We don't love our children as much if they're ugly...

[starkadder]

..says this article. But it looks pretty shaky to me...doesn't show the actual findings of the research and the article seems rather manipulated.

I don't think I even want to read it.

But being attractive is soooo subjective, most(if not all) parents think their children are gorgeous. You'd have to research damn hard to find parents who didn't think their children were beautiful...unless they did comparisons within family groups I would question this research.

I keep my ugly child in a cupboard...doesn't everyone?

That's what I thought was interesting posie - I thought ALL parents thought their children were the most beautiful creatures on the planet.

strawberry - it is not too horrible to read, really. They basically watched parents in supermarkets and took notes of which children seemed to be watched over more carefully (strapped in to trolley, told to sit down if they looked like they were falling over, kept closer to their parents etc). Apparently the more "attractive" children were watched over more carefully.

But it also says the smaller children were, which makes sense, so maybe the researchers just think little toddlers are cuter than 5 yr olds.

(smaller children were looked after more carefully, that is)

oh yes cyb! Quite liked him when he was a bonny baby, but now he is not so attractive...

I read it, not the most comprehensive research. The thing that made me was the thought of one child in a family being perceived to be less attractive and being loved less than their prettier sibling.

My kids are like me... they have good days and bad days.

They were hideous at birth though... i just don't do pretty newborns. I still thought at the time they were gorgeous though and would have walked through fire for each of them so it's a load of nonsense tbh.

You could also interprete that research to mean that maybe ugly parents are just worse parents (looks are inherited after all so the ugly babies probably all had ugly parents)

Attractive is subjective yes, but surely it is almost cetainly affected by how the parents take care of the children anyway?

i.e. a child with nice clean hair, matching clothes and a tidy appearence is going to look more attractive than a child whose parent hasn't bothered.

So we could argue that the 'more attractive' children are the ones from parents who would take better care of them anyway.

Either way I think it is a silly piece of research and doesn't really mean anything. The researchers saw what they wanted to see. Whoe measured the attractiveness anyway? I think Brad Pitt is the most disturbing looking man I have ever seen. My friend thinks he is adonis. He would fall in different catagories of attractiveness if we were rating him.

My DC look like me. Obviously that means extremely attractive

I'd like to see the original research. And whether they've differentiated the results by the age of the children - clearly parents are more likely to let a 7yo walk further away than a 4yo. And were there differences between siblings?

I try not to hover over ds like one of those awful parents who won't let their child do anything without being told off. But I do think he's gorgeous.

Yikes! What ever happened to the phrase "A face only his/her mother could love" (i.e., insinuating that all parents thought their children were beautiful). Looks are subjective and open to emotional interpretation. I think my children are gorgeous not just because of their physical looks, but aspects of their personality which I find endearing. What does this (probably faulty) research say about the parental attachment to the child if one could discount all the lovely moments which cement a parent's bond with a child and focus simply on purely physical traits?

surley that just points out bad parenting?! the 'research' imo would only be viable if it were the same parents taking care of the 'attractive' and 'ugly' but even then as they wouldnt all be their children it would be a complete non starter ass they would obviously faviour their own children over other peoples childern.

and who gets to decide which child is 'attractive' and which child is 'ugly'? 10 point scale my arse [grr]

Thats bollocks.
The researchers judged the child's attractiveness (sp)
I bet each and every parent they 'observed' whould have said that they thought their child was gorgeous.

And people get paid to do this 'research'?
Get a proper job.

I wouldn't know, both my boys are exceptionally attractive - all other children resemble trolls in comparison.

What's the betting that a researcher would find the whiny tantrummy child in the supermarket less attractive? And that the whining tantrumming child would be the one most likely to be accompanied by a frazzled irritable mum who can't be arsed with the quality attention any more?

Hardly scientific is it - the researchers observing the behaviour and drawing the conclusions were also the people who judged attractiveness .

Lol at ugly kids being described as homely.

What a lot of nonsense.

horrible to even think of kids in terms of grading looks, imho.

I am the ugly minger amongst two beautiful sisters. I certainly felt less loved than my sisters to the extent my mum once said to me that she could not believe I was from her family as I was so ugly.

But agree that was poor parenting rather than average behaviour.

yeah I got similar from my dear mum wastwinset, nice to feel loved eh

my mum used to grade the girls in my class and actually snigger at the fact that I was so 'plain'....ghastly behaviour. Anything that panders to that kind of imposition of adult standards on kids is vile.

Don't all children look like their fathers ? So if they aren't beautiful you only have yourself to blame for shagging him in the first place.

I do think one of my children is significantly prettier than the others but the plainest child is the cleverest so they each have something to help them through life.