It's more socially acceptable for unattractive yet wealthy/high-status people to perform such behaviors, as this can be explained by considering them "eccentric" or "confident" rather than "weird" or "creepy".
It's more socially acceptable for unattractive yet wealthy/high-status people to perform such behaviors, as this can be explained by considering them "eccentric" or "confident" rather than "weird" or "creepy".
I can understand that some people may consider your parent's comment as looking for excuses/being overly snide/something or other, but it's certainly worth consideration, especially for me in that my anecdotal bayesian prior certainly echoes the sentiment of "appearance buys you breathing room". (As I got older and started caring about my appearance more, I observed my equally nerdy (behaviorally) friends get treated diametrically differently than I was when I KNEW we acted nearly identically after decades together)
Something categorised as one thing, but with traits of another, in this case "high-status"/"low-status" vs "human"/"non-human".
Problem is, while Human-like is a bit more universal, status is very subjective and cultural. Maybe it's better to focus on the feeling of creepiness, as a possible reflection of your/ones own cognitive dissonance, than the objective "creepiness" of an object.
Not to imply that people who are considered attractive can't be creepy -- but they do get more leeway.