Mary O’Leary examines the consequences of correlating someone’s moral character with their adherence to physical beauty standards.
From anti-aging skincare routines to plastic surgery trends, the internet is filled with tips on how to appear more youthful, more beautiful and how to stay young forever. As these trends increase, so does the normalisation of unnaturally occurring beauty standards. In turn, pressure to adhere to these ever-changing standards has become increasingly difficult to achieve and maintain.
Of those who are able to keep up with beauty trends, namely wealthy influencers and celebrities, many do not openly admit to the surgeries or procedures they receive. As such, the results of these procedures are often treated as wholly natural body parts. Fans of such celebrities then regard questions over these obvious changes to their looks as an attack on the moral character of the celebrity.
Oddly enough, when a celebrity does openly admit to getting work done or is suddenly “cancelled” under public scrutiny, the public automatically mourns the beauty they had before their surgeries. Videos highlighting the beauty of actresses' pre-plastic surgery are always trending, with commenters lamenting over the features that were changed. And while the women in these videos were always very beautiful, it was precisely public scrutiny over their appearances which caused them to get the surgeries in the first place.
Public figures, particularly women, are damned as shallow and fake if they get work done but are also relentlessly torn apart if they don’t. When they inevitably face some sort of public backlash over an incident or opinion, it is their looks that are criticized.
In that sense, how the features of people online are viewed is in direct correlation with how they are perceived morally. Those who are deemed “ugly” are not granted the same amount of sympathy as those who are deemed “beautiful” in the face of controversy. This then places a greater pressure on both public figures and the people who watch them to be beautiful and outwardly a “good” person.
Furthermore, public figures who do not fit this standard of beauty and who are rightfully criticised for their politics or actions, are then automatically insulted on the basis of looks. One such example would be the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, whose obvious bias and unprofessionalism warrants legitimate criticism, yet often has her looks criticised above all else. Assertions that she looks far older than her age, 28 years, is also brought up along with her plastic surgeries as an insult, instead of her ultra-conservative politics.
This is not to say that Leavitt’s actions or politics should be defended; only that in correlating old age and ugliness with immorality and unprofessionalism, physical beauty then becomes an added standard for being a good person. Young people who are anxious to be perceived as virtuous then further police their own actions, opinions and looks, all in the name of public validation.
Societies relating beauty to goodness is by no means a new phenomenon, with fairytales such as Rapunzel and Sleeping Beauty having been told for centuries. What sets modern beauty standards apart from this traditional idea, however, is the commercialization of accessibility to achieve these standards. Everyday more influencers flock to social media, giving advice, makeup tutorials, and fashion hauls, all to sell you fast, easy ways to become more youthful and pretty.
A quick scroll on TikTok or Instagram will show you dozens of videos of beautiful women selling discounted lip stains, heatless hair curlers, wigs, skin care, dresses, and jewellery. For teenagers and young adults, these videos have also opened the door to 10-step routines for every manner of hygiene, all promising the chance to look just as beautiful as the person advertising these products.
Those who can afford the cost of said products and steps are granted not just the ability to adhere to everchanging beauty standards but also to create platforms entirely centered around their appearance. Thus, this effect has inadvertently created a class divide in online beauty standards, with those who cannot afford new trending products falling behind in the “beauty timeline”.
Young adults, especially in a day and age where community is difficult to find outside the internet, are desperate for human connection and validation. Not only is beauty presented to them as an indicator of moral goodness but also as a shield which allows them to publicly express their emotions without backlash or bullying.
A recent trend on TikTok, in which pretty girls compare themselves to their ugly exes, exemplifies this perfectly. Even though the commenters know nothing of the women in these videos or the relationship they had with their ex, almost all of the comments side with her, bemoaning how anyone so beautiful could be treated so badly. The experience of the “ugly” partner is never shown, and their appearance is all the evidence needed to condemn them.
When someone on the internet does make a video talking about their experiences as an unconventionally attractive or ugly person, however, they are automatically met with hordes of comments complimenting their looks. It’s not rare to see comments such as “You’re too pretty to cry over them” or “I don’t know what you mean, you’re so beautiful”. And while these comments are kind and uplift the person who posted the video, they also invalidate and ignore the treatment unconventionally looking people do face.
The internet, like every facet of society, reflects how we as humans stereotype certain appearances and actions as “good” or “evil”. When the average person inevitably falls short of these standards, they are then automatically stereotyped by their appearance. An unattractive homeless person for example, will be treated with far more scrutiny and suspicion than a homeless person who has proximity to these beauty standards. Thus, the treatment they receive both by the public and the police are directly related to how they look.
In associating problematic and bad behavior with “ugliness”, it is not actions that are being critiqued, but the sin of not conforming to ever-growing societal standards. Inevitably, this association bleeds into the world outside of our phones, affecting and discriminating against everyday people.