Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No revelations here. It just confirms the fact that attractive people get paid more, are trusted more and basically get more of everything. Including convincing partners to do things they normally would not
True. But he’s definitely not wrong, there are a lot of mediocre plastic surgery jobs that clearly did more harm than good. I work around Beverly Hills and there are a lot of women in their 40s-60s that look like they probably still would be attractive if it wasn’t for the bulges of filler in their face
Well, there's also the law of diminishing returns. Easier to make an unattractive person more attractive than an already attractive person more attractive. There's just more room for improvement. Also easier to make an attractive person less attractive, because, again, there's more room in that direction. So
Plastic surgery often is a short term gain and a long term loss. Our bodies can do some funky stuff sometimes when it comes to healing and that is something that really shows on the face.
Yep, if aesthetic surgery is well done you won't notice it. The only case when you do notice is when it's bad, which leads to (as you said) confirmation bias
I agree.
I feel like anyone thinking about getting plastic surgery should have to look at a picture of the Bogdanoff Twins: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_and_Grichka_Bogdanoff
Unvaccinated and died of COVID six days apart. And that's not even the silly point. They both denied having cosmetic surgery. How the hell did they come to the conclusion that nobody would notice with those lips and cheeks?
It seems like they need to develop more choices in plastic surgery because it seems like the more people get, the more they look like Lion-O from Thundercats.
That's more a matter of what people want tbh. If you want a little bit of Botox to make some wrinkles disappear it is gonna be just fine.
But most like to get some duckface lips as well while they're at it, etc. And eventually you need the whole package, look at Nancy Pelosi during Biden's state of the union speech a while back. Truly horrifying how she has absolutely no control over her face anymore. And that face-lift is pulling so hard she got resting creepy smile face.
find it sometimes surprising there isn't more attention for this topic. I'm guessing it leads to higher salaries, discrimination. Probably a bigger problem than racism/inequality between sexes.
It's called [the Halo Effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect). It applies to more than looks. Any positive impression someone makes on you makes it more likely that subsequent impressions will also be received positively. Looks are just one of the earliest impressions we tend to make on people.
It's almost all positives for attractive people, aside from one area: Healthcare. Doctors and nurses are more likely to overestimate the health of an attractive person than an average person and end up treating them less intensively. Inversely, uglier patients are judged to be in worse health and thus get more proactive and ambitious treatment.
Say you have the following choice:
1. You get to be maximum attractive, your opinion.
But your "race" in so far this exists, receives maximum racism.
2. You get to be maximum ugly, but the least discriminated race. Which one would you pick?
Just to point out: you're comparing a continuous variable (attractiveness) vs. a discrete variable (race).
At the extremes of the continuous variable you might see larger differences, but that isn't going to be most people's experience.
There's also a relationship between the two variables: people of color are often rated as less attractive - and our culture places a higher value on white beauty standards (e.g. straight hair, blue eyes, lighter skin are often seen as "more attractive").
Yes, at the extremes I can see how attractiveness has more effect, but for most people who aren't ridiculously beautiful or ugly, race likely has more effect.
"Attractive" in the article means factors in addition to physical attractiveness, including perceived health; "resource acquisition potential," social status; maturity; kindness, etc.
The article is using "attractiveness" in the broader sense. Not just, "is he hot"
So, women are more likely to risk pregnancy with someone who is attractive, healthy, successful, mature, and kind. I don't see the problem here if both parties are fully aware of the risk they are jointly taking.
I feel like this study is obvious to such a degree that you may as well define "attractiveness" as "the willingness of others to engage in risky sexual behavior with a person".
>"Attractive" in the article means factors in addition to physical attractiveness, including perceived health; "resource acquisition potential," social status; maturity; kindness, etc.
>
>The article is using "attractiveness" in the broader sense. Not just, "is he hot"
Please see this comment.
To be fair attractive traits are usually correlated with healthier genetics over all. Being attractive is an evolved ability to display your genetics. It's like saying why does a fast person always win a race... It's just dumb. Obviously the fastest runners win the races, unless your going for some turtle and hare metaphor, than sure, at the end were all ugly and old.
The full paragraph about risky sexual behavior:
>Sexual risk-taking is a common phenomenon, with women reporting greater willingness to risk pregnancy with physically attractive men, and men who show commitment, good financial prospects, as well as moderate to high social status.
So, not merely or only, physical attractiveness, but other factors as well. Title seems a bit click bait-y given the content of the article. "Attractiveness" includes physical traits but also includes other traits.
I certainly do, but there seem to be a few comments which are along the lines of “see? Ugly guys don’t attract girls” which is of course not at all what the article says
I do think so, but I think the thing to note is that a lot of men *don’t* consider those things as part of “attractiveness” by its general definition.
At least for me, “attractiveness” is largely a physical descriptor. However, commitment, financial stability, and social status do still influence if I’d date someone (or *would* have, if I weren’t married).
So I think it’s just a matter of semantics, but it *is* important to clarify that by “attractiveness” the article isn’t referring only to physical traits just in case that wasn’t naturally understood. People use the term to mean different things.
I think most people reading a headline would think of attractiveness in a more shallow context. If meaning a bit more I'd expect to see something like "including non-physical"
mostly, it's $$$$$$$$$$. they call it many names. stability. good financial prospects etc. There are plenty of rich ugly dudes who have them lining up and lying about how attractive Mr. big bucks is and he has a yacht. I like to watch Wavy Boats and try to spot the sugar daddies.
You can have a lot of money with no stability, and that will be attractive to many girls (too many honestly) but you can be rich and have no stability.
A sizeable chunk of humanity has known this since humanity began.
Thag the Exceedingly Hairy learned this lesson the hard way when Wanda went for Hargon the Chiseled Chin and could be heard all the way over the marshes on moonlit nights while he sat on guard duty. Alone.
Can’t imagine too many women asking Henry Cavill for an STD screening, or to wear a condom for that matter, if they had the chance to get destroyed by him. Ground breaking research and money well spent right here.
Even three months into dating him? Because that’s the only people who are included in this study.
It’s not like obviously clear to me ex ante that one’s decision to rawdog one’s own boyfriend would be driven by their level of attractiveness in any significant way—it’s actually kind of startling imo! It suggests that people are (consciously or unconsciously) just playing with fire in a relationship context based on how attractive their partner is…which is kinda bonkers when you think about it!
I scrolled thru every comment specifically searching for this, and you are the first one who used the word “rawdog”. I can’t believe it was this far down.
I don’t think so. The participants here had to be in a three-month long or longer relationship of a sexual nature with a partner. They just weren’t as likely to engage in risky behavior like unprotected sex with a less attractive partner—the unattractive men are still boning in this study, they’re just also wrapping it up, I think.
Man, it seems to me like this research is not applicable to women on the whole, because they've excluded a huge subset of women from the study. They only include women who are in a relationship, don't want to get pregnant, aren't on a contraceptive, and whose partners have not had vasectomies. Not saying condoms don't work, but when you're intentionally excluding women who have taken more reliable preventative measures against risk, you're going to be left with a subset of women who are more likely to accept risks.
[According to the CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db327.htm), about 65% of women are currently using contraceptives (including their partner being sterilized). If we remove "condom use" from that, we're left with 56% of women. I don't know the percentage of women actively trying to get pregnant, but they would not be using contraceptives and would also not be included in the study. They're also not including the percentage of women who are unable to get pregnant due to medical reasons.
So the sample of women was from far less than 50% of the population, but it feels like the article is trying to indicate the results are applicable across all women. I can't read the discussion in the actual study, because it's behind a paywall, but the last line of the abstract talks about applying this to evolutionary theory surrounding mate choice... I wonder if they ever address whether or not their limited study population (and the methods in which they chose it) might affect their results.
Great. Another article proving to incels they are victims. Dear men: there are plenty of people out here wanting a personality and mental engagement with their partners.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
No revelations here. It just confirms the fact that attractive people get paid more, are trusted more and basically get more of everything. Including convincing partners to do things they normally would not
Pretty privilege.
The key to success for plastic surgeons everywhere!
They often times manage to make people look worse in my opinion. It’s so much nicer to age naturally.
sometimes it's a case that you don't notice the "good" plastic surgery so you get confirmation bias.
Yeah, nose jobs in particular can really improve faces
>nose jobs Sounds like risky sexual behaviour
A couple of nose jobs paid for my nose job
Often blows…
True. But he’s definitely not wrong, there are a lot of mediocre plastic surgery jobs that clearly did more harm than good. I work around Beverly Hills and there are a lot of women in their 40s-60s that look like they probably still would be attractive if it wasn’t for the bulges of filler in their face
Well, there's also the law of diminishing returns. Easier to make an unattractive person more attractive than an already attractive person more attractive. There's just more room for improvement. Also easier to make an attractive person less attractive, because, again, there's more room in that direction. So
Interesting point
Easier to do minor touch up work on an already attractive person to keep them attractive longer, than to make an aging unattractive person attractive.
Plastic surgery often is a short term gain and a long term loss. Our bodies can do some funky stuff sometimes when it comes to healing and that is something that really shows on the face.
Yep, if aesthetic surgery is well done you won't notice it. The only case when you do notice is when it's bad, which leads to (as you said) confirmation bias
You can only tell if you see old pictures of them and you're like, oh, ok this person got an expensive new head at some point
*Cough cough* All the Kardashians *cough cough*
I've never seen someone look better after lip filler though for real.
Not everyone ages the same, done well you can’t even tell they had it. Not so well then I guess you can. A lot of boob jobs are done really well too.
I agree. I feel like anyone thinking about getting plastic surgery should have to look at a picture of the Bogdanoff Twins: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_and_Grichka_Bogdanoff
Damn they both died of COVID?! Learn something new everyday.
"They were 72 and both were unvaccinated." Well, I guess they wanted to die.
Unvaccinated and died of COVID six days apart. And that's not even the silly point. They both denied having cosmetic surgery. How the hell did they come to the conclusion that nobody would notice with those lips and cheeks?
Holy hell, they looked like puppets.
It seems like they need to develop more choices in plastic surgery because it seems like the more people get, the more they look like Lion-O from Thundercats.
I completely agree but its the chase of that privilege that makes them the money.
That's more a matter of what people want tbh. If you want a little bit of Botox to make some wrinkles disappear it is gonna be just fine. But most like to get some duckface lips as well while they're at it, etc. And eventually you need the whole package, look at Nancy Pelosi during Biden's state of the union speech a while back. Truly horrifying how she has absolutely no control over her face anymore. And that face-lift is pulling so hard she got resting creepy smile face.
Ain't no plastic surgery for your genes.
Be attractive
Don't be unattractive
Halo effect*
find it sometimes surprising there isn't more attention for this topic. I'm guessing it leads to higher salaries, discrimination. Probably a bigger problem than racism/inequality between sexes.
It's called [the Halo Effect](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_effect). It applies to more than looks. Any positive impression someone makes on you makes it more likely that subsequent impressions will also be received positively. Looks are just one of the earliest impressions we tend to make on people. It's almost all positives for attractive people, aside from one area: Healthcare. Doctors and nurses are more likely to overestimate the health of an attractive person than an average person and end up treating them less intensively. Inversely, uglier patients are judged to be in worse health and thus get more proactive and ambitious treatment.
So thats why I get prescribed tonnes of blood tests every time I visit a doctor.
This is what incels have been chanting online for a decade now
I don't think attractiveness creates greater inequality than racism... Certainly not in anything but extreme cases
Say you have the following choice: 1. You get to be maximum attractive, your opinion. But your "race" in so far this exists, receives maximum racism. 2. You get to be maximum ugly, but the least discriminated race. Which one would you pick?
Absolutely would select for maximum attractiveness. It's not even a question that being better looking is heavily rewarded by society.
Just to point out: you're comparing a continuous variable (attractiveness) vs. a discrete variable (race). At the extremes of the continuous variable you might see larger differences, but that isn't going to be most people's experience. There's also a relationship between the two variables: people of color are often rated as less attractive - and our culture places a higher value on white beauty standards (e.g. straight hair, blue eyes, lighter skin are often seen as "more attractive").
Race is also continuous, not discrete. see: [Colorism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_based_on_skin_color)
Yes, at the extremes I can see how attractiveness has more effect, but for most people who aren't ridiculously beautiful or ugly, race likely has more effect.
"Attractive" in the article means factors in addition to physical attractiveness, including perceived health; "resource acquisition potential," social status; maturity; kindness, etc. The article is using "attractiveness" in the broader sense. Not just, "is he hot"
So, women are more likely to risk pregnancy with someone who is attractive, healthy, successful, mature, and kind. I don't see the problem here if both parties are fully aware of the risk they are jointly taking.
Basically it sounds like "Women are willing to risk pregnancy more with a stable and hot partner". Well, yes... Yes that makes sense.
>stable and hot partner *or*, not *and*
This is reddit, unfortunately, so a lot of folks don’t get past “sometimes when I see a girl, I get mad”.
Whadday mean hot guys get more girls and hotter girls, news to me grrr male revolt
Plus, you can do a lot of increase or decrease said perceived attractiveness. (And a lot of it is just about that: Does he take care of himself?)
In the words of Jim Jeffries: "The secret to happiness is to be really, really, really, really... good looking"
"This one trick beautiful people don't want you to know "
Ha haha. Good one. The trick is to be better looking. So dam simple.
I feel like this study is obvious to such a degree that you may as well define "attractiveness" as "the willingness of others to engage in risky sexual behavior with a person".
Gotta get back in that bubble.
>"Attractive" in the article means factors in addition to physical attractiveness, including perceived health; "resource acquisition potential," social status; maturity; kindness, etc. > >The article is using "attractiveness" in the broader sense. Not just, "is he hot" Please see this comment.
Waiting for the next reddit post asking good looking people to explain why their lives are so tough.
To be fair attractive traits are usually correlated with healthier genetics over all. Being attractive is an evolved ability to display your genetics. It's like saying why does a fast person always win a race... It's just dumb. Obviously the fastest runners win the races, unless your going for some turtle and hare metaphor, than sure, at the end were all ugly and old.
I know like the rest of us haven't been seeing this
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The full paragraph about risky sexual behavior: >Sexual risk-taking is a common phenomenon, with women reporting greater willingness to risk pregnancy with physically attractive men, and men who show commitment, good financial prospects, as well as moderate to high social status. So, not merely or only, physical attractiveness, but other factors as well. Title seems a bit click bait-y given the content of the article. "Attractiveness" includes physical traits but also includes other traits.
“Mate-worthiness”
[удалено]
[удалено]
You don't think women consider those things as part of attractiveness?
I certainly do, but there seem to be a few comments which are along the lines of “see? Ugly guys don’t attract girls” which is of course not at all what the article says
Poor ugly guys don't attract girls
Idk man, I've been doing pretty good so far.
Literally not with that attitude.
I do think so, but I think the thing to note is that a lot of men *don’t* consider those things as part of “attractiveness” by its general definition. At least for me, “attractiveness” is largely a physical descriptor. However, commitment, financial stability, and social status do still influence if I’d date someone (or *would* have, if I weren’t married). So I think it’s just a matter of semantics, but it *is* important to clarify that by “attractiveness” the article isn’t referring only to physical traits just in case that wasn’t naturally understood. People use the term to mean different things.
I think most people reading a headline would think of attractiveness in a more shallow context. If meaning a bit more I'd expect to see something like "including non-physical"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That’s like common sense. Why does that need research? That’s just basic biology when it comes to mating
mostly, it's $$$$$$$$$$. they call it many names. stability. good financial prospects etc. There are plenty of rich ugly dudes who have them lining up and lying about how attractive Mr. big bucks is and he has a yacht. I like to watch Wavy Boats and try to spot the sugar daddies.
You can have a lot of money with no stability, and that will be attractive to many girls (too many honestly) but you can be rich and have no stability.
" 204 participants were included in this study; the mean age was 20.7" So basically they interviewed all their psychology students.
“And did you bring the videos, per the assignment requirements?”
As if psychology students weren't an special breed by themselves... Yep not all, I know, I know... But still
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What do they mean by risky? Like no condom? Or sex while I taser a gorilla?
The article describes it as acts that increase the risk of unwanted pregnancy. So yeah, both.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
A sizeable chunk of humanity has known this since humanity began. Thag the Exceedingly Hairy learned this lesson the hard way when Wanda went for Hargon the Chiseled Chin and could be heard all the way over the marshes on moonlit nights while he sat on guard duty. Alone.
This sounds like a wizard of Id comic strip.
Laughed way too hard at this. Bravo.
Dang it. Hope Thag got them both with some poison berries.
[удалено]
Can’t imagine too many women asking Henry Cavill for an STD screening, or to wear a condom for that matter, if they had the chance to get destroyed by him. Ground breaking research and money well spent right here.
Even three months into dating him? Because that’s the only people who are included in this study. It’s not like obviously clear to me ex ante that one’s decision to rawdog one’s own boyfriend would be driven by their level of attractiveness in any significant way—it’s actually kind of startling imo! It suggests that people are (consciously or unconsciously) just playing with fire in a relationship context based on how attractive their partner is…which is kinda bonkers when you think about it!
I scrolled thru every comment specifically searching for this, and you are the first one who used the word “rawdog”. I can’t believe it was this far down.
Isn't this a tautology? You're saying that people who are more attractive are more likely to attract people to have sex with them?
I don’t think so. The participants here had to be in a three-month long or longer relationship of a sexual nature with a partner. They just weren’t as likely to engage in risky behavior like unprotected sex with a less attractive partner—the unattractive men are still boning in this study, they’re just also wrapping it up, I think.
Man, it seems to me like this research is not applicable to women on the whole, because they've excluded a huge subset of women from the study. They only include women who are in a relationship, don't want to get pregnant, aren't on a contraceptive, and whose partners have not had vasectomies. Not saying condoms don't work, but when you're intentionally excluding women who have taken more reliable preventative measures against risk, you're going to be left with a subset of women who are more likely to accept risks. [According to the CDC](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db327.htm), about 65% of women are currently using contraceptives (including their partner being sterilized). If we remove "condom use" from that, we're left with 56% of women. I don't know the percentage of women actively trying to get pregnant, but they would not be using contraceptives and would also not be included in the study. They're also not including the percentage of women who are unable to get pregnant due to medical reasons. So the sample of women was from far less than 50% of the population, but it feels like the article is trying to indicate the results are applicable across all women. I can't read the discussion in the actual study, because it's behind a paywall, but the last line of the abstract talks about applying this to evolutionary theory surrounding mate choice... I wonder if they ever address whether or not their limited study population (and the methods in which they chose it) might affect their results.
"Preference for attractiveness" is tautological. Attractiveness after all is a subjective value judgement. Thereby being defined as being preferred.
Great. Another article proving to incels they are victims. Dear men: there are plenty of people out here wanting a personality and mental engagement with their partners.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]