|
|
|
|
|||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
05-04-2003, 04:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Lookism: Should beautiful people get more breaks because they beautify the world?
A little while back 20/20 did a piece on lookism, the differential treatment that people get based on their looks. While it was not the first time that I've seen such stuff on the telly, it was one of the better done pieces that I've seen on it.
Basically, people who are more attractive get more breaks. This is, of course, unfair. Or is it? Attractive people make the world a nicer place to be in. When I see beautiful women, I get satisfaction from that (and I don't mean in some prurient sense -- or, at least not strictly prurient). Other isms, such as racism, would seem to be more arbitrary in that the "good" a racist receives from only being around whites, for example, really doesn't seem to be too fundamental. However, attractive people seem to be univerally enjoyed. It's nice to have an attractive doctor, broker, or salesperson. It's nice to have beautiful people around. Couldn't one argue that lookism really isn't an ism at all, but instead it is compensation for the pleasure that attractiveness brings to us all? To put it another way, isn't lookism something like personalityism? People with great personalities surely have better luck than someone who is shy or socially inept, don't they? To say that people with better personalities get unfair advantages seems disingenous. They're more pleasant to be around, they're easier to work with, etc. It's not like someone creates her own personality from scratch. She really didn't have much choice in it; her parents raised her and her environment and genetics sculpted who she is. Is that any more out of her control than her looks? Shouldn't looks be in the same class? So shouldn't attractive people be compensated for being attractive? If you agree, please remit payment to js_africanus 123 Fake St. Rural, MI 49686 Okay, that last part was a joke. 
|
| Advertisements | |
|
|
|
|
#2
05-04-2003, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In a way, I think the intitial advantages an attractive person gets can be negated if that's all there is to them. A woman who gets a job because she had a slight advantage over other applicants because of her appearance won't retain that edge if it turns out she's difficult to work with or lazy.
|
|
#3
05-04-2003, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No, that is the stupidest thing I ever heard. A persons compensation should be based on their ability to perform a particular job. The "good" you receive from working with attractive people is no diferent than the good you receive from working with people of the same race, sex, or background. Don't think that hiring someone who is tall and blond is any less arbitrary than hiring people who are white.
If a persons attractiveness or personality or background help them perform a job more efficiently, then their compensation should reflect that. I do not agree with hiring people who are attractive (or white) just because it makes the hiring manager more "comfortible". To put it a simpler way - would you rather have an ugly doctor or Denise Richards perform open heart surgery on you?
|
|
#4
05-04-2003, 05:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I suppose you all think that looking like a cross between Sean Connery and George Clooney is a blessing, huh? You have no idea of the suffering, the hardship such a burden can be! Young women swooning in my path, pockets full of mash notes, flinging themselves in front of my car.....
Its hell, let me tell you. Hell!
__________________
Law above fear, justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.
|
|
#5
05-04-2003, 05:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sure, appearance, like personality, is a factor. How heavily it weighs depends on the job. Most of the time, big companies don't expect people doing average jobs to stretch themselves. To do the job is fine, so the good-looker gets the job.
Work in any big city with big city industries (finance, stock markets, Advertising, etc, etc) and you see the effect every day. It's huge. Can you legislate against it like you can with, say, disability ? No. Can you influence how employers consider applicants ? No.
|
|
#6
05-04-2003, 05:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
05-04-2003, 07:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Wow. I was horrified by that article. Women would only date a short man if the tall men she had to choose from were criminals or child molestors? That's crazy!
I grew up with lookism. I'm one of the "have nots". I saw how it was when you weren't one of the beautiful people. It sucks. I think it's especially bad in S. California. One of my friends moved to L.A. from Seattle, and was immediately shocked by the "lookism" in L.A. (He's a nice-looking guy as far as I'm concerned, but he's 5'7", and some might consider his looks "average".) He'd not been treated with that level of prejudice in Seattle, he said. I remember him taping a similar news story (as cited in the OP) on TV, because it really hit home for him. I have another friend (a 6'3" man) who doesn't know what I'm talking about. He says that the "lookism" prejudice I've witnessed is all in my imagination. All I can say is that lookism exists, and in some cases, it's fine. I mean, we all get treated a little nicer based on our looks, at once in a while. (Everyone's tastes differ, and one person's "average" is another person's "very attractive".) But if someone is truly so good looking that they get preferential treatment A LOT, and they start to rely on it, they're setting themselves up for a grave disappointment later in life. As they age, they won't have that fresh blush of youth, and lookists are often agists as well. And then these beautiful people who have lived well because of their looks will start to be treated just like any other mere mortal. Sucks to be them. They aren't used to being treated like an "average" person. Boo hoo hoo. (As you can see, I have a great deal of sympathy for the person who is shocked because they can no longer skid by on their looks.  )
|
|
#8
05-04-2003, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
If I know someone who, by a combination of good genes, a nutured upbringing and an expensive education is particularly intelligent, should I resent the success that flows from their intellectual gifts? It is right to resent them for relying on their gifted intelligence, which gives them a "unfair" step-up over us mere mortals? What gives them the right to "skid by" on mere smarts, while the rest of us have to battle? And should I be tellling them, "Ho, ho, ho, enjoy your mind while it lasts -- you'll be a dribbling fool with Alzheimer’s in a nursing home before long!" 
|
|
#9
05-04-2003, 10:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Narrad, you misunderstood my point.
The rest of us "mere mortals" expect and don't expect certain things in life: We don't expect people to take one look at us and treat us with extreme deference. We don't expect people to fall over backwards to be nice to us, to give us special perks. We go through life not expecting this. So getting old isn't that huge of a shock, because we never "lost" that special treatment. We never got it in the first place. The person who skids by on their looks doesn't go through that. (And I remind you, read that carefully—I didn't say, "the good-looking people who get treated well, but still accomplish much on their own merits", I said SKID by on their LOOKS. Looks alone.) My mom had a roommate in college that was extremely beautiful, and got special treatment based on her looks. When this roommate got a little older, she started to notice that this special treatment was tapering off. It dismayed her, terribly. She missed it. Now, in this particular woman's case, she was probably a nice woman, not someone who singularly skidded by on her looks. But still, it was a shock, to not get people bending over backwards to please her. Do I feel sorry for her? Well, not really. She had grown to expect something (and feel she was entitled to something) that was destined not to last. Had she developed some other abilities or talents that would get her attention, see, those abilities would have lasted, and she wouldn't have lost them as she aged. But she didn't do that. Sucks for her.
|
|
#10
05-04-2003, 11:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
In my observation, not only do attractive people get breaks in situations where looks should not be logically important, I think people who are taller get seen as having certain positive traits more often than short people. I've had people defer to me rather than my elder sister for no apparent reason other than the fact that I am 5 inches taller.
I think this is due to deeply ingrained instincts for choosing the more obviously healthy individual. A person with irregular features, or bad skin, for example, is subconsciously perceived as less fit. Ditto for height. I think people also tend, also subconsciously, to select for people similar to themselves. This can be extreme, as in conscious racism, but I've seen managers select from two people of the same ethnicity the person who more closely resembles themselves. That said, the person who when young succeeds because he or she is physically attractive always runs the danger of not developing other attributes. This is a particular danger for young women. A middle-aged or even elderly man can often still be perceived as handsome or powerful, whereas a middle-aged or elderly woman has a much harder time. She can, if she wants to, try to hold back time with surgery, makeup, and a lot of work, but that only lasts just so long. Sometimes the young women who are less physically attractive turn into the ones with real achievement.
|
|
#11
05-04-2003, 11:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 It could be argued that it's not fair to the good-looking person to hire said person for a job he/she isn't qualified for, since you're setting them up to fail, placing them in line for resentment, etc. But more importantly, I'd disagree with the premise. Seeing attractive people is nice, but many of the attractive people I know make the world a less pleasant place. Why? Personality. Occasionally you meet attractive people so nasty they'll use their looks manipulatively, but generally, good-looking people are mean at the same ratio as everybody else. So some of them contribute as little to the world as the rest of the unwashed masses.
__________________
"Wrong, but eloquent" - twickster
|
|
#12
05-04-2003, 11:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Lookism: Should beautiful people get more breaks because they beautify the world?
Quote:
|
|
#13
05-04-2003, 11:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What do you make of the droves of people, especially in their younger years who are dealt a serious blow by this "lookism". Many children develop a sense of inferiority because they do not posses ideal physical traits. Is the why so many attempt to change their appearance through cosmetic surgery and quick-fix diets? There seems to be an increasing value placed on appearance that in many cases takes precedence over most other traits. Does this seem to anyone else to be the wrong direction to be going?
Wow my first post. I hope I did it right.
|
|
#14
05-04-2003, 11:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Much of beautiful people's beauty comes from comparison to non-beautiful people. Therefore, since non-beautiful people are a main source of the pleasure you feel when viewing a beautiful person, you should give them more breaks too.
I think it evens out.
|
|
#15
05-05-2003, 12:49 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
But even if good looking people have the same personality quality as average/ugly, they still bring pleasure, don't they? Are you saying that an attractive server in a resturaunt (sp?) doesn't enhance the experience? Or a beautiful person ringing up your groceries? Lookism may give them an edge, but doesn't that pleasure deserve compensation? Suppose, for argument's sake, that we could eliminate lookism. Attractive people still make the world a better place because they're nice to look at. Wouldn't you agree? I'm skeptical that you don't like looking at human beauty. If the beautiful were not given an edge, they would still be bringing to the rest of us poor slobs real human well-being. I'm better off for looking at beautiful women than if they were replaced with non-beautiful ones! If they're increasing the total stock of human well-being, shouldn't they get something for it?! Quote:
Quote:
Do you really see cosmetic surgery as being bad? Physical attractiveness is a real thing that really affects human life. I don't think it's healthy to deny human nature and human feelings and say to the person about to go under the knife, "Well, you should just feel good about yourself." If it was that easy, cosmetic surgery wouldn't exist except for accident/abuse reconstruction.
|
|
#16
05-05-2003, 02:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
I have no problem with human beauty or a cute girl bagging my groceries, but I think that's a far cry from making my world a better place. When I'm discussing beauty in a grand sense, I differentiate between attractiveness and beauty. One is easy to find and genetic, the other actually relates to the person in question. I think we WAY overemphasize physical attractiveness. Why propose that we reward something that's its own reward? Why not reward traits that are worth something, like say, personality?
__________________
"Wrong, but eloquent" - twickster
|
|
#17
05-05-2003, 02:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Anyway, if you won't accept that previous argument, perhaps you'll accept this one: Beautiful people may deserve special breaks, but only if their net effect is positive. You say they have a positive effect of creating pleasure. I agree. However, one could easily find negative effects that they produce, such as distraction. It is unclear that the positive effects outweigh the negative ones. But really, the entire issue boils down to what factors are appropriate for making a decision. In some cases, someone's beauty is an appropriate factor. Sometimes it is not. It depends on the decision. If you're choosing a romantic partner, it's quite justifiable to use beauty as a major deciding factor. If you're choosing the guy to unclog your toilet, you have the right to choose based on beauty, but it is not a relevant factor with regards to unclogging your toilet. If you're hiring someone for most jobs (excluding the jobs of "supermodel" and "actor", etc.) physical appearance is not a factor you should consider. In short: Your personal decisions generally can be based on whatever you want. "Institutional" decisions (for lack of a better term) must be based only on what matters as the bottom line. (Which will differ based on the institution.)
|
|
#18
05-05-2003, 04:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm the director of a theater group, and if I have good-looking people in my shows, I have something an audience wants to come see. As an egalitarian, I reject this; as a plain-faced man, I resent it. But as a director, I can't ignore it.
|
|
#19
05-05-2003, 04:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Note: Lookism isn't just about conferring advantages to 'beautiful' (young, healthy, well-proportioned, fit, well-groomed) people; it's also about discriminating against 'ugly' (old, poorly-proportioned, disabled, fat, skinny, 'fashion disaster') people. For example, fat people are very often judged on appearance as being less intelligent, lazy, and incompetent, although many fat people are hard-working and intelligent and quite competent at what they do.
|
|
#20
05-05-2003, 05:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
That's what I was also trying to get at, Cuckoorex: "lookism" means that the "have nots" (like me, and my 5'7" male friend) are not always treated well. My friend (originally from Seattle) had quite a culture shock by the treatment he got in L.A. He said he was sometimes looked at as if he didn't deserve to exist, or that something was terribly wrong with him. But I thought he was a perfectly OK-looking guy.
I think that beautiful people who really buy into the "perks" they get are being set up for a fall. Because yes, they will age, and then the perks taper off. And if they haven't developed something else of merit in their life, what do they have? I know that a lot of people with good looks do cultivate other things in their lives. Because they have a brain in their head, and they want to use it. And often, they resent other people not seeing past the looks. I feel sympathy for these people. I don't feel sympathy for people who feel like the world is their oyster, simply because they look fabulous. But, as I said previously, we all sometimes get a little extra "perk" because of our appearance. For some reason, I have gotten a few good deals on car repairs, because I guess some mechanics like the way I look. Go figure. But I don't get the perks enough to come to expect them, because I'm not that good-looking, and never will be. Most of us don't. Those who do...well, I don't like it when I see good-looking people expect the perks, or pout when they don't get them. I especially don't like "flirty" or "teases"—people who smile dazzlingly or bat their eyelashes, just to get out of a bind, or to get what they want faster. That irritates the shit out of me.
|
|
#21
05-05-2003, 05:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
As far as the whole personality thing goes, and speaking in huge generalities, attractive people, as has been stated, are percieved as more competant, intellegent, whatever. So attractive people are treated with a little more warmth and friendliness than the unattractive. This treatment makes the attractive people friendlier themselves- more outgoing, quicker to smile. Unattractive people, used to rejection, may view with the world with suspicion.
The disparity between the ways the haves and the have-nots are treated may in itself lead to significant personality differences. The more attractive may develop more winsome personalities. Because they face less rejection, they may be less bitter and more trusting, so they will even develop stronger characters. This ain't right. But it happens.
|
|
#22
05-05-2003, 01:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
People are also human though. For relatively mindless service jobs where the most important thing is happy customers, looks are more important. I'm sure most of us have gone back to a particular bar or restaruant just because it has a nice looking waitress. When I'm shopping for a shirt, I'd rather have the 6' pretty blond help me than the gay dude. I'm pretty sure that a lot of hiring managers also hire based on looks, after all, there didn't seemed to be too many grotesques working at the World Financial Center. I think it works both ways though. I think attractive women (or men for that matter) are not viewed as particularly bright. I'll use my own example from before - I have no idea if Denise Richards is intelligent or not. I just sort of assumed that a woman like her could only be a nuclear scientist in a Bond movie. And I'll admit that when I mean a coworker who is very pretty, I'll generally assume that she's probably just there as eye candy and will generally be useless to the team. Why don't all executive officers and partners look like models? IMHO, looks can get you the job and maybe even help you keep it but most jobs require more than looks alone. Once a person reaches a level where they are expected to lead, they generally need a little more than just a pretty face. Quote:
 [TOUCHES ARM SUGGESTIVELY]
|
|
#23
05-05-2003, 02:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think that the arguement is that if all things were equal, would you hire an competent ugly doctor or a competent beautiful doctor?
I'd hire the ugly one. The looks would just hamper the doctors credibility with the other doctors. None of the other workers would get distracted by the doctors looks. Any person who exhibits any experience in getting by with their looks is highly suspect with me for their qualifications. I rely on skill and creativity and using physical appearance as a means to an end is using the wrong skills and creativity. Poeple who use looks are judge by looks are shallow. They dont go deeper into the person to evaluate them for the situation. If attractiveness and pretty things are essential for your narmal day activities, might I suggest art, or flowers or a gay interior decorator. Giving people a break based on looks alone is as patently wrong as judging a person by their skin color or cultural heritage. Lookism's advantage is as slight as beauty is deep.
|
|
#24
05-05-2003, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Often the lookism is much more subtle, in that attractive people are more likely to have a chance to prove themselves.
|
|
#25
05-05-2003, 07:06 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
 How is beauty a function of non-beautiful things? You can't just say that and then leave me hanging! To do so would be cruel! I couldn't even guess how many times I've heard it said that we need ugly/pain/poverty/etc. to appreciate beauty/pleasure/wealth/etc. Yet I've never seen a reason to accept this as true, and the evidence I've seen seems to suggest otherwise. I don't see how The Nug Gatherers has suddenly become more beautiful because I did a search and found Mao. Quote:
Now some may say that it is wrong to pick a mechanic on looks. I'm not suggesting that we pick our mechanics on looks. When we choose a mechanic, we do based on a menu of options. Honestly, if you had to choose between Mechanic A, who is highly skilled but an absolute prick, or Mechanic B, who is slightly less qualified than Mechanic A but is a nice person, which one would you choose? Are you really going to choose a mechanic who is rude and treats you like shit when you could get service that probably isn't much worse and be treated respectfully and nicely? How about Mechanic C, who is 75 miles away, vs. Mechanic D who is 20 miles away but not quite as good as C? How about Mechanic E who has a filthy waiting room, unsanitary bathroom, pick-up/drop-off service vs. Mechanic F who does but is slightly less skilled? I'm skeptical that there are any but a very few who base decisions on the narrowest of criteria. If location and personal service have nothing to do with the mechanic's ability, then why should that have any impact on whether or not we choose her? Quote:
Quote:
Second, all men may be created equal, but they sure as hell aren't born into equal circumstances and with equal genetic attributes. We pat ourselves on the back for our free will, but that's a load of shit. If that olympic athelete had different parents, a different mix of the parent's genetics, or a different home to grow up in, then it is quite possible that she wouldn't be winning that gold medal. Or how about personality? Do a greater or lesser degree we all have to deal with bureaucrats. Some of us fare better because of our personalities, some worse. But do we have any real say in what personality we end up having? I've heard of the "nature-nurture" debate, but never the "nature-nurture-personal fiat" debate. The pleasure that beauty brings us is real. To claim otherwise requires one to explain the beautiful faces on the covers of women's magazines every month. Or why attractive stage actors are preferred to unattractive ones. And so on. We reward people for dumb luck. Do you think George W. picked his family? Why is attractiveness a measure that brings real value but is yet an unacceptable standard for rewarding people?
|
|
#27
05-05-2003, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I am more uncomfortable with people who are both beautiful and intelligent. it puts them one up on me.
|
|
#28
05-05-2003, 08:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
My wife and I run a business (Social Services field) with 65 employees, 61 female, 4 male. Besides my wife, only two of the employees are "beautiful", but all 65 know how to do the job with little or no difficulty. We've had our share of beautiful applicants, but experience and knowledge divides the employed from the unemployed (or remaining employed elsewhere). We don't have time to coddle beautiful substandard employees. I've had other beautiful employees that had attendance problems or less than acceptable paperwork, but we don't (and can't) cut them any preferential slack, so they get the hint eventually and leave.
[confession]There is this one bank employee who is flat out stunning and is an assistant manager, and dresses perfectly to accent her body and her angelic face. I have to make sure that I DON'T hire her! I like to look, but I muuuussssssssst reeeeeeeeeeesssssssiisstt.....she would be my downfall. Don't worry guys, I already told my wife about her for my/our own long term sake.[/confession]
|
|
#29
05-05-2003, 08:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Of course I should get more breaks.
|
|
#30
05-05-2003, 09:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On a more pretentious note:
It is an intuitive fact that people with a proper set of physical attributes or an attractive personality in reality have a higher statistical chance of becoming "happy", isn't it? These are some inherent injusticies in life and I always found it one major flaw of marxist theory that it does nothing towards redistributing neither physical appearance nor charm. Plastic surgery to the people!
|
|
#31
05-05-2003, 10:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I absolutely agree that beautiful people should get more breaks. In return, the must consent to have sex with non-beautiful people much more often.
|
|
#32
05-05-2003, 11:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
When I was 24 years old and doing a little runway modeling, I did really well selling women's shoes. I sold a lot of shoes. I got treated really well. I had on average one woman a week asking me out.
Now that I'm 38 and bald, I work in an office full of geeks doing tech suport. I get about 3 women a year asking me out. I think lookism is real and I'm glad that I had my 15 minutes. I really feel for those who don't. It is such a wonderful self-esteem boost to be desired and appreciated physically. Yes, I am incredibly shallow.
|
|
#33
05-06-2003, 01:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
jack@ss
you just anecdotally disproved RandySpears intuitive fact. Thank you. when you are shallow, you see physical beauty and mistake it for real beauty and become unhappy when the physical beauty fades as they all do. uhh back to jack@ss. Geeks are not chick magnets. stay away from them if you want to get more than 3 a year.
|
|
#34
05-06-2003, 01:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#36
05-06-2003, 02:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But this line of reasoning also confuses the reality of some people being born with appearances that severely handicaps their chances of being happy. If you're ugly and revolting enough then a large portion of the world won't wanna hang out with you. Fact. Sad.
|
|
#37
05-06-2003, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
FYI: The elephant Man died a happy man.
|
|
#38
05-06-2003, 02:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also, do you have any comment on the cost-benefit argument I presented? Do you think it's possible that beautiful people could provide a benefit but that they also have a cost, at that, at least in theory, this cost could outweigh or equal the benefits?
|
|
#39
05-06-2003, 03:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#40
05-06-2003, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Yeah but that job "blows"....
|
|
#41
05-06-2003, 06:30 PM
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
 . Heck i'll repost it.Quote:
Let me point out that i'm not playing the game of deeming all less attractive people to a life in misery. That would be bullshit; any individual can overcome the hardest obstacles. But i do think it is obvious that bad looks constitutes one big fat obstacle. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Either way, that information gets it's anecdotal quality from the fact that we are suprised to hear that he died a happy man. And that is precisely because we intuitively feel that it is unlikely that he died a happy man. If you were to chose now: would you rather grow up good-looking or ugly? Rather with a charming personality or a weirdo? Are you being honest now? (Because I am in reality God, and I'm making it so..... Now! )
|
|
#42
05-06-2003, 07:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
"It is common sense that beautiful people have a better chance of being happy." Since you predicated "Intuitive fact" with "Higher statistical chance" then if the first is false, then too will the second. It is not intuitive nor a fact that beautiful people become happy. It is a fact that they seem happy. They are afterall creatures of appearance. Beautiful people must keep up appearances, but all physical beauty is fleeting. So Beautiful people make great efforts to keep beautiful and they are fighting an ever losing battle. How can anyone have a higher statistical chance of being happy following that course of action? Common sense isnt. neither is intuitive fact. Oh. and we know for a fact that Joseph Carey Merrick died a happy man because he said so right before dying. That you were surprised by that fact makes your intuition wrong. Bill gates aint one of the handsomest man in the world, I can "intuitively" say that he dont give a damn about his looks. Albert Einstein, Stephan Hawkins, Edison...no contenders in any beauty contest. All happy with the work they do and their work is their life. In other words, you hang too much emphasis on outward appearance. The fact that a person is happy doesnt depend on whether or not he or she is breautiful or ugly, its what they do that is more important. here: Take a Happy Survey
|
|
#43
05-06-2003, 11:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also, how distracting is it to have a super-hot girl in the office? Maybe I don't want to hire someone who is going to distract a bunch of date-starved guys from their work. That is not to say that physical appearance is not important for some jobs. There are shallow people out there and sex sells. If hiring a pretty person will help sell those widgets, then whatever. Quote:
|
|
#44
05-07-2003, 08:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
YosemiteBabe, I have always felt the way you do: the "lookers" get all the breaks, have NO IDEA that they are getting breaks because of their looks, and often (not always--see Jack@ss above) are astounded when the perks stop coming as they pass 30, and become desperate to regain the blush of their youth.
Interestingly--I'm turning 40 soon, and have no problem with aging. Botox? Not a chance! As I have never experienced the "beauty perk," I don't have the deep regret about losing it that the aging beauties often have. Now that's something to think about--they have the perks in youth, sure, but we have a much more comfortable aging process, don't we? And since the gorgeous ones start to freak about mid-thirties, we have a LOT more time to be happy and self-confident. Maybe it all works out after all!
|
|
#45
05-07-2003, 04:07 PM
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
 Quote:
Quote:
Regardless, if we avoid BlackKnight's question about whether beauty is a net gain, the state of being beautiful creates a positive externality. It is a benefit that does not accrue to the one creating it. It is reasonable to ask if this is fair, if something should be done about it, and if the crude but extant solution isn't a closer approximation to fairness than would obtain absent that solution. Quote:
|
|
#46
05-07-2003, 04:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#47
05-08-2003, 02:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I do want to lose weight, but at least now I have a less horrible attitude about my weight. (When I was 18, I bought into the "I'm fat so I must be worthless" myth.) I do and don't feel sorry for the aging beauties who are just now understanding what the rest of us learned a long time ago. I do feel sorry for them because on one level, it's hard not to. It must be a shock. I don't feel sorry for them on another level because they'd have to be pretty damned oblivious to not realize sooner that there's more to life than looks, and that the world really isn't obligated to bend over backwards for them. (And that one day soon, as they age more, the world will officially stop bending over backwards for them. Oh. Boo hoo hoo. The world is no longer their oyster. Sucks to be them.) Quote:
) but she's pretty well grounded, with many interests, hobbies, and is not too vain (she had her bad skin and "fat" phase too). But for the other beauties, who never quite cultivated a rich set of interests and personality traits? They indeed must worry now.Me, I just look forward to more time with my art, pottery, and photography as I age. Nobody cares how old or ugly you are if you do art, pottery or photography!
|
|
#48
05-08-2003, 08:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I find it ironic that there seems to be a little resentment towards good looking people in this thread. There seem to be a few assumptions:
Good looking people are shallow Good looking people have few other skills ans so on I also find it strange that some people consider 30 to be the onset of "ugly".
|
|
#49
05-08-2003, 08:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I personally find the very idea that some people deserve better things in life, based on looks, to be on the stupidest things I've ever heard. I also find it funny, that in our society, there are a lot of people out there who's bodies are not completely natural so, that would to say that if you screw around with the way you look, you could be one of the popular ones? What is this, high school? If you have any inch of intelligence, you should understand that looks are not the most important thing about a person. I don't even understand how this idea could even come up, oh wait a minute, yes I can. We live in a world, where looks are placed above things like intelligence, personality, and the like. What a sad, sad time this is.
|
|
#50
05-08-2003, 02:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
msmith: A lot of good-looking people are not necessarily vain, and have other skills. My sister is one of them.
But to the ones who never saw the need to develop other skills, and who have enjoyed the perks of their beauty as if it was an entitlement—well, no sympathy for them when the perks taper off.
|
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
