Why do users here exaggerate the importance of pfl

[smallman]

I see many people here talking about the importance of having a long pfl but I don't find a long pfl more aesthetically pleasing than a normal pfl.

 

[Heinrich Schmidt]

A long pfl is a good feature to have.

 

[smallman]

A long pfl is a good feature to have.

I've always found wide eyes almost alien like

 

[Heinrich Schmidt]

I've always found wide eyes almost alien like

They only look alien-like if they're too horizontally wide, and we all have our preferences.

 

[Orc]

any individual metric on it's own is not very valuable, there's many good-looking people with shit pfl, or even shit ipd.

 

[Deleted member 46986]

any individual metric on it's own is not very valuable, there's many good-looking people with shit pfl, or even shit ipd.

 

[esoterik]

ya i use to think it mattered, but it does not, most slayers have below average/average pfl

 

[coispet]

He looks a lot better in motion than in stills

Mogged his own brother and stole his girl

 

[Orc]

He looks a lot better in motion than in stills

Mogged his own brother and stole his girl

people who look good in motion tend to have better all-round profiles, even if on an individual basis no aspect of their profile is remarkable.

i.e they're somewhat good-looking from all angles, instead of being chad from a single angle like many models (they often don't even have pictures of their profiles due to them being lackluster)

this usually isn't accounted for when people measure attraction because they're looking at still images while real life is 3d, hence why someone who looks mid-tier from all angles can perform better than another who only looks attractive from one angle, whilst being shit from all other angles that they'll just never take pictures of.

 

[smallman]

any individual metric on it's own is not very valuable, there's many good-looking people with shit pfl, or even shit ipd.

Usually they have something that compensates for it but yea

 

[coispet]

people who look good in motion tend to have better all-round profiles, even if on an individual basis no aspect of their profile is remarkable.

i.e they're somewhat good-looking from all angles, instead of being chad from a single angle like many models (they often don't even have pictures of their profiles due to them being lackluster)

this usually isn't accounted for when people measure attraction because they're looking at still images while real life is 3d, hence why someone who looks mid-tier from all angles can perform better than another who only looks attractive from one angle, whilst being shit from all other angles that they'll just never take pictures of.

Couldn’t agree more

 

[Allornothing]

Because for most people it’s the difference between their eye area being shit and good. A lot of men have PCT and low set eyebrows.

 

[ElTruecel]

any individual metric on it's own is not very valuable, there's many good-looking people with shit pfl, or even shit ipd.

Yup David laid for example who people try to say isn’t 6 PSL because of his pfl so retarded

 

[Orc]

Usually they have something that compensates for it but yea

it doesn't compensate for it in the sense that they have another feature that's really good, specific proportions just masquerade it.

having a really good jaw won't unfuck your eyes for example, but the specific shape of your orbitals and even the length and density of your eyelashes can make your eyes look different, even if they aren't really halos on their own.

even your nose can change the perception of your face but no one's ever ascended specifically because they had a great nose, it's one of those features that's neutral at best and negative at worst since it's just not a good looking organ on it's own, but it can affect other aspects.