Why 1:1 jaw to cheekbones is shit, people here overestimate how wide jaws are

[Hightwolf]

Intro
I see this mentioned every once in a while, how a jaw as wide as cheekbones is ideal or very masculine or something. In reality however, 1:1 bigonial to bizygomatic is almost always shit for aesthetics.
I believe a big part of the problem is how people over estimate how wide a jaw is. This is why I will post some examples and the measurements I took so people can get a better understanding and visualize it better.

Examples
Face 1:

Now look at this guy. I am pretty sure no one on this forum would say this guy has has too narrow of a jaw. Before I tell you his ratio, try to estimate it yourself what you think it is.

Spoiler: Face 1

525/588 = 0.893

Now let's try with another example.
Face 2:

Sean Opry doesn't have the same cheekbones as the first guy, the first guy's cheekbones sort of protrude out which make his ratio lower. I think it's pretty common for people to say O'Pry's jaw is too narrow. Again try to estimate the ratio.

Spoiler: Face 2

146/166 = 0.879

Now I will do it again with Brad Pitt:

Spoiler: Face 3

Between 0.973 and 0.988

So even fucking Brad Pitt doesn't have a 1:1 jaw ratio. Could you even imagine how insane a jaw with a greater ratio would be. A jaw like that is physically impossible due to the skull shape unless someone is fat or has insane masseters / fucked up cheekbones somehow.

Some additonal notes:
I estimated where the gonion should be by drawing a line along the mouth, sometimes it is slightly lower than this which would give a smaller ratio so have a +- 0.03 to all my ratios

Also there are two factors that affect how we percieve the jaw width (There are many but these two are the most important)
-Cheekbones / hollow cheeks. Like in the first example his jaw is wide but his cheekbones protrude out at the top not like O'Pry's which has a diagonal / line from his gonion to the cheekbones. If you have this (similar to amnesia and salludon) then you would naturally have a lower ratio and would look better with a slightly lower one since your jaw is effectively the same width.

-Masseters. Pitt's masseters make it so that the jaw actually gets wider above the gonion which makes the jaw look even wider. This is why I gave to ratios for Pitt. Though even at the widest part of his massetters it never actually goes wider than his cheekbones.

What's Ideal?
This has been discussed to death already and you can find a lot of people talking about it here and in general most agree that you should be above 0.8 and around 0.9 is very good.
The one thing I have to add to this is the part about the cheekbones, where if they are like the first guy's cheekbones you might look better with a ratio of 0.85 - 0.88 instead.

 

[Deleted member 7076]

i've always said that zygos wider than jaw will always be the most aesthetic

 

[Deleted member 11748]

Medium effort post

 

[Hightwolf]

i've always said that zygos wider than jaw will always be the most aesthetic

it shouldn't even be a question. Jaw wider than zygos is not even natural it could be sign of a genetic deformity or just obesity.

 

[PubertyMaxxer]

Read everything

 

[antiantifa]

i've always said that zygos wider than jaw will always be the most aesthetic

I'd rather have 0.9 instead of 0.7

 

[Hightwolf]

I'd rather have 0.9 instead of 0.7

both fall under the category zygos wider than jaw. what?

 

[antiantifa]

both fall under the category zygos wider than jaw. what?

Okay, I'd rather have 1.1 than 0.7

 

[justadude]

sure u measured pitts correctly? his masseters literally protrude past his zygos no way its under 1

 

[Hightwolf]

sure u measured pitts correctly? his masseters literally protrude past his zygos no way its under 1

My second measurement was 0.988 which was like 1 or 2 pixels away from a 1:1 measurement. My first measurement which is along the gonions was less.
This is a straight line directly from pitt's cheekbones (I rotated the image to make it straight).
You can see the widest part of the massetters which isn't the gonion itself almost touches the line but not exactly. Although maybe I measured the widest part of the cheekbones wrong and went a bit into the ears.
Though regardless, the shape of the massetters gives the illusion of a wider jaw because:

here you see the jaw go outwards like normal and then start getting narrower above, which makes the widest part of the jaw seem wider.

 

[Deleted member 1100]

Good post tbh

Depending on where you measure the bigonial (if you consider the widest part of the entire jaw) Pitt's is even above 1.0, it just looks weird af.

Too much bigonial width will also make your mouth width looks considerably small, which makes you less masculine/dominant looking

 

[Hightwolf]

Good post tbh

Depending on where you measure the bigonial (if you consider the widest part of the entire jaw) Pitt's is even above 1.0, it just looks weird af.

Too much bigonial width will also make your mouth width looks considerably small, which makes you less masculine/dominant looking

View attachment 933317
My second measurement was 0.988 which was like 1 or 2 pixels away from a 1:1 measurement. My first measurement which is along the gonions was less.
This is a straight line directly from pitt's cheekbones (I rotated the image to make it straight).
You can see the widest part of the massetters which isn't the gonion itself almost touches the line but not exactly. Although maybe I measured the widest part of the cheekbones wrong and went a bit into the ears.
Though regardless, the shape of the massetters gives the illusion of a wider jaw because:

View attachment 933318
here you see the jaw go outwards like normal and then start getting narrower above, which makes the widest part of the jaw seem wider.

look at this, even the widest part of the massetter doesn't go wider than the cheekbones, it stays within a few pixels though so like maybe 0.99 or 0.98 ratio. It's just that the massetter sort of dips in which makes it look even wider than it is

Depending on where you measure the bigonial

Well this is supposed to be at the gonion exactly, but for cases like pitt I think it's better to use the widest part of the massetter too. In most people the gonion isn't perfectly sharp and visible.

Too much bigonial width will also make your mouth width looks considerably small, which makes you less masculine/dominant looking

I made a greycel post about this ratio a long time ago. Mouth width to bigonial width I found that the ideal was about 0.46 I think.

 

[Deleted member 1100]

I made a greycel post about this ratio a long time ago. Mouth width to bigonial width I found that the ideal was about 0.46 I think.

Link?

 

[Hightwolf]

Link?

https://looksmax.org/threads/an-add...er-when-measuring-the-ideal-lip-width.222420/

 

[CeeJay]

fWHR doesn't determine beauty. Use your eyes. Measurements are usually used by autistics. Most men praised for really high fWHR on incel forums look fucked up and/or obese etc. Lol...

 

[Hightwolf]

fWHR doesn't determine beauty. Use your eyes. Measurements are usually used by autistics. Most men praised for really high fWHR on incel forums look fucked up and/or obese etc. Lol...

no idea whta this has to do with the post but I kinda agree.
I do think fwhr is important though just that people here take the idea of wider is better to an extreme but I think there's a sweetspot around 1.8 to 1.9.

 

[Phillybeard1996]

Would you say my dads jaw is too wide for his cheekbone?

 

[CeeJay]

no idea whta this has to do with the post but I kinda agree.
I do think fwhr is important though just that people here take the idea of wider is better to an extreme but I think there's a sweetspot around 1.8 to 1.9.

Oh my bad, I just saw the ratios and I'm like, programmed to automatically think people are discussing fWHR lol.

I don't think any measurements truly matter. They're predictors at most. I don't enjoy people using mathematical measurements to determine what looks good or bad, or what procedures they should get.

I had my jaw waaaay overdone once and people were trying to claim it looked great.

 

[Hightwolf]

Would you say my dads jaw is too wide for his cheekbone?

Yes.
Though take into account that I did most of my calculations on white people, east asians have naturally wider jaws relative to their cheekbones so your dad is closer to the average asian bigonial to bizygomatic than a caucasian man with the same ratio.

 

[Hightwolf]

Oh my bad, I just saw the ratios and I'm like, programmed to automatically think people are discussing fWHR lol.

I don't think any measurements truly matter. They're predictors at most. I don't enjoy people using mathematical measurements to determine what looks good or bad, or what procedures they should get.

I had my jaw waaaay overdone once and people were trying to claim it looked great.

I think ratios are a good tool, but you should always try to have an idea of if something looks good before measuring the ratios or even considering them. That's why I tried to get people to predict the ratios here.

If you say oh his midface is fine, but measure it and get a midface ratio 0.92, you still shouldn't worry about the midface. Since human faces are complicated we don't know what features influence each other.

Just like how some people become very ugly due to an es ratio of 0.40 while someone else with that ratio looks way better due to having different features such as a V shaped jaw and eyebrows etc.

 

[Phillybeard1996]

Yes.
Though take into account that I did most of my calculations on white people, east asians have naturally wider jaws relative to their cheekbones so your dad is closer to the average asian bigonial to bizygomatic than a caucasian man with the same ratio.

Yes.
Though take into account that I did most of my calculations on white people, east asians have naturally wider jaws relative to their cheekbones so your dad is closer to the average asian bigonial to bizygomatic than a caucasian man with the same ratio.

Ill send you a dm

 

[Deleted member 6723]

chico's is ideal

I heard he has 1.1:1 bizygomatic breadth to bigonial breadth ratio which is ideal.

 

[Hightwolf]

chico's is ideal
View attachment 933396

I heard he has 1.1:1 bizygomatic breadth to bigonial breadth ratio which is ideal.

yeah some people do bizygomatic by bigonial but idk why I think it always is better to make the bigger number the denominator since it's easier to imagine a jaw filling 90% of the cheekbone width than it is to imagine the cheekbone protruding 10% further than the jaw. but that's just my prefence.

His ratio would be 91% bigonial / bizygomatic which is basically ideal for his cheekbone shape.

 

[eduardkoopman]

What's Ideal?
This has been discussed to death already and you can find a lot of people talking about it here and in general most agree that you should be above 0.8 and around 0.9 is very good.
The one thing I have to add to this is the part about the cheekbones, where if they are like the first guy's cheekbones you might look better with a ratio of 0.85 - 0.88 instead.

90% is ideal. I agree, and is proven

 

[mewcoper]

this or die tryin

 

[antiantifa]

no idea whta this has to do with the post but I kinda agree.
I do think fwhr is important though just that people here take the idea of wider is better to an extreme but I think there's a sweetspot around 1.8 to 1.9.

Yeah, high fWHR imo looks feminine. Barrett has 2.36 which is insane and he looks very feminine.

Obviously bigger bones = longer face = smaller fWHR.

IMO low fWHR isn't that bad for men if the face is harmonious(big jaw). Females with low fWHR look shit though.

 

[Hightwolf]

Yeah, high fWHR imo looks feminine. Barrett has 2.36 which is insane and he looks very feminine.

Obviously bigger bones = longer face = smaller fWHR.

IMO low fWHR isn't that bad for men if the face is harmonious(big jaw). Females with low fWHR look shit though.

I disagree tbh depending on what you count as low fwhr. fwhr below 1.75 is pretty bad and below 1.7 is starting to become a failo.
I think for woman low fwhr is actually good they just need a compact midface ratio.
By this i mean high es ratio, high set eyebrows. So a woman with a 1.0 or more midface ratio but a 1.7 or less fwhr is very good.

 

[antiantifa]

I disagree tbh depending on what you count as low fwhr. fwhr below 1.75 is pretty bad and below 1.7 is starting to become a failo.
I think for woman low fwhr is actually good they just need a compact midface ratio.
By this i mean high es ratio, high set eyebrows. So a woman with a 1.0 or more midface ratio but a 1.7 or less fwhr is very good.

Example of good looking females with low fWHR? For some reason I just can't stand horse-faces.

Also I agree, too low fWHR is failo, but typically I see men with lower fWHR and females with higher fWHR IRL.

 

[Phillybeard1996]

yeah some people do bizygomatic by bigonial but idk why I think it always is better to make the bigger number the denominator since it's easier to imagine a jaw filling 90% of the cheekbone width than it is to imagine the cheekbone protruding 10% further than the jaw. but that's just my prefence.

His ratio would be 91% bigonial / bizygomatic which is basically ideal for his cheekbone shape.

I think im like 85-89 percent i have large cheekbones

 

[Lawyer]

fWHR doesn't determine beauty.

Keep coping, it does.

Most men praised for really high fWHR on incel forums look fucked up and/or obese etc.

Indeed, look at this disgusting subhuman, he should kill himself for having such a high FWHR!

Spoiler

 

[MisterMercedes]

80-90% the width of the face has been shown to be ideal, but also depends on PFL. Line drawn down from the lateral can thus should fall slightly inside the gonion.

Gandy’s is aesthetically ideal.

There is also dimorphism to consider. Wide big onion is a male dimorphic trait, so one could argue something like Pitt’s is ideal for sex appeal (his is about 97-98% the width of the face):

 

[MisterMercedes]

Keep coping, it does.

View attachment 933609View attachment 933610View attachment 933611View attachment 933614


Indeed, look at this disgusting subhuman, he should kill himself for having such a high FWHR!

Spoiler

Issue with the “high threat face” or FWHR comparisons is that there are many other characteristics that are altered other than FWHR.

In the first comparison, the second guy’s chin became wider, jaw more angular, eyebrows thicker, and denser, hairline lower and straighter to give a “square head” look.

High FWHR in and of itself is not masculine or high fighting success. Most attractive women with high estrogen faces have high FWHR due to short midfaces:

You think they look masculine or threatening?

However, high FWHR due to wide skull, bowed zygomatic arches, low, dense eyebrows is masculine, as all those traits are male dimorphic traits.

 

[Phillybeard1996]

80-90% the width of the face has been shown to be ideal, but also depends on PFL. Line drawn down from the lateral can thus should fall slightly inside the gonion.

View attachment 933627

Gandy’s is aesthetically ideal.

There is also dimorphism to consider. Wide big onion is a male dimorphic trait, so one could argue something like Pitt’s is ideal for sex appeal (his is about 97-98% the width of the face):

View attachment 933633

So 80-90 percent is ideal for aesthetics but 97-98 percent is or masculine you say.

 

[thecel]

Keep coping you fool!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MisterMercedes]

So 80-90 percent is ideal for aesthetics but 97-98 percent is or masculine you say.

Yes, 80-90 for aesthetics, 90-100 for dimorphism.

According to the study of the ideal jaw, women prefer 80-90.

 

[Lawyer]

High FWHR in and of itself is not masculine or high fighting success. Most attractive women with high estrogen faces have high FWHR due to short midfaces:

You think they look masculine or threatening?

However, high FWHR due to wide skull, bowed zygomatic arches, low, dense eyebrows is masculine, as all those traits are male dimorphic traits.

Women have high FWHRs due to short philtrums and wide faces.

I agree with what you said about masculine traits that result in a high FWHR, but you forgot to mention nose length.

 

[CeeJay]

Keep coping, it does.

View attachment 933609View attachment 933610View attachment 933611View attachment 933614


Indeed, look at this disgusting subhuman, he should kill himself for having such a high FWHR!

Spoiler

It's just autism obviously... There are many ugly men considered handsome online due to measurements when they're blatantly ugly.

And then Konstantinos Laios considered shit due to longface.

An ugly man with a high fWHR is still an ugly man. A hot man with a low one is still a hot man. Those two models, the 1.5 guy is better to women than many posters with much higher numbers. Guaranteed beyond question.

Some of the people being praised as handsome look literally incel. They'd never be with a hot popular chick. It's all autism skews.

 

[MisterMercedes]

Women have high FWHRs due to short philtrums and wide faces.

I agree with what you said about masculine traits that result in a high FWHR, but you forgot to mention nose length.

Women, on average, don’t have wider faces than males. The opposite actually.

High FWHR due to Short nose is feminine, not masculine. See the three women I posted above. They all have short noses and proportionally short philtrums and big upper lips (all high estrogen traits).

Short nose is feminine. Males have longer, wider noses, on average.

The one farthest on the right looks more masculine than the one on the left as he has more facial height, even though it lowers his FWHR.

 

[Lawyer]

High FWHR due to Short nose is feminine, not masculine.

Short nose is a high prenatal T trait.

See the three women I posted above. They all have short noses and proportionally short philtrums and big upper lips (all high estrogen traits).

Their noses don't look short at all to me, you are getting fooled by their wide IPDs.

Males have longer, wider noses, on average.

I think that is just because they have taller skulls.

The one farthest on the right looks more masculine than the one on the left as he has more facial height, even though it lowers his FWHR.

Holy shit your morphs are awful, you made his nose slightly longer while making his philtrum ridiculously long, these morphs prove nothing.

 

[Lawyer]

There are many ugly men considered handsome online due to measurements when they're blatantly ugly.

Like who?

And then Konstantinos Laios considered shit due to longface.

He has many other good traits to make up for it, shit argument.

An ugly man with a high fWHR is still an ugly man. A hot man with a low one is still a hot man.

Well, no shit, there are many other measurements besides FWHR that must be taken into account, but that doesn't mean that FWHR doesn't matter.

 

[MisterMercedes]

Short nose is a high prenatal T trait.


Their noses don't look short at all to me, you are getting fooled by their wide IPDs.


I think that is just because they have taller skulls.


Holy shit your morphs are awful, you made his nose slightly longer while making his philtrum ridiculously long, these morphs prove nothing.

“Short nose is a high prenatal T trait”

Source? Longer, wider nose is a male dimorphic trait. Shorter, narrower nose is a feminine dimorphic trait. Don’t know how you figure a feminine trait means more prenatal testosterone exposure.

“their noses don’t look short at all to me”

Look again. Kunis has a 1.6 golden ratio nose, Holmes 1.5, Robbie 1.7. These are all short noses.

His nose is noticeably longer, which is all that’s needed to demonstrate that a high FWHR due to short nose/midface is feminine, not masculine.

 

[MisterMercedes]

“Short nose is a high prenatal T trait”

Source? Longer, wider nose is a male dimorphic trait. Shorter, narrower nose is a feminine dimorphic trait. Don’t know how you figure a feminine trait means more prenatal testosterone exposure.

“their noses don’t look short at all to me”

Look again. Kunis has a 1.6 golden ratio nose, Holmes 1.5, Robbie 1.7. These are all short noses.

His nose is noticeably longer, which is all that’s needed to demonstrate that a high FWHR due short nose/midface is feminine, not masculine.

If you think his philtrum is the only thing that is noticeably changed, I lengthened his nose more to bring the ratio to the same as original:

Again, second one looks more masculine due to more facial height, even though it lowers his FWHR.

 

[CeeJay]

Like who?


He has many other good traits to make up for it, shit argument.


Well, no shit, there are many other measurements besides FWHR that must be taken into account, but that doesn't mean that FWHR doesn't matter.

If someone can't tell what looks good by eyesight and need measuring tapes, they're just totally fucked with no hope IMO.

Tbh I'm waiting for my jaw and cheekbones to go down a bit. I get filler so the width of these things I have a lot of control over. It's just a bit "heavy" atm. I just look better with less in the jaw especially, but could also do with a smidge less on the cheekbones.

 

[MisterMercedes]

If you think his philtrum is the only thing that is noticeably changed, I lengthened his nose more to bring the ratio to the same as original:

View attachment 933835

View attachment 933836

Again, second one looks more masculine due to more facial height, even though it lowers his FWHR.

Source for longer, wider nose resulting from high prenatal T, shorter, narrower from lower:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1351

 

[Lawyer]

“Short nose is a high prenatal T trait”

Source?

Look again. Kunis has a 1.6 golden ratio nose, Holmes 1.5, Robbie 1.7.

What ratio are you talking about?

His nose is noticeably longer, which is all that’s needed to demonstrate that a high FWHR due short nose/midface is feminine, not masculine.

How can someone be so fucking dense? Of course his face will look more masculine if you morph him with a Rich Piana tier philtrum!

 

[MisterMercedes]

What ratio are you talking about?

How can someone be so fucking dense? Of course his face will look more masculine if you morph him with a Rich Piana tier philtrum!

First chart is already worthless in that it shows low set brows being low prenatal T.

I lengthened his nose to maintain the same nose to philtrum, as said previously. I’m glad you agree he looks more masculine though.

Ratio I’m talking about is eyes to nose flair divided by nose flair to nose base. It’s a golden ratio measurement for nose length.

 

[Lawyer]

If you think his philtrum is the only thing that is noticeably changed, I lengthened his nose more to bring the ratio to the same as original:

View attachment 933835

View attachment 933836

Again, second one looks more masculine due to more facial height, even though it lowers his FWHR.

Dude, dont you realize that even if you preserve his nose to philtrum ratio is philtrum length is still greater in the morphs? The increase of philtrum length in your morphs renders them invalid, since you can attribute the fact that the morphed pics look (arguably) more masculine than the original to the increased length of the philtrum and not to the increased length of the nose.

 

[MisterMercedes]

Second chart isn’t even based on research. It’s a model designed to create perceived masculine or feminine faces. Source I sent was based on research of faces that were exposed to higher prenatal T as opposed to lower.

Short nose is a known high estrogen trait:

Attractive women tend to have higher oestrogen levels

A study carried out at the university of St. Andrews, Scotland, found that women who were judged to be attractive tended to have higher levels of oestrogen in their urine than women who were not...

www.medicalnewstoday.com

 

[MisterMercedes]

Dude, dont you realize that even if you preserve his nose to philtrum ratio is philtrum length is still greater in the morphs? The increase of philtrum length in your morphs renders them invalid, since you can attribute the fact that the morphed pics look (arguably) more masculine than the original to the increased length of the philtrum and not to the increased length of the nose.

The length of the philtrum is not greater than the original. I’m getting the sense you don’t know what nose to philtrum is. If the ratio is the same, the philtrum is the same length, especially since I didn’t change size of the upper lip.

 

[Deleted member 11406]

Having jaw wider then zygos is gorillamaxxing