is inherently meant to be exclusive, rare, and praiseworthy, not anticipating or requiring universal conformity by its very nature. If everybody were to meet that benchmark, it would no longer retain its exceptional quality. There will be some who, through personal achievement, manage to meet the higher bar. But there will be a majority who can’t, and it is self-acceptance that being normal is…normal, that can help them navigate through this phase of unrealistic expectations.