# Lookism: Should beautiful people get more breaks because they beautify the world? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 4, 2003, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073 "2003-05-04T21:05:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2003, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/41 "2003-05-06T23:30:33Z")
> [@](#): > > _Slayer_ > You said intuitive fact not statistical probability. My friend, my original post is there for you to read _carefully_ any time you should you find the need to do so :). Heck i’ll repost it. > [@](#): > > 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? Pertinent parts bolded for your reading pleasure. 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. > [@](#): > > I will have to ask you for the cite if you say beautiful people are happier than those who are not beautiful, because I do remember a survey that showed quite the opposite. Now is the time you should pay attention to the “intuitive” qualifier in my post. I would be interested in reading that survey though, if you’ll find a link. > [@](#): > > How many people are ugly and revolting enuf that a large portion of the world wont want to hang around them? At some point in life? I remember quite a few from growing up. > [@](#): > > I’m sure there are extremes that exemplify both but neither are a statistical majority. No I’d agree that the extremely ugly are about as common as the extremely beautiful. But had you been born one, I’m sure you’d realise that the extremes count to. And from there on i’d suggest it’s a sliding scale in impact of happiness-likelihood. > [@](#): > > FYI: The elephant Man died a happy man. Is that a fact now? I suppose they measured it with that fancy happiness-probing system you and I have heard so much about lately. 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! ;)) ---
**Author:** ![X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/bbe5ce/32.png) [@X\_Slayer\_ALE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/X_Slayer_ALE)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/42 "2003-05-07T00:57:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RandySpears \* > \*\*My friend, my original post is there for you to read _carefully_ any time you should you find the need to do so :). Heck i’ll repost it. > > ## \*\* quote: > > ## 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? > > \*\* > Pertinent parts bolded for your reading pleasure. > \*\* OK then, allow me to rephrase it the way I understand your post: “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](http://surveyland.tripod.com/Happy.htm) ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/43 "2003-05-07T04:44:56Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by js\_africanus_ > Instead, why don’t you eschew opening with insults and fallacies and act like a grown-up? Why don’t you not tell me how to act and stop being so sensitive. No one is insulting you. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by js\_africanus_ > The issue is that a “set” of people are creating value and it seems to me that since they are doing so they should be compensated for it. If we could eliminate lookism, which as a less than attractive person I’m all for, we would be receiving the benefits of the eye candy while the providers of said candy are providing it for free. But that is a value that does not directly benefit the company and is thus wasted unless it is a position where physical appearance is important. Let me give you an example: I am considering hiring a pretty engineer. According to your theory, she should be able to command a higher salary because she pretties up the office (much like a painting or plant). What tangible benefit will I receive from hiring this person over her troglodite equivalent? Is her “pretty premium” going to be offset by increased productivity of the team or would I be better off using that premium to hire a more experienced ugly engineer? In this case, being attractive is a not-critical attribute for this job, much like being an Olympic skier or a master painter. I’m not hiring someone to join the ski team, paint pictures or look pretty. 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. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jack@ss \* > When I was 24 years old and doing a little runway modeling, I did really well selling women’s shoes. There’s a Zoolander or an Al Bundy joke in there somewhere but for now it escapes me.😃 ---
**Author:** ![Theobroma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b5a626/32.png) [@Theobroma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Theobroma)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/44 "2003-05-07T13:19:23Z")
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! ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/45 "2003-05-07T21:07:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BlackKnight \* > **Read the very next three sentences in the paragraph, which were not hidden in any way but which you neglected to quote, or, apparantly, read.** I don’t see how “nobody is simply ‘beautiful’ objectively and in every way,” makes true the statement that “beauty is a function of…non-beautiful things.” Paige Davis has an incredible smile. It is not made more beautiful by the fact that she has bad hair. > [@](#): > > \*\*If they want compensation from their beauty, it is their obligation to arrange things so that this is possible. \*\* I’m not a libertarian, so this sort of market complacency doesn’t sit well with me. Additionally, it seems that society has already worked out that payment problem by means of lookism. Maybe I should be a libertarian after all. :smack: > [@](#): > > \*\*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? \*\* I think it is an interesting idea. Unfortunately I only have so much energy and had to pare down the scope of the argument as it naturally expands. I’m taking it as given that human beauty is a net benefit, though it is theoretically possible that it is a net loss. I just googled for “beauty productivity” and got this absract: NBER Working Paper No. w5366\* which notes that the authors can’t “determine whether this [male attorneys’ probability of attaining partnership being greater with greater beauty] is because clients discriminate or because better-looking lawyers are able to obtain greater pecuniary gains for their clients.” Ha! Not very decisive at all. Regardless, it is a good question, but one that I just don’t have the energy to address. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Sock Munkey_ > \*\*The “unfair welfare” analogy is quite faulty as the “pretty” people are providing the “service” of providing someone nice to look at simply becase they exist, and makes about as much sense as me charging farmers for using the CO2 I exhale to help their crops grow. \*\* Your breathing creates an externality that is of benefit for the farmer. Inasmuch as your exhalations create a net increase in human welfare, you do have a debatable claim to enjoy some of the external benefits of your respiration. In this case, you may have an even greater claim since the farmer is benefitting commercially from your largesse. You know the bit about whose apple is it if A’s apple tree drops apples on to B’s lawn? Of course, his plants create O[sub]2[/sub], which you benefit from, so maybe those cancel out. 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. > [@](#): > > **As for the analogy of the olympic athelete, such people have to do a bit more than simply bat their eyes to gain benifts from their natural abilities. They work their butts off, literally.** Is beauty that easy to obtain? Using Paige Davis from above as an example, her body is amazing. She works out for an hour and a half per day, and evidently she absolutely hates it. “But you’ve go to do it if you want any kind of body at all.” Even though olympic atheletes work their butts off, it is still true that if they had different genes or different upbringings all that work wouldn’t mean anything. An olympic ski champion once said, “90% of your muscle is in your head.” And even though a beautiful person has much to thank in her genes or upbringing, it is still true that keeping in shape and taking care of one’s self requires effort and self-discipline. Your co-worker may not work as hard as an olympic athelete to have that nice butt, but she’s not winning any gold medals either. ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [May 7, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/46 "2003-05-07T21:33:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by js\_africanus \* > **I don’t see how “nobody is simply ‘beautiful’ objectively and in every way,” makes true the statement that "beauty is a function of…non-beautiful things."** Getting closer. Now read the two sentences after that. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/47 "2003-05-08T07:59:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Theobroma \* > 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. You are _so_ right! I guess it all balances out. I don’t feel that desperate, “What’s going _on?!?!_” astonishment that some aging beauties do. It’s actually gotten better for me as I age. When I was 18 I had bad skin. It’s a lot clearer now. 🙂 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.) > [@](#): > > 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? Oh, indeed. The beauties who also have cultivated other interests and hobbies (one of my sisters is kinda like this) will have a better time of it. This sister has lamented that the admiring whistles and looks from men have decreased lately (and I’m sure all of you can feel the sympathy _oozing_ from every pore of me about that ;)) 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! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/48 "2003-05-08T13:27:42Z")
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”. ---
**Author:** ![TearsOfGlass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9c0ed/32.png) [@TearsOfGlass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TearsOfGlass)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/49 "2003-05-08T13:37:29Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/50 "2003-05-08T19:13:18Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Sock\_Munkey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Sock\_Munkey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sock_Munkey)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2003, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/51 "2003-05-08T22:09:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by js\_africanus \* > **Is beauty that easy to obtain? Using Paige Davis from above as an example, her body is amazing. She works out for an hour and a half per day, and evidently she absolutely hates it. "But you’ve go to do it if you want any kind of body at all."** We don’t make her do all that, she does it for herself because she wants to be fit and pretty. She is free to be average if she wants. ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/52 "2003-05-09T00:03:26Z")
> [@](#): > > … “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 know this is a bit OT Yosemitebabe but what does your Seattle friend do for a living and why does he have to be around such superficial assholes who belittle him just because his appearance is less-than-godlike? ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2003, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/53 "2003-05-09T00:57:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TearsOfGlass \* > \*\*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’m sorry to be rude, but please take your opinions here. This is for argumentation, which means looking into the premises and seeing if the conclusions follow. I know lookism seems stupid, that’s why I opened this thread: to pull a counterintuitive conclusion from reasonable assumptions and see if it can stand the test of the attacks. I’d love for you to pick apart my argument. Just coming in and saying that it’s stupid without any reason or explanation just tells me that I must be right. (Which is a scary thought.) > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Sock Munkey_ > **We don’t make her do all that, she does it for herself because she wants to be fit and pretty. She is free to be average if she wants.** How do you know that? More importantly, how can you separate her desired self-image from the culture in which she lives? Who knows how much of her desired self-image is a result of cultural pressures? What we know for sure is that she works really hard for her body and that she probably gets lookist rewards for that effort. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by BlackKnight_ > **Getting closer. Now read the two sentences after that.** You really had me set up for an epiphany. Unfortunately I don’t find it very compelling. First, I’m not that convinced that beauty is a function of mood. Second, I’m not convinced that mood is a function non-beauty. Third, if those really are functions, I’m not so sure that they’re very significant is affecting the beauty perception. This is important since your original claim was: > [@](#): > > Much of beautiful people’s beauty comes from comparison to non-beautiful people. Therefore, …non-beautiful people are a main source of the pleasure you feel when viewing a beautiful person… But if that is true, then how beautiful Jacquetta Wheeler is will be a function of how attractive the other women in the show are. Indeed, she should look downright plain when on the runway during a fashion show. But she’s not – she’s amazing. I’ve watched several episodes of Fashiontrance on Style and she has knocked my socks off whether she follows a beautiful model or an ugly one. Would she be more beautiful if she were surrounded by a bunch of really average people? I simply can’t think of any situation where something was made more beautiful by virtue of being juxtaposed against something ugly. Another problem that I know from experience is that if you take multiple functions like that and put them together, it is often not obvious whether the outcome moves one way or the other – and that’s even if they are specified! Looking at it intuitively, would Jacquetta be more beautiful if she were surrounded by beautiful things or ugly things? On the one hand, she suffers by comparison if she’s standing next to the Grand Canyon as opposed to a cess pool. So proximate beauty should maker her less lovely. However, looking at the Grand Canyon might put one in a more receptive mood than a cess pool. Hence, proximate beauty should make her more lovely. Which one do we choose? Is there anyway to quantify this and crank through the math for a result? If not, then perhaps the contradictory intuitions are analogous to Galileo’s critique of Aristotle’s analysis of falling bodies. ---
**Author:** ![Nisha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/76d3ee/32.png) [@Nisha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nisha)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/54 "2010-12-22T03:26:31Z")
I’ve been reading the various posts in this thread, in a particularly free moment, and all I have to say is PLEASE. Before you all embark on your freewheeling love affair with mediocrity, Imagine what your average, day to day existence would be without competence, brilliance and beauty. Beauty isn’t solely about the physical form— it’s in anything done extremely well. Would you want to live in a building constructed by mediocre plumbers and electricians? Would you want to… Agh, as I’m typing this I realize that the day to day experience of mediocrity must be maddening and is sure to cause a lot of suffering… And that’s where the evil part comes in… beauty, whether it be physical, mental, or otherwise is not a guarantee against a life of suffering, but my instincts lead me to hope, if not believe, that the possession of it in any form goes towards not only relieving it’s bearer of some of the potential weight of life, but also potentially, go towards relieving the suffering of mankind in general. Beauty, no matter how rare, points towards the possibility or potentiality of a better existence. Any person who begrudged this is simply admitting their own inability to wish for something more than their own personal happiness. I am a beautiful woman, and trust me, the world is a difficult place to live in for the beautiful. That is why we congregate in groups, certain cities. That is why we can be cold and distant. what people want to. “do” for a beautiful person often is simply what they want the beautiful person to do for THEM… somehow make up for the inevitable differences we all experience. And finally, if you can not find it in your heart to appreciate beauty, then perhaps you should consider leaving the planet earth— which without the ugliness of people has always been incomprehensibly, outlandishly even profanely, beautiful. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/55 "2010-12-22T03:42:13Z")
> [@Nisha](#): > > …then perhaps you should consider leaving the planet earth— Beautiful people always hoggin’ all the goddamn rockets! :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/56 "2010-12-22T05:20:57Z")
Holy crap, seven years?! ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/57 "2010-12-22T05:24:51Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Holy crap, seven years?! True beauty cannot be rushed. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/58 "2010-12-22T08:56:10Z")
> [@Nisha](#): > The irony. It burns. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/59 "2010-12-22T13:24:15Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Holy crap, seven years?! I’m sure many people’s opinions have changed in those seven years as their beauty has faded with age!😃 ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073/60 "2010-12-22T13:27:24Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > I’m sure many people’s opinions have changed in those seven years as their beauty has faded with age!😃 Quite to the contrary. I improve every day, and am far more handsome and charming now than I was seven years ago. But I recognize that I am an outlier. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lookism-should-beautiful-people-get-more-breaks-because-they-beautify-the-world/173073.md?page=4)