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".
I think Esther Perel does a great job explaining how arousal of any kind requires an element of danger. There must be some risk, or it's simply not exciting. Now the risk can be very mild, like nothing happens. But anything where you're very sure of the outcome isn't going to be arousing. So in that way, it makes perfect sense that people who are "crazy,' ie unpredictable, are more arousing all else equal than people who seem more stable and therefore predictable.
The wounded thing is super interesting. I was really saddened recently to learn disabled women are far more likely to be victims of sexual assault. Most predators are looking for an easy mark.
It reminds me of when my dad used to tell me no one approached me or asked me out because they were "intimidated" by me. I wonder if there's something less-intimidating, and therefore more approachable, about someone with an obvious disability. I also think we all want to know we have something of value to offer the people we approach. I think men feel this more acutely than women usually. So a woman with a broken leg needs more obvious-and-easy-to-provide help than a woman with two working legs. The men who approach her don't have to think about what they might have to offer her. She might even be less picky due to her needing more help.
Maybe there's a point at which loving yourself cuts yourself off from being approached by potential White Knights.
In a way a broken leg is perfect because it's not a lifelong disability but it does make a woman seem more vulnerable.
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.
Thanks so much for this!
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.
Thank you! And I couldn’t agree more about obesity. Like environmentalism, it’s a political issue corporations have rebranded as a personal failing.
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".
As for the bipolar woman: https://nypost.com/2018/08/14/men-have-better-sex-with-emotionally-unstable-women/
I think Esther Perel does a great job explaining how arousal of any kind requires an element of danger. There must be some risk, or it's simply not exciting. Now the risk can be very mild, like nothing happens. But anything where you're very sure of the outcome isn't going to be arousing. So in that way, it makes perfect sense that people who are "crazy,' ie unpredictable, are more arousing all else equal than people who seem more stable and therefore predictable.
The wounded thing is super interesting. I was really saddened recently to learn disabled women are far more likely to be victims of sexual assault. Most predators are looking for an easy mark.
It reminds me of when my dad used to tell me no one approached me or asked me out because they were "intimidated" by me. I wonder if there's something less-intimidating, and therefore more approachable, about someone with an obvious disability. I also think we all want to know we have something of value to offer the people we approach. I think men feel this more acutely than women usually. So a woman with a broken leg needs more obvious-and-easy-to-provide help than a woman with two working legs. The men who approach her don't have to think about what they might have to offer her. She might even be less picky due to her needing more help.
Maybe there's a point at which loving yourself cuts yourself off from being approached by potential White Knights.
In a way a broken leg is perfect because it's not a lifelong disability but it does make a woman seem more vulnerable.
Much to think about. Thanks for sharing.
Nice...