https://reis.cis.es//REIS/PDF/REIS_159_07_ENGLISH1499424514902.pdf

The study highlighted some important facts. First, that physical attractiveness matters for males to find a partner and for the type of partner they find. The less attractive are less likely to find a partner who is a graduate, or someone with a higher education level. This phenomenon did not happen in women. They all formed partnerships equally.

This finding is somewhat counterintuitive. According to Hakim’s theory, women can exploit erotic capital more, so there should be differences between the more and the less attractive. The opposite happens with males: their physical attractiveness matters. If this finding, discovered using different techniques and two surveys, was confirmed by other studies in other countries, it would be a revolutionary discovery and would disrupt some existing theories. In the specialised literature, there is an indication that this might be so.

The results were somewhat similar to those found by Harper (2000) in another area. Harper analysed the effects of attractiveness on income in the United Kingdom. His findings showed that, contrary to popular belief, physical appearance was as important for males as for females and that, in addition, the penalty for being unattractive far exceeded the prize for being attractive.

Although Hakim pointed out that erotic capital was more important for women, she also warned that in the twenty-first century this could change. The main reason is women’s entry into the labour market and the collapse of the male provider society:

‘Women are getting richer through their careers, so they bring both economic and erotic capital to mating markets’. Men now find it necessary to develop their erotic capital as well...’ (Hakim, 2012: 40).

​

​