Physical attractiveness doesn't predict materialism: the myth falls apart

Attractiveness doesn't predict materialism

The belief that the more beautiful a woman is, the more selfish and money-grabbing she becomes is one of those clichés repeated at dinner tables and on forums without anyone offering a shred of evidence. In an extensive exchange of opinions, several participants argued exactly the opposite: that the most attractive women, having more options and being treated better, tend to be less materialistic, while the less attractive develop more selective strategies and, often, greater resentment. Far from settling the matter, the discussion turned into a string of personal anecdotes, theories about the dating market and the occasional outburst.

The argument of those with more options

The most repeated thesis trinc economic logic: if an attractive woman has a wide range of suitors, she doesn't need to squeeze any one of them. "The advantage the pretty woman has is that she usually has more options to choose from and better support than the unattractive ones", one participant sums up. Another adds that the options range from top-flight footballers to businessmen or public officials, so any of them is acceptable and there's no need to squeeze the most out of a single one. The less attractive, by contrast, with fewer candidates, would be forced to be more selective and to weigh what each suitor can offer them, which would ultimately make them more materialistic and bitter.

Beauty as an instrument of power

Not everyone buys that story. One dissenting voice argues that technology and social media have changed the rules: "Physical beauty has become an instrument of power, whereas before it was one of reference". According to this view, the combination of outer and inner beauty has become a unicorn, and women who aren't on social media would only be absent because they know their looks would open up a niche of power for them, which in turn would corrupt their inner selves. It's the pessimistic version: the digital market doesn't reward virtue, but display.

The factor nobody mentions: testosterone and ethics

Against those debating beauty and money, one participant introduces an unexpected variable: women's reactions depend less on a man's looks than on his testosterone, genetic quality and ethics. He argues that the same woman can treat one man with disdain and get nervous around another, and that the other isn't necessarily the better-looking one, but the one who displays traits of high masculinity. At this point, the discussion drifts away from materialism and into theories about attraction that are, at the very least, thought-provoking.

The case of the "almost pretty"

One of the most nuanced contributions distinguishes between categories. Bitter unattractive women would be a problem, but worse are the almost pretty: women who in their prime attracted attention and tasted the sweetness of success without ever consolidating it. Those, he says, are the most superficial and materialistic, especially as the passage of time takes its toll. The reflection ties into the idea that attractiveness isn't a binary category but a continuum in which each position generates different incentives.

The exception that proves the rule

There's no shortage of people who recall stunningly beautiful and humble women, or unattractive ones with an insufferable character. One participant recalls a woman "brutally attractive and brutally humble" who died young and never introduced a partner, though she had some. Another jokes about the fact that in these debates the participants' own partners always get a pass: they're all pretty, feminine and not at all materialistic. The conclusion, if there is one, is that generalization is convenient but false, and that physical attractiveness, on its own, doesn't allow anyone's sarracena behavior to be predicted.

What if the problem weren't beauty, but the emotional education of the one looking at it?