toolateforme
Again hoping that i don't wake up tomorrow..
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2019
- Posts
- 10,638
- Reputation
- 8,769
Eye–Mouth–Eye Angle as a Good Indicator of Face Masculinization, Asymmetry, and Attractiveness (Homo sapiens)
Past research on male facial attractiveness has been limited by the reliance on facialmetric measures that are less than ideal. In particular, some of these measures are face size dependent and show only weak sexual dimorphism, which limits the
www.academia.edu
this is eme angle and this angle is much more reliable tool than midface ratio to assess the midface length properly since lip plumpness can affect the midface ratio at any time.
so here are the important parts of a couple of studies.
We found that male faces with relatively smaller EME angles (i.e., moremasculinized facial feature with respect to the studied trait) were perceived by women as more attractive. These findings suggest that EME is valuable even in a highly homogenous population. Tothe extent that this trait is related with the level of masculinity, itmight reflect higher level of androgens during the time when thefacial features develop during male ontogeny (for more discussionon male facial development, see Enlow, 1990; Tanner, 1989).Because androgens may disturb immunocompetence (Barber,1995; Fink & Neave, 2005; Fink & Penton-Voak, 2002; Folstad &Karter, 1992; for comprehensive discussion, see also Moshkin,Gerlinskaya, & Evsikov, 2000), then the EME angle could be a new indicator of a man’s ability to display traits that are metabolically expensive and costly to develop, and thus a signal of hisunderlying biological fitness. Thus, the preferences for more mas-culinized faces (i.e., those with smaller EME angle) could be newevidence supporting the handicap principle by Zahavi (1975)
In contrary to EME angle, the distances between the outer and inner eye corners and horizontal eye separation (IPD) are not correlated with male attractiveness (Cunningham, Barbee, & Pike,1990; Grammer & Thornhill, 1994).
plus this study suggested that ovulating women preferred men with lower eme angle also.
but its too early to cope yet.
based on ideal schemas created by women, the mean angle was 46.6 degrees and the median was 48 degrees. so it's not lower EME angle the better, there must be a sweet spot. One thing for sure is unlike conventional PSL belief, a compact face was in fact not desirable for men nor was it masculine.
I assume ideal would be around 47 and if it resonate around here it would be ideal.
these are the images I got from reddit. i think 47 eme angle would be around optimal for men but studies disagree that it is for women.
as you can see too compact (too high eme angle) looks gay alien and retarded for men.
i get 46.5 on regular. i wish it would be a bit more wide set because my ipd got lower due to asymmetry, but it is what it is
this is a huge cope for long midfacecels. its undoubtedly true that long midface is simply a death sentence to women but there is a great cope for long midfaced men.
