Rational Vanity: Why Looksmaxxing Makes Sense

Image via TIME

***

Every year, the Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl releases a set of cases—real dilemmas drawn from the news—that teams spend months picking apart. This year, they included one called “Judging a Book by the Cover,” about a 20-year-old internet personality named Braden Peters, better known as Clavicular, and the movement he has come to represent: looksmaxxing. 

Looksmaxxing is the practice of “maximizing” your physical appearance. The case states that it runs along a spectrum, from “softmaxxing,” which includes skincare, haircuts, and better posture, to “hardmaxxing,” which can include things like rhinoplasty, cheek implants, and even surgery to break and reset the jaw.

At first glance, there is seemingly one universal reaction: this is pure vanity in its most extreme form. However, the more research that is done, the harder it becomes to dismiss Clavicular so easily. The truth is, he’s right about one thing: looks do pay.

It seems that looksmaxxers aren’t so vain as they are rational. They’re responding to a world that genuinely rewards good looks, on platforms that profit from making them feel inadequate, and then sell them products and procedures to fix it. The real question isn’t why young men are chasing beauty; it’s what kind of society makes chasing a better jawline the rational choice. 

So what does the evidence actually say?

To begin, humans tend to read a good face as a sign of a good person. Research from a 2000 review synthesized 11 meta-analyses and concluded that attractive people are judged more favorably, seen as more likable and socially skilled, and overall treated better.

That perception follows them into the workplace: a 2015 study linking people’s high school yearbook photos to their later careers found that those rated more attractive earned more over their lifetimes.

It even follows them into the courtroom. In a 1975 experiment, mock jurors gave an attractive defendant a lighter sentence for burglary than an unattractive one. The advantage flipped only when the defendant explicitly used their looks to commit a crime. 

In that sense, social media functions almost as a casino. Nobody is necessarily forced to participate. But the games—the algorithms—are designed to keep you playing, and the house—the platform—always wins. 

So why do we keep blaming the players?

The obvious answer is that they chose to play. Adults have every right to change their own bodies, and this is not a call for looksmaxxers to be stopped. However, respecting someone’s choice doesn’t mean ignoring the conditions shaping it. We rarely ask why a 20-year-old would see jaw surgery as a smart investment, but only whether he’s shallow or insecure for wanting it.

Women, of course, have faced these pressures for centuries, often with less sympathy. If looksmaxxing finally makes society treat beauty standards as a political issue, then this conversation is necessary for everyone. 

This is what makes pretty privilege political, and not just personal. Democracies promise that opportunity should follow effort and merit, not accidents of birth. A face is an accident of birth. When it shapes who gets hired and paid, that promise is broken, and most of us quietly accept it. It has become culturally hegemonic, and fixing that could mean treating discrimination by appearance like any other form of bias and limiting how cosmetic procedures are marketed towards teenagers online. 

Clavicular is right: looks do matter. However, no surgery can fix a system that judges, pays, and quantifies your place in society based on your looks. That would take an interesting form of policy, not plastic surgery. 

***

This article was edited by Peter Leyba and Lena Vanella-Martorana.