HiddenUzer
Beauty is bone deep.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2022
- Posts
- 773
- Reputation
- 864
HALOS
The most important thing to understand about Halos is that they're features that fulfill the cultural archetype for attractiveness for that feature. They are features society deems attractive in their own right, not necessarily by how well they play with others. You could see a disembodied photo of that nose/hair/skin/teeth/lips/WHATEVER and would call it pretty, without seeing anything else. It will almost be cliche in how obvious it that it's considered "the best" (or one of the best) versions of that feature. The specifics will change from one culture and subculture to another, but in one way or another, they're all "established" somehow as attractive or ideal. When it comes to hardmaxxing, they're often the "aspirational" version of that feature--- the version or traits of that feature a plastic surgeon or other beauty professional will probably assume you want to approximate when you come to them.
FAILOS
Failos are not just every feature that isn't a Halo. Please let me repeat this again: Failos are not every feature that isn't a Halo. Thinking like this is how you go overboard and get botched. Every single feature you have should not be changed to be the "ideal, that's not a good way to become attractive. I'm not even trying to be feel-goody with this--- you're risking your overall facial harmony by tweaking EVERY single feature that isn't a bona fide Halo. (Not even touching on the health risks and budget concerns.)
A Failo is a feature that TRULY lowers aesthetics, and envokes a negative reaction visually. It's not neutral, it's actively negative. It's your "she's cute, but her _________" feature.
(Possible) Traits of an actual Failo (vs just a Regular Non-Halo Feature):
- The feature looks like it came from a different "type" of face or body. Perhaps you have very delicate features overall---- except your forehead which is much larger and dense looking than the rest of your face and body. Maybe all your features are lush and wide, except this one narrow and crooked part. You get the idea. We all recognize different "types" of faces, and sometimes features look like they don't belong overall. This feature could be a Failo. The sign of well needed plastic surgery (as much as any plastic surgery can be) is often the new feature matches the person's other features or body type better than their natural one ever did. This can be tricky though, as we're often not the best judges of these on our own faces, and they're essentially an issue of harmony, which is much subtler issue than other Failos.
-The feature could be described as "damaged"in some way. You fried your hair. You broke your nose as child and it's crooked now. Your teeth are rotting due to a medication you used to take. These are often Failos and often indicate ill health, past or present.
- The feature is the EXTREMELY exaggerated opposite of the Halo. Not just thin lips, NO lips. Not just average skin, pus gushing out. Almost to the point of caricature. Often this feature has been insulted to your face.
If a feature is just "fine", and you never really noticed it before you started looksmaxxing, it might not actually be a Failo. It could just as often be neither a Halo, nor a Failo.
"NEITHERS"
"Neithers" are every feature that isn't a Halo OR a Failo. Most people's faces are made almost exclusively of "Neithers" with about one Halo and about one Failo each. That's the average (young) person's face. Forgettable, not hot, not ugly.
The hard thing about "Neithers" is that you can't really describe them specifically, because they encompass literally ENDLESS versions of each feature that is neither a well known beauty standard (a halo), nor a well known flaw or obvious detriment (a failo). For each feature on a face, there's probably 3 or 4 Halo versions, 3 or 4 Legit Failo versions, and all the other THOUSANDS of versions of that human feature is probably a "Neither". They basically have a neutral effect on your face. If the rest of your face is a bunch of legit Halos, this feature doesn't bring your down at all. If the rest of your face is a bunch of legit Failos, this feature doesn't bring you up any either. It's just there.... Really all that can be said about them is that their mixture with your Legit HalosTM and Legit FailosTM is what gives faces (even among people of similar attractiveness) their variation. Without them (neutral features), all attractive faces would be identical and all ugly faces would be identical. That's just logic.\
"Neithers" are easiest to understand with examples. So here ARE some examples of Halos, Neithers, and Failos for each feature (mostly sticking to very general American standards here, some of these things change slightly from culture to culture or even subculture to subculture) :
Teeth:
-Typical American Halo Example: Straight, White, Wide Palate. The type of teeth that Veneers approximate. So Jessica Alba's teeth fulfill the typical beauty standards in the US--- they're a legit Halo for her. Her looks only go up with her smiles, versus her straight face.
- Failo Example: Rotten, brown teeth. I really don't think we need an example. An otherwise attractive person will be BROUGHT DOWN by these teeth.
"Neither": Normal Teeth. They're just average--- not bad at all, nothing special either. Mila pretty much stays at the same level of attractiveness before and after you see her smile. Any (further) work isn't needed at all, and could be detrimental to her overall delicate build and facial features.
Lips:
Halo Example: Plump, with a little width. Whether you agree or not, Jolie's lips basically defined attractiveness for a generation and they stick out as one of her best features. People comment on her lips alone outside of her overall attractiveness--- they're a legit Halo.
Failo Example: These lips are distractingly out of balance with the face. They're very below average size for the beauty standard, or even for average. They even begin to detract away from other good features (a decent jawline) by causing smokers lines and a jowl-y look. Harmony would be increased with augmentation.
"Neither" Example: Are these lips the EXACT beauty standard currently? No, they're lacking some width found in the current beauty standard, and the top lip in particular is asymmetrically small when compared to the bottom. But would Miranda look any better with fillers? NO.
She has neotenous features, and her somewhat of a rosebud mouth fits that look perfectly. In this instance, the difference between a feature that establishes harmony (like Miranda's lips) and a Halo (like Angelina's) is whether or not the feature is discussed separately from the person's overall beauty. Angelina's lips are a halo that people point out as attractive and discuss. Miranda's lips are attractive mostly in the way they work with her overall face, in her case her lips are PART of a Halo (her harmony), but they themselves alone are not the Halo. (Miranda's cherubic cheeks would be one of her Halo features discussed in a similar way to Jolie's lips.)
I just want to emphasize this because SO many looksmaxxers try to make their lips a Halo (a very specific type of lip shape) when they're much better off letting their regular lips create overall Harmony (a different, AND POSSIBLE EVEN BETTER HALO). Even someone with Failo lips getting work done should really aim for harmony, over an exact beauty standard shape (obviously best case scenario would be the Halo being in harmony with your face).
Often Halos like this you either have or you don't--- and it's not always necessary OR PRODUCTIVE to specifically add them in. Harmony itself IS a Halo, but people discount it because it's harder to pinpoint or appreciate than "singular feature" Halos. It's subtler. But it's just as important, if not more. Become comfortable with the idea of your face being attractive as a sum of all the parts working together, not necessarily of each individual feature being "perfect" in complete isolation. That's not how people look at faces IRL, so it shouldn't be how you look at yours when designing your looksmaxx.
The most important thing to understand about Halos is that they're features that fulfill the cultural archetype for attractiveness for that feature. They are features society deems attractive in their own right, not necessarily by how well they play with others. You could see a disembodied photo of that nose/hair/skin/teeth/lips/WHATEVER and would call it pretty, without seeing anything else. It will almost be cliche in how obvious it that it's considered "the best" (or one of the best) versions of that feature. The specifics will change from one culture and subculture to another, but in one way or another, they're all "established" somehow as attractive or ideal. When it comes to hardmaxxing, they're often the "aspirational" version of that feature--- the version or traits of that feature a plastic surgeon or other beauty professional will probably assume you want to approximate when you come to them.
FAILOS
Failos are not just every feature that isn't a Halo. Please let me repeat this again: Failos are not every feature that isn't a Halo. Thinking like this is how you go overboard and get botched. Every single feature you have should not be changed to be the "ideal, that's not a good way to become attractive. I'm not even trying to be feel-goody with this--- you're risking your overall facial harmony by tweaking EVERY single feature that isn't a bona fide Halo. (Not even touching on the health risks and budget concerns.)
A Failo is a feature that TRULY lowers aesthetics, and envokes a negative reaction visually. It's not neutral, it's actively negative. It's your "she's cute, but her _________" feature.
(Possible) Traits of an actual Failo (vs just a Regular Non-Halo Feature):
- The feature looks like it came from a different "type" of face or body. Perhaps you have very delicate features overall---- except your forehead which is much larger and dense looking than the rest of your face and body. Maybe all your features are lush and wide, except this one narrow and crooked part. You get the idea. We all recognize different "types" of faces, and sometimes features look like they don't belong overall. This feature could be a Failo. The sign of well needed plastic surgery (as much as any plastic surgery can be) is often the new feature matches the person's other features or body type better than their natural one ever did. This can be tricky though, as we're often not the best judges of these on our own faces, and they're essentially an issue of harmony, which is much subtler issue than other Failos.
-The feature could be described as "damaged"in some way. You fried your hair. You broke your nose as child and it's crooked now. Your teeth are rotting due to a medication you used to take. These are often Failos and often indicate ill health, past or present.
- The feature is the EXTREMELY exaggerated opposite of the Halo. Not just thin lips, NO lips. Not just average skin, pus gushing out. Almost to the point of caricature. Often this feature has been insulted to your face.
If a feature is just "fine", and you never really noticed it before you started looksmaxxing, it might not actually be a Failo. It could just as often be neither a Halo, nor a Failo.
"NEITHERS"
"Neithers" are every feature that isn't a Halo OR a Failo. Most people's faces are made almost exclusively of "Neithers" with about one Halo and about one Failo each. That's the average (young) person's face. Forgettable, not hot, not ugly.
The hard thing about "Neithers" is that you can't really describe them specifically, because they encompass literally ENDLESS versions of each feature that is neither a well known beauty standard (a halo), nor a well known flaw or obvious detriment (a failo). For each feature on a face, there's probably 3 or 4 Halo versions, 3 or 4 Legit Failo versions, and all the other THOUSANDS of versions of that human feature is probably a "Neither". They basically have a neutral effect on your face. If the rest of your face is a bunch of legit Halos, this feature doesn't bring your down at all. If the rest of your face is a bunch of legit Failos, this feature doesn't bring you up any either. It's just there.... Really all that can be said about them is that their mixture with your Legit HalosTM and Legit FailosTM is what gives faces (even among people of similar attractiveness) their variation. Without them (neutral features), all attractive faces would be identical and all ugly faces would be identical. That's just logic.\
"Neithers" are easiest to understand with examples. So here ARE some examples of Halos, Neithers, and Failos for each feature (mostly sticking to very general American standards here, some of these things change slightly from culture to culture or even subculture to subculture) :
Teeth:
-Typical American Halo Example: Straight, White, Wide Palate. The type of teeth that Veneers approximate. So Jessica Alba's teeth fulfill the typical beauty standards in the US--- they're a legit Halo for her. Her looks only go up with her smiles, versus her straight face.
- Failo Example: Rotten, brown teeth. I really don't think we need an example. An otherwise attractive person will be BROUGHT DOWN by these teeth.
"Neither": Normal Teeth. They're just average--- not bad at all, nothing special either. Mila pretty much stays at the same level of attractiveness before and after you see her smile. Any (further) work isn't needed at all, and could be detrimental to her overall delicate build and facial features.
Lips:
Halo Example: Plump, with a little width. Whether you agree or not, Jolie's lips basically defined attractiveness for a generation and they stick out as one of her best features. People comment on her lips alone outside of her overall attractiveness--- they're a legit Halo.
Failo Example: These lips are distractingly out of balance with the face. They're very below average size for the beauty standard, or even for average. They even begin to detract away from other good features (a decent jawline) by causing smokers lines and a jowl-y look. Harmony would be increased with augmentation.
"Neither" Example: Are these lips the EXACT beauty standard currently? No, they're lacking some width found in the current beauty standard, and the top lip in particular is asymmetrically small when compared to the bottom. But would Miranda look any better with fillers? NO.
She has neotenous features, and her somewhat of a rosebud mouth fits that look perfectly. In this instance, the difference between a feature that establishes harmony (like Miranda's lips) and a Halo (like Angelina's) is whether or not the feature is discussed separately from the person's overall beauty. Angelina's lips are a halo that people point out as attractive and discuss. Miranda's lips are attractive mostly in the way they work with her overall face, in her case her lips are PART of a Halo (her harmony), but they themselves alone are not the Halo. (Miranda's cherubic cheeks would be one of her Halo features discussed in a similar way to Jolie's lips.)
I just want to emphasize this because SO many looksmaxxers try to make their lips a Halo (a very specific type of lip shape) when they're much better off letting their regular lips create overall Harmony (a different, AND POSSIBLE EVEN BETTER HALO). Even someone with Failo lips getting work done should really aim for harmony, over an exact beauty standard shape (obviously best case scenario would be the Halo being in harmony with your face).
Often Halos like this you either have or you don't--- and it's not always necessary OR PRODUCTIVE to specifically add them in. Harmony itself IS a Halo, but people discount it because it's harder to pinpoint or appreciate than "singular feature" Halos. It's subtler. But it's just as important, if not more. Become comfortable with the idea of your face being attractive as a sum of all the parts working together, not necessarily of each individual feature being "perfect" in complete isolation. That's not how people look at faces IRL, so it shouldn't be how you look at yours when designing your looksmaxx.
