Robust > Barrett and Chico

[Veridic]

Quick guide for “doctors” graduating from the prestigious university of tiktok comment sections in facial aesthetics, on archetypes.

Pretty boy = youthful soft tissue structure (skin, muscle, fat) which rests on top of bone. It can help compensate for poor bone structure and contribute to female gaze appeal. (Chico)

Ogre (“psl” as tiktokcels call it) = strong bone structure/projection with minimal soft tissue distribution, can look masculine but not very youthful or as highly appealing to most women. (Barrett being called uncanny)

Pretty boys mog in their youth but age out of their looks as collagen depletes with time (chico), Ogres retain their looks better throughout life due to not relying on collagen as structure support (barrett but with the caveat that his bones harmonize well enough to not be a bad type of uncanny).

Robust = best of both worlds, soft tissue and bone structure working together to retain youth + add masculine dimorphism. (Hexum, duh. They mog forever).

Since some people lack critical thinking skills, I’m obliged to inform you that the pretty boy and ogre archetypes refer to two ends of a spectrum, with many individuals falling somewhere in between.

Appeal = harmony of bone + ST (quantifiable ratios calculated to determine harmony between traits and soft tissue distribution).

 

[mohi_100]

Ratios and proportions can only determine facial harmony. Miscellaneous features are not quantifiable

 

[Veridic]

Ratios and proportions can only determine facial harmony. Miscellaneous features are not quantifiable

I didn’t say ratios explain 100% of looks. It influences overall appeal regardless, also these things can become quantifiable using a repeatable scoring method which isn’t being done from what I’ve seen in this com.

 

[lurking truecel]

World ramblings without substance

 

[Veridic]

World ramblings without substance

You’re invited to prove me wrong by using substance.

 

[mohi_100]

I didn’t say ratios explain 100% of looks. It influences overall appeal regardless, also these things can become quantifiable using a repeatable scoring method which isn’t being done from what I’ve seen in this com.

I was referring to the "soft tissue structure (ratios calculated to determine how traits work together)" part at the end. I agree that ratios influence aesthetic appeal

 

[lurking truecel]

You’re invited to prove me wrong by using substance.

U are saying nothing, pretty boy without bones is a cuck, ogre is just a ogre. If you got bones in the right place you are good looking end of story. But soft tissue determines prime, but if no bones you never had a prime.

 

[Veridic]

U are saying nothing, pretty boy without bones is a cuck, ogre is just an ogre. If you got bones in the right place you are good looking end of story. But soft tissue determines prime, but if no bones you never had a prime.

1. Nowhere did I mention soft tissue without bone structure alone.
2. If you have good bones and objectively appeal, it’s only reasonable to assume that individual has soft tissue distribution to some ideal extent.
3. You haven’t countered with anything but cherrypicked nuances, and I’ll be waiting on a better rebuttal.

I suppose I’ll edit that clarification into my post’s context for the low iqers who lack the comprehension of something possibly being able to exist outside of one either two extremes on a spectrum, and everything in between should just cease to exist according to your logic.

 

[Veridic]

I was referring to the "soft tissue structure (ratios calculated to determine how traits work together)" part at the end. I agree that ratios influence aesthetic appeal

Agreed then, I added context to my post to avoid confusion.