It's Over It’s over. The normies found r/pitofcrocodiles.

[Lazyandtalentless]

It was fun while it lasted.

 

[blackraven]

call me a normie then bacuase I didn't have clue such subreddit existed

 

[daydreamER]

call me a normie then bacuase I didn't have clue such subreddit existed

Only discovered it a couple of days ago

 

[Grodd]

I didn't have clue such subreddit existed

 

[Fallen-Angel]

It's not over. Creator of the sub intended it to be an open bp sub so everyone can participate. There are private bp subs as well.

 

[Fallen-Angel]

A lot of feminists attack that sub, lmao

 

[Lazyandtalentless]

At the very least, post some hard-hitting studies on the importance of clear skin and facial symmetry, so they’ll stop insisting that beauty is purely subjective—along with research on appearance-based discrimination and the role of physical looks in initial attraction, so they can finally stop claiming that looks don’t matter. And have these studies on one post and pin it.

 

[Lazyandtalentless]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728.2022.2076629

Thomas J. Spiegel’s, “Lookism as Epistemic Injustice”

1. Neglect of Lookism in Philosophy and Epistemology​

Spiegel begins by noting that while lookism-discrimination based on physical attractiveness-has been widely studied in fields like sociology, psychology, and economics, it has been “widely neglected” in philosophy, especially in discussions of epistemic injustice. He points out that major philosophical works and handbooks on epistemic injustice rarely, if ever, mention lookism, ugliness, or attractiveness as relevant factors, unlike race or gender.

2. Lookism as Epistemic Injustice​

Spiegel applies Miranda Fricker’s influential framework of epistemic injustice to lookism. He argues that lookism produces both:

• Hermeneutic injustice:This is when people lack the conceptual resources to make sense of their own experiences. In the case of lookism, this takes the form of a social taboo around acknowledging unattractiveness. People are discouraged from recognizing or discussing how their looks affect their social standing, leading to a lack of understanding and articulation of their own disadvantage.
  • Example: An unattractive person may not fully recognize or be able to express that their lack of opportunities in romance or work is due to their looks, because society avoids talking about “ugliness.”
• Testimonial injustice:This occurs when someone’s word is given less credibility due to prejudice. Spiegel argues that unattractive people’s claims about facing discrimination are often dismissed or gaslit, because society is uncomfortable with ascribing “ugliness” and thus resists acknowledging look-based disadvantage.
  • Example: If an unattractive person says they were overlooked for a job due to their looks, listeners may reject or downplay this explanation, reinforcing the injustice.

3. Empirical Evidence for Lookism​

Spiegel marshals a range of empirical studies to show that lookism is real, pervasive, and systematic:

• Workplace: Ugly people have worse chances in the job market (Paik & Shahani-Denning, 2014), and earn less for the same work (Doorley & Sierminska, 2015).
• Romance: Unattractive people have fewer romantic options (Fugère et al., 2017).
• Childhood: Ugly children are treated worse than attractive children from an early age (Kringelbach et al., 2008).
• Legal System: Ugly people receive harsher penalties in court (Gunnell & Ceci, 2010).
• General Social Judgment: The “ugly-is-bad” stereotype leads to unattractive people being rated as less competent or likable (Griffin & Langlois, 2006), while the “beauty-is-good” stereotype benefits attractive people (Lemay, Clark, & Greenberg, 2010).

4. Objectivity and Systemic Nature of Lookism​

Spiegel challenges the common idea that beauty is entirely subjective. He cites research showing high agreement on who is considered attractive, and draws on Bourdieu’s work to argue that standards of beauty are socially and culturally constructed, but not merely matters of individual taste. This subject-transcendent aspect allows lookism to be studied as a real, systemic phenomenon.

• Systemic Discrimination: Lookism operates across many domains-work, romance, law, childhood, and more-similar to racism or sexism. People “carry” their looks throughout all areas of life, and the effects are cumulative and persistent.

5. Intersectionality and Distinctiveness​

While lookism often overlaps with other forms of discrimination (such as racism), Spiegel insists it is not reducible to them. He gives examples such as:

• Short men: Discriminated against in work and dating, even if they are otherwise privileged.
• Race and gender: In some cultures, Asian men face lookism that is entangled with, but not identical to, racism.

Thus, lookism is a sui generis form of prejudice, analogous to but distinct from other “isms.”

6. Positive Lookism and Its Epistemic Effects​

Spiegel also considers the epistemic effects of positive lookism (favoring the attractive). He suggests that attractive people may develop a distorted worldview, overestimating their own competence and the fairness of the world, because their unearned advantages are rarely acknowledged or discussed. This is a subtler, but still significant, epistemic harm.

7. Taboo and Language​

Spiegel deliberately uses the word “ugly” rather than “unattractive” to confront the social taboo head-on. He argues that the discomfort and impoliteness associated with the term “ugly” itself contributes to the hermeneutic injustice-if we can’t even name the phenomenon, we can’t analyze or address it.

8. Conclusion​

Spiegel’s article is a call to recognize lookism as a serious, systemic, and epistemically damaging form of discrimination. It harms the unattractive by denying them opportunities and by undermining their ability to understand and communicate their own experiences. At the same time, it distorts the self-understanding of the attractive. Philosophers and social theorists, he argues, must bring lookism into the center of discussions about epistemic injustice.

Summary Table​

Aspect	Description/Example
Hermeneutic Injustice	Taboo against acknowledging unattractiveness; inhibits self-understanding
Testimonial Injustice	Claims of look-based discrimination dismissed or gaslit
Empirical Evidence	Wage gaps, fewer romantic options, harsher legal penalties, negative stereotypes
Objectivity	High agreement on attractiveness; socially constructed but not merely subjective
Intersectionality	Overlaps with but is not reducible to racism; e.g., short men, Asian men
Positive Lookism	Attractive people may develop distorted, overconfident worldviews
Taboo/Language	Use of “ugly” as an analytic tool to break the silence and discomfort

 

[Lazyandtalentless]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02691728.2022.2076629

Thomas J. Spiegel’s, “Lookism as Epistemic Injustice”

1. Neglect of Lookism in Philosophy and Epistemology​

Spiegel begins by noting that while lookism-discrimination based on physical attractiveness-has been widely studied in fields like sociology, psychology, and economics, it has been “widely neglected” in philosophy, especially in discussions of epistemic injustice. He points out that major philosophical works and handbooks on epistemic injustice rarely, if ever, mention lookism, ugliness, or attractiveness as relevant factors, unlike race or gender.

2. Lookism as Epistemic Injustice​

Spiegel applies Miranda Fricker’s influential framework of epistemic injustice to lookism. He argues that lookism produces both:

• Hermeneutic injustice:This is when people lack the conceptual resources to make sense of their own experiences. In the case of lookism, this takes the form of a social taboo around acknowledging unattractiveness. People are discouraged from recognizing or discussing how their looks affect their social standing, leading to a lack of understanding and articulation of their own disadvantage.
  • Example: An unattractive person may not fully recognize or be able to express that their lack of opportunities in romance or work is due to their looks, because society avoids talking about “ugliness.”
• Testimonial injustice:This occurs when someone’s word is given less credibility due to prejudice. Spiegel argues that unattractive people’s claims about facing discrimination are often dismissed or gaslit, because society is uncomfortable with ascribing “ugliness” and thus resists acknowledging look-based disadvantage.
  • Example: If an unattractive person says they were overlooked for a job due to their looks, listeners may reject or downplay this explanation, reinforcing the injustice.

3. Empirical Evidence for Lookism​

Spiegel marshals a range of empirical studies to show that lookism is real, pervasive, and systematic:

• Workplace: Ugly people have worse chances in the job market (Paik & Shahani-Denning, 2014), and earn less for the same work (Doorley & Sierminska, 2015).
• Romance: Unattractive people have fewer romantic options (Fugère et al., 2017).
• Childhood: Ugly children are treated worse than attractive children from an early age (Kringelbach et al., 2008).
• Legal System: Ugly people receive harsher penalties in court (Gunnell & Ceci, 2010).
• General Social Judgment: The “ugly-is-bad” stereotype leads to unattractive people being rated as less competent or likable (Griffin & Langlois, 2006), while the “beauty-is-good” stereotype benefits attractive people (Lemay, Clark, & Greenberg, 2010).

4. Objectivity and Systemic Nature of Lookism​

Spiegel challenges the common idea that beauty is entirely subjective. He cites research showing high agreement on who is considered attractive, and draws on Bourdieu’s work to argue that standards of beauty are socially and culturally constructed, but not merely matters of individual taste. This subject-transcendent aspect allows lookism to be studied as a real, systemic phenomenon.

• Systemic Discrimination: Lookism operates across many domains-work, romance, law, childhood, and more-similar to racism or sexism. People “carry” their looks throughout all areas of life, and the effects are cumulative and persistent.

5. Intersectionality and Distinctiveness​

While lookism often overlaps with other forms of discrimination (such as racism), Spiegel insists it is not reducible to them. He gives examples such as:

• Short men: Discriminated against in work and dating, even if they are otherwise privileged.
• Race and gender: In some cultures, Asian men face lookism that is entangled with, but not identical to, racism.

Thus, lookism is a sui generis form of prejudice, analogous to but distinct from other “isms.”

6. Positive Lookism and Its Epistemic Effects​

Spiegel also considers the epistemic effects of positive lookism (favoring the attractive). He suggests that attractive people may develop a distorted worldview, overestimating their own competence and the fairness of the world, because their unearned advantages are rarely acknowledged or discussed. This is a subtler, but still significant, epistemic harm.

7. Taboo and Language​

Spiegel deliberately uses the word “ugly” rather than “unattractive” to confront the social taboo head-on. He argues that the discomfort and impoliteness associated with the term “ugly” itself contributes to the hermeneutic injustice-if we can’t even name the phenomenon, we can’t analyze or address it.

8. Conclusion​

Spiegel’s article is a call to recognize lookism as a serious, systemic, and epistemically damaging form of discrimination. It harms the unattractive by denying them opportunities and by undermining their ability to understand and communicate their own experiences. At the same time, it distorts the self-understanding of the attractive. Philosophers and social theorists, he argues, must bring lookism into the center of discussions about epistemic injustice.

Summary Table​

Aspect	Description/Example
Hermeneutic Injustice	Taboo against acknowledging unattractiveness; inhibits self-understanding
Testimonial Injustice	Claims of look-based discrimination dismissed or gaslit
Empirical Evidence	Wage gaps, fewer romantic options, harsher legal penalties, negative stereotypes
Objectivity	High agreement on attractiveness; socially constructed but not merely subjective
Intersectionality	Overlaps with but is not reducible to racism; e.g., short men, Asian men
Positive Lookism	Attractive people may develop distorted, overconfident worldviews
Taboo/Language	Use of “ugly” as an analytic tool to break the silence and discomfort

This and these studies are brutal:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ttractiveness_symmetry_and_cues_of_good_genes This study investigates whether women use facial symmetry as a primary cue for assessing male attractiveness—or if symmetry is just one of several correlated indicators of good genes or phenotypic condition.

Background & Rationale

• Good genes theory suggests that females prefer mates with traits that signal genetic quality—traits linked to better health, fertility, or disease resistance.
• Bilateral facial symmetry has often been seen as one such signal, because developmental stress (from mutations or environmental challenges) can cause minor asymmetries.
• However, it’s unclear if women detect symmetry directly or if symmetry just correlates with other more visible traits like facial masculinity or general attractiveness.

Study Objectives

1. Test whether women can accurately perceive facial symmetry.
2. Determine whether symmetry predicts attractiveness, even when symmetry cues are reduced.
3. Identify other traits (e.g., facial masculinity) that correlate with both symmetry and attractiveness.

Key Findings

• Symmetry predicts attractiveness, but:
  • Women could not accurately judge symmetry when asked directly.
  • Even half-face images (left or right side only)—which remove symmetry information—still showed a link between symmetry and attractiveness.
• This implies that other features correlated with symmetry are being used to judge attractiveness.

Facial Masculinity as an Additional Cue

• Facial masculinity—defined by cheekbone prominence and a longer lower face—was:
  • Positively correlated with facial symmetry.
  • Positively correlated with attractiveness ratings of both full and half faces.
• This supports the idea that masculinity could act as a “stand-in” for symmetry, and may itself be a cue of phenotypic quality.

Conclusion

• Facial attractiveness in men is influenced by symmetry, but women do not consciously assess symmetry.
• Instead, other correlated traits—like facial masculinity—serve as indirect indicators of underlying symmetry and genetic fitness.
• The study supports the good genes hypothesis by showing that certain visible traits (even subtle ones) may signal deeper biological qualities.

Implications

• Women’s preferences for certain male facial traits may be evolutionarily shaped to select for genetic fitness.
• Facial features such as cheekbone prominence and jaw proportions might carry developmental or hormonal cues that signal good health and reproductive value, even if women aren’t consciously aware of it.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2494.2012.00724.x Study Overview
Authors: B. Fink, L. Bunse, P. J. Matts, D. D’Emiliano

• Published: April 19, 2012
• Journal: International Journal of Cosmetic Science
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2494.2012.00724.x

Purpose of the Study

To determine whether the visible condition of skin—specifically cheek skin—can predict how people perceive a man’s face in terms of:

• Age
• Health
• Attractiveness

The study focuses on men because most previous work looked only at female skin appearance.

Methodology

• Participants:
  • 160 Caucasian British men, aged 10 to 70
  • Facial digital images were taken.
• Rating Process:
  • Rated by 301 participants (147 men and 154 women; average age ~23).
  • Raters assessed full facial images for age, health, and attractiveness.
  • Ratings were then compared to ratings of isolated cheek skin patches (from a prior study).

Key Findings

• Ratings of cheek skin alone (isolated from full facial context) accurately predicted perceptions of:
  • Facial age
  • Facial health
  • Facial attractiveness
• Decreased skin color homogeneity (i.e., uneven skin tone or blotchiness) was strongly associated with:
  • Being rated as older
  • Being perceived as less healthy
  • Being considered less attractive

Interpretation

• Skin color evenness (homogeneity) is a powerful independent signal of:
  • Youth
  • Health
  • Attractiveness
• These effects are independent of facial shape or other features—skin alone has a strong perceptual impact.

Implications

• For cosmetics, skincare, and dermatology:
  • Emphasizing skin tone evenness in men is not just aesthetic, but influences social perception.
• For evolutionary psychology and social interaction research:
  • Skin condition plays a critical role in social judgments beyond traditional facial symmetry or structure.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225575379_Physical_attractiveness_influences_reproductive_success_of_modern_men

Study Overview

Title:

Physical attractiveness influences reproductive success of modern men

Authors: Pavol Prokop & Peter Fedor (2011)

Purpose:

To test if physical attractiveness and height—two traits linked to genetic quality and mate selection—predict reproductive success (number of offspring) in modern men, taking into account marital status.

Key Points from the Abstract and Introduction

• Theory Basis:
  Sexual selection theory predicts that reproductive success correlates positively with genetic quality. Physical attractiveness and height are considered indicators of such quality.
• Research Gap:
  While attractiveness has been linked to mating success (e.g., more sexual partners), the association with reproductive success (number of children) in modern humans is less clear, especially since contraception can decouple mating from reproduction.
• Hypotheses:
  1. More attractive and taller men are more likely to marry (as a proxy for mate choice).
  2. These men will also have higher reproductive success (more children).

Methods

• Sample:
  499 men aged around 46 (with retrospective photos at age ~20), from Slovakia, both single, married, and divorced.
• Data Collected:
  • Facial photographs rated by 27 young women on attractiveness (scale 1–7).
  • Self-reported height, marital status, number of children, education level, birth order, and number of siblings.
• Analyses:
  Multiple logistic regression to predict marital status based on attractiveness, height, and other factors. Reproductive success analyzed controlling for marital status.

Results and Interpretation

1. Attractiveness and Height Predict Marriage:
   • Taller and more facially attractive men were significantly more likely to be married.
   • Lower education was linked to being unmarried.
2. Marriage Predicts Reproductive Success:
   • Married men had more children than single men, supporting that marriage increases reproductive opportunities.
3. Attractiveness Predicts Reproductive Success Independent of Marriage:
   • Even after controlling for marital status, facial attractiveness was positively associated with the number of offspring.
   • This implies that attractiveness confers reproductive advantages beyond just increasing chances of marriage, possibly through higher fertility within marriage or more children outside marriage.
4. Height and Reproductive Success:
   • Taller men were more likely to marry.

Theoretical and Evolutionary Implications

• The study supports the idea that physical attractiveness is an honest indicator of male genetic quality linked to health and immunity, which women have evolved to prefer.
• Height also signals genetic quality and social status, influencing mate choice.
• Even in modern societies with contraception, attractiveness still plays a role in sexual selection influencing actual reproductive outcomes.