No - I'm talking about universal criteria.
There are also culture-specific criteria, and particular cultures' normative standards of beauty vary somewhat over time - eg the amount of body fat considered desirable will vary depending on whether there is a scarcity or surplus of food.
Plus there are some consistent variables such as skin tone. Eg in warm climes where people are dark skinned, very light skin is often taken as a sign of sickness*. There is a fairly consistent universal preference for relatively lighter skin (& often hair) tones in women and darker in men, though.
*Black female doctor in south London hospital, looking at my newly born son:
"Your baby is too pale! We need to run a blood test!"
Me:
"I'm from Northern Ireland! We all look like that!"
Hate to correct you... actually, who am I kidding? I love to correct people! Anyways:
For starters, regarding body fat: you're more or less right. But it works in a weird way. If there's a food shortage, people like larger women. This can be seen in many African Countries, where it is a very good thing to be a fat woman. We also see it throughout European history. There are a few contradictions (The Chinese have usually loved tiny women, but then, they were a pretty well-fed empire for the most part), but that's the general way things work. The reason is because a large woman was seen to be well-fed, and therefore, wealthy (or at least higher in the social hierarchy).
Our corn-fed culture, however, has made it pretty easy to become fat. In fact, it's a sign of wealth to be thin these days (you can afford to eat healthier foods, you have enough money that you can afford to waste time at the gym, etc) - so it's no surprise that thinness is a sign of attraction.
Skin tone, however, is where you're off. Your example of warm climes is off - the africans of historical times often thought of the whites as "beautiful" race, and the south americans (pre contact) envisioned many of their gods as being pygmy-like in nature (this made the landing of conquistadores a bit easier for them, unfortunately). We even see this drive for lighter skin in mainstream america, but considering some of the unfortunate events in Black AMerican history, it's unfortunately easy to understand why.
Throughout history, skin tone and sexual preference have followed the same pattern as the preference of fat; i.e., people desire that which reflects social status. Historically in Europe (and much of the world), that meant lighter skin, because it meant that the individual did not have to work outside - they could afford to have someone else do it for them. This is why there was a love for the fair-haired maiden (and this applied throughout most of the world, from China to Sub-saharan africa, to South America, for the same general reasons). Nowadays, with artificial lighting and many indoor jobs, it's pretty easy to be pale as hell (god knows I am). And, as a result, we see a "tan" as being prefereable, and for the same reasons as our ancestors envied the pale - the person can afford to avoid work. They can spend time out in the sun, tanning. Or sitting in a tanning bed, sucking up carcinomas.
These rules, by the way, usually apply more to women than men. While there are definite sexual codes that men follow, they follow more general patterns related to the culture in general (in effect, a physical trait that would reflect improved social status or power in a specific culture - athelticism being a pretty common sign of male beauty).
(An interesting side effect of beauty among women that is almost universal is that there is a preference towards traits that cripple or hinder a woman - tiny feet in pre 20th century china is an obvious example. But this exists in many cultures - neck elongation in southeast asia springs to mind. Even in our modern, relatively egalitarian society is it seen - high heels, breast enlargement, long fingernails... all are examples of this sort of "Crippling" beauty).
So, really, the "universal criteria" of beauty works only like this: If it's a sign of social status in a culture, it's beauty. If it's among women, a big sign of "beauty" is that which restricts her access to the world of men. That's pretty much the only "universal" of beauty.
(I'm an anthropology major, and I never can resist the opportunity to geek out when it comes to culture!)
***
Another point someone mentioned, a bit more on topic here, is that they would presume that the seriously "unattractive" were less likely to be raped. The fact is, that is entirely not true. Rapes happen accross the board, regardless of wealth, ethnicity, or anything else like that. It is, as has been mentioned, an assertion of power.
Rather sickeningly, 1 in 6 american women have been the victims or near-victims of rape of some kind or another, or so some estimates claim. Think of that. One in
Six. Were I marketing a game for general release, I would not make rape - or anything that implied rape - a part of the game. Especially if I were trying to attract a wider female audience.
For what it's worth, half-orcs in one of my worlds were made by a forced breeding program... but it worked a little bit beyond "rape". In effect, orc doxies were sold into slavery by their barbarian tribes to a roman-like empire, being sold in exchange for weapons. In this, they brought honour to their tribes - in fact, it was an honour for these women to be "sold" (as only the best orc women were sold). Orc women fought for the "privilege", not only for this familial honour, but because the life of an orc woman in "rome" was comparitively easy.
The very best of the human (or, rarely, half-orc) legionnaires could earn a nice fat paycheque if they spent the night in the bed of one of these orc doxies (who were grouped together in fairly luxurious compounds), and earned even more money if this union produced a child. The orc doxie was likewise rewarded. These half-orcs were then taken and raised in academies made specifically for war. They trained from a very young age in tactics, combat, and brotherhood, and half-orc units were elite units attached to individual armies.
(As a result, half-orcs in my campaign world were actually usually lawful neutral, though they could become chaotic if they got cut up bad in a fight)
