I
imdelusional
Professionally sub-1
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2025
- Posts
- 61
- Reputation
- 38
Disclaimer: For the sake of this post I will suppose that our faces do in fact change due to habits, which is not something that is 100% proven yet, and that our looks aren't 100% determined by genetics regardless of what you do with your life.
This post will be more of a rant, but I'd love to cover two of the main problems of the looksmaxxing community, at least what I see.
Lately, possibly due to TikTok and the increasing mainstream exposure of concepts like lookism, looksmaxxing, and the blackpill, there seems to be a growing misunderstanding about human aesthetics—what is truly perceived as attractive and what is not. As a result, many people invest significant effort into becoming more attractive, only to end up looking unnatural or uncanny.
I am often puzzled, by both .org ratings and tiktok ratings, because it seems that, for something that's supposed to be objective, the PSL scale is used pretty arbitrarily: How are Mattia Basso and Damian Kater rated as HTN's, but Jawad and Clavicular are rated as Chadlite? In what world are Damian Kater and K Shami both HTN's? How high was the tree from which the idiot who said that Chico Lachowski and Alain Delon are Chadlites at most fell off?
The problem with the ratings isn't with the PSL scale, the problem is that people don't actually "rate". They just take a look, scan for whatever features they consider attractive, and just choose whichever is more attractive to them.
Why is Chico far more attractive that Jordan to women, but tiktokcels and orgcels prefer Jordan?
Then it hit me - you are looking for the features, not the angles.
The thing is, that to truly rate you need to measure angles and ratios, because the true essence of attractiveness and PSL are the ratios.
Of course you'll think that Jordan is better than Chico, because he has more bonemass, hunter eyes, a more angular jaw, light eyes, and so forth.
But ratios-wise, Chico has far better ratios.
You guys need to learn to discern between dymorphism and PSL. To an extent dymorphism impacts your PSL, yes, but dymorphism on it's own won't do shit for your looks, and if you don't belive me, go visit your local bricklayer or farmer. They have extremely masculine features, extremely high test - but they're ugly to average at most.
Ratios>dymorphism (as long as you aren't supper effeminate/masculine).
Looking for features alone and rating PSL based off that is what gives people the idea that appeal and PSL are two separate things; because they see somebody who's ugly but who has super prominent cheekbones and jawline, starving himself to the point he looks uncanny, and all you guys be saying "uknown slayer", "true chad" and things like that.
We have drifted from genuinely studying attractiveness to simply creating an uncanny standart that does in no way translate to attractiveness in real life... So let me remind you:
- Attractive people are attractive because their genetic material is favourable to be passed down, while unnatractive people are those who shouldn't pass their genes. This criteria is usually based on indicators of fertility (like wide hips for women or, for men, deep voices, broad shoulders, or anything that signals good testosterone levels. This is why facial masculinity and overall dymorphism is important, yes, but remember one thing: Excellent ratios can make up for average dymorphism [not below average tho], but dymorphic features alone cannot make up for the lack of ratios.), or any other favourable trait that should be passed down to the offspring so that they can have more chances or survival (like facial and body symmetry, great shape, low bodyfat, etc)
- Faces develop based on habits and other factors. This is how your ratios are cooked: essentially, the better oyur enviroment and habits were, the healthier you are, the better looking, taller and in-better-shape are you. (I am talking now about frame, methabolism and the ability to grow muscules, not the muscles alone). Your habits develop how your bones develop and how your fascial muscles and skin sit around it. For example, some people naturally have great skin because of collagen production, gut health and stuff like that. Thus, clear skin could be an indicator of hormonal balance, as we said in the previous point.
Just having outward gonions and high set cheekbones won't neccesarily make you good looking, and not having that won't neccesarily make you ugly. Sean O'pry has a crooked nose and outward gonions, but his ratios are perfect.
David Gandy has under-ideal maxillar development and a crooked nose, but all his other ratios are perfect.
(Quick break in the post: I took a break from writing this to scroll through tiktok and a dude called @ericodesntsolo popped in my fyp. No hate to the guy at all, but he is the exact example of what I am talking about. Bpillers glazing him, not a single women in the comments. Naturally all of his following was male. I wonder why? He mogs, right guys? Why do women not follow him?)
Humans are naturally drawn to proportion in everything, not just looks.
Everything in the universe is structured around mathematical proportions. Galileo Galilei himself stated, "Mathematics is the language of God," referring to the idea that understanding the universe is deeply rooted in mathematical principles.
You cannot simply piece together a set of features—no matter how attractive they are individually—and expect them to work together without considering the proportions between them.
Music (and art) follows the same principle. What we perceive as pleasing or unpleasant is based on precise mathematical relationships between the frequencies of the notes being played. Yet, composers don’t just combine "beautiful" sounds at random; they study harmony and counterpoint, which dictate how these sounds must be structured to create a coherent and aesthetically pleasing result.
My point is, if y'all claim to have the absolute truth and claim that blackpillers know things the normies don't, it's time to leave stupid things aside and get out shit together.
For example, having "hunter eyes" from surgery won’t enhance your attractiveness if your eyes are too close-set. And yet, many people focus on achieving specific features rather than developing proper facial ratios.
This is why some people achieve a major improvement in appearance from something as simple as a new haircut—it balances their proportions. Others glow up after losing weight because it enhances their facial harmony. And yes, some individuals do benefit from surgery, but only when it improves their facial ratios (as seen in cases like Salludon).
The real misconception is believing that leanmaxxing, surgery, or other superficial modifications alone will lead to an "ascension." If anything, the key lies in optimizing your ratios.
Whether true ascension is possible—or whether one’s level of attractiveness is ultimately dictated by genetics—is a separate discussion. But one thing is clear: proportion is everything.
This leads me to my second point: Most methods are cope.
As we saw before, our faces develop depending on our habits (I do not claim this to be true as there is not enough scientific backup, but for the sake of the post we will pretend this is indeed true). For example, now I am having bad posture as I write this on my computer, thus making myself uglier than sneezing while having diarrhea.
All the "methods"; if anything, should be focused on the natural habits we should have, only going as far as to emulate them.
Our faces (and overall looks) develop essentially due to four factors:
- Hormonal balance: Testosterone determines you dimorphism, IGH-1 determines your height, collagen determines your skin elasticity, melanin determines your eye and hair colour, and so forth.
- The so-called beauty quadrant: Proper posture at all times; proper nasal breathing and tongue posture at all times (also called "mewing"); chewing everything 25+ times on each side. (important note: don't train your masseters outside of eating well, overused masseters will apply more downward force than neccesary and that will mess up your face, giving you downward growth and assymetry); and proper swallowing (using your tongue, not facial muscles).
- Other habits that are not within the beauty quadrant: having a regular sleep and eating schedule, going to sleep at a reasonable hour and sleeping a reasonable amount of time; not engaging your facial muscles in any unnecesary kind of activity like squinting too much (basically, if the activity was not unavoidable and neccesary 900.000 years ago, don't do it); sleeping on your sides or front; jorking it as if you were a fucking cumblaster; be too stressed (you know, parasympathetic nervous system and all that, causing your eyes to buldge forward, etc etc etc) and stuff like this. Also, drinking enough water and having a balanced diet will debloat you naturally.
- Enviorment and genes: Self explanatory. Your looks may change slightly to adapt to your enviroment. For example, when I was a kid my eye colour was far lighter than it is now, because I lived all my life in a southern-european country, even if I have northern european and slavic genes.
Some of these (like eye colour) are completely and absolutely unchangable, some of them are fraudable (like hair colour), some others are changeable to varying degrees depending on your age. (The only sutures that close by the time you are 15-18 are growth palates and maxillopalatal sutures, all the others, like interpalatal maxillar sutures are open up to 21-50, some even don't close; testmaxxing works as long as you are in puberty or slightly later, albeit less effective in the second case.)
Some techniques like thumbpulling could theorically work, supposing ideal conditions, good bone response, ideal performance and ideal age range (0-15 jfl), but the question here is, in this ideal age range, why would you perform those methods instead of doing the natural stuff?
The only way to develop an harmonious face is by letting it naturally develop properly.
That's the difference between looking hot and looking uncanny or too masculine. I reccommend you guys check out an account in tiktok called @valentijn.dijkmann or something like that, because that guy is a certified Chad with good colouring and on top of that he has good dymorphism (not extreme), natural hollow cheeks and tons of -female- followers.
You will soon see that the reason why his hollow cheeks look good is because he has them NATURALLY, which means 1) He had good swallowing patterns, thus avoiding to develop saggy cheeks. 2) His skin is naturally elastic, due to optimal levels of collagen 3) He has an ideal maxillar development which positions the cheekbones ideally, thus, achieving this look is easier, and, taking into account his naturally broad bone structure we can conclude that:
He doesn't need to starve himself or do some extreme efforts to have hollow cheeks because he developed them naturally. You don't have that, so if you will put in all that effort, at least try to put it in the right direction. Otherwise you blackpillers will have the same problems as gymcells:
You put in a whole lot of effort to fit into a standart of man that doesn't translate into real-world attractiveness to women, (or to gay men), but rather translates into admiration and attention from...other straight (usually incel) men.
Will all of this turn you into Hernan Drago? No. But it will 100% make you healthier, which, even if you dont get attractive, will still have positive outcomes in your life.
This post will be more of a rant, but I'd love to cover two of the main problems of the looksmaxxing community, at least what I see.
Lately, possibly due to TikTok and the increasing mainstream exposure of concepts like lookism, looksmaxxing, and the blackpill, there seems to be a growing misunderstanding about human aesthetics—what is truly perceived as attractive and what is not. As a result, many people invest significant effort into becoming more attractive, only to end up looking unnatural or uncanny.
I am often puzzled, by both .org ratings and tiktok ratings, because it seems that, for something that's supposed to be objective, the PSL scale is used pretty arbitrarily: How are Mattia Basso and Damian Kater rated as HTN's, but Jawad and Clavicular are rated as Chadlite? In what world are Damian Kater and K Shami both HTN's? How high was the tree from which the idiot who said that Chico Lachowski and Alain Delon are Chadlites at most fell off?
The problem with the ratings isn't with the PSL scale, the problem is that people don't actually "rate". They just take a look, scan for whatever features they consider attractive, and just choose whichever is more attractive to them.
Why is Chico far more attractive that Jordan to women, but tiktokcels and orgcels prefer Jordan?
Then it hit me - you are looking for the features, not the angles.
The thing is, that to truly rate you need to measure angles and ratios, because the true essence of attractiveness and PSL are the ratios.
Of course you'll think that Jordan is better than Chico, because he has more bonemass, hunter eyes, a more angular jaw, light eyes, and so forth.
But ratios-wise, Chico has far better ratios.
You guys need to learn to discern between dymorphism and PSL. To an extent dymorphism impacts your PSL, yes, but dymorphism on it's own won't do shit for your looks, and if you don't belive me, go visit your local bricklayer or farmer. They have extremely masculine features, extremely high test - but they're ugly to average at most.
Ratios>dymorphism (as long as you aren't supper effeminate/masculine).
Looking for features alone and rating PSL based off that is what gives people the idea that appeal and PSL are two separate things; because they see somebody who's ugly but who has super prominent cheekbones and jawline, starving himself to the point he looks uncanny, and all you guys be saying "uknown slayer", "true chad" and things like that.
We have drifted from genuinely studying attractiveness to simply creating an uncanny standart that does in no way translate to attractiveness in real life... So let me remind you:
- Attractive people are attractive because their genetic material is favourable to be passed down, while unnatractive people are those who shouldn't pass their genes. This criteria is usually based on indicators of fertility (like wide hips for women or, for men, deep voices, broad shoulders, or anything that signals good testosterone levels. This is why facial masculinity and overall dymorphism is important, yes, but remember one thing: Excellent ratios can make up for average dymorphism [not below average tho], but dymorphic features alone cannot make up for the lack of ratios.), or any other favourable trait that should be passed down to the offspring so that they can have more chances or survival (like facial and body symmetry, great shape, low bodyfat, etc)
- Faces develop based on habits and other factors. This is how your ratios are cooked: essentially, the better oyur enviroment and habits were, the healthier you are, the better looking, taller and in-better-shape are you. (I am talking now about frame, methabolism and the ability to grow muscules, not the muscles alone). Your habits develop how your bones develop and how your fascial muscles and skin sit around it. For example, some people naturally have great skin because of collagen production, gut health and stuff like that. Thus, clear skin could be an indicator of hormonal balance, as we said in the previous point.
Just having outward gonions and high set cheekbones won't neccesarily make you good looking, and not having that won't neccesarily make you ugly. Sean O'pry has a crooked nose and outward gonions, but his ratios are perfect.
David Gandy has under-ideal maxillar development and a crooked nose, but all his other ratios are perfect.
(Quick break in the post: I took a break from writing this to scroll through tiktok and a dude called @ericodesntsolo popped in my fyp. No hate to the guy at all, but he is the exact example of what I am talking about. Bpillers glazing him, not a single women in the comments. Naturally all of his following was male. I wonder why? He mogs, right guys? Why do women not follow him?)
Humans are naturally drawn to proportion in everything, not just looks.
Everything in the universe is structured around mathematical proportions. Galileo Galilei himself stated, "Mathematics is the language of God," referring to the idea that understanding the universe is deeply rooted in mathematical principles.
You cannot simply piece together a set of features—no matter how attractive they are individually—and expect them to work together without considering the proportions between them.
Music (and art) follows the same principle. What we perceive as pleasing or unpleasant is based on precise mathematical relationships between the frequencies of the notes being played. Yet, composers don’t just combine "beautiful" sounds at random; they study harmony and counterpoint, which dictate how these sounds must be structured to create a coherent and aesthetically pleasing result.
My point is, if y'all claim to have the absolute truth and claim that blackpillers know things the normies don't, it's time to leave stupid things aside and get out shit together.
For example, having "hunter eyes" from surgery won’t enhance your attractiveness if your eyes are too close-set. And yet, many people focus on achieving specific features rather than developing proper facial ratios.
This is why some people achieve a major improvement in appearance from something as simple as a new haircut—it balances their proportions. Others glow up after losing weight because it enhances their facial harmony. And yes, some individuals do benefit from surgery, but only when it improves their facial ratios (as seen in cases like Salludon).
The real misconception is believing that leanmaxxing, surgery, or other superficial modifications alone will lead to an "ascension." If anything, the key lies in optimizing your ratios.
Whether true ascension is possible—or whether one’s level of attractiveness is ultimately dictated by genetics—is a separate discussion. But one thing is clear: proportion is everything.
This leads me to my second point: Most methods are cope.
As we saw before, our faces develop depending on our habits (I do not claim this to be true as there is not enough scientific backup, but for the sake of the post we will pretend this is indeed true). For example, now I am having bad posture as I write this on my computer, thus making myself uglier than sneezing while having diarrhea.
All the "methods"; if anything, should be focused on the natural habits we should have, only going as far as to emulate them.
Our faces (and overall looks) develop essentially due to four factors:
- Hormonal balance: Testosterone determines you dimorphism, IGH-1 determines your height, collagen determines your skin elasticity, melanin determines your eye and hair colour, and so forth.
- The so-called beauty quadrant: Proper posture at all times; proper nasal breathing and tongue posture at all times (also called "mewing"); chewing everything 25+ times on each side. (important note: don't train your masseters outside of eating well, overused masseters will apply more downward force than neccesary and that will mess up your face, giving you downward growth and assymetry); and proper swallowing (using your tongue, not facial muscles).
- Other habits that are not within the beauty quadrant: having a regular sleep and eating schedule, going to sleep at a reasonable hour and sleeping a reasonable amount of time; not engaging your facial muscles in any unnecesary kind of activity like squinting too much (basically, if the activity was not unavoidable and neccesary 900.000 years ago, don't do it); sleeping on your sides or front; jorking it as if you were a fucking cumblaster; be too stressed (you know, parasympathetic nervous system and all that, causing your eyes to buldge forward, etc etc etc) and stuff like this. Also, drinking enough water and having a balanced diet will debloat you naturally.
- Enviorment and genes: Self explanatory. Your looks may change slightly to adapt to your enviroment. For example, when I was a kid my eye colour was far lighter than it is now, because I lived all my life in a southern-european country, even if I have northern european and slavic genes.
Some of these (like eye colour) are completely and absolutely unchangable, some of them are fraudable (like hair colour), some others are changeable to varying degrees depending on your age. (The only sutures that close by the time you are 15-18 are growth palates and maxillopalatal sutures, all the others, like interpalatal maxillar sutures are open up to 21-50, some even don't close; testmaxxing works as long as you are in puberty or slightly later, albeit less effective in the second case.)
Some techniques like thumbpulling could theorically work, supposing ideal conditions, good bone response, ideal performance and ideal age range (0-15 jfl), but the question here is, in this ideal age range, why would you perform those methods instead of doing the natural stuff?
The only way to develop an harmonious face is by letting it naturally develop properly.
That's the difference between looking hot and looking uncanny or too masculine. I reccommend you guys check out an account in tiktok called @valentijn.dijkmann or something like that, because that guy is a certified Chad with good colouring and on top of that he has good dymorphism (not extreme), natural hollow cheeks and tons of -female- followers.
You will soon see that the reason why his hollow cheeks look good is because he has them NATURALLY, which means 1) He had good swallowing patterns, thus avoiding to develop saggy cheeks. 2) His skin is naturally elastic, due to optimal levels of collagen 3) He has an ideal maxillar development which positions the cheekbones ideally, thus, achieving this look is easier, and, taking into account his naturally broad bone structure we can conclude that:
He doesn't need to starve himself or do some extreme efforts to have hollow cheeks because he developed them naturally. You don't have that, so if you will put in all that effort, at least try to put it in the right direction. Otherwise you blackpillers will have the same problems as gymcells:
You put in a whole lot of effort to fit into a standart of man that doesn't translate into real-world attractiveness to women, (or to gay men), but rather translates into admiration and attention from...other straight (usually incel) men.
Will all of this turn you into Hernan Drago? No. But it will 100% make you healthier, which, even if you dont get attractive, will still have positive outcomes in your life.
Last edited:
