# What makes a good eye area and the causes - Explanation (high effort thread)



## AutisticBeaner (May 12, 2020)

The three main factors, which I think determine a good, attractive eye area are upper eyelid exposure, canthal tilt and under eye support, where the latter two are somewhat interconnected. Of course there are more factors, like eyelash density or eye color, but I think these are rather insignificant when compared with the aforementioned three.


*Under eye support:*

The under eye support seems to be determined for the most part by the height of the cheekbones. In extreme cases this can lead to obvious show of the sclera (the white part of the eye) below the iris.










Notice both examples possessing extraordinarily low, undefined, badly developed cheekbones. Before taking a look at positive examples, let's move on to the second main factor.


*Canthal tilt:*

Canthal tilt seems to be strongly affected by the height of the cheekbones, too. Though what I've noticed here poses some sort of a mystery to me. Take a look at these two examples:









Despite having more negatively tilted eyes than the examples from before, they don't seem to have lower cheekbones than they do, do they? It looks like it's the cheekbone itself, which is negatively tilted.

This is just an illustration to show what I'm talking about. I am not saying that this is definitely true.






But this isn't all that important since this mainly only concerns the most extreme cases. Generally, the less well developed the cheekbones, the worse the under eye support and the canthal tilt. I just wanted to showcase that a differentiation of the causes can be made.

Now the reason for why I wanted to discuss the two factors first is because people with very well developed cheekbones practically always have both postitive canthal tilt and good under eye support. While there's some people that lack a bit more in the canthal tilt department than in that of the under eye support or vice-versa, when we take a look at very well developed faces we will notice that virtually every one of them is well off in both categories. the shape of the eye (or just the lower part of it, for what it's worth) will always look something like this:













*Upper eyelid exposure:*

The last part of this thread, to complete the trifecta. Let me start off by saying that I think a significant part of your eyelid exposure is affected by the fat pad right above it. Though what I think is even more influential is the so-called "browridge height" and that's what I'm going to get into. Instead of looking at the height of the browridge, something that I think should be considered as well is the height of the eye itself. A lower set eye would be farther away from the browridge and thus, evidently allow for more upper eyelid exposure. I'm not really sure about all of this but what I do know is that the eyes of people with a well developed face (like the three above) are generally closer to the browridge, their browridge height seems to be lower. Lower set eyes might be correlated to long midfaces. This guy's skull is relatively well developed but he has a long midface and also a lot of space between his eyes and his browridge. I'm thinking that the since the cheekbones are lower than they should be, the eyes might have gone down with them and created this distance between the eyes and the browridge.






All three features (UES, CT, UEE) correlate somewhat with each other. A person with positive canthal tilt is also more likely to have little upper eyelid exposure, etc. This is because those three features are all results of good developement.

If you disagreed at some point, feel free to debate me on any of this.


----------



## Deleted member 5632 (May 12, 2020)

High IQ 
If I can I will PM you my eye area and ask fir help


----------



## AbandonShip (May 12, 2020)

And nothing new was said


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 12, 2020)

AbandonShip said:


> And nothing new was said


the purpose of this thread is clarification


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 12, 2020)




----------



## Chadlitecel (May 12, 2020)

legit. Cheekbones are very important. During puberty my cheekbones grew and got higher and my eyes improved a lot .
Better canthal tilt and under eye suppor


----------



## didntreadlol (May 12, 2020)

hooding is everything


----------



## majorcope (May 12, 2020)

AbandonShip said:


> And nothing new was said


----------



## WillVisitGandy (May 12, 2020)

didntreadlol said:


> hooding is everything



cope bro, slight uee is fine


----------



## didntreadlol (May 12, 2020)

WillVisitGandy said:


> cope bro, slight uee is fine


It's fine but it's not ideal


----------



## WillVisitGandy (May 12, 2020)

What causes the hooding though ? Why is the fat stored there for some people ?


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 12, 2020)

WillVisitGandy said:


> What causes the hooding though ? Why is the fat stored there for some people ?


fat distribution i guess (and also bf%, but you know), don't know what else it could be


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 12, 2020)

you guys got nothing to say huh


----------



## Deleted member 4563 (May 15, 2020)

Low cheekbones are death


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 15, 2020)

IncelWithNoLuck said:


> Low cheekbones are death


indeed they are


----------



## Deleted member 4563 (May 15, 2020)

AutisticBeaner said:


> indeed it is


I have them I believe + nct


----------



## Deleted member 2012 (May 15, 2020)

You forgot eye shape and IPD
Those are huge


----------



## Arkantos (May 15, 2020)

eye area – Looks Theory


Posts about eye area written by lookstheory




lookstheory.wordpress.com


----------



## Effortless (May 15, 2020)

Tight under eye and fat pad is so fucking important

Almost all people with tight under eye/good under eye support are good looking

Notice people like Zayn, has pretty bad upper eye lid exposure but his above average under eye support saves it from becoming buggy and gives sharpness to his eyes 

Its 95% of the time a default to a good looking FACE


----------



## Entschuldigung (May 15, 2020)

Fake thread 
The best thing for eye area is squinting


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 15, 2020)

Tyrionlannistercel said:


> You forgot eye shape and IPD
> Those are huge


well what else is there to eye shape besides under eye support, canthal tilt and UEE? i purposely didn't include IPD, let's just say we're talking about a single eye here. ipd would sort of be the next step if that makes sense.


----------



## hopemaxxer (May 15, 2020)

good thread but i really don't agree that cheekbones are related to under eye support and canthal tilt, my cheekbones are relatively high and i have poor under eye support with a PCT, i think it's mainly fat pads placement and eye shape is what plays a role


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 15, 2020)

hopemaxxer said:


> good thread but i really don't agree that cheekbones are related to under eye support and canthal tilt, my cheekbones are relatively high and i have poor under eye support with a PCT, i think it's mainly fat pads placement and eye shape is what plays a role


guess what eye shape is caused by? the orbitals. and the lower orbitals are part of the zygomatic arch, aka the cheekbones. don't just look at yourself, look at multiple other people, celebrities for example, and make up your mind based on that.


----------



## Deleted member 2012 (May 15, 2020)

AutisticBeaner said:


> well what else is there to eye shape besides under eye support, canthal tilt and UEE? i purposely didn't include IPD, let's just say we're talking about a single eye here. ipd would sort of be the next step if that makes sense.


Like round eyes as opposed to almond shaped


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 15, 2020)

Tyrionlannistercel said:


> Like round eyes as opposed to almond shaped


that's caused by narrower orbitals. possibly because of higher cheekbones


----------



## Spartacus1- (May 15, 2020)

Eye coloring is pretty important aswell


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 15, 2020)

Spartacus1- said:


> Eye coloring is pretty important aswell


it can definitely help you but i don't think it's necessary at all


----------



## Deleted member 2227 (May 15, 2020)

Canthal tilt has nothing to do with cheekbones, it's just the relative positioning of your lacrimal bone and lateral orbital


----------



## Aesthetics_III (May 15, 2020)

OwlGod said:


> Canthal tilt has nothing to do with cheekbones, it's just the relative positioning of your lacrimal bone and lateral orbital



This OP. Though I am interested in how higher/lower cheekbones would affect the canthal tilt.


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 15, 2020)

OwlGod said:


> Canthal tilt has nothing to do with cheekbones, it's just the relative positioning of your lacrimal bone and lateral orbital





Aesthetics_III said:


> This OP. Though I am interested in how higher/lower cheekbones would affect the canthal tilt.


do you see where the lacrimal bone is?





and the lateral orbital bone is higher if the cheekbone is higher, since it is all connected.


----------



## Aesthetics_III (May 15, 2020)

AutisticBeaner said:


> do you see where the lacrimal bone is?
> View attachment 408657
> 
> 
> and the lateral orbital bone is higher if the cheekbone is higher, since it is all connected.



Lateral orbitals are not higher if the cheekbones are higher. High set cheekbones just mean low mass cheekbones.

Barrett’s cheekbones are lowish, especially compared to O’Pry









But his eyes still retain the same level of PCT as O’Pry, and the lateral orbital rims looks like they’re set at the same height


----------



## Deleted member 2227 (May 15, 2020)

Lacrimal Bone 









Canthal Tilt



OwlGod said:


> the relative positioning of your lacrimal bone and lateral orbital











>Literally determined by tons of factors


ok, now someone can please delete this forum already?


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 15, 2020)

Aesthetics_III said:


> Lateral orbitals are not higher if the cheekbones are higher. High set cheekbones just mean low mass cheekbones.
> 
> Barrett’s cheekbones are lowish, especially compared to O’Pry
> 
> ...







is this really much of a difference? and what do you mean high set cheekbones just mean low mass cheekbones?


----------



## Deleted member 2227 (May 15, 2020)

AutisticBeaner said:


> View attachment 408671
> 
> is this really much of a difference? and what do you mean high set cheekbones just mean low mass cheekbones?



the more mass you have on the cheekbones, the lower they will look like

but again, there's no such thing as Low-Set cheekbones, it's literally a meme like most theories on this forum created by hardcore retarded basement dwellers on Lookism


----------



## Aesthetics_III (May 15, 2020)

AutisticBeaner said:


> is this really much of a difference?



Yes?




























AutisticBeaner said:


> and what do you mean high set cheekbones just mean low mass cheekbones?




All cheekbones start at the same place relative to the skull. It’s how big the cheekbones are vertically that determines how high/low set they are.


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 15, 2020)

OwlGod said:


> the more mass you have on the cheekbones, the lower they will look like
> 
> but again, there's no such thing as Low-Set cheekbones, it's literally a meme like most theories on this forum created by hardcore retarded basement dwellers on Lookism


with all due respect, do you have any idea what you're talking about?

do these two have cheekbones of the exact same height?









Aesthetics_III said:


> Yes?
> 
> View attachment 408679
> View attachment 408680
> ...


so you're saying low cheekbones don't exist, too?


----------



## Aesthetics_III (May 15, 2020)

AutisticBeaner said:


> so you're saying low cheekbones don't exist, too?


What do you think low set cheekbones are? I think we have different definitions


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 15, 2020)

Aesthetics_III said:


> What do you think low set cheekbones are? I think we have different definitions


literally the zygomatic arch at a lower position


----------



## Aesthetics_III (May 15, 2020)

AutisticBeaner said:


> literally the zygomatic arch at a lower position



the zygomatic arch is different from the zygomatics themselves. And I doubt there can be such thing as a high set vs low set one, though it may be possible


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 15, 2020)

Aesthetics_III said:


> the zygomatic arch is different from the zygomatics themselves. And I doubt there can be such thing as a high set vs low set one, though it may be possible


are you referring to the orange part as the zygomatic?




if the zygomatic arch gets lower then surely that area must get lower too?


----------



## Vidyacoper (May 15, 2020)

OwlGod said:


> the more mass you have on the cheekbones, the lower they will look like
> 
> but again, there's no such thing as Low-Set cheekbones, it's literally a meme like most theories on this forum created by hardcore retarded basement dwellers on Lookism


yeah exactly. low set cheekbones is just more bone mass


----------



## Deleted member 2227 (May 15, 2020)

AutisticBeaner said:


> with all due respect, do you have any idea what you're talking about?
> 
> do these two have cheekbones of the exact same height?
> View attachment 408697
> ...



oh no dude 

guess what, you guys doesn't even have a consensus and agreement about this shit

and now you're literally trying to disprove me comparing the best pro prime Eriksen pic with an oldcel bloated Stallone pic (who I can't even tell where are his cheekbones, dude is literally recessed asf)


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 15, 2020)

OwlGod said:


> oh no dude
> 
> guess what, you guys doesn't even have a consensus and agreement about this shit
> 
> and now you're literally trying to disprove me comparing the best pro prime Eriksen pic with an oldcel bloated Stallone pic (who doesn't even have cheekbones, dude is literally recessed asf)


what? where's your argument? i thought low cheekbones didn't exist? then why does stallone clearly have lower cheekbones than eriksen? obviously i'm gonna cherrypick extreme example if i want to highlight the difference as well as i can, that's common sense.


----------



## Aesthetics_III (May 15, 2020)

AutisticBeaner said:


> are you referring to the orange part as the zygomatic?
> View attachment 408722
> 
> if the zygomatic arch gets lower then surely that area must get lower too?



Are there such things as low set zygo arches? And how would that relate to the positioning of the zygos themselves?


----------



## Hector (May 15, 2020)

AutisticBeaner said:


> The three main factors, which I think determine a good, attractive eye area are upper eyelid exposure, canthal tilt and under eye support, where the latter two are somewhat interconnected. Of course there are more factors, like eyelash density or eye color, but I think these are rather insignificant when compared with the aforementioned three.
> 
> 
> *Under eye support:*
> ...


In thw UEE is not totally correct. Browridge height is not important, is orbital shape.

Your UEE doesn't change during your childhood-adulthood, as opposite ad the browridge. Again you could say logically that the distance of beetween the browridge and the eye is what determines UEE, but this rule would be broke infinite times, and no id not by the fat pads, fat oads cover a bit but 0 UEE isn't caused by god tier fat pads (as esception of chink eyes).

You can see a shit ton of guys with UEE that have low browridges (when they rise the brows you can se they have UEE and ghwir orbitals are roundish) and shit ton of people with high set eyebrows and browridge and almost non existant UEE (this is ideal IMO), LIKE diCaprio or Chico.

When they rise their brows the UEE is still the same, because their orbitals are compact (and this is an attractive trait, I explained it in a post, that you subconscietly see when you see low UEE). And is not fat pads because you can see the shape of their bones, fat pad only covers a small part of the eye, the crucial part is bone. And I think everybody has the same amount of fat pad, isnjust their bones that makes that fat pad actually cover the eyelids or cover less or nothing.

Think about this: Women tend to have more UEE on avaerage, and they tend to have rounder orbitals. 

Chinks have rounder orbitals by average, thats why the guy on thi pic has UEE. Chinks seem to not have UEE because their sof tissue makenid look that why, but you can also see Changs (GL chinks) that have more comoact orbitals. 

Orbitals compacts or death.


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 15, 2020)

Aesthetics_III said:


> Are there such things as low set zygo arches? And how would that relate to the positioning of the zygos themselves?


i'm very convinced there is such a thing. what i think is the explanation is that the midface over time gets lower, faster in some people, slower in other, in a few virtually not at all. and of the zygomatic arch is directly connected to the midface and thus gets pulled lower with it. of course if you choose to believe this explanation depends on if you "believe" in "developement theory" or whatever you wanna call it. it's basically just saying that your face can change over time and how well developed your face is depends on environmental factors such as your diet (at least in your youth) and your body and tongue posture. tell me your thoughts


Hector said:


> In thw UEE is not totally correct. Browridge height is not important, is orbital shape.
> 
> Your UEE doesn't change during your childhood-adulthood, as opposite ad the browridge. Again you could say logically that the distance of beetween the browridge and the eye is what determines UEE, but this rule would be broke infinite times, and no id not by the fat pads, fat oads cover a bit but 0 UEE isn't caused by god tier fat pads (as esception of chink eyes).
> 
> ...


i mean orbitals and browridge are kind of the same thing aren't they? sure the browridge is a little higher but they're both the same bone, right? and if one is higher or lower then surely the other must follow accordingly.





another thing, a bigger browridge should lead to less uee, at least in a relaxed postion, isn't that right? i thought that was the main reason why women generally have more UEE


----------



## TheEndHasNoEnd (May 15, 2020)

isnt canthal tilt independent of under eye support? it might look more positive with a tight lower lid but in reality its most likely the tilt of the supraorbital that determines the canthal tilt. the more positive or higher up the inner corners are, the more pct. its generally why you see pct eyes come with positive brows and nct come with negative ones. also women have higher pct than men on average yet a much looser lowerlid and "cheekbone height." also about "cheekbone height," everyone technically has "highset cheekbones" since everyone has cheekbones starting under their eyes, but what makes them look highset is how shallow the orbital floor is.


----------



## AutisticBeaner (May 15, 2020)

TheEndHasNoEnd said:


> isnt canthal tilt independent of under eye support? it might look more positive with a tight lower lid but in reality its most likely the tilt of the supraorbital that determines the canthal tilt. the more positive or higher up the inner corners are, the more pct. its generally why you see pct eyes come with positive brows and nct come with negative ones. also women have higher pct than men on average yet a much looser lowerlid and "cheekbone height." also about "cheekbone height," everyone technically has "highset cheekbones" since everyone has cheekbones starting under their eyes, but what makes them look highset is how shallow the orbital floor is.


are these cheekbones of the same height to you?







@OwlGod has previously failed to justify the "low cheekbones don't exist" argument when confronted with these two pictures.

forgive me for not replying to all of your comment btw, i'm tired. i'll do it tomorrow.


----------



## Alexanderr (Jun 25, 2020)

Vertically compact, wide horizontal orbitals are very important.


----------



## Buci (Nov 2, 2022)

Aesthetics_III said:


> Yes?
> 
> View attachment 408679
> View attachment 408680
> ...


You're missing the point. Cheekbones start at the same play, meaning they start from the zygomatic arch, which is quite high, but in recessed and down-swung face, the body of the cheekbone, the frontal part gets dragged too, and thats the part that matters for the eye rim.

The difference between your examples is simply cheekbone mass, or fullness, their frontal height being the same, meaning virtually same eye rim height and same canthal tilt


----------

