I notice that, too, although I expect some of that is ethnic preference. But beauty is always in the eye of the beholder....
I'm reminded of Rush's saying @ feminism being the home of unattractive women...along those lines, I think the culture of the left, which we are unfortunately steeped in, hates much of what is beautiful. Conversely celebrating that which is ugly. I recall it being part of the commie goals, read into the Cong. record in the early '60's. It is often mentioned here on FR.
It has, in certain quarters, become 'sexist' to mention a woman's beauty/good looks. When Peter Parker complimented Mary Jane on her looks, her reply was sneering, saying something to the effect; "Oh, so therefore I have value?" To which he responded in the 'culturally approved' beta/cuck way, simpering some kind of apology.
To me, the left is at war against nature, against human nature, and anything 'natural'. Which brings me back to Rebekah being very beautiful. God thought it was important to mention in scripture, didn't He? I wonder why. I truly do. Is it because He knows Adam chose Eve because he saw her naked & was overcome by that?
Why is a woman 'being beautiful' important? Is it because they are the 'weaker sex' and must rely on their looks to get ahead/survive?
Note: for the most part - to posit that a woman has no value beyond physical beauty is not what I'm saying, nor is God imo. After all, He describes a more well-rounded character in other areas of scripture.
I noticed, like TP Pole, how the artists portrayed 'very beautiful'...I remember on your first series, Dan, that I commented on the women's 'attractiveness' in one painting...here:#107 https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3995110/posts...about Irma Martin at #17.
The ones here that I "behold" as close (kind of pretty) are #'s 17, 20, 25, 22 (composition in this one is beautiful in an of itself!), 27, (even though the face is veiled. the artist put a bit of sexy leg into it!)... and I think #30 wins. jmo