How a man ends up neglecting his appearance: theories without data

How a man ends up looking like that: testosterone and neglect

How can a man end up looking like that? The question circulates online with the insistence of a refrain and, judging by the answers it generates, leaves little room for nuance. Being born again would be the shortest path, one reply sums up. Zero testosterone, declares another. And in between, a mix of mockery, biology and sarracena judgment that says more about the person judging than the person being judged.

The first thing that stands out is the absence of any objective data. There is no medical test, no figures, no measurement: just a photograph and an impression of a man's physical appearance turned into a verdict. Testosterone appears as both cause and symptom, almost as destiny. Nobody measures it. Nobody qualifies it.

What explanations are given for letting yourself go

The repertoire of hypotheses is broad and far from rigorous. Some attribute the deterioration to pure neglect: the whole story is simply a lack of self-care. Others point to a deeper problem —withdrawal, isolation, a life organized around the screen rather than the body— and argue that appearance is only the visible tip of something more uncomfortable. The third option, mentioned in passing, is hormonal, resting on the vague idea that testosterone fades with age and with habits.

None of the three is proven. All of them coexist. And that is precisely the problem: when there is no measurement, any theory is worth exactly as much as its opposite.

The profile being sketched: two degrees, money and a partner who takes care of things

A sociological portrait also emerges, more revealing than the physical one. It describes a man with two degrees, apparently withdrawn, looking for a partner of similar standing to share expenses and, along the way, keep his household running. The accusation, thrown out without evidence, is that this model ends up alone or coupled only in exchange for something: housing and paperwork in return for care. The criticism has less to do with appearance than with a division of labor that many still consider unequal.

An income of 8,000 euros is mentioned for such a profile, though it is never clarified whether that is monthly or yearly. Without knowing the figure, the complaint hangs in the air. What does hold up is that money does not fix a shared life when expectations are asymmetric.

From mockery to a TV reference

The conversation quickly jumps to popular culture. Better Call Saul is cited, along with a vampire character who feeds off other people's energy, to illustrate a human type: the one who takes without giving back and buys cars to show off. The comparison is convenient and somewhat unfair —it mixes aesthetics with character— but it works as a shortcut. Suspicion about the subject's sensual orientation also surfaces, turned into an easy joke. The joke says more about the joker than the subject.

Where the analysis gets stuck

In the end, nobody distinguishes between cause and consequence. Does letting your appearance go produce isolation, or is it isolation that extinguishes any self-care? Is it an individual problem of discipline or the symptom of a generation that has stopped going out? The discussion stops exactly there, at the point where a piece of data would be needed and all there is, is one opinion louder than the last.