Is IPD/bizygomatic (ESR) a bad ratio? A new ratio for eye spacing?

[NuclearGeo20]

I feel like ICD is more important than ESR. The reason why I think this is that I see people with bad ESR due to a wide face but the eyes don't look close set.

I was talking to @iblamemygenes yesterday and he made the point that Jordan Barrett doesn't look like he has close set eyes even though his esr is .42/.43, because the actual distance between his eyes is ideal.

To see if eyes are properly spaced I've created a new ratio. The ratio is the (ICD/IPD). (In the perfect face, the ICD should approximately be half the IPD; .5 ). I've also thought of another ratio; (eyeball diameter/IPD). I feel like measuring by the eyeball would be more precise since some people have different medial canthus positions, angles, lengths, bodies, etc. But it might be harder to pinpoint the start and end of the eyeball by looking at a picture. But what do yall think?

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Jordan Barrett's ICD/IPD is .51, so slight unideal but it doesn't really affect anything

 

[mandiblade]

I feel like ICD is more important than ESR. The reason why I think this is that I see people with bad ESR due to a wide face but the eyes don't look close set.

I was talking to @iblamemygenes yesterday and he made the point that Jordan Barrett doesn't look like he has close set eyes even though his esr is .42/.43, because the actual distance between his eyes is ideal.

To see if eyes are properly spaced I've created a new ratio. The ratio is the (ICD/IPD). (In the perfect face, the ICD should approximately be half the IPD; .5 ). I've also thought of another ratio; (eyeball diameter/IPD). I feel like measuring by the eyeball would be more precise since some people have different medial canthus positions, angles, lengths, bodies, etc. But it might be harder to pinpoint the start and end of the eyeball by looking at a picture. But what do yall think?

I was thinking of this too, but I think OCD(ounter-canthal distance) to bizygo would be better because it accounts for a high PFL + high IPD. Considerations:
1. If it is possible for your eyes to be close to each other despite having a high PFL(by having a very short inner sclera basically), my idea will not 100% apply
2. If a good PFL always correlates with a reasonable IPD, it would be better to have a biyzgo-to-PFL ratio(and 2 ppl made posts about that)

 

[NuclearGeo20]

I was thinking of this too, but I think OCD(ounter-canthal distance) to bizygo would be better because it accounts for a high PFL + high IPD. Considerations:

That's actually a bad measurement and I'll tell you why. The PFL becomes a conflating variable. We can't punish someone's harmony score because they have horizontally elongated eyes which are actually a desirable feature.

I was thinking of this too, but I think OCD(ounter-canthal distance) to bizygo would be better because it accounts for a high PFL + high IPD. Considerations:
1. If it is possible for your eyes to be close to each other despite having a high PFL(by having a very short inner sclera basically), my idea will not 100% apply
2. If a good PFL always correlates with a reasonable IPD, it would be better to have a biyzgo-to-PFL ratio(and 2 ppl made posts about that)

Response to 1: It's possible for the eyes to have a short IPD despite having long PFL. PFL is just the horizontal part of the eyelid. Those 2 things don't contribute to each other.
Response to 2: It doesn't always correlate, some people have a wide face and short PFL despite having a 65mm IPD which is the ideal.

 

[mandiblade]

That's actually a bad measurement and I'll tell you why. The PFL becomes a conflating variable. We can't punish someone's harmony score because they have horizontally elongated eyes which are actually a desirable feature.

Source: https://looksmax.org/threads/what-exactly-is-wrong-with-this-morph-of-sean-opry.276898/


Jokes aside, my ratio was a hypothesis. If it is possible to have a very high PFL to the point of weirdness while having a normal IPD, then the idea was that my ratio might have been able to replace the ESR. If it practically never happens, then it would just be redundant. I should have made morphs to falsify my theory. It was wrong. A high ICD:bizygo is what makes someone appear fish-eyed, not a high OCD:bizygo(if the ICD is normal). So yes, your critique was correct.

I did just make a morph, and a bad ICD:OCD ratio but a normal IPD makes you look like you're crossing your eyes together in a mentally disabled way. I'm not posting the morph because it looks stupid.

So yeah basically. My theory has been disproven

It's possible for the eyes to have a short IPD despite having long PFL. PFL is just the horizontal part of the eyelid. Those 2 things don't contribute to each other.

I know that they technically do not cause each other, but I was asking if they are always parallel outcomes(i.e. wide PFL always means wide IPD in practice) . It seems as though they partially are parallel outcomes.

Horizontally narrow orbitals are a large contributor to low IPD

Horizontally narrow orbitals are a large contributor to low IPD. Obviously, there are multiple factors influencing low IPD, there is a genetic component and there is a facial growth component. That said I believe everyone in the modern world has lower IPD and PFL than they should because I...

looksmax.org

The issue is multifaceted. Low IPD is caused by low medial PFL and low ICD. PFL is caused by orbital width, while ICD is caused by sphenoid/palatine/ethmoid/lacrimal bone width. As he said, because the pupil/iris are supposed to located in the center of the orbit regardless of ICD, wide orbits contribute to a wider PFL. I think ICD causes ~75% of IPD though, so it is not very relevant.

TLDR: I was right to think that IPD and PFL are positively correlated, making my ratio again useless.

Response to 2: It doesn't always correlate, some people have a wide face and short PFL despite having a 65mm IPD which is the ideal.

I couldn't find any IRL pictures of low(not normal, low) lateral PFL while having normal IPD. Do you have any?

But then again, if they do correlate, then ESR would be useful again.

Tagging highiqcels
@thecel @Lookologist003

 

[NuclearGeo20]

View attachment 3758014
Source: https://looksmax.org/threads/what-exactly-is-wrong-with-this-morph-of-sean-opry.276898/


Jokes aside, my ratio was a hypothesis. If it is possible to have a very high PFL to the point of weirdness while having a normal IPD, then the idea was that my ratio might have been able to replace the ESR. If it practically never happens, then it would just be redundant. I should have made morphs to falsify my theory. It was wrong. A high ICD:bizygo is what makes someone appear fish-eyed, not a high OCD:bizygo(if the ICD is normal). So yes, your critique was correct.

I did just make a morph, and a bad ICD:OCD ratio but a normal IPD makes you look like you're crossing your eyes together in a mentally disabled way. I'm not posting the morph because it looks stupid.

So yeah basically. My theory has been disproven

I know that they technically do not cause each other, but I was asking if they are always parallel outcomes(i.e. wide PFL always means wide IPD in practice) . It seems as though they partially are parallel outcomes.

Horizontally narrow orbitals are a large contributor to low IPD

Horizontally narrow orbitals are a large contributor to low IPD. Obviously, there are multiple factors influencing low IPD, there is a genetic component and there is a facial growth component. That said I believe everyone in the modern world has lower IPD and PFL than they should because I...

looksmax.org

The issue is multifaceted. Low IPD is caused by low medial PFL and low ICD. PFL is caused by orbital width, while ICD is caused by sphenoid/palatine/ethmoid/lacrimal bone width. As he said, because the pupil/iris are supposed to located in the center of the orbit regardless of ICD, wide orbits contribute to a wider PFL. I think ICD causes ~75% of IPD though, so it is not very relevant.

TLDR: I was right to think that IPD and PFL are positively correlated, making my ratio again useless.


I couldn't find any IRL pictures of low(not normal, low) lateral PFL while having normal IPD. Do you have any?

But then again, if they do correlate, then ESR would be useful again.

Tagging highiqcels
@thecel @Lookologist003

It's unreliable since we are actually trying to determine if the space between the eyeballs themselves are ideal and that would cause normal eye spacing

 

[mandiblade]

It's unreliable

What is? My ratio or someting else specifically?

 

[NuclearGeo20]

What is? My ratio or someting else specifically?

Using the outer canthus. Trust me inner canthus is better, there is way less variation and its better for measuring the ratio between the eyeballs. ICD/IPD for now is the best imo

 

[mandiblade]

To speak of your actual post...

I feel like ICD is more important than ESR.

Perceived nose bridge width along with eyebrow spacing and width are very important for perceived ESR. They are so important that they can mess up and fix your perceived spacing in and of themselves.

IPD/ES RATIO/EME ANGLE is borderline meaningless for harmony

IPD, ESRATIO and EME angle have a moderate impact at best on facial harmony. There are other major factors that impact the impression we get conscerning the eyes spacing on someones face, mostly EYEBROW SPACING and NASAL BRIDGE/NASION DEFINITION. I saw alot of people wondering how someone with...

looksmax.org

I doubt that ICD has a large role. I can't morph very well, so I can't know for sure. I still would not say that ICD is more important than ESR. For one measurement to be more important than another, it should be easier to have a falio in the new one, and it should be useful as well. Otherwise, it would just be redundant.

The reason why I think this is that I see people with bad ESR due to a wide face but the eyes don't look close set.

Other than Barrett, do you have any examples? His eyes don't look close set, but they look miniaturized to fit his face.

I was talking to @

@iblamemygenes yesterday and he made the point that Jordan Barrett doesn't look like he has close set eyes even though his esr is .42/.43, because the actual distance between his eyes is ideal.

Again, his eyes look miniaturized on his face, at least on all of his front-facing shots.

To see if eyes are properly spaced I've created a new ratio. The ratio is the (ICD/IPD). (In the perfect face, the ICD should approximately be half the IPD; .5 ).

Is this measured from the tip of the canthus or the start of the sclera? If it is from the tip of the canthus, not having a long medial canthus would falio someone using this metric.

I've also thought of another ratio; (eyeball diameter/IPD). I feel like measuring by the eyeball would be more precise since some people have different medial canthus positions, angles, lengths, bodies, etc

Does pupillary aperture width ever change between people? The true eyeball diameter doesn't seem to be relevant, right?

 

[NuclearGeo20]

To speak of your actual post...

His eyes look miniaturized due to his hunter eyes plus wide face. I proposed using the eyeball as a measurement metric as it is more accurate but I think it would be harder to use the eyeball since we don't know where it starts and ends under the skin (or maybe I am just a grey when it comes to that.) Eyeball diameter doesn't change within people so that's why it would be ideal (approximately 24 mm diameter among ALL people; women and men. I measure it from the start of the medial canthus. If someone has elongated medial canthus I will start before the elongation. This keeps the measurement proportionate.

For example Matt Bomer has an extremely elongated medial canthus. So what I did is I found a picture where his medial canthus is clearly defined and before the elongation started I put my marker. That way the measurement is fair. His measurement came out to .5 exactly which is why his eyes don't look close/far set.

 

[mandiblade]

Reps please?

His eyes look miniaturized due to his hunter eyes plus wide face

IDK about the hunter eys contributing, but his huge face definitely makes them appear small. IDT the issue can apply to people with normal, non oversized skulls.

I proposed using the eyeball as a measurement metric as it is more accurate but I think it would be harder to use the eyeball since we don't know where it starts and ends under the skin (or maybe I am just a grey when it comes to that.) Eyeball diameter doesn't change within people so that's why it would be ideal (approximately 24 mm diameter among ALL people; women and men.

You would then use the universal value instead of measuring. At that point, there would be no need for a ratio because the whole point of facial ratios is measuring proportionality between two independent variables/features. You could just use an absolute value at that point.

I measure it from the start of the medial canthus. If someone has elongated medial canthus I will start before the elongation. This keeps the measurement proportionate.
For example Matt Bomer has an extremely elongated medial canthus. So what I did is I found a picture where his medial canthus is clearly defined and before the elongation started I put my marker. That way the measurement is fair. His measurement came out to .5 exactly which is why his eyes don't look close/far set.

I didn't consider that. Interesting

Jordan Barrett's ICD/IPD is .51, so slight unideal but it doesn't really affect anything

If this is true, wouldn't that mean that this ratio is largely redundant? This ratio is not even why his eyes look so weird.
Also, this ratio would be unaffected if your ICD and IPD both scale rather equally.

 

[Djimo]

I feel like ICD is more important than ESR. The reason why I think this is that I see people with bad ESR due to a wide face but the eyes don't look close set.

I was talking to @iblamemygenes yesterday and he made the point that Jordan Barrett doesn't look like he has close set eyes even though his esr is .42/.43, because the actual distance between his eyes is ideal.

To see if eyes are properly spaced I've created a new ratio. The ratio is the (ICD/IPD). (In the perfect face, the ICD should approximately be half the IPD; .5 ). I've also thought of another ratio; (eyeball diameter/IPD). I feel like measuring by the eyeball would be more precise since some people have different medial canthus positions, angles, lengths, bodies, etc. But it might be harder to pinpoint the start and end of the eyeball by looking at a picture. But what do yall think?

it doesn't look close set due to his intercanthal distance being bigger than his lateralcanthuszygomatic (big word )distance

 

[NuclearGeo20]

If this is true, wouldn't that mean that this ratio is largely redundant? This ratio is not even why his eyes look so weird.
Also, this ratio would be unaffected if your ICD and IPD both scale rather equally.

Not really. ICD and IPD will scale together proportionally but that doesn't mean the space between the inner canthi or pupils will remain the same for everybody. Hence the ratio is still viable.

 

[Djimo]

To see if eyes are properly spaced I've created a new ratio. The ratio is the (ICD/IPD)

That measurement isn't new btw

 

[NuclearGeo20]

If this is true, wouldn't that mean that this ratio is largely redundant? This ratio is not even why his eyes look so weird.
Also, this ratio would be unaffected if your ICD and IPD both scale rather equally.

Actually you are right. They will scale proportionally, which screws up the ratio .

Maybe a better ratio would be Iris to Inner Canthus (assuming the eyes are equal; which they should be if you're not deformed), divided by the distance between the pupils.

This way the constant in the equation would be Iris to Inner Canthus since it is essentially the same in every human being (unless you are deformed), and then you have the variable which is the distance between the pupils; which changes from human to human.

So final equation is ( IRIS TO INNER CANTHUS / INTER OCULAR DISTANCE )

 

[NuclearGeo20]

That measurement isn't new btw

look at my new response under

 

[NuclearGeo20]

The ( IRIS TO INNER CANTHUS / INTER OCULAR DISTANCE ) ratio in this guy is 23 percent.

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Actually you are right. They will scale proportionally, which screws up the ratio .

Maybe a better ratio would be Iris to Inner Canthus (assuming the eyes are equal; which they should be if you're not deformed), divided by the distance between the pupils.

This way the constant in the equation would be Iris to Inner Canthus since it is essentially the same in every human being (unless you are deformed), and then you have the variable which is the distance between the pupils; which changes from human to human.

So final equation is ( IRIS TO INNER CANTHUS / INTER OCULAR DISTANCE )

@mandiblade @Djimo @flatcheck213

 

[mandiblade]

View attachment 3758467 it doesn't look close set due to his intercanthal distance being bigger than his lateralcanthuszygomatic (big word )distance

This is very interesting. I think you found the missing measurement that I was looking for. Btw, I don't think "lateralcanthuszygomatic" would be a word, especially not just 1. Maybe we could call it borderline eye spacing?
Then again, the AI generated face looks like he has close-set eyes if you don't analyze. His ICD is is 79 pixels while his border eye spacing(please come up with a better word for "border") is only 58. His PFL is messing him up there

 

[Djimo]

@mandiblade @Djimo @flatcheck213

What point does this measurement have tho, there's no harmony data about it or anything as far as I know

 

[NuclearGeo20]

I just calculated Marko Jaric and he got (46.33/155.67) around .3; which makes sense because since his IPD is so low, the inner half of the eyeball would take up more space then it would in the average ipd (.23).

 

[NuclearGeo20]

What point does this measurement have tho, there's no harmony data about it or anything as far as I know

There is. If you measure your ratio and it comes up 23 percent, you have ideal spacing. If it's more than 23 percent your eyes are closer set. Vice versa for less than 23 percent

 

[NuclearGeo20]

This is very interesting. I think you found the missing measurement that I was looking for. Btw, I don't think "lateralcanthuszygomatic" would be a word, especially not just 1. Maybe we could call it borderline eye spacing?
Then again, the AI generated face looks like he has close-set eyes if you don't analyze. His ICD is is 79 pixels while his border eye spacing(please come up with a better word for "border") is only 58. His PFL is messing him up there

sorrry bro, i didn't understand a single thing you are saying

 

[mandiblade]

This way the constant in the equation would be Iris to Inner Canthus since it is essentially the same in every human being (unless you are deformed),

There is no need to measure deformity. The iris-to-medial canthus distance would be unchanged, and the IPD would be an independent variable, meaning that the new ratio you discovered would scale directly with IPD. Lol you just recreated the IPD measurement.

 

[flatcheck213]

I just calculated Marko Jaric and he got (46.33/155.67) around .3; which makes sense because since his IPD is so low, the inner half of the eyeball would take up more space then it would in the average ipd (.23).

Chad

 

[Djimo]

This is very interesting. I think you found the missing measurement that I was looking for. Btw, I don't think "lateralcanthuszygomatic" would be a word, especially not just 1. Maybe we could call it borderline eye spacing?
Then again, the AI generated face looks like he has close-set eyes if you don't analyze. His ICD is is 79 pixels while his border eye spacing(please come up with a better word for "border") is only 58. His PFL is messing him up there

Idk a better word tbh and yeah lateralcanthuszygomatic is way to long jfl,

the problem is the measurement could be screwed sometimes due to the zygomatic height, the line should be straight from the lateral canthus to the side of the face and sometimes that results tk being in the middle of the zygo and the temporal bone, which makes it harder to give it a name ig.

Maybe something like lateral to side distance or something,

If we're gonna give it a name it should be something with later and side of head so not zygo or temporal bone.

 

[NuclearGeo20]

There is no need to measure deformity. The iris-to-medial canthus distance would be unchanged, and the IPD would be an independent variable, meaning that the new ratio you discovered would scale directly with IPD. Lol you just recreated the IPD measurement.

Lets goooooo. Hopefuel

 

[mandiblade]

Idk a better word tbh and yeah lateralcanthuszygomatic is way to long jfl,

the problem is the measurement could be screwed sometimes due to the zygomatic height, the line should be straight from the lateral canthus to the side of the face and sometimes that results tk being in the middle of the zygo and the temporal bone, which makes it harder to give it a name ig.

Maybe something like lateral to side distance or something,

If we're gonna give it a name it should be something with later and side of head so not zygo or temporal bone.

It may also be the greater wing of the sphenoid. I believe that it would be more important that the temporal bone here

 

[mandiblade]

Lets goooooo. Hopefuel

Did you read what I said right? I said that your ratio would just be copying the IPD's function, but just more complicated. Or am I too autistic to realize your sarcasm?

 

[mandiblade]

Idk a better word tbh and yeah lateralcanthuszygomatic is way to long jfl,

the problem is the measurement could be screwed sometimes due to the zygomatic height, the line should be straight from the lateral canthus to the side of the face and sometimes that results tk being in the middle of the zygo and the temporal bone, which makes it harder to give it a name ig.

Maybe something like lateral to side distance or something,

If we're gonna give it a name it should be something with later and side of head so not zygo or temporal bone.

In addition, "zygomatic height" is largely the bone mass deposition along the bottom of the cheekbones. It is not very structural in nature, unless you mess with stuff like surgery. @Orc made a thread about this.

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Did you read what I said right? I said that your ratio would just be copying the IPD's function, but just more complicated. Or am I too autistic to realize your sarcasm?

There was some sarcasm intended behind it lol. My ratio would not be copying the IPD's function because the IPD itself will scale up and down in every human, but the distance from the pupil to the inner canthus in every human, will be the same.

 

[Djimo]

It may also be the greater wing of the sphenoid. I believe that it would be more important that the temporal bone here

Yes, that would probably always be at the border of the greater wing of sphenoid, the problem is that that is also a long word

 

[mandiblade]

There was some sarcasm intended behind it lol. My ratio would not be copying the IPD's function because the IPD itself will scale up and down in every human, but the distance from the pupil to the inner canthus in every human, will be the same.

Isn't the purpose of ratios to determine the harmony between two changeable values?

 

[Djimo]

In addition, "zygomatic height" is largely the bone mass deposition along the bottom of the cheekbones. It is not very structural in nature, unless you mess with stuff like surgery. @Orc made a thread about this.

Yes I know since I got low cheekbones
But looking at my later canthus and going in a straight line to the side I will come out at my greater wing of sphenoid let's call greater wing of sphenoid GWOS I guess

but the distance from the pupil to the inner canthus in every human, will be the same.

There's no way this is real, I didn't know that

 

[NuclearGeo20]

There's no way this is real, I didn't know that

Yea among women and men, of all races, the eyeball doesn't really change in diameter unless you have a condition

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Isn't the purpose of ratios to determine the harmony between two changeable values?

not necessarily

 

[mandiblade]

sorrry bro, i didn't understand a single thing you are saying

My phrasing is trash lol. Translation:

Btw, I don't think "lateralcanthuszygomatic" would be a word, especially not just 1. Maybe we could call it borderline eye spacing?

The terminology he used was not really proper English

Then again, the AI generated face looks like he has close-set eyes if you don't analyze

I was saying that this ratio(borderline eye spacing : ICD) doesn't explain everything. This guy(attached) looks like he has close-set eyes.

His ICD is is 79 pixels while his border eye spacing(please come up with a better word for "border") is only 58

This was my bad judgement. His eyes look close-set because his eyebrows are very long. Eyebrows are lifefuel lol

 

[Djimo]

Yea among women and men, of all races, the eyeball doesn't really change in diameter unless you have a condition

Yes but what about the distance to the medial canthus, where do you start measuring it? From the beginning or end to make it as even as possible?

 

[mandiblade]

But looking at my later canthus and going in a straight line to the side I will come out at my greater wing of sphenoid let's call greater wing of sphenoid GWOS I guess

I retract lol. The greater wing of the spenoid is behind the orbitals. I'm pretty sure you would be looking at your lateral orbital rim(established as LOR in PSL world)

 

[mandiblade]

not necessarily

What would the other use case be? If only one value can change, then you would probably be better off just saying the raw value in cm/mm.

 

[Djimo]

This was my bad judgement. His eyes look close-set because his eyebrows are very long. Eyebrows are lifefuel lol

Yes the brows on the morph should shorter but the later canthus to the side of the head distance is also a factor whether the esr is perceived as close or far set

 

[mandiblade]

Yes the brows on the morph should shorter but the later canthus to the side of the head distance is also a factor whether the esr is perceived as close or far set

I was saying that your ratio/value works unless you fraud(on purpose or by accident) with eyebrows.

 

[NuclearGeo20]

Yes but what about the distance to the medial canthus, where do you start measuring it? From the beginning or end to make it as even as possible?

I would measure it from the end. Pupil to inner canthus.

What would the other use case be? If only one value can change, then you would probably be better off just saying the raw value in cm/mm.

You could also use measurement, both are viable. But since most of us have to go to an eye doctor to get IPD measured you could use these ratios in the meantime until you get 100 percent confirmation from the doctor. Also take everything I say with a grain of salt, I'm trying to figure it out as we go tbh. But I think this is pretty consistent.

 

[mandiblade]

But since most of us have to go to an eye doctor to get IPD measured

Get a ruler dude lol. Btw, the pupils are usually 2-4mm unless dilated, so you can use that to convert pixels into mms.

 

[Djimo]

I retract lol. The greater wing of the spenoid is behind the orbitals. I'm pretty sure you would be looking at your lateral orbital rim(established as LOR in PSL world)

The problem with the LOR is that it's not the side of your head (atleast for me) since the LOR is really close to the lateral canthus,
You can see a little slope like 10° from the real side to the LOR, the actual side of your face is often the zygomatic or the temporal area which makes the LOR not suitable since it's not really the furthest away the line could be since there's still the zygo or temporal sticking out a bit.

 

[mandiblade]

The problem with the LOR is that it's not the side of your head (atleast for me) since the LOR is really close to the lateral canthus,
You can see a little slope like 10° from View attachment 3758656 the real side to the LOR, the actual side of your face is often the zygomatic or the temporal area which makes the LOR not suitable since it's not really the furthest away the line could be since there's still the zygo or temporal sticking out a bit.

Ah, yes you are correct. However, it may be GWOS+some genetic fat/muscle tissue, because there is supposed to be a hollow behind your orbits

 

[Djimo]

I would measure it from the end. Pupil to inner canthus.

You could also use measurement, both are viable. But since most of us have to go to an eye doctor to get IPD measured you could use these ratios in the meantime until you get 100 percent confirmation from the doctor. Also take everything I say with a grain of salt, I'm trying to figure it out as we go tbh. But I think this is pretty consistent.

Only problem is if the person you wanna measure isn't looking straight in the camera or the camera has like a 10° skew to the left or the right and the person doesn't look straight ahead.
So there might be inconsistencies with this mb if I didn't explain well lol

 

[Djimo]

Ah, yes you are correct. However, it may be GWOS+some genetic fat/muscle tissue, because there is supposed to be a hollow behind your orbits

Yes you can feel the fat/muscle, if you feel the side of ur head at the temporal region you'll feel it. It hurts a but when you press to hard on it

 

[mandiblade]

Yes you can feel the fat/muscle, if you feel the side of ur head at the temporal region you'll feel it. It hurts a but when you press to hard on it

So I guess the only issue with your ratio is the naming and the potential of eyebrow frauding? Seems fine to me, even with those

 

[NuclearGeo20]

WTF Matt Bomer and Jon Erik Hexum both got approximately 25 percent. Am I missing something.