Welcome to Sex and the State, a newsletter about power. To support my work toward decriminalizing and destigmatizing everything sex please buy a subscription, follow me on OnlyFans, or just share this post with a friend or on a social network! ~~~~~
Not all the time, but often, the attractive get the first-class treatment. Research suggests they are more likely to be offered job interviews, more likely to be hired when interviewed and more likely to be promoted than less attractive individuals. They are more likely to receive loans and more likely to receive lower interest rates on those loans.
The discriminatory effects of lookism are pervasive. Attractive economists are more likely to study at high-ranked graduate programs and their papers are cited more often than papers from their less attractive peers. One study found that when unattractive criminals committed a moderate misdemeanor, their fines were about four times as large as those of attractive criminals.
Daniel Hamermesh, a leading scholar in this field, observed that an American worker who is among the bottom one-seventh in looks earns about 10 to 15 percent less a year than one in the top third. An unattractive person misses out on nearly a quarter-million dollars in earnings over a lifetime.
The overall effect of these biases is vast. One 2004 study found that more people report being discriminated against because of their looks than because of their ethnicity.
In a study published in the current issue of the American Journal of Sociology, Ellis P. Monk Jr., Michael H. Esposito and Hedwig Lee report that the earnings gap between people perceived as attractive and unattractive rivals or exceeds the earnings gap between white and Black adults. They find the attractiveness curve is especially punishing for Black women. Those who meet the socially dominant criteria for beauty see an earnings boost; those who don’t earn on average just 63 cents to the dollar of those who do.
This is, I think, the single best discussion of attractiveness, social status and all the pieces those connect that I've ever read. Thank you, Cathy.
Where so much of what we worry about socially and politically these days falls short is that it doesn't start with biology. In no place is that more striking than in discussions of sex, which are almost always embarrassingly 'epiphenomenal.' Jared Diamond, in his book The Third Chimpanzee devotes part of a chapter to theories of human sexuality. He lays out several of the major current ones . . . and then points out the ridiculously transparent way in which each of them maps to the gender makeup of the group proposing it: mixed gender, all male, all female. (I wonder if sex is so close to us, so potent, and so intimate that we may never reach a fully matured understanding of it, that it will always be 50%+ embedded in the cultural moment.)
I also want to slip in a quick comment or two about another issue you touch on: fat-shaming. We know from gay liberation, the disabled movement, and more that social attitudes are malleable - and often take a movement to shift them. But with obesity, it feels to me that there's a basic piece we get wrong. When half the US population is verging on clinically obese, the urgent issue is NOT about individuals, their behavior, or how they're treated. It's political. It's about the dominance of corporate influence and wealth in every aspect of our lives. Corporations concerned with food logically want us to eat as much, at as minimal a cost to them, as possible. That's not a problem per se, but when those same corporations have a death grip on the political process and our response as a society to the pathologies of cheap overeating, that's the problem.
I've been sort of thinking about this theme lately, and would love to get your take on it.
We can talk about attractiveness such as the examples above, but what about the relationship between attractiveness and sexy? How related are they, really?
You kinda sorta don't need to be *that* attractive to make a porno hot. Certain features may make you more enjoyable to watch, but honestly, there's just really other things that matter more. But a better example of what I'm wondering about can be told below.
The sexiest woman I ever dated had a lazy eye and bad skin. She also wasn't that good of a dresser, rarely exercised, and was a bipolar alcoholic train-wreck. Couldn't hold down jobs, and relied on her dad to pay for her Mission rent controlled apartment. Yet her sex appeal was breathtaking. Men and women alike would be immediately drawn to her within seconds of entering a room; a couple lesbian friends of mine said she "looked like an orgasm". Which was not false advertising- she was a full-on grand slam in the sack. An absolute, mind blowing expert. Best sex I'd had up to that point, no question about it. Experimental, extremely sensuous, and multiorgasmic to an almost supernatural degree.
But bipolar train-wrecks are pretty awful at relationships, and after an extremely tumultuous year, I went into therapy to figure out why on earth I was still trying to be with her. And his answer was that bipolar people are naturally very sexually attractive. There's a danger element to them, they tend to simply be more sexual, and they're never, ever boring. He also told me to stay the fuck away, because she wasn't changing anytime soon and clearly wasn't about to start taking medication and getting help. I took his advice to heart, and the relationship ended. I learned some very important lessons, moved on, and have an amazing family with a spectacular woman and lovely kids.
But the concepts here will never stop fascinating me.
Another story to mention along the same lines. Years ago I was living in Sydney, and had a friend that was a very cute British girl who lived in an area where there were many cute of every nationalities, and she wouldn't turn heads. Until she broke her knee, got on crutches and went out to the bars in Bondi. Suddenly, she was surrounded to a point that other girls in our group refused to go out with her again, claiming that it was like watching "lions smelling a wounded wildebeest".
A NYT piece on this was cited in another email I got recently:
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/06/why-is-it-ok-to-be-mean-to-the-ugly.html
Not all the time, but often, the attractive get the first-class treatment. Research suggests they are more likely to be offered job interviews, more likely to be hired when interviewed and more likely to be promoted than less attractive individuals. They are more likely to receive loans and more likely to receive lower interest rates on those loans.
The discriminatory effects of lookism are pervasive. Attractive economists are more likely to study at high-ranked graduate programs and their papers are cited more often than papers from their less attractive peers. One study found that when unattractive criminals committed a moderate misdemeanor, their fines were about four times as large as those of attractive criminals.
Daniel Hamermesh, a leading scholar in this field, observed that an American worker who is among the bottom one-seventh in looks earns about 10 to 15 percent less a year than one in the top third. An unattractive person misses out on nearly a quarter-million dollars in earnings over a lifetime.
The overall effect of these biases is vast. One 2004 study found that more people report being discriminated against because of their looks than because of their ethnicity.
In a study published in the current issue of the American Journal of Sociology, Ellis P. Monk Jr., Michael H. Esposito and Hedwig Lee report that the earnings gap between people perceived as attractive and unattractive rivals or exceeds the earnings gap between white and Black adults. They find the attractiveness curve is especially punishing for Black women. Those who meet the socially dominant criteria for beauty see an earnings boost; those who don’t earn on average just 63 cents to the dollar of those who do.
This is, I think, the single best discussion of attractiveness, social status and all the pieces those connect that I've ever read. Thank you, Cathy.
Where so much of what we worry about socially and politically these days falls short is that it doesn't start with biology. In no place is that more striking than in discussions of sex, which are almost always embarrassingly 'epiphenomenal.' Jared Diamond, in his book The Third Chimpanzee devotes part of a chapter to theories of human sexuality. He lays out several of the major current ones . . . and then points out the ridiculously transparent way in which each of them maps to the gender makeup of the group proposing it: mixed gender, all male, all female. (I wonder if sex is so close to us, so potent, and so intimate that we may never reach a fully matured understanding of it, that it will always be 50%+ embedded in the cultural moment.)
I also want to slip in a quick comment or two about another issue you touch on: fat-shaming. We know from gay liberation, the disabled movement, and more that social attitudes are malleable - and often take a movement to shift them. But with obesity, it feels to me that there's a basic piece we get wrong. When half the US population is verging on clinically obese, the urgent issue is NOT about individuals, their behavior, or how they're treated. It's political. It's about the dominance of corporate influence and wealth in every aspect of our lives. Corporations concerned with food logically want us to eat as much, at as minimal a cost to them, as possible. That's not a problem per se, but when those same corporations have a death grip on the political process and our response as a society to the pathologies of cheap overeating, that's the problem.
I've been sort of thinking about this theme lately, and would love to get your take on it.
We can talk about attractiveness such as the examples above, but what about the relationship between attractiveness and sexy? How related are they, really?
You kinda sorta don't need to be *that* attractive to make a porno hot. Certain features may make you more enjoyable to watch, but honestly, there's just really other things that matter more. But a better example of what I'm wondering about can be told below.
The sexiest woman I ever dated had a lazy eye and bad skin. She also wasn't that good of a dresser, rarely exercised, and was a bipolar alcoholic train-wreck. Couldn't hold down jobs, and relied on her dad to pay for her Mission rent controlled apartment. Yet her sex appeal was breathtaking. Men and women alike would be immediately drawn to her within seconds of entering a room; a couple lesbian friends of mine said she "looked like an orgasm". Which was not false advertising- she was a full-on grand slam in the sack. An absolute, mind blowing expert. Best sex I'd had up to that point, no question about it. Experimental, extremely sensuous, and multiorgasmic to an almost supernatural degree.
But bipolar train-wrecks are pretty awful at relationships, and after an extremely tumultuous year, I went into therapy to figure out why on earth I was still trying to be with her. And his answer was that bipolar people are naturally very sexually attractive. There's a danger element to them, they tend to simply be more sexual, and they're never, ever boring. He also told me to stay the fuck away, because she wasn't changing anytime soon and clearly wasn't about to start taking medication and getting help. I took his advice to heart, and the relationship ended. I learned some very important lessons, moved on, and have an amazing family with a spectacular woman and lovely kids.
But the concepts here will never stop fascinating me.
Another story to mention along the same lines. Years ago I was living in Sydney, and had a friend that was a very cute British girl who lived in an area where there were many cute of every nationalities, and she wouldn't turn heads. Until she broke her knee, got on crutches and went out to the bars in Bondi. Suddenly, she was surrounded to a point that other girls in our group refused to go out with her again, claiming that it was like watching "lions smelling a wounded wildebeest".
Nice...