I sit still in my room at 12:00am, and I dim the brightness of my laptop screen to not disturb my roommate asleep next to me.
On my screen are uploaded images of teens pleading for cosmetic advice. One asks ‘do I need to lose weight?’ While another wonders if she ‘is too skinny.’ A man in his early twenties wants to know what his ‘canthal tilt is’ and what he ‘can do to look better.’ The further I scroll the worse these questions become:
‘What makes me ugly?’,
‘How can I reduce my face fat?’
‘What surgeries should I get to look better?’
The sheer amount of posts was beginning to feel overwhelming, so I shut my laptop off and decided to go to bed. Despite this, I could not stop thinking about what is leading these people to go on the internet and ask such intimate and critical questions about themselves.
All of these posts were under a Reddit thread titled ‘Looksmaxing advice’—an internet-based trend which is hyperfocused on physical appearance. If you have yet to hear of looksmaxxing, you're likely over the age of 21 or are employed. For that I congratulate you. As for myself, the term entered my periphery through the occasional social media post. Popular news sources like The Guardian and BBC have put out articles warning about the rise of an intense “cosmetic social media trend” among young people, specifically teen boys. I found some interest in this trend because it is both familiar and foreign to my own experience. As a girl growing up with the rise and eventual takeover of social media, appearance has always been on the forefront of my mind. Whether my clothes were trending or my skin was clear was constantly my priority, a testament to the undeniable over-scrutinization of women and girls in society.
But what is especially distinct about the case of looksmaxxing is not that its main target is young boys—in fact, this trend may have a direct effect on youth regardless of gender. Rather, concerns arise from the fact that it originates from such a problematic part of the internet.
The idea underpinning this trend is that physical attractiveness is the only way a person can be successful professionally, romantically, and socially. It promises transformation in every aspect of life.
News sources largely credit looksmaxxing to online ‘Incel’ forums (incel = involuntary celibate, FYI) which claim that romantic success is only possible if one is attractive, and not just any type of attractive—one that is largely unattainable without extreme measures such as surgery.
On the social hierarchy of appearance, those with sculpted jaws, sharp muscles, and “positive canthal tilts” (eyes which tilt upwards toward the temples) are placed at the top and enjoy the social ‘wins’ that come with that superiority. Those who do not have these carefully determined characteristics are ostracized, essentially being told that they will never be respected unless they change their appearance. The idea underpinning this trend is that physical attractiveness is the only way a person can be successful professionally, romantically, and socially. It promises transformation in every aspect of life.
If you think that this is beginning to sound less like a new, benign social media trend, and more like phrenology repackaged for the 21st century, I'd say that you are onto something.
Phrenology, a long disproven pseudoscience from the 19th century, generally asserts that physical characteristics such as skull shape is indicative of one's character and ability. So when we mention ‘hunter eyes’ defined jawlines, and ‘canthal tilts’—what are we really talking about?
It turns self-improvement into a dystopian quest for societal approval rather than personal empowerment, and creates new avenues for exclusion and discrimination based on meaningless aesthetic criteria.
Science proves that physical characteristics are arbitrary measures of character which enforce arbitrary standards of desirability. It turns self-improvement into a dystopian quest for societal approval rather than personal empowerment, and creates new avenues for exclusion and discrimination based on meaningless aesthetic criteria. But in its darkest corners, looksmaxxing’s obsession with rating people through ‘scores’ and ‘market values’ shows just how entrenched this trend is in pseudoscience and the dehumanizing nature of eugenics. And while most people would not admit to supporting eugenic ideologies, championing ‘desirable traits’ while attempting to rid people of ‘undesirable’ ones does echo past justifications for eugenic practices. This leaves me to question if this is a wide-scale revival of eugenics masked as self-improvement and scientific discovery.
Is it controversial to say that no movement or trend that centers physical appearance is sustainable? If so, I don't believe it should be. Sure, you may find it nice and even uplifting to fit into the ideal standards, but what happens when you don't meet those standards five or even twenty years from now? What happens to people who are constantly on the margins of dominant ideas of beauty? The promise of transformation becomes a double-edged sword, and people spiral into despair when they fail to meet these ideals.
Beyond the confines of looksmaxxing and beauty standards lies the possibility of reimagining beauty itself—not as a rigid standard but as a diverse and inclusive concept. And while that may be cliché to say, it's also an important reminder. The fixation on ‘maximizing’ one's appearance highlights how deeply entrenched societal norms dictate worth based on physical traits. Ultimately, moving beyond looksmaxxing means embracing a broader understanding of human value—one that prioritizes self-acceptance over conformity to harmful standards.
