Veridic
Morality lies within the face
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2024
- Posts
- 1,622
- Reputation
- 1,845
This entire debate is built on nothing but incorrect understanding of facial attractiveness dynamics. (TLDR at the bottom)
First things first: PSL is not "bones". It's a holistic 0.25-8.0 overall rating system not just about bone structure. Actual appeal is the harmony of both your bone projection AND soft tissue distribution (the muscle, fat, and dermal tissue that sits on top of bone).
I'll go a bit into archetypes you may have heard such as "pretty boy" meaning good harmony in terms of soft tissue adding youthful appeal, "ogre" referring to larger bones in terms of projection but often lacking soft tissue harmony, and "robust" (ideal) is where both bone projection and soft tissue distribution come together to create harmony.
You can have amazing bones and still look uncanny or less appealing if your soft tissue is lacking (jordan barrett being called uncanny despite being one of a kind with his genetics). Or you can have average to above average bones but look extremely appealing due to soft tissue resting on top of your bones creating the finished "look" hence why people refer to Chico as an example of this. Dimorphism is affected by both factors in very many nuanced ways which is why the PSL scale although in my personal opinion not being the best metric for determining these things, was created to rate overall appeal using both variables mentioned above (bones/soft tissue) to give an overall rating.
TLDR: PSL is not just bone structure it's a rating system. Arguing "psl vs appeal" is the same as arguing "face vs height" when either one of those can be a determining factor as to why you are uncanny or not as appealing as the next person. Your goal should be maximizing the harmony between your bone structure and soft tissue, not just chasing one trait to cope about the rest. Your appearance is a total package and no woman cares about how large your zygos are or how "ideal" your fwhr is if the other variables bring it down to the point of being a deal breaker.
First things first: PSL is not "bones". It's a holistic 0.25-8.0 overall rating system not just about bone structure. Actual appeal is the harmony of both your bone projection AND soft tissue distribution (the muscle, fat, and dermal tissue that sits on top of bone).
I'll go a bit into archetypes you may have heard such as "pretty boy" meaning good harmony in terms of soft tissue adding youthful appeal, "ogre" referring to larger bones in terms of projection but often lacking soft tissue harmony, and "robust" (ideal) is where both bone projection and soft tissue distribution come together to create harmony.
You can have amazing bones and still look uncanny or less appealing if your soft tissue is lacking (jordan barrett being called uncanny despite being one of a kind with his genetics). Or you can have average to above average bones but look extremely appealing due to soft tissue resting on top of your bones creating the finished "look" hence why people refer to Chico as an example of this. Dimorphism is affected by both factors in very many nuanced ways which is why the PSL scale although in my personal opinion not being the best metric for determining these things, was created to rate overall appeal using both variables mentioned above (bones/soft tissue) to give an overall rating.
TLDR: PSL is not just bone structure it's a rating system. Arguing "psl vs appeal" is the same as arguing "face vs height" when either one of those can be a determining factor as to why you are uncanny or not as appealing as the next person. Your goal should be maximizing the harmony between your bone structure and soft tissue, not just chasing one trait to cope about the rest. Your appearance is a total package and no woman cares about how large your zygos are or how "ideal" your fwhr is if the other variables bring it down to the point of being a deal breaker.
Last edited:

