Well as a weed, I'm pretty copacetic with it. Women are not pretty (or unpretty) things to look at. We do not exist nor deserve to exist solely on our aesthetic appeal. I've no problem with beautiful, average and ugly characters in media because a mix is more realistic, and not all characters are created purely to fuel some kind of sexual fantasy.
As other people have said, beauty standards are not at all 'universal' even within a monoculture (think of the early Renaissance trend for plucking the forehead to give a woman a higher hairline, or the 20s flapper fad for flat chests and binding), let alone across cultures. Moreover, in the West they skew heavily Eurocentric, so that women of other races or ethnicities are pretty much shut out of ever achieving 'beauty' from birth, no matter how symmetrical their features or proportional their bodies or clear their skin. Basically, beauty standards are a minefield.
and yet people like to look at beautiful things, I am straight man, and I like to look at beautiful women on daily basis, the same goes for men, i prefer to see on my television a handsome man than ugly one. looking at something beautiful for 100+ hours is better to look at something ugly at any time.
But beauty is subjective culture and taste, but some aspects are universal within a culture, aspects that are pleasant to the eyes of any people (at least most) does not mean that if you do not adhere to this standard you are ugly, only that you are different, (for most at least, there are some people who really were not blessed with beauty in any form) and should work with what you have.
But as you select an actor for a play, a television show, a movie or a game, in the role of romantic interest, you must have these aspects of beauty that are standard, as so most viewers will identify with the part that should fall in love with the other.