Pulchritude Privilege

 

Have you ever noticed that when you’re making your way down the aisle on your way to your seat in coach, the passengers in first class seem to be more attractive than you are?  (On a recent trip to Paris, I took the photo below of the guy sitting next to me, fairly typical of the people in coach.)

What’s the deal?  What are all of these attractive people doing in first class?  Perhaps it’s a vanity thing.  Maybe attractive people like to watch, and be envied by, the plebes who wrestle with their bags on their way to the back of the plane.

Nah, that’s not it.  After doing a bit of research, here’s what I found:  Attractive people make more money than the rest of us, so they apparently spend some of their discretionary income to ride in first class.

Pulchritude privilege!

A researcher for Smithsonian Magazine found that handsome men earn 13% more than unattractive ones.  In fact, the income gap between attractive and unattractive people, according to Smithsonian, is comparable to the gap between genders or ethnicities.

Pulchritude privilege!

Even a cursory search on Google reveals a plethora of studies that show that attractive people have a distinct and unfair advantage over unattractive people.  They are happier, more self-confident, and have more friends.

Pulchritude privilege!

They’re even smarter. According to a study done in the United Kingdom, attractive people have IQ’s, on average, that are 12.4 points higher than unattractive people. (That’s kinda weird, isn’t it?)

Pulchritude, etc.

I’ve long thought that physical attractiveness is the most powerful advantage one can have.  White privilege?  That’s so last month.  This month, if you’re going to remain au courant, you need to accuse handsome people of flaunting their pulchritude privilege.  Tell them — now where have I heard this? — to check their privilege at the door.

So how does one decide who is attractive and who is not?  The easiest way is to show photos of random people to a wide range of viewers.  Let these viewers sort them out by asking them who is attractive.

Some aestheticians argue that attractive people project the appearance of health.  That is, they have symmetrical features, clear skin, lucid eyes, and straight teeth.

Finally, according to the golden ratio (1.62), an ancient measurement of beauty, the ideal face is roughly 1 1/2 times longer than it is wide.  And that ideal face also evidences equal distances from the forehead hairline to a spot between the eyes, from there to the bottom of the nose, and from there to the bottom of the chin.  These golden ratios apparently cross-racial categories. (If you’re dissatisfied with this paragraph on the golden ratio, you have every right to be.  I didn’t receive a math privilege like you uppity STEM majors out there who passed algebra in high school.)

Of course, there are other privileges that come with us when we are born.  There is, for instance, the fast-twitch-muscle-fibers privilege (think Usain Bolt), the perfect-musical-pitch privilege (think Mozart), the body-spatial-awareness privilege  (think Simone Biles), and so on.

I’ve always thought that the pleasant-face privilege would be very nice to have.  This is the privilege of people who have a face that isn’t particularly handsome but has a pleasant and inviting appearance, i.e., has bright open eyes, perhaps a perky nose, and a mouth that curls slightly upward at its ends.  People just naturally take a shine to those with the pleasant-face privilege.

In case you’re wondering, I was pretty much left out of everything except white privilege when they handed out privileges. I’m slow of foot, not particularly well-coordinated, one eyelid is lower than the other, and I have the flushed complexion of my Irish/Scottish forebears. (All of this when I was a younger man.  Now I’m just old.)

I only possess one privilege for certain. I can sing Yankee Doodle Dandy while patting my belly and rubbing a circle on the top of my head. Do you scoff? Try it yourself.

Postscript:  If you’re attractive, I’d rather not hear about it.  But if you’re as ugly as sin, come sit right here next to me and tell me about it.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 98 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    KentForrester:

    Even a cursory search on Google reveals a plethora of studies that show that attractive people have a distinct and unfair advantage over unattractive people. They are happier, more self-confident, and have more friends.

    Pulchritude privilege!

    But why is it unfair?

    Because they had nothing to do with their beauty, yet they have a lifelong advantage over the rest of us.

    Same is true of intelligence. Is it unfair that smarter people do better in life than dumber people?

     

    Miffed, yes it is unfair. In fact, it’s the very essence of unfairness when one is given an advantage that he did nothing to deserve.

    Let me tell you about these little things called “Life” and “Reality”.

     

    I don’t understand what you’re getting at, Miffed. Perhaps if you tell me more about “these little things called ‘Life” and “Reality” I’ll understand better. I’m serious. Tell me what y9u think.

    Some people are smarter, some are dumber.  Some are better looking, some are uglier.  Life don’t care about “fair”.  That’s reality.

     

    • #61
  2. KentForrester Coolidge
    KentForrester
    @KentForrester

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    KentForrester:

    Even a cursory search on Google reveals a plethora of studies that show that attractive people have a distinct and unfair advantage over unattractive people. They are happier, more self-confident, and have more friends.

    Pulchritude privilege!

    But why is it unfair?

    Because they had nothing to do with their beauty, yet they have a lifelong advantage over the rest of us.

    Same is true of intelligence. Is it unfair that smarter people do better in life than dumber people?

     

    Miffed, yes it is unfair. In fact, it’s the very essence of unfairness when one is given an advantage that he did nothing to deserve.

    Let me tell you about these little things called “Life” and “Reality”.

     

    I don’t understand what you’re getting at, Miffed. Perhaps if you tell me more about “these little things called ‘Life” and “Reality” I’ll understand better. I’m serious. Tell me what y9u think.

    Some people are smarter, some are dumber. Some are better looking, some are uglier. Life don’t care about “fair”. That’s reality.

     

    Miffed, you’re right.  It is reality.  It is unfair.  So perhaps we’re closer than we thought. 

    • #62
  3. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    Well, the really rich people don’t fly first class, they take their own planes or use NetJets. And more recently they’re taking their own rockets for joy rides. And Bezos attractive? Seriously?

     

    • #63
  4. Victor Grant 1865 Coolidge
    Victor Grant 1865
    @VictorGrant1865

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Reward miles are a great leveler. With the right amount of points, every schlub in the world, myself included, can fly first class. I have an AC/DC band shirt specifically devoted to first-class travel so I can impress everyone with my sense of style.

    Hoyacon, I’m too cheap to fly first class and I don’t fly enough to accumulate enough points.

    But about ten years ago, Marie and I were bumped up to first class. Man, did we feel like swells. The stewardesses treated us like kings. Ever since then, I have envied the first class passengers as I walk by on my way to coach.

     

    When I traveled with some frequency about 20 – 10 years ago, sometimes the weird pricing of airline tickets made a first class ticket a not-very-expensive choice (after factoring in that a first class ticket included checked baggage and meals not included with a coach ticket, and first class provided space to do actual work on the plane).

    It was perversely fun during loading to sit there enjoying my included pre-flight glass of orange juice or of wine (depending on time of day) while the coach passengers shuffled by.

    Day Drinking - Imgflip

    • #64
  5. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    All attractive people need to be surgically altered to make them way less attractive. It’s called appearance equity. For more detailed information, search: Critical Looks Theory. Here’s wishing the worst of luck to everyone…it’s only equitable.

    I kinda like this as a suggestion to make to people advocating “equity.” Or at least require movies and television shows to hire more ugly actors for leading roles. We could set up an appearance scale alongside our race category so we can divide people on both race and appearance, and require companies to hire a predetermined number of ugly people.

    Was Leslie Howard or Humphrey Bogart good-looking?  Or Claude Rains?  I think the homogenization of looks on screen is a detriment.  I say hire for talent, as opposed to generic good looks.

    • #65
  6. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    There’s a good reason my avatar picture is from when I was 1.5 years old. It’s the best I’ve ever looked. However, I did marry a guy who is much better-looking than I am. I call him my “trophy husband”.

    Since 2014, we have flown first class whenever we fly. The premium is not that much for domestic flights, and the perks make it worth every penny. Boarding first, free checked bag, food, drinks, attentive service, bigger seats and more overhead storage space. And if you want to get up, you only have to climb over one person.

    In grad school, I worked with the psychology researchers who did the seminal research on interpersonal attraction. Kent is right on the money describing the characteristics of attractiveness. Attractive people tend to have better genes; all the better to pass them on to offspring.

    And juries like them better, so they have more legal leeway.

    • #66
  7. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    mildlyo (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    I’ve always thought “pulchritude” should win some kind of prize as the ugliest way to say “pretty.”

    And there I always thought pulchritude was a synonym for “stacked”. Didn’t think it applied to men.

    I think the definition of pulchritudinous is not just stacked, but curvaceousbodacious, and built like a brick house.  For men, handsome, lean, and long of limb.

    • #67
  8. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Flicker (View Comment):
    built like a brick house

    Not just any brick house. 

    • #68
  9. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    All attractive people need to be surgically altered to make them way less attractive. It’s called appearance equity. For more detailed information, search: Critical Looks Theory. Here’s wishing the worst of luck to everyone…it’s only equitable.

    I kinda like this as a suggestion to make to people advocating “equity.” Or at least require movies and television shows to hire more ugly actors for leading roles. We could set up an appearance scale alongside our race category so we can divide people on both race and appearance, and require companies to hire a predetermined number of ugly people.

    Was Leslie Howard or Humphrey Bogart good-looking? Or Claude Rains? I think the homogenization of looks on screen is a detriment. I say hire for talent, as opposed to generic good looks.

    Bogart was definitely good looking. 

    • #69
  10. She Member
    She
    @She

    Hm.  I’m of the opinion that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  And that much of it has to do with character, honesty and a straight and level gaze when looking at the world.  It’s possible for a rather ordinary-looking (in conventional terms) person to appear much more “attractive” than he or she might otherwise be, by playing to one’s strengths and by maintaining internal and external consistency between character and looks.  In most cases, a sweet womanly,  or appropriately manly, disposition will carry the day, as long as both, in the end, are kind and thoughtful.

    Checklists for pulchritudinousness, requirements for hotness, and guidelines for what constitutes beauty or handsomeness are handmaidens of the  commercial cosmetic industry–all the way from highly-paid surgeons to the stars, down to the underpaid and possibly exploited immigrant at the local Asian spa–and have led untold millions to  obsessive and destructive acts, financial hardship, and psychological torment in the pursuit of the ideal.  Phooey on all of that, I say.

    I can speak to this only from the female perspective.  Lots of young women go through a stage in their lives when they’re considered somewhat pulchritudinous, and I guess I’m no exception to that.  (Trust me, as one ages, and as gravity, life, heartache, arthritis, and an appreciation of the finer things take hold, the “internals” of character and disposition begin to far outweigh the “externals” of “stacked” and “bodacious.”  But, in my experience at least, that doesn’t matter to men of good character, and it shouldn’t matter to women either.)  What I know about myself is that I’ve always taken far less offense at compliments on my physical appearance–because it is what it is, and I didn’t have much to do with how I was born, and I haven’t manipulated it at all–than I have at disparaging remarks about my intelligence, understanding, or ability to follow a logical flow of events or conversation.

    One is a remark about a fact of life I didn’t manipulate to my advantage, and really can’t take any credit for–so, just “thanks for the kind compliment; you’re lovely too,”–and the other is a deliberate smack at something I’ve worked and studied hard to develop a body (so to speak) of knowledge in, so that I can think and speak credibly about it.  When you insult my hard work in that regard, you have a fight on your hands.

    • #70
  11. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    All attractive people need to be surgically altered to make them way less attractive. It’s called appearance equity. For more detailed information, search: Critical Looks Theory. Here’s wishing the worst of luck to everyone…it’s only equitable.

    I kinda like this as a suggestion to make to people advocating “equity.” Or at least require movies and television shows to hire more ugly actors for leading roles. We could set up an appearance scale alongside our race category so we can divide people on both race and appearance, and require companies to hire a predetermined number of ugly people.

    Was Leslie Howard or Humphrey Bogart good-looking? Or Claude Rains? I think the homogenization of looks on screen is a detriment. I say hire for talent, as opposed to generic good looks.

    Bogart was definitely good looking.

    To you maybe.  He was certainly as good looking to Lauren Bacall as Johnny Galecki was to Kaley Cuoco.

    • #71
  12. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    All attractive people need to be surgically altered to make them way less attractive. It’s called appearance equity. For more detailed information, search: Critical Looks Theory. Here’s wishing the worst of luck to everyone…it’s only equitable.

    I kinda like this as a suggestion to make to people advocating “equity.” Or at least require movies and television shows to hire more ugly actors for leading roles. We could set up an appearance scale alongside our race category so we can divide people on both race and appearance, and require companies to hire a predetermined number of ugly people.

    Was Leslie Howard or Humphrey Bogart good-looking? Or Claude Rains? I think the homogenization of looks on screen is a detriment. I say hire for talent, as opposed to generic good looks.

    Bogart was definitely good looking.

    To you maybe. He was certainly as good looking to Lauren Bacall as Johnny Galecki was to Kaley Cuoco.

    I don’t know any of these names.

    • #72
  13. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    KentForrester:

    Postscript:  If you’re attractive, I’d rather not hear about it.  But if you’re as ugly as sin, come sit right here next to me and tell me about it.

    I think the greatest advantage is whether or not you are genetically predisposed towards happiness. 

    • #73
  14. She Member
    She
    @She

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    KentForrester:

    Postscript: If you’re attractive, I’d rather not hear about it. But if you’re as ugly as sin, come sit right here next to me and tell me about it.

    I think the greatest advantage is whether or not you are genetically predisposed towards happiness.

    Happiness, or even just contentment.

    • #74
  15. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    KentForrester:

    Postscript: If you’re attractive, I’d rather not hear about it. But if you’re as ugly as sin, come sit right here next to me and tell me about it.

    I think the greatest advantage is whether or not you are genetically predisposed towards happiness.

    Maybe there is a base happiness rate in the same sense that there is a base metabolic rate. 

    • #75
  16. KentForrester Coolidge
    KentForrester
    @KentForrester

    Here is what @She said: “One is a remark about a fact of life I didn’t manipulate to my advantage, and really can’t take any credit for–so, just “thanks for the kind compliment; you’re lovely too,”–and the other is a deliberate smack at something I’ve worked and studied hard to develop a body (so to speak) of knowledge in, so that I can think and speak credibly about it. When you insult my hard work in that regard, you have a fight on your hands.”

    @She, well, put up y0ur dukes, then.

    Just kidding.  I agree with almost everything you say.  It’s always been the natural girl for me. Models, skinny girls, heavily made-up women, show-offy girls with hair all over the place, surgically-enhanced busts and butts — all of these leave me cold.

    After a breast cancer lumpectomy, Marie was left with an weirdly drooping nipple and a small depression in her breast.  The guy who did the surgery was insistent that Marie have cosmetic surgery to return the breast to a state of beauty.  He was almost obnoxious about it. “You don’t want to go the rest of your life like that,” he said.   Both of us — but Marie in particular — told the guy to take his scalpels and filler elsewhere.

    The upside:  We both have had many chuckles through the years at Marie’s lopsided nipple.  Laughs always make life better.  Besides, I think it makes Marie special.  It’s also a reminder — a kind of badge of courage  — that she survived a fairly serious bout of cancer.  So it’s all good.

    All of that was about fifteen years ago. We were both fairly old at the time.  We may have thought differently if we had been young. Though I don’t think so.

    I don’t think I’m going to show Marie my response here.  She and I may laugh about it as we luxuriate in our hot tub, but mums the word if you ever come across Marie on the street.

    • #76
  17. KentForrester Coolidge
    KentForrester
    @KentForrester

    Never mind.

    • #77
  18. She Member
    She
    @She

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    After a breast cancer lumpectomy, Marie was left with an weirdly drooping nipple and a small depression in her breast.  The guy who did the surgery was insistent that Marie have cosmetic surgery to return the breast to a state of beauty.  He was almost obnoxious about it. “You don’t want to go the rest of your life like that,” he said.   Both of us — but Marie in particular — told the guy to take his scalpels and filler elsewhere. 

    Bravo!  Both of you.  And “Marie in particular.”  As for “the guy who did the surgery,” he’s a jackass for not listening.

    The upside:  We both have had many chuckles through the years at Marie’s lopsided nipple.  Laughs always make life better.  Besides, I think it makes Marie special.  It’s also a reminder — a kind of badge of courage  — that she survived a fairly serious bout of cancer.  So it’s all good.

    Yes.  Chuckles about physical imperfections, weirdnesses, imbalances, the consequences of illness and aging, are special between couples and very close friends. And the fact that you shared this means a lot.

    All of that was about fifteen years ago. We were both fairly old at the time.  We may have thought differently if we had been young. Though I don’t think so.

    Bravo! (Again.)

    I don’t think I’m going to show Marie my response here.  She and I may laugh about it as we luxuriate in our hot tub, but mums the word if you ever come across Marie on the street. 

    Solid that.

     

    • #78
  19. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Django (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    KentForrester:

    Postscript: If you’re attractive, I’d rather not hear about it. But if you’re as ugly as sin, come sit right here next to me and tell me about it.

    I think the greatest advantage is whether or not you are genetically predisposed towards happiness.

    Maybe there is a base happiness rate in the same sense that there is a base metabolic rate.

    Pretty much. That’s the conclusion of people who are knowledgeable about genetics and psychometrics. 

    • #79
  20. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    All attractive people need to be surgically altered to make them way less attractive. It’s called appearance equity. For more detailed information, search: Critical Looks Theory. Here’s wishing the worst of luck to everyone…it’s only equitable.

    I kinda like this as a suggestion to make to people advocating “equity.” Or at least require movies and television shows to hire more ugly actors for leading roles. We could set up an appearance scale alongside our race category so we can divide people on both race and appearance, and require companies to hire a predetermined number of ugly people.

    Was Leslie Howard or Humphrey Bogart good-looking? Or Claude Rains? I think the homogenization of looks on screen is a detriment. I say hire for talent, as opposed to generic good looks.

    Bogart was definitely good looking.

    To you maybe. He was certainly as good looking to Lauren Bacall as Johnny Galecki was to Kaley Cuoco.

    I don’t know any of these names.

    Lauren Bacall as a teenager starred in her first major role with Bogie as his love interest in Key Largo.  They dated and then married.  Kaley Cuoco as a teenager starred in her first major role played Johnny Galecki’s hot love interest in Big Bang Theory, and during the first season or two of the show they dated and were a couple.

    • #80
  21. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    To you maybe. He was certainly as good looking to Lauren Bacall as Johnny Galecki was to Kaley Cuoco.

    I don’t know any of these names.

    You don’t know Lauren Bacall?

    • #81
  22. Jim Beck Inactive
    Jim Beck
    @JimBeck

    The study of the superficial aspects of sexual attraction in humans, came from studies which focused on bird and mammal sexual attraction.  Studies about human facial aesthetics, and others parts of human sexual attraction have been published for 40 plus years.  Why does one animal choose to mate with another?  Part of the answer is linked to differential mating strategies.  Both female birds and female mammals make greater investment in child production and rearing than males.  So they want a mate that is likely to produce a healthy offspring.  Females use visual cues, noting all the surface characteristics, they use behavior characteristics, sound, and smell.  We, like all mammals, are judging the sexual attracton of all other humans all of the time.  We do this, mostly, without thinking.  We are oblivious to this, for example,  think of our presidents, in the last 100 years none of our presidents are 5’5’ or less, or are bald, or are 300 pounds, or have a disfigured face (even a birth mark).  Think of the number of women married to men 5’ shorter than they are.  We are doing this all the time,  We comb our hair, and wear makeup and shave our entire face, or parts of our face to present an attractive public appearance. 

    It is true that across the world there are differ ways of expressing public fashion, from piercings, to coloring, to hair treatment, to clothing.  However in facial aesthetics, if we take a stack of pictures of human faces around the world and ask all different populations to sort them from the least attractive to the most attractive, all groups sort human faces in the same way.  So we can identify the characteristics which shape attractiveness.

    Our theology tells us that we should not be fooled by our eyes, we should note the character and ethics of those we associate with.  However, we should know that we are, like all mammals, influenced by our wiring.  Our judgments about others are shaped by visual attributes.  There are thousands of papers on this subject, one could start with the work of Judith H. Langlois, and Randy Thornhill who wrote in the 90’s and spend days examining the past and current research.

    • #82
  23. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):

    cdor (View Comment):

    All attractive people need to be surgically altered to make them way less attractive. It’s called appearance equity. For more detailed information, search: Critical Looks Theory. Here’s wishing the worst of luck to everyone…it’s only equitable.

    I kinda like this as a suggestion to make to people advocating “equity.” Or at least require movies and television shows to hire more ugly actors for leading roles. We could set up an appearance scale alongside our race category so we can divide people on both race and appearance, and require companies to hire a predetermined number of ugly people.

    Was Leslie Howard or Humphrey Bogart good-looking? Or Claude Rains? I think the homogenization of looks on screen is a detriment. I say hire for talent, as opposed to generic good looks.

    What!!! Are you crazy?????

    • #83
  24. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Jim Beck (View Comment):

    The study of the superficial aspects of sexual attraction in humans, came from studies which focused on bird and mammal sexual attraction. Studies about human facial aesthetics, and others parts of human sexual attraction have been published for 40 plus years. Why does one animal choose to mate with another? Part of the answer is linked to differential mating strategies. Both female birds and female mammals make greater investment in child production and rearing than males. So they want a mate that is likely to produce a healthy offspring. Females use visual cues, noting all the surface characteristics, they use behavior characteristics, sound, and smell. We, like all mammals, are judging the sexual attracton of all other humans all of the time. We do this, mostly, without thinking. We are oblivious to this, for example, think of our presidents, in the last 100 years none of our presidents are 5’5’ or less, or are bald, or are 300 pounds, or have a disfigured face (even a birth mark). Think of the number of women married to men 5’ shorter than they are. We are doing this all the time, We comb our hair, and wear makeup and shave our entire face, or parts of our face to present an attractive public appearance.

    It is true that across the world there are differ ways of expressing public fashion, from piercings, to coloring, to hair treatment, to clothing. However in facial aesthetics, if we take a stack of pictures of human faces around the world and ask all different populations to sort them from the least attractive to the most attractive, all groups sort human faces in the same way. So we can identify the characteristics which shape attractiveness.

    Our theology tells us that we should not be fooled by our eyes, we should note the character and ethics of those we associate with. However, we should know that we are, like all mammals, influenced by our wiring. Our judgments about others are shaped by visual attributes. There are thousands of papers on this subject, one could start with the work of Judith H. Langlois, and Randy Thornhill who wrote in the 90’s and spend days examining the past and current research.

    How much shorter are the men?

    • #84
  25. Jim Beck Inactive
    Jim Beck
    @JimBeck

    Afternoon Dave,

    As a demonstration question, I asked, how many couples do we know where the woman is 5” taller than the man?  The largest example of this is seen in the number of Black men who have married women from China, Japan, of women from the Pacific Rim, versus the number of Black women who marry men from the same countries.  When everything is held similar the differential is large.

    • #85
  26. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    In my youth, I didn’t have any illusions about my attractiveness.  I wasn’t.  In college, I’d go out drinking with girlfriends at a club, and everyone would get asked to dance, except me.  I did notice, however, that if a guy talked to me on the phone first, he would usually be interested once we met in person.

    • #86
  27. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    Jim Beck (View Comment):

    Afternoon Dave,

    As a demonstration question, I asked, how many couples do we know where the woman is 5” taller than the man? The largest example of this is seen in the number of Black men who have married women from China, Japan, of women from the Pacific Rim, versus the number of Black women who marry men from the same countries. When everything is held similar the differential is large.

    Obviously I need to give this more thought.  A quick response.  In my limited experience, Dutch women seem to be the tallest.  After several trips to China spread out over a decade, I noticed how tall the Chinese have become.  

    • #87
  28. Graham Witt Coolidge
    Graham Witt
    @hoowitts

    Jim Beck (View Comment):
    However in facial aesthetics, if we take a stack of pictures of human faces around the world and ask all different populations to sort them from the least attractive to the most attractive, all groups sort human faces in the same way.  So we can identify the characteristics which shape attractiveness.

    This is quite intriguing and I must admit, strains credulity. Given such broad spectrums of ethnic cultures, Mongols, Somalis, Nordic, Pacific Islanders, Eurocentric just to name only a few, idealized beauty and forms in each of these ethnicities are so distinctive and frequently self-describe as superior to others. It even seems to intensify within regions that share many traits: Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Thais have historically expressed contempt for the others idealized attractiveness. Not singling out the Far East as this phenomenon can be found throughout the world, even USA: California girls, southern girls, mid-west farmer’s daughters, northern girls ~thanks Beach Boys!

    I am genuinely curious Jim, is there literature or studies available to validate this? I just might be looking to start a new “make you more beautiful” enterprise with these features ;-)

    • #88
  29. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Graham Witt (View Comment):

    Jim Beck (View Comment):
    However in facial aesthetics, if we take a stack of pictures of human faces around the world and ask all different populations to sort them from the least attractive to the most attractive, all groups sort human faces in the same way. So we can identify the characteristics which shape attractiveness.

    This is quite intriguing and I must admit, strains credulity. Given such broad spectrums of ethnic cultures, Mongols, Somalis, Nordic, Pacific Islanders, Eurocentric just to name only a few, idealized beauty and forms in each of these ethnicities are so distinctive and frequently self-describe as superior to others. It even seems to intensify within regions that share many traits: Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Thais have historically expressed contempt for the others idealized attractiveness. Not singling out the Far East as this phenomenon can be found throughout the world, even USA: California girls, southern girls, mid-west farmer’s daughters, northern girls ~thanks Beach Boys!

    I am genuinely curious Jim, is there literature or studies available to validate this? I just might be looking to start a new “make you more beautiful” enterprise with these features ;-)

    I once saw a composite face of all the various aesthetics from around the world combined into one face.  As I recall, she looked like a cute, but womanly, light-haired surfer girl.  Sort of like a young Christie Brinkley.

    • #89
  30. Jim Beck Inactive
    Jim Beck
    @JimBeck

    Evening Graham,

       The last 25 years I worked in the Medical Illustration dept at IU med school.  Every two years we had an art class for plastic surgery residents, and in the class we reviewed the current research on facial aesthetics and also breast aug and liposuction.  To your first question, do all cultures rate facial beauty the same, yes, even if the folks making the evaluation have never see some of the races of these faces.  One used to go to Google Scholar and type in Facial Aesthetics,  under that category one could review all the studies concerning what makes a beautiful face.  There are several photoshop programs designed specifically for facial plastic surgeons.  These programs allow photographers to show the patients what their face will look after surgery.  First, the pt has their face photographed pre surgery to document the starting point (post surgery pts often forget how they looked when they started), also this is part of legal defensive work.  Then the photographer shows the pt what their face will look like post surgery, this image will be less attractive than the pt will actually look like post surgery.  The programs are designed to mirror image one half of a face to the other allowing the pt to see how their faces would look if it were more symmetrical. Lastly the pt is photographed in the same studio with the same lighting after the surgery has healed.

     The research has produced so many curious facts.  For example, plastic surgeons with symmetrical faces make more than surgeons with asymmetrical faces, unfortunately there is not correlation between symmetrical faces and surgical skill or the ability to visualize three dimensionally.  Also, as many folks have heard, women who are in the fertile phase of their cycle prefer men with more pronounced secondary sexual characteristics, like Harrison Ford, and when they are in their less fertile phase they prefer more feminized male faces, like Leonardo DiCaprio’s.   

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.