A Current TV reporter recently hit the streets of London two days in a row in search of free goods and services: cab rides, slices of cake, drinks. The first day she dolled herself up in a form-fitting dress, makeup, blown-out hair and heels. The second day, she hit the streets in the "dowdy" version of herself: long skirt and loose-fitting blouse, no makeup, hair pulled back.
As evolved as we try to be, humans are still suckers for good-looking members of the species. This is why the line between trophy wife and gold digger is often blurred. If someone is attractive, people are willing to give that person things no digging required.
But, how fickle is our idea of beauty? We know about the correlation between symmetry and attractiveness. The Current experiment used the same woman in different get-ups, so does this mean our gauges of attraction are easily duped by a dapper outfit and accoutrements such as lip gloss, sunglasses or a good styling gel?
On a similar note, we really dug The Daily Bedpost's frank discussion about the beauty gap's role in making John Edwards cheat. This begs a bigger question of whether or not the success women have dating men less attractive than they are goes both ways. Is this another case where the Goldilocks approach applies: when choosing a partner, go for someone who's somewhere between way hotter and way uglier than yourself.
As for the Current lab rat, donning a sexy exterior earned her £20.50 (approximately $41) of free goods more than her dowdy duds did. Watch the video below.