Sorry, not everyone is beautiful!

Beauty is entirely subjective. Ergo, everyone is beautiful, because beauty is an individual interpretation. What you mean is that not everyone conforms to societal ideals of beauty, i.e. slim, clear skin, no physical disability, symmetrical face.

Beauty is entirely subjective. Ergo, everyone is beautiful, because beauty is an individual interpretation. What you mean is that not everyone conforms to societal ideals of beauty, i.e. slim, clear skin, no physical disability, symmetrical face.

beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so technically everyone can be beautiful to at least one person. Therefore everyone is beautiful.

No, that's not a valid argument. 'can be' cannot be substituted with 'is'. While it's possible that everybody has someone who finds them beautiful, that does not mean to say that there is someone who find them beautiful.

I would say it is far more objective than you think

Your conclusion does not follow. Saying everyone is beautiful, even just to one person is unsubstantiated. It's possible, even plausible, that there are people that nobody finds beautiful.

Nope, it's completely subjective. What our culture sees as beautiful is wildly different for what a Kenyan tribe might see as beautiful (e.g. elongating their necks and scarring their bellies) or Asian or American or African or Antarctican cultures.

It's not completely subjective. There is no culture where someone who is not able to perform sexually is going to be attractive, for example. Likewise I doubt you'd find many cultures where the shorter the man, the more attractive he is considered.

While beauty is certainly influenced by societal norms, there are also underlying biological preferences that are ingrained into us by virtue of millennia of evolutionary pressures.

It doesn't actually follow that just because there are infinitely many individual interpretations, that everyone must have someone who finds them beautiful.

You clearly don't agree that beauty is subjective because if you did, you wouldn't be attacking people for saying "Everyone is beautiful". If someone believes that, who are you to tell them they can't? You might not believe it and most people probably don't. But you are not in charge of setting the definition for what's beautiful and what isn't, so you've completely contradicted yourself.

It's not a contradiction at all, it's just that there is a very blurred line between something being objective and subjective.

For instance, I may suck at guitar, but that doesn't change the fact that someone may love my playing. It's subjective. But at the same time, I can only play about three chords so I suck in an objective sense too.

In the same way, someone may have a hideously deformed face, which someone may consider beautiful. But because we are programmed to be attracted to people who appear to have good genes and are healthy, the vast majority of people will be instinctively predesposed to thinking a deformed face is unnattractive. So they would also be objectively unnattactive, as attractiveness and our perception of it is biological and genetic, as well as at the same time being subjective (nature and nurture exist inseparably).

It is a fault in the Western way of thinking (much due to our language) that we believe that concepts such as 'subjective' and 'objective' cannot both exist at once.

I don't see where she asserted that.

But then in my honest opinion, people oppose the beauty is relative argument because they're scared somebody won't find them attractive. I don't think there is any firm evidence to prove objective beauty. You mention sexual dysfunction, how exactly? This is a Western cultural imperative, as in modern times at least we are very sexualised. I doubt in every culture vaginismus or impotence are viewed as bad other than purely functional reasons.