I think it's not exactly right to diminish "beautiful" to "aesthetically pleasant".
Actually i can't handle a larger beauty topic or i would end up confusing myself and my research.
But on the other side, almost no one here have posted a simple aesthetical example, so both of us are sort of satisfied.
A forest landscape is beauty but it's also more than that, and i can "feel it" a bit in the post.
I think that our aesthetical beauty sense is just a training of our brain. There is not such thing like "absolute beauty" (speaking of pictures or people) and we are just trained to recognize something as "beauty". If someone, or almost everybody says that a forest landscape is ugly, we surely would look at it and see how ugly it is. Now we see it as beauty because is common to know that it's beauty for most.
Same is for a woman body. We can focus on the interesting parts of a woman (since are signal for a man), but we could decide that a big chest is ugly and smaller ones are the most beautiful things and if everybody thinks the same, any other people would think the same. (let's remember the idea of beauty woman in the medieval age).
Is training.
But how wide and flat is this training? Does all the "internet" world sees the same beauty? Have this some link to the country? Is it mostly a training from tv or from the land? Is it linked to books, knowledge? A lone child born in the wood would end up with the same beauty idea of another lone child left born in another far land?
Without know you, each of you, very well, i can't get any answer, so i'm not going to ask anything specific. I know my question is too much ambitious.
I would, though, look and see your idea of beauty and see if it could suggest me something.
I could see something unknown, or i could end up reading things i expected. It is fine, i will read it anyways with curiosity.
Thanks for your posts.
(i'm sleepy, so i could have wrote something too much abstract. I fixed some typo here and there but i now need to sleep. xD)