[POLL] Facial Depth to Head Depth Ratio

[thecel]

Ideal Facial Depth to Head Depth Ratio Poll

Facial Depth to Head Depth Ratio

[Measured in Side View] The Distance from the Nasion to the Tragus : The Distance from the Nasion to the Occiput Read More: It’s over if you have a bad front/back ratio The key to an attractive side profile (warrior skull) is a high front–back ratio. The “front” is the section of the skull ahead of the ears, and the “back” is the section of the skull behind the ears. Attractive men have sagittally long front skulls and sagittally short rear skulls: See the... looksmax.org

---

Which of the following is ideal?


44%




47.8%




51.5%




55.5%




59.4%




62.3%

 

[thecel]

imo:

55% to 60% is the ideal range for aesthetics. Having this ratio in this range gives you that modelesque mogger forward-grown side profile look.

Ratios above 60% look uncanny and unideal.

50% to 55% is a normal-looking, sub-ideal range. You don’t look mogger and you don’t look subhuman. Just regular and standard.

---

Sub 50% is subhuman tier. Sub 45% is deformed tier.

40% front/back ratio

 

[first snow]

imo:

55% to 60% is the ideal range for aesthetics. Having this ratio in this range gives you that modelesque mogger forward-grown side profile look.

View attachment 3729317View attachment 3729295View attachment 3729301View attachment 3729306View attachment 3729308

Ratios above 60% look uncanny and unideal.

50% to 55% is a normal-looking, sub-ideal range. You don’t look mogger and you don’t look subhuman. Just regular and standard.

---

Sub 50% is subhuman tier. Sub 45% is deformed tier.

View attachment 3729325

40% front/back ratio

agreed

 

[thecel]

bump

 

[Deleted member 114837]

irrelevant

 

[obscuredusk]

55.5

 

[thecel]

55.5

the woman in your avi has 10/10 eyes

 

[thecel]

 

[Lookologist003]

Head depth should be like 40% of facial depth.

 

[Alexander Sorgers]

So bimax would be the go to for every one below 55%

 

[thecel]

So bimax would be the go to for every one below 55%

no. no bimax for cranium. bimaxing a patient with a flat SKULL would dogmaxx them.

 

[Lookologist003]

@thecel
You should also measure the width of the neck in profile and compare it against facial depth. Super foward grown is when neck width < facial depth. Mushroom profile is when neck width > facial depth. This relates to your idea of neck insertion somehow as well.

 

[Lookologist003]

62.3%

This guy has neck width > facial depth

 

[Lookologist003]

@thecel
Here's what I meant. Facial depth to neck width as seen from the profile view. 1 is good. Bellow 1 starts to look a little squashed and unaesthetic. As you might broaden your view of somebody, more factors like neck width come into play, then it starts becoming related to frame because of the sternoclavomastiods and rib cage. Attractiveness can be assessed starting from the area between the eyebrows and upper lip, that is, the mid face and its important ratios, then it broadens to include skull shape like facial depth, cephalic index, gonial angle, ramus and chin-to-philtrum. It broadens further to include the neck, and when it does proportions of that need to be considered to understand the feeling of forward growth. Ultimately once the whole skeleton is in view, framepill has been dispensed, that's when attractiveness can be judged truly. This limited scope is why good-looking manlets can get attention online if only their head is in view.

 

[Richard Spencer]