[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

 

[Verveine]

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]

 

[GerbertJohnson]

can someone tell me what percent i am if i send a picture

 

[slaters]

can someone tell me what percent i am if i send a picture

You are 30%

 

[thecel]

This guy’s ratio looks insanely high, but I measured it to only be 55.4%. How tf???

 

[avenox]

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%
View attachment 3729257



47.8%
View attachment 3729258



51.5%
View attachment 3729259



55.5%
View attachment 3729260



59.4%
View attachment 3729286



62.3%
View attachment 3729287

Can lefort achieve this

 

[thecel]

Can lefort achieve this

le fort 1, not really. a minimal amount.

le fort 2 or 3, yeah it can help balance out a shallow-front/deep-back depth ratio, but excluding the forehead part obviously

 

[Cinnamon fan64]

95%

 

[Lookologist003]

This sort of implicates facial depth / fDHR. In no way can you show an image of a side profile without also having shown fDHR. And fHDR ranks higher on the things that make a face attractive. If you wanted to demonstrate what impact this makes, you have to hold fHDR constant by elongating the face at the effort of elongating the nasion to tragus distance. Because you did not do this, the series of pictures in OP therefore show increasing facial depth.

My point is that the stuff behind the ear doesn't matter a whole lot, only distance from tragus to eyes and tragus to glabella.

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

This guy has a severe lack of bones. His face looks like oatmeal.

With some bones (and a bit higher fDHR):

With a higher front-to-back ratio:

(Looks like an autistic retard.)

But then he looks quarterback when I broaden the neck.

My takeaways are: (1) if the neck is not in view, front-to-back ratio is irrelevant, only fHDR matters ; and (2) if it is, then the neck width should be balanced with the facial depth or near enough there.

 

[Foreverbrad]

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

Brutal craniumpill.

 

[Lookologist003]

If you wanted to demonstrate what impact this makes, you have to hold fHDR constant by elongating the face at the effort of elongating the nasion to tragus distance. Because you did not do this, the series of pictures in OP therefore show increasing facial depth.

Spoiler: ...Morph

 

[Alexander Sorgers]

View attachment 3831898
@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.

Holy iq can U rate me

 

[Lookologist003]

Holy iq can U rate me

No. Go talk to women. If they're mostly friendly and flirtatious, it doesn't matter what I or any basement dweller thinks, and you should quit the site immediately and update your status on Instagram.

 

[kaydd]

Damn, no more mullets for my subpar cranium then

 

[MoggedSubhuman]

Fuck. My cranium looks like that. I'm not even sure if there's a surgery for that