M
mandiblade
Iron
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2025
- Posts
- 77
- Reputation
- 123
Here's the thread
looksmax.org
He has done well by mentioning that the true zygomatic arch is in the same position in all normal individuals.
Zygomatic arch:
Without extreme levels of deformity, this thin bone will always be in the same position. However, like he says, this doesn't matter since this isn't even visible. This small bone is directly right above your ramus area, and is on the side of your head - right in front of your ears(front the side view). As most of you are thinking right now, cheekbones aren't usually located in front of your ears.
What normal human beings reference cheekbones, they are referencing - as @Orc has said - the "zygomaticomaxillary complex." Just so you guys know, no scientific resource calls it this. It's just "the zygomatic bone."
So far, he's been right. This is where he went wrong, however. He claimed that the position of this bone is not variable due to the fact that the position of the zygomatic arch is not variable. He claimed that the depth of that complex is what dictates the set-point of the cheekbones, highlighting the importance of vertical cheekbone height. Although zygomatic height plays a role, it is not the full story. The word "zygomaticomaxillary" is very important here. Anatomically speaking, the zygomaticomaxillary complex is defined as the intersection between two things: the zygomatic arch and the zygomatic process of the maxilla(depicted below). It is not simply the zygomatic arch that dictates the position of this complex. The placement and width of the zygomatic process of the maxilla is the independent variable that affects the set-point of the cheekbones.
As stated, the zygomatic arch, which is the first of the 2 connection points of the zygomatic bone, never changes. The 2nd connection point is the zygomatic process of the maxilla, which can most definitely change from individual-to-individual. I am not claiming that zygomatic height is irrelevant. It's just not the whole story.
The only way to truly illustrate this skeletally is to constract pre-agricultural revolution skulls modern with post-agricultural revolution skulls.
Even if this is carnivore propaganda and not all skulls are like this, we don't really care about the cause for right now. The skulls prove differences in zygomatic placement exist. It is not a huge difference, but you can see the differences in the infraorbitals. They are curved near the end, including the corners, which is exactly where the zygos are.
In addition, look at this animation depicting the effect of MSE on cheekbones:
Again, these changes are not huge, but they still exist.
One last example showing how low cheekbones can go(no pun intended):
This was the result of an infraorbital rim implant. Infraorbitals are very good predictors for cheekbone placement.
Analyzing Orc's Examples:
Johnny Depp
(Not calling him ugly by any stretch of the imagination...mogs me to oblivion)
He does in fact have vertically long cheekbones. However, look at his eye area. He practically has NCT in his left eye. His right eye has PCT tho. Also, he has a lot of LEE. His infraorbitals are not high-set. His peak of his cheekbones is not too high either.
Sean O'pry
As Orc has said, he has virtually no cheekbone height. However, they are still very high-set(lines: ~middle nasal bone, start of cheekbones, and end of philtrum).
Jon-Erik Hexum
(Again, this dude mogs me to the cretaceous period and back)
He also has NCT, much more than than Depp. Eye tilt is caused by bones and soft tissue. Hexum's infraorbitals are not ideal. Although his zygomatic height does play a role, it could be compensated with better orbitals.
Pinging highiqcels
@thecel @Snicket
Pinging people who agreed with orc
@Clavicular @asdvek
TLDR: rep me
How to determine the set point of your cheekbones, and why the concept of 'high cheekbones' is dumb.
if you're reading this you've probably googled it at some point and have seen these. and you've probably thought, what the hell does it even mean, now, I'll tell you what it means, and I'll also tell you why this is retarded. these images refer to the position of the zygomatic arch relative...
looksmax.org
He has done well by mentioning that the true zygomatic arch is in the same position in all normal individuals.
Zygomatic arch:
Without extreme levels of deformity, this thin bone will always be in the same position. However, like he says, this doesn't matter since this isn't even visible. This small bone is directly right above your ramus area, and is on the side of your head - right in front of your ears(front the side view). As most of you are thinking right now, cheekbones aren't usually located in front of your ears.
What normal human beings reference cheekbones, they are referencing - as @Orc has said - the "zygomaticomaxillary complex." Just so you guys know, no scientific resource calls it this. It's just "the zygomatic bone."
So far, he's been right. This is where he went wrong, however. He claimed that the position of this bone is not variable due to the fact that the position of the zygomatic arch is not variable. He claimed that the depth of that complex is what dictates the set-point of the cheekbones, highlighting the importance of vertical cheekbone height. Although zygomatic height plays a role, it is not the full story. The word "zygomaticomaxillary" is very important here. Anatomically speaking, the zygomaticomaxillary complex is defined as the intersection between two things: the zygomatic arch and the zygomatic process of the maxilla(depicted below). It is not simply the zygomatic arch that dictates the position of this complex. The placement and width of the zygomatic process of the maxilla is the independent variable that affects the set-point of the cheekbones.
As stated, the zygomatic arch, which is the first of the 2 connection points of the zygomatic bone, never changes. The 2nd connection point is the zygomatic process of the maxilla, which can most definitely change from individual-to-individual. I am not claiming that zygomatic height is irrelevant. It's just not the whole story.
The only way to truly illustrate this skeletally is to constract pre-agricultural revolution skulls modern with post-agricultural revolution skulls.
Even if this is carnivore propaganda and not all skulls are like this, we don't really care about the cause for right now. The skulls prove differences in zygomatic placement exist. It is not a huge difference, but you can see the differences in the infraorbitals. They are curved near the end, including the corners, which is exactly where the zygos are.
In addition, look at this animation depicting the effect of MSE on cheekbones:
Again, these changes are not huge, but they still exist.
One last example showing how low cheekbones can go(no pun intended):
This was the result of an infraorbital rim implant. Infraorbitals are very good predictors for cheekbone placement.
Analyzing Orc's Examples:
Johnny Depp
(Not calling him ugly by any stretch of the imagination...mogs me to oblivion)
He does in fact have vertically long cheekbones. However, look at his eye area. He practically has NCT in his left eye. His right eye has PCT tho. Also, he has a lot of LEE. His infraorbitals are not high-set. His peak of his cheekbones is not too high either.
Sean O'pry
As Orc has said, he has virtually no cheekbone height. However, they are still very high-set(lines: ~middle nasal bone, start of cheekbones, and end of philtrum).
Jon-Erik Hexum
(Again, this dude mogs me to the cretaceous period and back)
He also has NCT, much more than than Depp. Eye tilt is caused by bones and soft tissue. Hexum's infraorbitals are not ideal. Although his zygomatic height does play a role, it could be compensated with better orbitals.
Pinging highiqcels
@thecel @Snicket
Pinging people who agreed with orc
@Clavicular @asdvek
TLDR: rep me
Attachments
Last edited:
