The thing that really broke my concern with "looking beautiful" was the realisation that standards of beauty are not even the same from generation to generation. "Beauty" is not constant, and what is considered beautiful now may be totally out of fashion in a few generations.
Just as one example, look at the women Rubens painted. They were fleshy and dimpled. By modern standards, downright fat, sometimes. And yet, the women Rubens painted (most often he used his wife, Helene, and her sisters for models) were considered extremely beautiful by the standards of the day. Pale, pink, dimpled, and with generous curves. Not at all fashionable now.
Even Marilyn Monroe, with her hourglass shape, would be considered "too fat" by modern standards. And Betty Grable's famous thighs are a little too soft and too round.
In Medieval Japan, people put black on their teeth, because white teeth were considered to be crude and animalistic. For centuries in Europe, "pale and wan" was considered the ideal of beauty, and people wore cosmetics (often lead-based, which is pretty dangerous) to make themselves ghostly pale, and that was considered beautiful. And in Victorian and Edwardian times, women wore corsets, sometimes so tight their internal organs were literally displaced (permanently, in many cases) and they couldn't breathe properly (hence the stereotype of the Victorian lady fainting every time she got a little worked up!). In the "gin and jazz" era of the early 20th century, the ideal figure for a woman was boyishly slim, with no waist, no breasts, and no hips.
In other words, it's a never-ending and constantly changing horizon, and if you're fortunate enough to have been born looking like whatever is in fashion in your particular era, well, there you go, you get the benefit of being "beautiful". And if you would have been considered gorgeous by Rubens and others of his era but you were born in the 20th century, well, bad luck to you, eh?
