Reason Foundation

http://reason.org
http://reason.org/news/show/not-banning-ugly-mandating-it

Reason Foundation

Not banning ugly, mandating it

Ted Balaker
July 26, 2005, 4:59pm

Here's something that's about as infuriating as the article cited in Len's previous post–that is, infuriating in an equal-and-opposite kind of way. In an effort to separate drinking from sexual conquests, British anti-booze nannies have banned the use of hunky actors in alcohol ads: What?! That would make the booze-gets-you-chicks implication even stronger. Say an impressionable British lad sees an ad in which a hunky model drinks Lambrini and gets chicks. He might assume that the model's hunkiness had something to do with him getting the chicks. If that same lad sees a slob drinking Lambrini and getting chicks he's more likely to think that there's something special in that drink that drives the ladies crazy. So in his mind it's the right drink that matters. And since he considers being in good shape less important, CAP's approach might also make him less likely to exercise, something those pudgy Brits could use a bit more of. When it comes to sexual harassment law observers have long suspected that ugly guys get more lawsuits than those with Pitt-like mugs (who just get more phone numbers). The British example looks like a case of the opposite–where policy discriminates in favor of the homely, in this case homely actors and models. Here's more: Whole article here; via Sploid.

Ted Balaker is Producer


Print This