What would be the ideal of beauty in a world of a completely female human species?

Question

This is a very hard question, if well the future and sociocultural interactions are hard to predict and many times could be wrong, but with the enough antropologic investigation comparing historical situations and current tendencies applied to this new context I thought is possible reach to an interesting answer. For this I will base this on the next question How could a human-descended race appear to be all-female?

Some of what the answers to this question suggest is that:

1. It would be possible to make artificial sperm from another egg and then implant it into a uterus for pregnancy in the relatively near future. As a complement, this would be easier to do than a build an artificial uterus.
2. Men are unnecesary because heavy work is now done by machines, with which the disappearance of men would be relatively rapid, with respect to the appearance of this technology.
3. Following some feminist trends, an attempt would be made to change the sexual selection that men have had for millennia.
4. This is in addition to the fact that this artificial sperm technology allows choosing how a daughter will be, without being similar to both mothers.

So, my information for start this speculation, start with a crucial fact, Once a certain technological level is reached, the attributes intrinsic to the biology of man become unnecessary, such as physical strength, which in fact begins to happen now, with which having a muscular physique is more than anything a whim (although There are still a lot of people, women who will find it attractive), but based on this, contemporary attractive attributes are more related to status, social, monetary, intellectual and different skills, than with being good at hunting or fighting.

For this even with the men dissapearing, women, will continue to be sexual beings, with the biologic instinct of the sexual contact, so we would assume lesbianism before asexuality. With this Women find other women attractive, and for the majority of the population by a specific set of characteristics, among which I believe they will persist, hallmarks of status and character.

On the contrary, athletic women show an increasing trend since the sexual revolution (of course this is because have more oportunities of not be judged by the society) and it has been noticed with social networks, again this is useless in a society with technology, but what better way to show status than with an exhibition of physical appearance that shows discipline and the economic capacity to invest and spend on health, although I believe in this case it will not be like men who seek prominent muscles, but women would only seek some muscle development, because again large muscles are unnecessary and they would be aware of it.

Then, since the Victorian Era, The trend of thinness in women began, going from the upper classes to the lower classes as an ideal ambition, with its most extreme peaks in the same Victorian Era and in the 2000's becoming unhealthy, but as consideration it seems that this was beginning to liberate women from another old role, that of producing children, because before that, women with pronounced hips with a settled belly and more prominent breasts that represented a great capacity to produce children were sought, have more childrens therefore, more pregnancies and a lower risk of death.

But at this point we need to consider that even without men, women will continue forming families with other women, but the fertilization of an egg by creating false sperm would be much easier than creating an artificial uterus, with which the pregnancy will not disappear (at least in a longer time) and I think I remember that even despite the caesarean sections, the pregnancies are complicated by certain problems in the shape of the hip (and a few other things).

Then, other interesting thing about humans is that males select females in difference with other animals, that produced an interesting feature of sexual selection that any other animal do not have the characteristic most associated with the feminine that are the protruding breasts, excessive in size for survival, larger than necessary for lactation, this is the product of the sexual selection of men throughout history. Therefore (although in an advanced society it is not so noticeable) without the presence of men and for practicality, this characteristic would be significantly reduced, since it was men who were instinctively attracted to prominent breasts.

And finally it is possible that fine features, such as smooth skin or slightly pronounced bones of the face and curved contraposition, are maintained due to technology, the heavy work would no longer be necessary and therefore the opposite of these previously masculine features would disappear.

My conclusion, is that in a completely feminine human society, as it is obvious that it happens and has happened, the character of women will change notably, becoming what is now considered masculine, but eliminating many of the historically negative characteristics of men (such as those caused by the testosterone), menawhile they keep good "feminine" characteristics", while the physical appearance would not be like that of a current woman, I think that if they were seen now, they would be almost like androgynous men than women, conserving reduced breasts, but wider hips than a man would have, but still so with a slim body and maybe even athletic.

So the question here, is actually asking for information that you have and I don't that can help me refine this thought or that maybe it shows that I am in error, or maybe it produces a completely different result.

The unnecesary easy answers could be just say "yeah, women will be just men behavior at women body" or "no, this couldnt happen, women society will be completly different free from these situations".

Answer 1

You will not get a single definition of beauty in such a society. You will have categories.

The removal of "the male gaze" will have an effect on the standards of beauty, but I do not believe it will focus on one standard. You will not have a society aspiring to all of a single figure. You will have a society of members trying to differentiate themselves and stand out from the crowd.

The removal of gender means you have double the competition and twice as many options to choose from. This is going to increase competition, but rather than make a mad focus for a single pinnacle of beauty, your going to have categories, and people within those categories are going to try and aspire to the peak of that category.

I see this within existing LGBTQ dating - there are almost "roles" or "categories" within "lesbian" that people are attracted to to the near exclusion of others. Theres cute and adorable, your biker/leather, androgynous, sporty, petite, curvy, emo, gothic. A girl who normally dates emo is unlikely to bring home a sporty girl.

I'd expect your society to have a similar range of groups, and within each of those groups, thered be its own beauty standard.

Answer 2

No one would really care about sexuality

From what it sounds like, all babies are in-vitro born and all adults are biologically female. Sex in human society is usually considered important because that's where new babies come from. In a society with only women where babies are born via technology, sex would be seen as a recreational behavior at best and an inefficient waste of time at worse, why would you be playing around with someone when you could be working, especially when it doesn't do anything?

It's likely that most of your population would be mislabeled as asexual and would not even know what heterosexuality is. Sexuality can be a spectrum. Some people are purely heterosexual, some are almost exclusively heterosexual and only "facultatively homosexual" (i.e., willing to sleep with the same sex if there's no one else around), some are bisexual, some are mostly homosexual with a few heterosexual exceptions, and some are purely homosexual with no attraction towards the opposite sex. Most of the population regardless of what numbers you use are the first category (even the most extreme estimates posit at least 90% of the population is heterosexual, and based on several studies the actual number is probably closer to 95%), if for no other reason than people who don't engage in heterosexual behavior don't pass on their genes and therefore are the only ones who perpetuate the behavior. You're probably going to get a lot of people sexually frustrated simply because same-sex companionship isn't filling that need for them.

Alternatively, you could manually edit sexual preferences in the population by hormone exposure. Studies of laboratory mice and domestic cattle have found that in some monochorionic fraternals twins (i.e., a male and female twin that share a placenta), the males often act "feminized" and will present themselves for mounting by males, whereas females are "masculinized" and will often exhibit male behaviors like fighting for access to females and mounting other females. They've seemingly narrowed it down to hormone exposure of the embryos due to the conjoined placenta, females get too much testosterone in utero and males get too little, which affects their behavior and mate choice. It's not hard to think you could engineer an entirely lesbian or bisexual population by playing around with the hormones of developing fetuses.

The standards of female beauty would be influenced by technology, but not dominated by them

Female standards of beauty vary wildly in different cultures and are often dramatically different. In many ancient societies extremely fat women with wide hips were seen as the standard of beauty. In many Victorian societies being pale and slender was considered attractive. In the 1920s and 1930s it was considered attractive for women to look androgynous. Many countries today have wildly different standards of beauty. Even between the 90's and today standards of beauty have changed dramatically. In the 90's female standards of beauty were big breasts on an otherwise rail-like figure, whereas in the 2010s and 2020s the current standard of beauty in the Western world is fuller-figured and curvy but not outright fat (i.e., the 'thicc' meme going around). Note that while some of these can be attributed to broader sociological factors (e.g., the Industrial Revolution), some are due to seemingly nonsensical fashion trends. Fashion is more about standing out from the crowd and looking good while doing it than conforming to any ideal of gender roles (this is why trend-setters are a thing).

The thing I would do is look at lesbian fashion trends and find out what lesbians (and to a lesser degree, bisexuals) specifically find attractive in other women, because lesbian ideals of attractiveness are going to dictate fashion as they are the only ones going to be interested in attracting a mate. What heterosexual and homosexual people look for in an ideal mate can often be very different, even if the target is the same.

I have no idea if current female social pressures of "looking good" in public are still going to be a thing, since 90%+ of your population aren't going to be interested in attracting mates. Men in general have different responses to public appearances than women (more specifically, they rarely care about fashion but do still care about status, facial features, physique, etc., which any man can tell you about if you ask them about fitness, male pattern baldness, or genitalia size), but it's unclear if heterosexual women would adopt the same attitude or if the social pressures would persist.