I don't really agree that beauty exists as some sort of universal & I do think that beauty comprises much more of a tacitly affective response than we might think - it involves some sort of emotional 'click' when we are visual receptors of this object that contains properties pleasing to us, like a soothing exterior match to our running internal dialogue (which usually is continuously frustrated and thwarted because we encounter other real-life elements which are contradictory to our preferences). So then your own response becomes the necessary second element in our experience of 'beauty', you complete it, without you, there's no beauty. Because we live in so-called 'mass culture' and beauty and sex are often sold together, it seems like there's some established objectivity, but perhaps it's more the case that we're all very similar and just produce the same affective responses to the same stimuli - but which could be more diverse across the same cultural groups if we were not moulded by the same things. (Who knows? Is our aesthetic attraction to people half-artificial? If we're not presented with form and told 'this is good' via the 'fashion system', would we really start to fancy people we don't currently, or would we have a generation of asexuals, as we would still be primed to take our cue from an exterior source but there would be no source to shape us...anyway.)
I mean, I'm not attracted to men, and seeing perfectly symmetrical, very marketable male faces, for me, it's just eyes and a nose and a mouth, they don't really have much abstract sense other than I recognise that it is a human face - they don't provoke an cohesive affective impression and so are not signs of anything except what they literally are (and therefore can't be some kind of currency). So the word 'beautiful' seems out of place as it just seems I'd be parroting what others say. That's not to say I never think any man is beautiful Christian Navarro, but it's very very rare.