Is life harder for unattractive people?

[CherryPicking]

I know life can be hard for lots of reasons, and that discrimination can take many forms more serious than this, but putting all other factors aside just for now, is day to day life that little bit harder for less attractive people? For example, are people less likely to be accepting of someone behaving assertively, either at work or elsewhere, if the person in question isn't easy on the eye? (I'm not much to look at myself if that makes any difference). What about things like job interviews or social situations, meeting new people?

I used to wear everything too big. And patterned.

I think it's easier to look attractive (especially nowadays) when you are successful or at least well off.

One of my most attractive friends used to be really dowdy but her DH got rich through luck (speculation) rather than ability. Hand in hand with his increasing wealth, she has become slimmer, more toned, tanned, sleek, shiny well highlighted hair etc.

It boils down to self confidence i think. If you are unatractuve but say from priviledged background and thus have solid self confidence- you're fine.
I think i'm average looking (can scrub up and look good on a good day) but i lack confidence and thats the major issue. I could be higher up on a career ladder i think if i had more confidence. Also, am conditioned to be a bit of a people pleaser so that doesnt help either. Those more assertive and less caring of what others think do better than me. I'm working on it though.
My pretty sister has an easy rich life but to be frank thats not all down to her looks. She is more confident and has better people skills and that's what makes the difference in my opinion.

There is something in human psychology that makes us want to feel that we are in control of our own lives.

It's the impulse that leads to victim-blaming - we want to feel that if we do nothing wrong then nothing bad will happen to us.

I think some of that is happening here. We WANT to feel that people are treated differently based on how they behave (how confident they are), because if that's the truth then we are in control. We can change our behaviour and change how we are treated. And if we are treated well, it's because we deserve it because we behaved the right way, it's not just a random quirk of fate.

I think that unattractive people are treated worse by other human beings. If you hold constant other factors like self-confidence or how kind they are as a person or how well they dress, there is still a significant contribution from "does the other person think your face is a good face".

there is still a significant contribution from "does the other person think your face is a good face".

I agree that there are barriers according to where your face is seen to fit in the status quo, but I think another factor of attractiveness, which isn't down to physical looks (and is possibly also just a genetic quirk), - is charisma. Some people just have it - and it mesmerises people.

I wonder if part of what is meant 'confidence' (which we have some degree of control over) is actually charisma (which I suspect we don't).

I agree with that trills.

I wonder if the motives of people who actively treat with disdain and even harass others who are unfortunate in looks or disability, is because it helps them to believe they are in control or are part of a just universe.
Historically certain people have been scapegoated and ostracised based on birthmarks etc. I remember a shocking archaeology programme where they discovered the skeleton of a bloke with curvature of the spine among the bones of animals - and he had been ritually canibalised - somewhere in Somerset I think.
There are all those faery tales with 'ugly' or disabled villains and gorgeous heroes and heroines, and these stereotypes persist in mainstream movies too.
In fact, reading out bedtime stories, my partner and I have to filter out the cruel stereotypes - Roald Dahl is particularly bad for this.

Exactly Tent, the idea of the ugly villain and the beautiful hero runs very deep and in most cultures. I don't think there's a great deal that can be done but a start is acknowledging it a bit.

I know people mean well when they say "oh it's confidence" or "get a good haircut" but it's missing the point. Some people are objectively ugly and of course that makes life harder. People would rather have nice things to look at than horrible - you chose the pretty view, the nicer decor, whatever. That 100% applies to people.

And (sorry, warming to my theme here) it starts heartbreakingly young. Adults are nicer and cut more slack to attractive babies and children.

nature is red in tooth and claw, and this aspect fully comes to play

Whether we are brave enough to admit it (or not) human beings do naturally have an aversion to certain looks and types in other humans. I know I do, I don't like it. But I do.

and that cannot be denied

hence all the people who say" I suffer for being beautiful" are talking fucking shit!

I really think it is. I've seen both sides - when I was younger I was rather odd-looking, but puberty was kind to me and since my early twenties I've been considered very attractive. I agree with what was said earlier about 'micro-kindnesses' : strangers treat me better, make eye contact, smile at me more. It's weird. I am absolutely the same person and did nothing whatsoever to deserve improved treatment. I got bullied by girls and boys alike in school; since I grew up the worst thing that's happened is another woman insinuating I got a publishing contract because of my 'pretty face'. Life is easier now. It's not right, but it's certainly my experience.

Also, what Trills and Tent say - I expect it's a mixture of the Just Universe fallacy and evolutionary biology (attractiveness/symmetry associated with health = preference for association/mating, 'ugliness' associated with disease = avoidance response).

rather shallow point given the depth of discussion but i think 'beauty' stands the test of time whereas being 'attractive' as in pretty, young, great skin, hair etc often doesn't survive the fading of youth.

also that beauty can come out at different times - re: someone who wasn't that remarkable in youth may come into their own older (when people like me are falling apart at the seams ) as they age well.

perhaps also in later life the playing field is evened somewhat by that loss of youth and it is women who can/do make the most of themselves, have a good style, put the effort (and often money) in to their grooming etc who can look really good in their later years.

though we shouldn't forget ageing has always had a massive socio-economic component as with all other aspects of health.

X

I think by far it's better to be open, warm, friendly and FUNNY. People will warm to you regardless of your looks.

If you can't manage that (I can't - painfully shy) a pretty face is the next best thing.

When I as 18 I got my first "proper" job as a barmaid. My boss called me in one evening on short notice and when I got there apologised about it happening again. He knew the girl I was covering the shift for was taking the piss by doing it a lot but "we keep her on because you have to have someone attractive behind the bar". Now I never thought much of myself but when he said that I actually felt myself get smaller and uglier. A throwaway remark that has stayed with me my whole life.
I don't know if life is harder if you're unattractive because I've never seen it from the other side. I do know, that as I've aged, I've become more invisible (unless someone needs to point out my weight/looks/bust size in a hurtful way. Then , by God, they see me just fine).
The last few years I rarely leave the house as being invisible is just depressing. This year I've walked out my front door about a dozen times. Why bother?

I'm not sure. I think beautiful people can be hated for being so. I think the Zooey deschanel / Megan fox analogy is pretty accurate.
I also think beauty is very subjective.

I was bullied in school for being ugly. I was told id never have a boyfriend. I was also sexually harassed at school and was already dealing with previous sexual abuse so, I connected the two (being ugly means this is what I deserve) men have also seen me as an easy target. I went on to sleep with randoms because I didn't have respect for myself and major self esteem problems..
I think I'm getting better now but I agree it's all about the impression you are given about yourself when you are young. It stays with you.
I've had some comments made my dp that have really cut deep (not directly about my appearance but I definitely linked the comments to questioning my looks..) it made me focus on myself, I excercise more, eat better, I've overhauled my make up, dye my hair regularly.. I think small things can make a difference. I still find life exhausting at times, though.

aw Kate that's shit.

I dispute the idea that attractiveness fades, but beauty lasts, firstly because it is so bound up in socio-economics as you yourself acknowledge honeybadger. No matter how beautiful you are, if you bloat out because you are taking steroids for cancer, or if you smoke like a chimney and drink every night for years, or if you have a permanent frown and hardened bitter expression from a life-time of shit, you are not going to look so beautiful. Whereas if you have a diet like Gwyneth Paltrow, no fear or stress about covering the basics in life your beauty will stand the test of time. Also, in my opinion, attractiveness is the whole caboodle - beauty, charisma, warmth, wit, charm, grace, talent, intelligence, health, style, etc - most of which can actually increase with age.
But I feel really uncomfortable trying define what is objectively beautiful or attractive or the reverse anyway because it is a slippery slope to the fascist ideology of eugenics imo.

(Responding to some discussion upthread about objective beauty and ugliness based on on natural selection) I get that 'health' is a very sensible thing to prize in a mate, but there is a lot of cultural conditioning involved in what is defined at 'beautiful' and 'ugly' isn't there? It is too important to overlook how the notion of objective beauty standards based on evolutionary psychology works to preserve the status quo.

It is easier to 'other' another group if you tell your 'own' that the 'others' are ugly. For example beauty standards are extremely racist. In the uk not so long ago the facial features common to being Black or Jewish were seen as ugly. 'The Scandinavian blonde' is upheld to be the ideal (particularly for women) even today - and I think it is no coincidence that people still openly say that 'gingers' are ugly when historically the Celts have been more resistant to suppression than any other Caucasian tribe.

Cultural conditioning must have a big impact upon what we perceive as beautiful or ugly because these perceptions evidently differ according to culture, to the point I think we are all so culturally biased, it is possible to have any meaningful 'science' in this area. I'm really convinced of this because of my own kids. With DC1 I have been really careful to challenge stereotypes, discourage making value judgements based on looks and heavily censor the exposure to the media. This has worked so well DC1 astonishes me by seeming oblivious to some things eg- someone having an amputated limb. And since it worked so well with DC1, I took it for granted and didn't bother being so fastidious with DC2 and the difference shows. DC2 stares and makes comments about people who look different and really latches onto girls with long blonde hair, as thought they are some special celebrity, etc. (Hey ho - I have a lot of media damage limitation there)

Also - in the past I have sometimes felt embarrassed for fancying a particular person - particularly when I was young. Clearly there are plenty of disputes to be had about what constitutes gorgeous/beautiful and plenty of shaming of people who like something a bit different. I remember as a kid thinking Sharon from Eastenders was the archetypal gorgeous woman, and Daley Thompson was the gorgeous man (clearly being 'on the telly' and presented with a certain amount of ceremony and razzmatazz very much influenced these perceptions) - and since my own sense of aesthetics have been subjected to further cultural conditioning in the intervening years - I now now that what is understood to be gorgeous is in fact Audrey Hepburn and Brad Pitt. That understanding was definitely not innate with me.

Follow
I agree that people can be hated, bullied and isolated for being good-looking (as they can be for being clever, talented, etc). I saw this sweet thing where Kelly Rowland said Beyonce was a very lonely kid for this reason, and was so surprised and overjoyed that she actually wanted to be her friend. But still ... those looks do still tend to open doors and win out in the end don't they?

A fair number of narcissists on this thread seem to be missing the difference between false modesty (beautiful person insisting they're not) and modesty (beautiful person simply not drawing attention to/talking about their looks). This thread isn't about how difficult life can be for attractive people but plenty seem to be so wrapped up in themselves they've missed the point.

Still reading but ... Kate Please step outside a little more! How much does it fucking matter whether people notice you? They don't notice a lot of things - trees, for example. They're essential, they bring life, they nurture baby birds and they make the place look nice. But everyone marches past 'em, only pausing to swear at them when they're in the way.

Be more like a tree :D 🌳

Thanks to everyone for some more really good posts today. Haven't seen CherryPicking around here for a while, but she started a great conversation!

Love your media experiment with DC1 & DC2, Tent! Looks like you'll have some work to do with DC2 - hopefully their elder sibling will help :)

Yes, standards of ugliness & beauty are both culturally determined and politically manipulated.
Who's this?
"... his bulging jaw and lower part of the face, retreating chin and forehead, large mouth and thick lips, great distance between nose and mouth, upturned nose, prominent cheekbones, sunken eyes, projecting eyebrows, narrow elongated skull and protruding ears ..." Anthropologists explained how this ugly appearance proved the people were unevolved since prehistoric times, lacking logical thought, weak in character, sexually incontinent and prone to random violence.

It's the Irish. Written in 1866, it formed part of an earnest campaign to depict Irish people as sub-human. This justified vicious exploitation of their land & enslavement of their people by the English. The same has been done, and still is, to black people and Jews. If you're ugly, you're not only worthless but a contaminant. The Nazi extermination programme began with disabled & mentally unwell Germans, who were easily demonised as economically wasteful (shades of England in 2016.)

There are classical rules of human beauty, which change little from culture to culture or over time. But they're easily overridden by cultural factors, particularly power or the lack of it. Kings, queens & emperors were never described as ugly by their subjects.

Nasty words, but........ just words in a paper written by some hack to perpetuate an anti-irish agenda that made letting the irish starve acceptable. It doesn't prove anything, especially not in the context of today.
You know, back in 1866 most English people were probably unaware that you can't tell the difference between an Irish person and a British person. No internet. Fewer photos. Less travel. English people would have read it and believed it and then they wouldn't have cared about the unevolved beasts starving.

But it doesn't change anything.

You've sort of skimmed past the point, i8. What we are told is beautiful or ugly influences our perception - like Tent's perception changing from Sharon to Audrey - and what we perceive as faulty, we call ugly. It's a vicious circle. As you say, the English didn't worry too much about what they were doing to the Irish or to Africans because they perceived them as faulty/ugly.

I wouldn't find it hard to believe something like this is behind shoddy treatment of 'unattractive' people. Whether it makes evolutionary sense or not, it clearly is an existing tendency and easily manipulated (in general.)

I agree with both of you.
garlic it is obvious to me by personal experience that concepts of beauty/ugliness for us humans are mailable and defined by group consensus.

One key way is by shaming or approval for any aesthetic preferences we express, by our social group and this begins in childhood. Another way is by status and power. We naturally start to adopt a preference for what is demonstrated as preferable by the powers that be -as in your demonising of Irish people example.(Something which is much easier to do now that we have cameras and mass media).
There was an experiment on chimpanzees (between 5-10 years ago) it was discovered they have a kind of tendency towards 'celebrity culture', like us, because they all preferred looking at photos of higher status individuals in the group. Since they don't have a written classical culture where they can use mathematics and geometry to define ultimate beauty standards, I think it is safe to assume this idea of beauty is bound up in dominance for chimps. (I am not discounting that there is also likely to be a instinct to love baby faces too, in order to take good care of them.) Additionally, we also know that chimps are brutal in bullying lower status individuals - like us humans too as a way of upholding the status quo.
Because of this correlation between perceived beauty/ugliness and status and power it is possible to imagine a group or tribe where a high status individual has, for example, a port wine birthmark on their face, then this defines their tribe's 'beautiful', and a culture of using paint or make-up to create port wine look facial patches develops.

i8sum I agree with you too. Considering/discussing the root for our experience of what is beautiful/ugly is largely conditioned over the years by beauty 'propaganda' does not materially change things for people day to day. If you look like you belong on the telly/in magazines as I think special is suggesting about herself, then you will be stared at and experience lots of attempts to take you down a peg or two, and a fear of being stabbed in the back (alongside obvious benefits). If you look on the on the other hand 'unphotographable' you will be subjected to status quo maintaing, chimp-like bullying to keep you at the bottom of the pack.

I still think it is worth noting this aspect of conditioning in defining what is attractive. In my opinion, not only is 'history written by the victors', our sense of beauty/ugliness is too.