Do you believe in perfect ratio or proportions? Is dimorphicism always ideal?

[Zeekie]

Maybe a bit of a redundant question as I'm sure most people would answer "Yes", but do you really?

I'm personally a man of science, I'm a fucking nerd and proud of it, I like to say all of my thoughts and ideas regarding nutrition, exercise, attractiveness, living a better life, hell even my career and life plan are based on scientific research, I follow what has the highest probability of working.

In the realm of facial beauty there's, of course a lot of research and discussion, but my question is, how many of you guys actually are about this stuff, for example, the jaw being 89-90% the width of the cheekbones or the face being 1.35x longer than it is wide, these are very objective measurements which the scientific literature clearly suggest are ideal for attractiveness (regardless of race or gender). Yet still, having a lot of ideally appropriate ratios for facial features there's some prevalence of people in these spaces overly glorifying have wide jaws, even when they're out of the ideal proportions, having overly developed cheekbones even when they mess up facial width-to-height ratio, this is specially true for dimorphic features, people seem to think "the more masculine the better".

Intuitively and logically we all know that's not true, of course, but if we all know and accept that reality, why don't people speak and make suggestions accordingly? If you're one of those people, do you think it's just a matter of YOUR personal preference, or that the literature is wrong and actually having heavily dimorphic features is more ideal? Or do you just think this way subconsciously?

 

[JoChico]

dnr nigger

 

[Zeekie]

dnr nigger

Jump off a bridge faggot

 

[JoChico]

Jump off a bridge faggot

fuck u bro, ur such a greycel. you better watch your fucking mouth before i chokeslam u into your grandmothers gravestone after raping your mother

 

[chadisbeingmade]

Unless your ratios are deformed tier, they are extreme copium.

 

[JoChico]

Unless your ratios are deformed tier, they are extreme copium.

mirin name on avi

 

[Zeekie]

fuck u bro, ur such a greycel. you better watch your fucking mouth before i chokeslam u into your grandmothers gravestone after raping your mother

Sorry fag but I rep and post mog you, sybau

 

[chadisbeingmade]

mirin name on avi

Just changed it from “The younger the soul, the tighter the hole.”

 

[JoChico]

View attachment 3755121View attachment 3755124
Sorry fag but I rep and post mog you, sybau

like i dont care bro, u said u get nutrient defiencies from eating organs and raw meat

 

[oooooooooo8484848]

Dimorphic features are good to a certain point. Ratios arent precisely the best thing to use, as everyone is different and despite having bad ratios you can look good (unless like someone above said, they're extremely deformed). I think only certain ratios are important, for example, canthal tilt, or ESR. Fwhr to me is a bit of a dumb ratio unless you're narrow faced to an extreme point

 

[thedarkoverlord_666]

View attachment 3755121View attachment 3755124
Sorry fag but I rep and post mog you, sybau

You tell him

 

[Orc]

perfect faces don't actually look good.

 

[JoChico]

Just changed it from “The younger the soul, the tighter the hole.”

woman need to be impregnated in puberty, so that their hips will naturally grow wider and giving birth easier/less painful. even though women think that a period is a natural thing, its an unnatural state where they go against nature, which is to be impregnated. the longer u extend this ( not getting pregnant thing before marriage) is absolutely garbage. u will have way more pain when giving birth/ more likely to die. every man on this planet will find a pregnant woman always more attractive to higher estrogen. even though nowadays women get pregnant at 30

 

[Zeekie]

like i dont care bro, u said u get nutrient defiencies from eating organs and raw meat

Yes, that's right. What's a nutritional deficiency to you? The most obvious definition is not getting the recommended daily allowance for any given nutrient each day, you simply CANT get all of your RDA for EVERY SINGLE MICRONUTRIENT through organs and meat, there's only so many meat you can eat per day before being absolutely full or starting to get very close to a toxic dose of another micronutrient (like zinc, copper, vitamin A, etc).

So yes, you and WILL get a couple nutrient deficiencies by eating organs and raw meat, you just can't get it all. For example, here's a diet of 1800 calories of purely meat and beef liver:

Exactly where the fuck are you getting vitamin C, D, E, B1, K1 and K2 (to a lesser extent), Calcium, Iodine, Magnesium, Manganese or Potassium purely from these foods? And allow me to inform you as well, that we're already at toxic dosages of Zinc, Copper and Niacin, so "just eat more" doesn't work here.

You're in denial But don't worry bro, I love you still, even if you're wrong

 

[Zeekie]

Dimorphic features are good to a certain point. Ratios arent precisely the best thing to use, as everyone is different and despite having bad ratios you can look good (unless like someone above said, they're extremely deformed). I think only certain ratios are important, for example, canthal tilt, or ESR. Fwhr to me is a bit of a dumb ratio unless you're narrow faced to an extreme point

Perfectly reasonable response, couldn't expect less from someone with Lana as their pfp.

 

[oooooooooo8484848]

Perfectly reasonable response, couldn't expect less from someone with Lana as their pfp.

At the end of the day, facial morphology is better to judge on. Fwhr is a ridiculous measurement when compared to, lets say, your facial index. Im mesoprosopic (closer to lepto) but apparently my FWHR is the one someone with an extremely narrow face would have. Fraudable ratios should be taken with a pinch of salt.

 

[Snoofy]

What’s ur job if u don’t mind me asking

 

[Zeekie]

What’s ur job if u don’t mind me asking

Well, I'm a student majoring in CS, but I technically work as a waiter and sometimes software consultant (although I've only done that like 3 times)

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Maybe a bit of a redundant question as I'm sure most people would answer "Yes", but do you really?

I'm personally a man of science, I'm a fucking nerd and proud of it, I like to say all of my thoughts and ideas regarding nutrition, exercise, attractiveness, living a better life, hell even my career and life plan are based on scientific research, I follow what has the highest probability of working.

In the realm of facial beauty there's, of course a lot of research and discussion, but my question is, how many of you guys actually are about this stuff, for example, the jaw being 89-90% the width of the cheekbones or the face being 1.35x longer than it is wide, these are very objective measurements which the scientific literature clearly suggest are ideal for attractiveness (regardless of race or gender). Yet still, having a lot of ideally appropriate ratios for facial features there's some prevalence of people in these spaces overly glorifying have wide jaws, even when they're out of the ideal proportions, having overly developed cheekbones even when they mess up facial width-to-height ratio, this is specially true for dimorphic features, people seem to think "the more masculine the better".

Intuitively and logically we all know that's not true, of course, but if we all know and accept that reality, why don't people speak and make suggestions accordingly? If you're one of those people, do you think it's just a matter of YOUR personal preference, or that the literature is wrong and actually having heavily dimorphic features is more ideal? Or do you just think this way subconsciously?

1.35x is a cope. It depends on the indivisual features (forehead height, nasal height, philtrum+upperlip, bottom lip+chin). For example if somebody has a 1.35x face shape, but his forehead is half the face, it doesn 't matter that he has 1.35x, he will still be ugly. As for the jaw, usually superheroes are drawn with a 94 percent bigonial width to the cheekbones and the cheekbones are usually prominent and proportional. I have my own rating system, but tbh I dont think I will share it with the website anytime soon.

 

[Big_dee_tyrone]

Diminishing returns after chad/stacy status. I think once your ratios and proportions get too perfect beyond that point, you start to dehumanize yourself and in society.

 

[Big_dee_tyrone]

Just fully read your post. When you take it that far, you risk becoming too ND to even socially benefit from looksmaxxing. Anyone that is scientific and exact about their looks to that extent will most likely struggle when it comes to self esteem issues and being normal among other people IRL.

I think the best way to do this whole looksmaxxing thing is to learn everything you can about fixing your obvious failos and then getting TF out of the community completely. Turning this into a hobby and a science will only hurt you, if you plan on interacting with NT people (majority of the population).

 

[iblamemygenes]

Dimorphic features are good to a certain point. Ratios arent precisely the best thing to use, as everyone is different and despite having bad ratios you can look good (unless like someone above said, they're extremely deformed). I think only certain ratios are important, for example, canthal tilt, or ESR. Fwhr to me is a bit of a dumb ratio unless you're narrow faced to an extreme point

Good job, while claiming ratios aren’t the end all be all (which is correct) you managed to name to name another cope ratio in esr and downplaying one of the most important ones in fwhr. Esr is cope if your icd and mfr and fwhr are good. Barrett has .42 esr do u think his eyes are close set?

 

[Big_dee_tyrone]

Sorry I have adhd so now I actually get what your post is about.

Male gaze is a huge issue on this website. A mixture of a mostly masculine bone structure with some feminine facial features is probably optimal if you actually want to have the maximum social benefit.

 

[slaters]

Good job, while claiming ratios aren’t the end all be all (which is correct) you managed to name to name another cope ratio in esr and downplaying one of the most important ones in fwhr. Esr is cope if your icd and mfr and fwhr are good. Barrett has .42 esr do u think his eyes are close set?

Yeah you can have low esr as long as your zygos are huge and robust
Looks like shit though if it isn’t defined

 

[Zeekie]

Just fully read your post. When you take it that far, you risk becoming too ND to even socially benefit from looksmaxxing. Anyone that is scientific and exact about their looks to that extent will most likely struggle when it comes to self esteem issues and being normal among other people IRL.

I think the best way to do this whole looksmaxxing thing is to learn everything you can about fixing your obvious failos and then getting TF out of the community completely. Turning this into a hobby and a science will only hurt you, if you plan on interacting with NT people (majority of the population).

Well I'm definitely a little bit autistic, but my research on facial aesthetics is purely because I want to improve my looks a little bit, and already have made huge improvements. I'm almost done affording genioplasty, I think that's as far as I would take it. I couldn't really be bothered to achieve a "scientifically perfect face", but still, it's an interesting topic and I kinda got invested on it.

Really this was just to get different perspectives on such a matter, you can always learn something new

 

[Zeekie]

Sorry I have adhd so now I actually get what your post is about.

Male gaze is a huge issue on this website. A mixture of a mostly masculine bone structure with some feminine facial features is probably optimal if you actually want to have the maximum social benefit.

No this is my perspective, I'm a black, and frankly have a very robust facial structure, along with a muscular body, I have a very masculine appeal, so try and "offset" that I've been purposely trying to "feminize" my eyes, sounds ridiculous and kind of on the brink of taking it too seriously, but it has helped me, I actually get some compliments on them now.

 

[iblamemygenes]

Yeah you can have low esr as long as your zygos are huge and robust
Looks like shit though if it isn’t defined

Just means you have a wide maxilla/laterally projected zygos if ur esr is low but good icd/pfl/mfr. .44-.45 is ideal imo , Drago vasily Hexum

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Good job, while claiming ratios aren’t the end all be all (which is correct) you managed to name to name another cope ratio in esr and downplaying one of the most important ones in fwhr. Esr is cope if your icd and mfr and fwhr are good. Barrett has .42 esr do u think his eyes are close set?

i thought barrett was .46? do you have proof?

 

[iblamemygenes]

i thought barrett was .46? do you have proof?

He has .42-.43 retard how do you get .46

 

[oooooooooo8484848]

Good job, while claiming ratios aren’t the end all be all (which is correct) you managed to name to name another cope ratio in esr and downplaying one of the most important ones in fwhr. Esr is cope if your icd and mfr and fwhr are good. Barrett has .42 esr do u think his eyes are close set?

Jordan has a terrible ESR due to his fwhr, yes, but my point was that FWHR is a silly measurement compared to facial index, as a FWHR can be frauded by simply lowering your eyebrows.

 

[pfl]

Unless your ratios are deformed tier, they are extreme copium.

cope

 

[Big_dee_tyrone]

No this is my perspective, I'm a black, and frankly have a very robust facial structure, along with a muscular body, I have a very masculine appeal, so try and "offset" that I've been purposely trying to "feminize" my eyes, sounds ridiculous and kind of on the brink of taking it too seriously, but it has helped me, I actually get some compliments on them now.

I'm black too and I wouldn't even bother trying to do something like that. Hazel contacts, perfect skin, and shaped up eyebrows should be as far as you go in trying to intentionally "feminize" your look.

Also I wouldn't recommend genio unless it's actually bad. Instead, grow a goatee to fraud chin problems. Black guys look better with facial hair anyway.

 

[chadisbeingmade]

cope

Funny you say that considering you are one of the worst raters I've seen here, unironically.

 

[NuclearGeo20]

He has .42-.43 retard how do you get .46

Nvm, redid it and got .432.

 

[NuclearGeo20]

cope

fax

 

[pfl]

Funny you say that considering you are one of the worst raters I've seen here, unironically.

ratios is what seperates normie and chad, u are retarded

 

[chadisbeingmade]

ratios is what seperates normie and chad, u are retarded

As I said

you are one of the worst raters I've seen here

I would not listen to a singular molecule you have to say, you room temp IQ nigga.

 

[iblamemygenes]

ratios is what seperates normie and chad, u are retarded

No ratios separate cl from chad and psl gods

 

[pfl]

As I said

I would not listen to a singular molecule you have to say, you room temp IQ nigga.

doesnt matter because i know more than u pal

 

[Zeekie]

I'm black too and I wouldn't even bother trying to do something like that. Hazel contacts, perfect skin, and shaped up eyebrows should be as far as you go in trying to intentionally "feminize" your look.

Also I wouldn't recommend genio unless it's actually bad. Instead, grow a goatee to fraud chin problems. Black guys look better with facial hair anyway.

Oh no I already have a stubble, my lower third is not bad, but it's not good either, it adds some dimorphicism. I do plan to get a genio still, my chin projection is just not the best, consulted with the surgeon already and I'm pretty happy with the potential results.

Also what I meant with "feminizing" was I did some laser resurfacing recommended by my mother, its supposed to rejuvenate your under eye area (youthful or neotenous under eyes are not exactly masculine by the way), using a lash serum and started curling my eyelashes, did mascara, it didn't look natural on me so I kinda stopped that. It's very "mild" feminizing the eye area, nothing extreme, but as I said, it worked, I look better

 

[chadisbeingmade]

doesnt matter because i know more than u pal

You have proved otherwise

 

[iblamemygenes]

Nvm, redid it and got .432.

Yea I got .425 in some pics

 

[pfl]

You have proved otherwise

ur subjective opinion doesnt make what i said wrong

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Yea I got .425 in some pics

In interviews his face is super wide, his ICD looks proportional like you were saying

 

[iblamemygenes]

doesnt matter because i know more than u pal

My mfr is .92 which sounds bad but my philtrum is 17.5 mm. My ipd is 65 mm which isn’t even bad. My esr is around .425 meaning my skull is just tall and wide with a normal ipd. Theoretically if I get a 3.5 mm lip lift my chin to Phil will be 3-1 and my mfr .95-.97. So is this worth it? My icd is also more than 1-1 so I’m not fucked am I because icd is way more important than esr

 

[pfl]

My mfr is .92 which sounds bad but my philtrum is 17.5 mm. My ipd is 65 mm which isn’t even bad. My esr is around .425 meaning my skull is just tall and wide with a normal ipd. Theoretically if I get a 3.5 mm lip lift my chin to Phil will be 3-1 and my mfr .95-.97. So is this worth it? My icd is also more than 1-1 so I’m not fucked am I because icd is way more important than esr

how is icd more important than esr

 

[mandiblade]

The most obvious definition is not getting the recommended daily allowance for any given nutrient each day, you simply CANT get all of your RDA for EVERY SINGLE MICRONUTRIENT through organs and meat, there's only so many meat you can eat per day before being absolutely full or starting to get very close to a toxic dose of another micronutrient (like zinc, copper, vitamin A, etc).

That definition is of no biological relevancy. The only way to establish a definition that is of biological RDI is to
1. Get a random dude
2. Lock him in a room
3. Give him a DNA methylation test
4. Give him exactly the amount of each RDI of each nutrient, while accounting for bioavailability
5. Ensure that he has sufficient amounts of each nutrient
6. Give him 0.1mg less than what is needed in 1 control nutrient until he becomes biologically deficient
7. If he is fine, continue reducing it until he becomes deficient

If this happens, congratulations! You have established the minimum amount of that one nutrient needed for anyone who..
1. Has the same genes as him
2. Eats the exact same macros as him(raw values, not ratios of macros)
3. Eats the same amount of each nutrient with the same level of bioavailability


If this has been done, link the study. Otherwise, please never bring this up again

like i dont care bro, u said u get nutrient defiencies from eating organs and raw meat

You are not 100% correct either btw

@veggiedietcell @thereallegend

 

[iblamemygenes]

In interviews his face is super wide, his ICD looks proportional like you were saying

Yea caused by wide skull, more room for icd to be ideal and good ipd but fucks esr. His fwhr is too high but since his is esr is low it means normal ipd which gives him ideal midface ratio. Looks pretty harmonious which induces that esr is cope, icd and mfr are law

 

[iblamemygenes]

how is icd more important than esr

Take a look at barett, you claimed you know more than @chadisbeingmade but you think esr is more of a harmony killer than icd? Low icd is the most cuckish thing you can have. Many get a way with low esr and good icd. Low icd and good esr means cyclops narrow skull cuck

 

[davidlaidisme67]

ratios is what seperates normie and chad, u are retarded

Finally we don’t have a retard attempting to cope here