I imagine getting people to unite behind being ugly would be incredibly difficult. Who would want to join a group where membership requires admitting that you are incredibly ugly?


I think that's called Reddit


Got 'em


You just insulted my entire race of people... but yes.


I'm sexless, not ugly. Get it right.






Bingo stinker






It’s the same with being the leader of the micro dick movement, they would just rather not.


Just say the circumcision went wrong and join the group of guys against circumcision(I don't remember the name, but they were on Tosh.O). They even have a uniform!


I hope it's one of those penis costumes


it'd probably be full of good looking whiny fuckers..


Lol this, if /r/amihot is any indication… So many people desperately needing to hear they are attractive when they know the answer.


A guy messaged me on here yesterday and said ‘can i ask you a question?’ And when I went to accept the request , it said ‘active in r/amihot’ so I said ‘are you going to ask me if I think you’re hot?’ And he said ‘damn so you do ? I can send you some pics if you’d like ‘ 😭


Probably a lot of “nice” guys


And people fishing for compliments


By "nice" guys do you mean those men who get treated horrifically by women then stand up to themselves only to get shamed on reddit? Yeah, it's called being ugly. Let's not sit here and pretend women don't treat ugly men differently than the male models they seek after. Source: deformed ugly man.


Perhaps it may not be your looks at all. I’ve seen many women with what society deems aestheticly unpleasant. They were not rich or good looking. But damn they were charming and actually nice. 90% of finding someone is confidence. Change your mindset.


I’m ugly and I’m proud.


Some of us know we're ugly. I'd join it.


I feel like even with being ugly, there are ways to look good with a bit of effort (grooming, jewelry, hats, glasses, makeup, exercise) also its sorta easy for guys to not be ugly unless they have to be dressed in business wear


Iunno. I’m pretty fucking ugly. I’m alright with it, though.


The Union of the Hideously and Improbably Deformed


Isn't this basically the body positivity stuff going on for large women, but generalizing it to other physical features and adding men to the group?


U G L Y You ain’t got no alibi!


I just want to belong somewhere man.


SpongeBob SquarePants would


See: incels


You would think that’s the case - book look at the stupid fat pride people


Could you imagine how this plays out in the courtroom? Plaintiff claims the defendant gave someone else the job because they are better looking than him. So the jury is going to make a decision on whether or not that's true?


This could only really work out if the job involves, say, modeling, or maybe some of those drinks-serving jobs that are basically modeling but worse


Would you compare being an air steward to those as well?


Maybe on some airlines but I think the whole idea that an air stewart is basically a cocktail waitress for you to ogle while you smoke your sky cigars went down with the seventies


Hasn't changed in almost all of Asia.


Well then looks could be a reason for not being hired there I suppose


Yes, re:Asian airlines.


You're right, and the Asian culture isn't going to change anytime soon. There will be no law suits on that because they are under their country's laws. I'm also guessing they sell a few extra tickets because of that.


I mean, current discrimination cases aren't being decided solely on whether a person is part of a minority either. It wouldn't be about proving someone is ugly, but rather whether they were perceived as ugly and this somehow put them at a disadvantage. I think this might be difficult, but not impossible in some circumstances.


How would it be any different than someone claiming they didn't get the job based gender or other factors that are protected? Plus there was a study done where it turns out better looks got you better job opportunities, so there is that to consider.


The problem is that looks are subjective and gender isn‘t. Your gender is a fact. But if you‘re ugly or not is not and depends on preferences.


there comes a point when looks are no longer subjective imo lol. like people who've got super deformities or burns / missing limbs / assymetry.


Then you're talking about disabilities, which is already covered by other laws


Those would all fall under other disabilities…


It‘s still subjective. Nobody decides what the criterias for beauty are. Just because people are not fitting the standard model of a human, doesn‘t mean they are less attractive. To you they are less attractive because you have your own preferences. And even if 99,9999% of all people on earth share that preference, it‘s still subjective.


Humans are good at recognizing what is considered conventionally attractive vs not. There is evidence of some universal beauty standards, especially regarding symmetry of the face and sexually dimorphic traits


Symmetry might be the only one that has been proven to be universal to a high enough degree. Most studies on this are either very small or studying populations that have been exposed to western media. And even if others were base standards built into our DNA, all of the cultural context of beauty built on top of them can alter or overshadow them. Even just in the short lifetime of the US beauty standards have shifted significantly.


Having healthy looking skin and hair are universal beauty traits


What about... for men: height, fullness of hair, strength of chin/jawline. For women: also height, body shape (bust/waist/hip ratio), and also fullness of hair. Size of nose...


Because ugly is subjective, like truly subjective. I work in an industry where looks are important but I have also learned that beauty is truly in the eye of the beholder.


Tons of studies show looks lead to all kinds of conclusions. Attractive people are seen as smarter, kinder, morally superior, so on. I read this in one of Robert Sapolskys books and that man knows his stuff.


Even if you win that case, you still lose pretty bad


Be judged by your peers. It's a valid argument if someone claims they were sexually harassed but in fact the state of the ugly hippopotamus begs to differ


This not only happens with people, but with animals too. Photogenic creatures are way more protected and looked after than not so fortunate looking ones :(


Because being ugly is subjetive Edit: because the majority of us globally are subjetively considered ugly


And changes depending on context. Their confidence, their humour, their body language MAKES them attractive. A friend of mine is what ANYONE would consider ugly-- misshapen eyes, crooked nose, short and pudgy, but he has the confidence of a greek god and CONSTANTLY gets more positive attention than most of us. Adam Driver, Benedict Cumberbatch, Sarah Jessica Parker, Rowen Atkinson, Steven Tyler, Kathy Griffin, Tilda Swinton, Adam Sandler, Jack Black, Steve Buscemi, Ben Stiller, Sean Penn, Christopher Walken, Nicholas Cage, are often considered "ugly" in appearance before they became stars but they are exceptionally attractive nonetheless.


>A friend of mine is what ANYONE would consider ugly-- misshapen eyes, crooked nose, short and pudgy, but he has the confidence of a greek god and CONSTANTLY gets more positive attention than most of us. Charisma is underrated, I think most people end giving more importance at it instead of the looks unless you are desperately horny


Dude none of these people are anywhere close to being actually ugly though, that’s a serious insult to actual ugly people lol Adam Sandler is a good looking guy, same with Jack Black he’s just become heavier with age. Nicholas Cage is far from ugly. Do you not see the difference between them and actual ugly people, and the huge range in between lol


You think Steve Buscemi is “nowhere close to being actually ugly”? Hey man good on you. I’m not gonna yuck your yum.


I mean he’s in a different category than the ones I mentioned (which is why I didn’t mention him), but he’s more weird/peculiar looking than ugly. Ugly for an actor sure. Like I see people uglier than him on a daily basis that don’t strike me as abnormal looking or someone I would immediately feel sorry for, and those people exist and have it really tough in life lol


I'd definitely say he's "ugly", in the conventional sense, for ANYONE. Actor or not. Same for Rowen Atkinson, but that's what I mean-- who would be considered "ugly" by your standards? Point being, with a few straight up deformed people, very few people are actually *objectively* ugly. Age and weight aside, "ugly" is almost always personal.


There are far uglier people than them before even getting into the deformed or disabled category. Like are they actually ugly or just not very conventionally attractive? There’s a huge difference there. Rowan Atkinson has some ugly features, but overall is far from an actual ugly looking person. Watch Blackadder or interviews with him and not just Mr. Bean lol


Ok. Who’s an example of an objectively ugly person who isn’t just fat, old or deformed then?


Only celebrities or what? The town I live in alone has people much uglier than that in the 1000s, and they’re not deformed or anything.


Bruh, Buscemi is the man but to not put him in a regular "ugly" category basically means that category doesn't exist.


Do you mean unattractive? That's different than ugly, imo.


He doesn’t have any facial deformities or scars, he just has a weird look to him. Like there are numerous categories of ugly below him is my main point lol


Like okay, I am reasonably attractive to the people who find me attractive, if that makes sense, but I'm a moderately butch lesbian? Most people would consider me unattractive because, contextually, what the people I like find attractive in me is not something most people are into. But that's kind of the thing. Attraction is seriously contextual. Buscemi is a lot of things, but he's not like... even remotely in the category of "broadly handsome" and is generally what most people would call unattractive. There are absolutely people who find him attractive, but he and I are contextually attractive to the people we care about but like that's about it lol. That's absolutely fine. All I care about is people I like liking me. I don't give a shit if 95% of the populace would or would not fuck me because, honestly, I would absolutely not fuck them so it's all good.


Sarah Jessica Parker really has an unfortunate face that no amount of magic make-up or face-lift can fix it.


She’s not attractive to me, but I don’t feel sorry for her based on her looks lol


Genuinely in love with Jack Black and Nicholas Cage, i WILL find me a man who carries himself that well


Disagree with the females mentioned here


Yup. That’s my point exactly.


Interesting. I would say most people are in the mid-range, “normal” level and fall between 4-7 on the, obviously, very subjective 1-10 numeric scale. Just as there are very few 10s, there really aren’t that many 1s. And that’s my “I’d rather err on the side of kindness,” subjective 2 cents.


Yeah that is true, but there is a level of unattractiveness that say 99% of the people find ugly, why is discrimination against them not as serious


I get your point, but this is the thing, apart from jobs that are strictely based on looks like models and secretaries, have you ever seen somebody being denied from a job, buying property, entering to public zones or denied from services for being blatantly ugly?


No one would ever admit that regarding a job. It's that they are not considered "a good fit for the team" that gets them denied. What about nightclubs where "the ugly" are turned away? Or is this a myth?


Statistically this is true in both the court room and the job market. Unattractive people get over 120% longer sentences for the same crime as an attractive person. By contrast, black people get about 20% longer sentences for the same crime as a white person.


What factors are strongly correlated with "low attractiveness"? 1. Income, definitely. Wealthy people are _overwhelmingly_ less likely to be "ugly". That's not to say they'll be "attractive", but they're far less likely to be "ugly". 2. Age. Younge people are almost universally considered more attractive, for pretty obvious biological reasons. 3. Lifestyle factors, especially ones associated with high-stress and lower-class occupations (I'm thinking specifically of excess drinking, smoking, excess eating of processed foods, etc) are all reasonably strongly associated with being less attractive, usually because of actual biochemical processes they cause in the body. I mention "associated with lower-class occupations" because we know that folks are more likely to be arrested if they're part of the working class, so that might be a factor. 4. Ethnicity. Generally, Black people are often regarded as less attractive, as are other minority ethnic groups. This isn't to say they _are_ less attractive, but honestly if you're a racist judge then you'll probably look at a Black person and see "ugly" more than if you're looking at a white person. 5. Gender. Men are less likely to be considered attractive by other men than women are, and most judges are male. And a whole heap of other factors, too. So, the idea that there's some kind of objective measure of like... intrinsic attractiveness that can be at all extricated from the myriad factors that contribute to that person's life, all of which might also be correlated with longer sentences _anyway_, is a bit silly. You can't just say "but I controlled for all those factors!" because realistically, is that even possible? Can you control for every single thing which might affect how attractive someone is, without affecting attractiveness itself? Because honestly if you can do that then I'm legitimately impressed. And really, what I suspect you'd find is that once you've controlled for that, the limits of "attractive" and "unattractive" within that relative set is significantly lower. I mean, if you removed all the men from a pool of people, I'd already say it was probably a "more attractive" group because I have roughly 0% attraction to men, so I'm realistically going to find very significantly fewer men to be attractive. Like, that's _already_ narrowed the set considerably and that's _one_ of those possible factors.


A lot of the things you mention are super easy to control for. Ethnicity and gender are pretty easy to control for. I don’t see how income has any effect as they wouldn’t know the income of who they’re sentencing. It’s pretty easy to control for age. Lifestyle factors is irrelevant as you’re saying that affects attractiveness but what they’re measuring is… attractiveness. They’re saying that attractive people are sentenced to much shorter sentences and unattractive people are sentenced to much longer sentences. The reason they’re attractive is irrelevant to that point and all of the other points affecting attractiveness is also irrelevant as it doesn’t matter what affects attractiveness, the claim is that attractiveness dramatically affects sentencing which is true. You also find that even when you just show people a picture of an unattractive person and say that they’ve committed a certain crime, people will on average sentence then to longer than a picture of an attractive person for that same crime. Also the fact that the difference is so unbelievably large (about 120-300% longer sentences for unattractive people) shows that there is very obviously something to this as this is an unbelievably significant correlation. Even with black people it’s brought up that they gave major discrimination in the criminal justice system because they face 20% longer sentences than white people. This is significant and hard to deny. But the 120%-300% figure is even more significant and harder to deny.


And statically black people cant afford better lawyers and statically people tend to be very hornier so they will tend to base their personal bias in looks. The world is very unfair, some rules were already here and cant be changed like the laws of nature and others were made up by people that existed before us in order to achieve thier good and evil objetives. Western development relied in a lot of things, including in this specific case, an unfair (by western standards) treatment towards the black man. And honestly there is nothing that we can do it about it, I cant convince 1.2 billions of people to stop being racist and unkind, the only thing that is in my power is not bringing child to this mess of world. Thats it


Didn't pan am get successfully sued for doing this?


It’s not about being “denied from a job”. It’s about someone possibly a little less qualified getting the job you applied for because they are better looking.


Oh sure, but thats not based only in looks, thats based in a lot of more factors, even in dumb thing such as the personal bias of the recruiter or in the social relationships that you have. Meritocracy is a myth, life isnt a videogame, its a shitshow in wich the participants create their concepts rules to cope based on experience


How would you A) evaluate a totally subjective characteristic tht wildly varies person to person, evn moment to moment; B) even have access to, or knowledge of, the other applicant's qualifications; or C) come to the conclusion tht someone who's just "possibly a little" less qualified was hired over u on account of their supposedly being better looking? Maybe they just interviewed better. Maybe they possess qualifications you're completely unaware of. Maybe the qualifications required for the job themselves are quite subjective. Maybe ur too harshly judging your own appearance. Ok, DEFINITELY, not maybe, on tht last one....


Secretaries are strictly based on looks?


For high ranking military and businessmen, yes


At least here in South America yes, but because the bosses are horny. Good luck with the harassment and sexism


Did....did you just claim being employed as a secretary is "strictely [*sic*] based on looks?"


Well because it still is relative. Sure, maybe there are SOME people that exist that everyone thinks are “ugly” but MOST people just have severe body dysmorphia and THINK they’re “ugly”. We all know that skinny person who truly believes they’re “fat” or the hot person who truly thinks they’re “ugly”. My wife truly and honestly believes she is fat, ugly and that people are always judging her or looking at her. She’s in intensive therapy for this. But the crazy thing is that I think she’s hot af. And she’s definitely not fat. So how would we even determine if it’s discrimination? If someone said “they discriminated because I’m ugly!” But all the cops on scene are like “no you’re hot af” then what?


Media and social standards and culture have done a real number on women's psychological health on this topic now think of women of color that can never live up to eurocentric standard of beauty are even more crippled and in need of therapy as well.


Generally rare, because things like confidence, clothing, body language, communication, humour, etc can make up for a LOT of that. I have a friend who is what 99% of people would find ugly but is extremely confident and charismatic, and after a few minutes people LOVE him. I also have a friend who has the chiseled face of a model but about as much personality as a teaspoon.


i think you overstate what 99% is


No it isn't. Attraction is subjective. Not being attracted to someone doesn't make them ugly. Most people, if healthy and normal and clean and groomed, *aren't* **ugly** and it's really just ridiculous how normalized it is to call people ugly. Ugly means you're repulsive, you're disgusting, you're hideous, these are all synonymous with ugly, and you have to be universally repulsive in a universal biological sense. A person isn't ugly just because you aren't into them. A dude isn't ugly just because a straight guy is repulsed by men.


Errr not really. There are some people out there that are definitely considered ugly.


For example


Because it’s incredibly subjective. There are two ways you could legislate for this: 1. Have a legal definition of attractive. People with a certain percentage of traits outside of that definition are considered ugly. 2. Pass a law that you cannot discriminate based on appearance at all and appearance cannot be a factor in any sort of hiring decision making. Both of these would cause quite a few problems.


Define ‘ugly’; It’s a moving target legally. Compare Rubens to Rosetti; both depicted ‘beautiful’ models, yet Rosetti is much more closely aligned to what we think of as ‘beautiful’ now. Plus, if you are discriminated against (say for employment), you at least have the pleasure of not working with a bunch of shallow arses; that’s where real ugliness lies.


The second point is already a law though, isn't it? At least where I live


I'm not sure where you live, but where I'm from it definitely isn't illegal to not hire someone based on how they dress or their hygiene. That is a part of appearance and how ugly you look. Plus if this were a law then all acting positions and also Hooters would have to stop


Is it enforceable? We have similar laws here but not really enforceable. You need the employer to be honest about the not-hiring reason, which, any sane person know what to do


Because ugly people aren't a group and there's no objective determinator over whether someone is ugly. They also don't get treated as badly as groups like the Jewish or blacks, who have been killed.


Pretty sure ugly people have also been killed. Also in the court room an unattractive person gets on average a 120% longer sentence for the same crime as an attractive person. Whereas a black person gets a 20% longer sentence for the same crime as a white person.


I believe short people also get longer sentences. Is that enough to treat them differently in law?


>Pretty sure ugly people have also been killed. En masse for being ugly? Where and when did that happen?


Where did you find these statistics?


I read about them years ago but here’s one source: https://www.thelawproject.com.au/insights/attractiveness-bias-in-the-legal-system?format=amp


I guarantee you ugly people have been killed. It not just dangerous for us handsomes out here in the streets.


Well society does have standards when it comes to beauty, and people who don't meet that standard tend to me treated poorly in society and could be paid less in the workplace. It's even worse for women, due to society treating them as commodities


I don't understand why you're downvoted, it's very true and upsetting that people won't even admit to this treatment.


Where is it true though? I've had more 300lb sack of shit bosses than I've had super model bosses. Have you worked in an office? Promise it's not filled with a bunch of head turners. What even is ugly? I've never seen someone and thought they were ugly for anything other than something they can control. Being fat, having bad hygiene, not grooming yourself, are usually things people control and generally reflect a person's character. Actual protected groups like your ethnicity, gender, any disabilities are all things out of a person's control and why it's against the law to discriminate against them.


I’ve seen plenty of horse faced billionaires that disprove your point entirely.


Plenty of black and jewish billionaires too, so racism must be fake


Were they ugly though.


It’s not about whether there are literally any ugly billionaires, it’s about whether the average billionaire has a tendency to be better looking than the average not-billionaire. In general, when people are talking about a tendency or a likelihood, individual data points will never ‘disprove a point entirely’. You have to look at the group at large. OP’s point is still probably incorrect, but it’s still good to ensure you‘re making sound arguments.


and the usa have had a black president so no racism there right


>Well society does have standards when it comes to beauty, and people who don't meet that standard tend to me treated poorly in society and could be paid less in the workplace. While they could be paid less, there's no evidence suggesting they are, as opposed to the evidence showing women and minorities are paid less.


There is evidence https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/orsp_shahani-denning_spring03.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiZ3evT_cH6AhXQTTABHYoSA58QFnoECEIQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1UqkN3q3MQz2jzzWLq-w7U


Yes, there is evidence of this for fat/overweight/obese people which many would incorrectly lump into the "ugly" category.


Read the article man, it doesn't mention weight at all. The Halo effect - thinking positive things about someone just based on the fact that you find them attractive - is a real thing. But because we do not really like to call ourselves ugly, this is not really a problem you hear that much about (other than overweight people trying to convince you that they are beautiful)


short men are paid less than tall men




Good looking people have it hard too. People assume that because you look like that, you dont have any worries in life. Nobody helps you because they assume everything comes easy to you. You get trashed on by others out of jealousy. Those who do help are usually trying to get something. It's all about perspective. Life is life and it sucks unless you make the conscious effort to pick yourself back up. No one is gonna help you and no one is gonna show mercy. It's up to you to figure it out and choose the right people to be around. The way I see it: a 2 can become an 8 with the right effort, confidence and attitude. Build your body to the shape you desire, keep yourself clean, work on your mentality, and talk to more people. You can always cross off the ones you dont like but you can never find the good ones without searching. They are out there.


>Nobody helps you because they assume everything comes easy to you I'd like some confirmation from people who've gone from conventionally pretty to ugly or vice-versa. That is absolutely not my experience, in any case.


There is an amount of control people have over their looks. Whether that’s through make up, dieting, working out, whatever, most people can become reasonably attractive. The exception to this are people with certain deformities or medical issues, who are vocal that they shouldn’t be treated any differently.


Peace to you friend. Body dysmorphia is a mental condition where people cannot stop thinking about one or more perceived defects or flaws in your appearance. Reading replies to this thread is not going to help your underlying condition because the question assumes the quality of 'ugliness' as being established. Speaking for myself, I find ugliness to be about how one acts, rather than appearance. I know it is not that simple, especially not in our rather shallow and selfish society. Perhaps do your best to avoid social media today, and just turn off notifications to this thread. Maybe that could be the most empowering thing you do for yourself today. Good luck. You are not alone.


Can't call people ugly. We prefer " those with severe appearance deficits"


I know youre joking but this is a legitimate thing that some people do, to soften the blow you just day people who “aren’t conventionally attractive”


Physically unappealing


Ugly is very subjective versus someone's skin color being black.




Is Nicholas Cage conventionally unattractive? Rebel Wilson? Adam Driver? Ben Stiller? Ron Perlman? Steve Buscemi? Mike Myers? I'm not asking about their talent or their humour, but just actual physical attractiveness. I think you'd find a lot of people saying "of course" while others would find them very attractive.


Oh, skin color has its own weirdness independent of race. For example see Northern Italians vs Southern Italians.


"Black" is a spectrum. It's also a culture. People can pass as white and not be visibly black, and they're still black. Therefore it is subjective. Ugliness isn't subjective. Attraction is subjective. Ugliness isn't a simple matter of if you're attractive or not, or even unattractive, ugly is the far extreme equivalent to repulsive, but repulsive in a universal sense. Straight men are often repulsed by men, that doesn't make men ugly, nor does it make ugly subjective. Everyone finds hideous repulsive mutated sickly rotting obese people ugly. That's what ugly is.


Point is, the US has a database which tells you whether someone identifies as black, white or black AND white, among other things. There's no "ugly" database that the US has. Literally no company or country has demographic information that pertains to "ugly".


Based on the responses, I see a lot of people trying to say discrimination if people with unattractive qualities isn’t a thing…when it absolutely is. It’s why “intersectionality” is a thing. It pretty much says there are A LOT of factors that go into discrimination and it’s almost never black or white (as in binary, not skin color). Who’s going further in life…a short, overweight, bald, poor guy with low self-esteem or a beautiful, wealthy, confident black woman? Black women absolutely encounter significantly higher amounts of discrimination to their white male counterparts…but there are other factors that all add up. Tons of grey area and context which is hard to put a framework against, so people rely on simpler constructs and ignore the nuance. Intersectionality.


When do people ever actually stick up for the poor, bald, fat, ugly, straight, white guy though? Intersectionality might acknowledge his disadvantages in theory, but in practice it's very much focused on race, gender and sexuality and he's supposedly hit the jackpot there.


They do. At least on tumblr there are plenty of calls not to target the appearance of bad cishet white men (ie trump’s toupee) because those traits aren’t what make them bad and plenty of innocent people share them. And to not be absolutist about that kind of thing. I mean, every person has to actively expand their empathy as a process. And poor people obviously have their defenders in many different kinds.


True, these are the types of people society cares the least about I would argue.


Part of the reasons people are so outspoken about race, gender, and other things nowadays is because the identity of the straight, White, guy in question has often be treated as the norm or the “default” human. Think of how many classical texts (especially religious and philosophical texts) that make a statement that’s meant to be general and then use masculine pronouns/descriptions. Stuff like “The instincts of justice are stronger than those of grammar, and hence the average man would rather commit a solecism than ungallantly squelch the woman in his jaunty fashion” (1875) has been common practice throughout much human history. When we look at things like the Constitution, we see the Founding Fathers write “all men are created equal” even as many of their African slaves were being whipped in the yard and Native Americans were being forced off their land. In this case, we can see that centering the rights of men was a deliberate choice, at the time, but it also shows how manhood has been made equated with Whiteness since the very start of this country. The same thing is true when discussing the assumed sexuality of the (White) man, in question. It’s true that queer men have the capacity to be misogynistic and uphold patriarchal norms in their own way. But one of the main reasons the harms of patriarchal norms are often rationalized and downplayed is because of how often the heterosexual man is considered the “normal” man and everything any of them do to satisfy their heterosexual urges is also “normal.” Even there’s nothing about heterosexuality and masculinity is not inextricably linked to sexually harassment, assault, coercion, or the full-on rape of women (locally or as a war tactic even now), it has often been treated as such. Why? Because of the number of times bad behavior was dismissed or rationalized as “boys will be boys” and it’s better to be sexual “conqueror” than a virgin. Both being ideas that are usually championed by other men, actually. So, the advocation for White men isn’t always overt because of how much of this history still allows people to make use of terms they know have historically favored or centered straight, White men. Terms like “hardworking taxpayer,” “fellow American,” “traditional” or “Christian” man, “patriot,” “veteran.” Even the straight pride parades are a funny example because even though the idea was to mimic the celebration of sexual and gender diversity that happens at queer pride, many of the people that went and advocated for Straight pride were people waving Confederate Flags and paying homage to many of White Supremacist groups.


Thanks, good write-up!


Best answer, in my opinion. One more thing I'm not seeing mentioned anywhere is how race and disability- factors already identified as putting you at risk for discrimination- already influence what we consider beautiful. What is ugly? An asymmetric face, unusual body proportions? Those with such features are often suffering from an illness, so they may be disabled as well. Textured hair, wide and blunt nose? That's a lot of black and south Asian people. Large or hooked nose? Jewish, Middle Eastern and North Indian people often have it. Short stature (there's a lower limit for you to apply to modelling agencies)? Asian people again. A certain way of dressing? It is rooted in classism and disrespect towards other cultures. In America, one can argue that present-day fatphobia is also related to classism. The definition of beauty is already closely related to other forms of bigotry.


Couldn’t have said it better myself, most insightful response here without question


It’s the most pervasive social bias, we all do it, and it’s impossible to get rid of because it’s inherently tied to a negative perception. For example, a person who is racist against black people has formed an association between the appearance of black people and negative stereotypes or prejudice they attribute to them. However this is possible to get rid of by simply breaking the association or by socialising and educating the next generation differently. The reason is the association to negative perception isn’t inherent. Having black skin doesn’t actually make you more likely to commit crime, be thuggish, or whatever stereotype a person might attach. However ugliness is just that, it’s ugly, it’s less attractive, the link to the negative association is inherent. It’s practically impossible to remove this prejudice. Even babies who haven’t been socialised yet express a bias against ugliness (or towards attractive people). Babies stare at attractive faces 3x longer than unattractive faces, look it up. Of course beauty is subjective but that simply means that everyone’s personal bias against ugliness is subjective. It will exist in variations between different people. Some people may not be very judgemental and won’t be as biased against ugly people as the average person. Some people will be more biased than average. And the goal posts of what is attractive and what is unattractive will generally vary slightly from person to person. Essentially it’s just a fact of life, it’s very hard to regulate, and it’s intrinsically a part of human psychology. That doesn’t mean there aren’t steps that can be taken to mitigate some of the damage it can have. One example is that attractive people are given lighter sentences for the same crime committed by an unattractive person (again this is a fact, studies have been done). To avoid this happening a person on trial for a crime could appear only to the plaintiff for the purpose of identification, and remain invisible to the judge and jury. That said it all seems a bit difficult to manage as part of the legal process is about judging a persons character (which I don’t exactly agree with but I do see the need). A lot of judging someone’s character is to observe them physically, looking at their behaviour and body language, and even how they look because it shows how they choose to present themselves to society. I don’t know the exact stat but defendants who have been held in jail awaiting trial, who show up to court in an orange prison tracksuit, are much more likely to be convicted and handed a lengthier sentence than defendants of the same crime who were bailed and were wearing normal clothes. Obviously socioeconomic status plays a role in that as the defendants who afforded bail were probably a bit better off than those who couldn’t. But it still shows how massively we judge off of appearance. A person in a orange prison tracksuit just LOOKS more guilty. These biases are pervasive and brutal. They extend past looks even. Studies done on dating sites found that shorter names, even when using exactly the same pictures and profile info, attracted more matches than longer names. E.g. Matt instead of Matthew. Sam instead of Samantha. So if you’re applying for a job, introducing yourself, or going on Tinder, use a shorthand form of your name 🤣. Attractive waiters and waitresses are tipped far more on average than unattractive. Every inch increase in height for both men and women correlated to a few percent higher income. As a man, you are 14x more likely to be a CEO if you are over 6ft. Showing the same picture of a person with either a sports car or a normal car in the background causes the man to be rated as more attractive when standing in front of a sports car, even when there is little to no implication he actually owns it. Etc. etc. The only real solution or advice to unattractive people, is to attempt to improve your appearance, unfortunately. Attractiveness bias may ebb and flow as culture changes over time, and as laws are introduced that may mitigate it, but it will always exist.


ugly is subjective, things like race, gender, age, etc. are more objective and therefore something you would be able to legislate


Most of the comments here are talking about the infeasibility of getting people to rally behind the ‘we are ugly and have rights too’ cause and/or the challenges of enforcing anti-discrimination laws against ugliness. So, is it feasible to start or enforce those laws? No. Is being ugly likely to result in a whole bunch of challenges in life that are purely the creation of people treating you worse? Yes. And to compound things you don’t have the solidarity that a lot of other groups that experience similar things have. IMO there is no built-in apology needed for this question. When people make your life harder unnecessarily due to something you were born with that sucks regardless of the group you fall in.


Because people don't usually identify as ugly. ​ Line up behind me to start though.


Current top upvoted answers are just asinine. There are very real and objective aspects of beauty, even if it wholly defined isn't objective. That's no different than race. The ONLY reason why this is the case is because ugly people don't form groups with each other in order to put pressure on legislators. No one wants to self-identify as part of the "ugly" group.


I'd say it is taken seriously. Many people with facial disfigurement (do to injury or birth defects) have advocated about the mistreatment they face by society. Same with little people. Anyone who isn't a terrible person takes these stories seriously. However, there isn't a cohesive group of people who just have big noses or something that can come together to advocate against the mistreatment of people with big noses.


Can you give an example of what you consider discrimination against “ugly people”?


Societal mistreatment and discrimination in workplace as well as social apps showing content from ugly people less


Ok but can you give a specific example? For example, discrimination in the workplace - what is an example of that as it pertains to "ugly people"?


in 1881 Chicago passed a law that fined any person who is diseased, maimed, mutilated or in any way deformed so as to be an unsightly or disgusting object for appearing in public. IIRC its since been repealed though


Promotions are more likely to be given to unqualified attractive people as opposed to qualified unattractive people. There have been studies on this so if you'd like you can check it out


Got it, thank you for clarifying!


Yeah that’s true and it’s fucked up. Does it get less attention?




What a glorious shitpost. Thank you for poisoning the historical record with a lie just barely on the edge of dubious.


We like pretty things, that's who humans are, even babies like attractive people more. There's nothing you can do about it. Other than trying to compensate your looks with being interesting and actually having a personality, plenty of 'ugly' people got the girl because of the ability to make them laugh and being enjoyable or interesting


In my opinion it's because we're programmed to see ugly people as unhealthy, especially fat people, fat and ugly being even worse, and evolutionary psychology would recommend to us at the core of our beings that there's something wrong with that person. Plenty of people have gotten over that and are nice to everyone, but it's got to be reproductive and based on natural selection. Gotta remember though, at a certain age we all get ugly or fat. Attractiveness is for the young people. Then everything becomes a bit different in regards to people's estimation of your worth. But as someone with some serious illnesses, I've found that once you get to be a certain level of "sick", people naturally treat you differently. Like maybe"you can no longer reproduce healthy offspring".


Give it a generation or two.


Interesting topic. You definitely only see attractive people on tv/youtube. Look at your local news outlets, no overweight women for example.


I think because ugliness is subjective where as someone either factually is or isn't disabled, whatever race, gender, sex, religion, sexuality they are etc.


Because being ugly isn’t really a protected class. Being ugly is pretty subjective, so you can’t really discriminate against the uglies as a whole, only people you find ugly.


im ugly and i’m proud


because you'd have to admit you were ugly to claim youre being discriminated against for it


Good question. And, one that Reddit has failed to answer.


I think a lot of people have hit the nail on the head by saying ugly is subjective. But I think another important reason is that you don't really have a lot of people willing to identify as ugly and create activist groups for it. In order for discrimination to be fought, you need to form a group of people rallied behind specific political goals and that hasn't happened here.


Ugly isn't subjective. It's extremely objective, with few outliers. Strong jaw, good head of hair, hunter eyes, higher cheekbones, thicker eyebrows, positive canthil tilt, ect. All of these are attractive characteristics that 99.9% of the population can agree with.


Well, 99% of people probably don’t even know what canthil tilts or hunter eyes are, much less agree with you that they’re attractive. But I digress. Sure, there are things that we could fairly objectively say are the ideal beauty standard. But we also don’t usually make a habit of calling everyone who falls short of one or more of these ideal standards ugly. And there are also traits and preferences that definitely are subjectively attractive, like hair color. And there’s also always groups of people who’s tastes differ from the dominant ideal in a society; people really into fat people or people in animal costumes. Beauty can’t be reduced to just a bunch of measurements or even simply sexual desirability. Beauty and by extension ugliness are very complex things that mean different things to different people in different contexts. And the fact that 99% of people in a survey said symmetrical faces were attractive barely even scratches the surface of that.


There are people who you and 99% of others wouldn’t date, I think that’s the main point here. Genuinely, nearly unanimously ugly people exist and that comes with some serious disadvantages.


You might not consciously know about the names but certainly subconsciously. For example, negative canthil tilt is almost universally associated with a sleepy, dead-inside look. Now obviously ugly/beauty isn't binary, there is a continous spectrum, and different people will rank others *slightly* differently from one another, however the general direction is still the same. You can't point towards outliers as a reason to ignore the majority. Pretty & ugly are directly connotated with good & bad for us, as a social species, and we indeed treat others extremely differently based on looks. If you ever look towards recounts of fat people losing weight or people getting cosmetic surgery, the most prominent quality-of-life improvement they tout is the way others treat their new self. Attractive people are confident because they are attractive.


Aren't the people that 99% of people wouldn't date also outliers though? If you had a group of people sort 100 pictures of random people into a pretty pile and an ugly pile; you're likely to see variation in peoples' answers. If you had someone sort pictures of people they knew personally and then handed that stack of pictures to someone who didn't know any of them; you're likely to get pretty different answers. You'd definitely get more variation in peoples' answers than if you were having people sort them by race or by gender. And that's because the concept isn't as clearly defined.


Hmm but there does not exist a pretty and ugly pile. You ask them to sort along a number line from 0-10 and there'd be pretty consistent scores for each person.


Why are people giving the OP shit for comparing it to other forms of discrimination? Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of what form it comes in. You can’t pick and choose.


Because people don't want to say that they are being discriminated against for being ugly. Would you admit that you're so ugly that people treat you differently? I'm not sure I would


Because no one wants to admit to being discriminated against for being ugly


You could ask this about nearly any group that isn't a leftist approved protected group.


Because hardly anyone is confident enough in their ugliness to identify as ugly to then get protection for it. Also, ugliness is relative and frequently disagreed upon.


Attraction, unlike height, weight, race, or ethnicity is subjective and differs based on who you ask


Generally because unless you have a physical deformity (which is treated as serious discrimination) ugliness is entirely avoidable. For the most part, attractiveness is about presentation. Exercise, eat well, dress well, have good hygiene, take care of your hair, teeth and skin, and you'll at least be average looking even without being genetically gifted. Imperfections are rarely deal breakers for anyone if you're putting effort into your appearance.


Beauty is largely subjective. Race, gender, and sexual orientation are not.


Idk maybe cuz there’s never been public lynchings of ugly people? genocide of ugly people? Also beauty is subjective and changes like a trend….Just some things that come to mind….


taking inspiration from the “why isn’t ginger a slur” post i see


Prove to me that ugly people get paid less than attractive people


That's easy, there have been many studies that prove that people who are perceived as attractive are treated preferentially in numerous ways. That is not up for debate, it's factual. The question here is whether it could be written into law that "ugly" is a protected status, and that's basically impossible.


Some people are so objectively ugly that it would be fair to classify it as a disability. They deserve special programs to help them find their way in the world as much as many other groups that are currently supported.


Life isn't fair Laws that attempt to enforce fairness are ineffective


Good answer! My question however is why do you think bias of attractiveness isn't treated very seriously, I wasn't asking why it exists


I mean, for example, we treat athletes kind of like celebrities. At the Olympic levels, genetics does definitely play a huge part. There's a bias there too but we don't do anything about it either. Really, what could be done about it? If let's say for example a bill was drafted, I don't see it becoming law.


Because of what people said before, even though there is a common idea of what ugly is, it’s very subjective… How are you going to enforce that? Point blank life isn’t fair, you might be ugly and still end up rich, or end up with a good looking guy/girl… we can’t just make a bunch of rules to make life fair it doesn’t work. Do you want to make it where ugly people automatically have more wealth? You’re defining it by one arbitrary side and not seeing the other side. I might be conventionally attractive but I look young so people treat me like I’m stupid. Life isn’t fair bottom line


Does the number of people coming here to say it doesn't count against ugly people or giving you some BS nonsense as an excuse help provide an answer? They want someone to poke fun of to feel better about themselves, the only useful thing I've seen in the responses is "they aren't a defined group", which means they have no protection.


In what context? Are you being denied jobs for being ugly, or is this a segue into an incel pity party?


Just let out a big ass "woot WOOOOOOOO" for ya in my living rm


Ugliness is subjective


Because you can change