"Wide set eyes are dimorphic" meme debunked

[MisterMercedes]

I already told you that I find low ESR disgusting. Low ESR looks like utter dog shit; I don't care that it's masculine. Nothing would make me comforted with my ES ratio except for actually widening it. I derive ZERO comfort from having UNAESTHETIC masculine traits. What does give me comfort is having AESTHETIC AND MASCULINE traits. My legs are very short for my torso, and this makes me the opposite of comforted. Low leg-to-torso ratio being masculine doesn't make me feel better at all because it looks awful and is physically disadvantageous (slower running). I'd rather be feminine and aesthetic than masculine and fugly.





“Eye spacing” means ES ratio not IPD





Not because it deviates from the average ratio. The latter is more feminine because it's further in the direction of females' ES ratios (higher).





AND wider skulls.

I know wider nasal bridge means wider IPD (Black vs. Caucasian). But the real question is, do men have higher ES ratios than women because men have wider nose bridges? The answer is no.





“…even if that means a higher ESR.”

Yeah, it won't, but who said dimorphism is about being close to average?

If the males’ average is significantly different than the female’s average, the trait is a dimorphic trait. Here “trait” refers to a general trait like “nose size” and not a person’s specific nose size. i.e. a dimension or an axis of a graph. This only tells us that the trait is dimorphic and how dimorphic it is among humans.

When it comes to a person’s specific nose size, the more dimorphic it is, the more it deviates from the average of males and females. Male dimorphism isn’t how close a trait is to the male average; it's how far a trait is in the direction of the males relative to the male–female average.

I know you know this, but I think I gotta make it clear that I don't think male dimorphism is being an average male like you seemed to imply with this:

“Do men have higher ES ratios than women because have wider nose bridges? The answer is no.”

And I never argued the answer was yes. I said that wider nasal bridge is the reason for males having higher IPDs, not wider skulls.

“If the male’s average is significantly different than the female’s average, the trait is a dimorphism trait.”

Agreed, which is why I brought up the O’ Pry example. I’m sure there is an average proportion between genders for chin protrusion relative to the eyes. If shortening O’ Pry’s mandible to be closer to his eyes (he has a short frontal bone) brought him closer to the male dimorphic proportion (average male ratio as opposed to average female), your logic would say that that makes him more masculine, even though you are feminizing his bone structure more.

In other words, you prioritize ratios over absolute measurements, even if that means feminizing all absolute measurements to be closer to a male proportion. This forces you to say foolish things like “narrow skull and narrow IPD is more masculine than narrow skull and wide IPD”.

For some reason, you made an exception for O’ Pry, which again makes me think you’re just cherry-picking ESR to feel better about one of your physical failos.

 

[MisterMercedes]

These countless other factors influence whose eyes looks more dimorphic. You think Sean O’Pry’s eye spacing is more dimorphic, but I suspect you see it that way because his eye shape is more dimorphic. I think Nessman’s ES is more dimorphic. They’re really similar anyway. O’Pry’s is 0.47, Nessman’s is 0.46—gigaminor difference.

Nessman consistently clocks in at .44-.45, not .46.

It’s funny you think .46 and .47 is an insignificant difference but also think the difference between .445 and .463 (basically .45 and .46) is something that should override absolute measurements.

 

[TheEndHasNoEnd]

No, the reason they have wider IPDs is because they have wider nasal bridges.

incorrect

its the supraorbital ridge width that determines the ipd. In orbital box osteonomy, they cut that part and not the nose bridge. If you look closely, the glabella limits the nose bridge range of motion if it were the nose bridge that would widen the ipd, but its not. Male skulls grow wider with age and so does ipd. Nose bridge width is unrelated to ipd because there are people with narrow noses wide ipd and vice versa. Dont send an example of someone with a wide glabella saying its a wide nose bridge

 

[MisterMercedes]

O'Prys wide measurements overpower Nessman's and compensate for the small change in his ES ratio(0.46) so I do agree he looks more dimorphic. However I still believe there's a trade off between the measurements and the ratio. If O'Pry had higher bizygomatic breadth he could both have both dimorphic measurements and a more dimorphic ratio.

If the measurements deviates a lot from the norm alot I can see it
But lets assume that 2 individuals both have measurements that are well within male range and the same bizygomatic breadth. However, one of these has a really wide IPD and thus a really high ES ratio (Ex 0.45 vs 0.50).
Which one do you think looks more dimorphic?

O’ Pry has a .47 ratio, which is a “feminine ratio”.

The one with the very high ESR due to wide IPD has eye spacing that looks more dimorphic than someone with a lower ESR due to low IPD.

Again, there are countless other factors influencing how dimorphism someone looks so this is ultimately a bad way to argue the point.

 

[MisterMercedes]

incorrect
View attachment 1155842
its the supraorbital ridge width that determines the ipd. In orbital box osteonomy, they cut that part and not the nose bridge. If you look closely, the glabella limits the nose bridge range of motion if it were the nose bridge that would widen the ipd, but its not. Male skulls grow wider with age and so does ipd. Nose bridge width is unrelated to ipd because there are people with narrow noses wide ipd and vice versa. Dont send an example of someone with a wide glabella saying its a wide nose bridge

If supraorbital ridge width was the determinant of eye spacing, everyone would have the same ESR as their eyes would be proportionally widened relative to the widening of the skull (Supra orbital ridge width and glabellar width are results of skull width).

Barrett, for example, has a wide skull and brow width but lower eye spacing due to his IPD not being proportionally wide.

Nasal bridge width ≠ nasal alar width.

If you look up hyper or hypotelorism (disorders involving extreme ends of eye spacing), you’ll see that the nasal bridge width is the reason for the eye spacing, not the Supra orbital ridges.

Compare their nasal bridge widths:

 

[Deleted member 685]

On average ≠ dimorphic. Average male doesn’t have a big onion that’s about equal to the width of the cheekbones, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t dimorphic to have a proportionally wide big onion.

To explain what you’re saying to you, you’re saying that if a male had a narrow skull (feminine(, it would be more dimorphic for him to also have narrow IPD to make his ESR lower, even though you admit lower IPD is feminine. In other words, you’re saying two feminine traits instead of one is more masculine.

The only explanation for someone as smart as you to make this bad of an argument is that you are trying to feel better about your very narrow IPD.

Holy fuck you're a fucking idiot

 

[StrangerDanger]

O’ Pry has a .47 ratio, which is a “feminine ratio”.

The one with the very high ESR due to wide IPD has eye spacing that looks more dimorphic than someone with a lower ESR due to low IPD.

View attachment 1155845View attachment 1155846
Again, there are countless other factors influencing how dimorphism someone looks so this is ultimately a bad way to argue the point.

Jordan has a pretty low ESR due to his wide-skull. The pictures where his ratio is high is all from when he was young (I saw you mention 0.49 in another thread which seems off)

According to this study by @headsupdisplay on lookism O'Pry has an ES ratio of about 0.464 so it stills fall within ideal range. Although I guess you're right since it falls more on the feminine side.

Does an ES ratio within feminine range automatically imply the eyes are wide-set though.
When I think of wide-set eyes I think of cases like this and not O'Pry (guess my perception might be skewed)

 

[TheEndHasNoEnd]

If supraorbital ridge width was the determinant of eye spacing, everyone would have the same ESR as their eyes would be proportionally widened relative to the widening of the skull (Supra orbital ridge width and glabellar width are results of skull width).

Barrett, for example, has a wide skull and brow width but lower eye spacing due to his IPD not being proportionally wide.

Nasal bridge width ≠ nasal alar width.

If you look up hyper or hypotelorism (disorders involving extreme ends of eye spacing), you’ll see that the nasal bridge width is the reason for the eye spacing, not the Supra orbital ridges.

Compare their nasal bridge widths:

View attachment 1155854View attachment 1155856

supraorbital ridge determines ipd + temples size and zygomatic size determined bizygomatic width. These are independent from each other except for when the skull grows, all of those factors grow in proportion. Barrett has huge zygos and temples thats why his es is low despite above average ipd. And gandy clearly has a wider supraorbital, supraorbital width determines glabellar width

 

[Deleted member 685]

I also think that example of Nessman and the blonde is bad as that guy eye spacing is disproportionately wide to the point it ruins his “harmony” or golden ratio. Nessman’s eye spacing is only slightly narrower than ideal in relation to the width of his face.

If you look at O’ Pry, who has average skull width and slightly wider set eyes than ideal, I would say his eye spacing looks more dimorphic than Nessman’s:
View attachment 1155771

View attachment 1155769
I don’t like this form of argument as there are countless other factors as to how dimorphic someone looks, but you used it so I felt it was needed to counter.

Ur like the perfect example of someone who types alot, purely for the sake of thinking it makes him look smart and then claims victory over arguments bc the other side won't even bother argueing bc of how stupid you are

 

[MisterMercedes]

Jordan has a pretty low ESR due to his wide-skull. The pictures where his ratio is high is all from when he was young (I saw you mention 0.49 in another thread which seems off)

According to this study by @headsupdisplay on lookism O'Pry has an ES ratio of about 0.464 so it stills fall within ideal range. Although I guess you're right since it falls more on the feminine side.

Does an ES ratio within feminine range automatically imply the eyes are wide-set though.
When I think of wide-set eyes I think of cases like this and not O'Pry (guess my perception might be skewed)
View attachment 1155866

Those eyes are very wide set, O’ Pry’s are only slightly wide set and, as you said, still fall within the ideal range.

There is a point to what you’re saying: wide set eyes on an average skull width are not as masculine as wide set eyes on a proportionally wider skull. This is because both traits are masculine.

However, a guy with a narrow skull is more masculine with disproportionately wide set eyes, not proportionally narrow, as you are now giving him both feminine traits.

 

[MisterMercedes]

supraorbital ridge determines ipd + temples size and zygomatic size determined bizygomatic width. When the skull grows, all of those factors grow in proportion. Barrett has huge zygos and temples thats why his es is low despite above average ipd. And gandy clearly has a wider supraorbital, supraorbital width determines glabellar width

“When the skull grows, all of those factors grow in proportion.”

This is bullshit. Are you trying to tell me Basso and O’ Pry have the same malar width?

Wide temples are literally wide skull. The wider the skull is, the wider the “temples” or side of the head is.

Barrett doesn’t have wide zygos relative to his wide skull. The only reason his ESR is low is that his nasal bridge didn’t widen in proportion to his skull widening.

Gandy’s brow and skull width is literally the same as Jaric’s. However, that’s not even the important part. Jaric’s eyes are not nearly as wide relative to his brow width as Gandy’s are. This goes directly against what you’re saying, which is that the width of the eye spacing is determined by the width of the brow.

It’s also clear to anyone with an objective mind that Jaric’s nasal bridge is much narrower/slimmer than Gandy’s.

 

[TheEndHasNoEnd]

“When the skull grows, all of those factors grow in proportion.”

This is bullshit. Are you trying to tell me Basso and O’ Pry have the same malar width?
View attachment 1155873View attachment 1155875
Wide temples are literally wide skull. The wider the skull is, the wider the “temples” or side of the head is.

Barrett doesn’t have wide zygos relative to his wide skull. The only reason his ESR is low is that his nasal bridge didn’t widen in proportion to his skull widening.

Gandy’s brow and skull width is literally the same as Jaric’s. However, that’s not even the important part. Jaric’s eyes are not nearly as wide relative to his brow width as Gandy’s are. This goes directly against what you’re saying, which is that the width of the eye spacing is determined by the width of the brow.

It’s also clear to anyone with an objective mind that Jaric’s nasal bridge is much narrower/slimmer than Gandy’s.

Ur like the perfect example of someone who types alot, purely for the sake of thinking it makes him look smart and then claims victory over arguments bc the other side won't even bother argueing bc of how stupid you are

i legit cba to measure pixels etc because you cant see the obvious. Jarics eyes not nearly as wide relative to brow like gandys? The fuck?

 

[MisterMercedes]

i legit cba to measure pixels etc because you cant see the obvious. Jarics eyes not nearly as wide relative to brow like gandys? The fuck?

Are you actually trying to argue that their eye spacing in the same proportion to their brow width?

Also, just to show you an actual eye spacing deformity that was corrected:

No decrease in the width of his brows, only a decrease in the width of his nasal bridge.

 

[MisterMercedes]

Are you actually trying to argue that their eye spacing in the same proportion to their brow width?

View attachment 1155888View attachment 1155889
Also, just to show you an actual eye spacing deformity that was corrected:

View attachment 1155892
No decrease in the width of his brows, only a decrease in the width of his nasal bridge.

In case you try to argue otherwise:

No decrease in the width of the brow.

Also measured pixels, brow distance is the same before and after.

 

[TheEndHasNoEnd]

In case you try to argue otherwise:
View attachment 1155898
No decrease in the width of the brow.

Also measured pixels, brow distance is the same before and after.

Bro I meant the entire brow width, that includes the glabella

 

[MisterMercedes]

Bro I meant the entire brow width, that includes the glabella

And brow width also includes supraorbital ridge width, which you mentioned previously.

I’m guessing you’re conceding that supraorbital ridge width doesn’t determine eye spacing as now you’re talking about glabellar width.

This doesn’t work as the bony glabellar width is in proportion to the Supra orbital ridge width.

Wider glabella anatomically requires wider supraorbital ridges, and vice verse.

If his glabella had narrowed post surgery, his brow distance would be narrower (which you were previously arguing).

This is why males have wider frontal sinuses: wider glabellas and brows.

 

[TheEndHasNoEnd]

And brow width also includes supraorbital ridge width, which you mentioned previously.

I’m guessing you’re conceding that supraorbital ridge width doesn’t determine eye spacing as now you’re talking about glabellar width.

This doesn’t work as the bony glabellar width is in proportion to the Supra orbital ridge width.

Wider glabella anatomically requires wider supraorbital ridges, and vice verse.

If his glabella had narrowed post surgery, his brow distance would be narrower (which you were previously arguing).

This is why males have wider frontal sinuses: wider glabellas and brows.

I accidentally thought supraorbital ridge meant the entire brow, that's my fault. And no the glabella isn't proportionate to the supraorbital, look at jaric. Have you not seen countless examples of small ipd wide pfl and vice versa? What determines their size is genetics not interrelation between them. But during growth, everything grows proportionally to the initial ratios.

 

[MisterMercedes]

I accidentally thought supraorbital ridge meant the entire brow, that's my fault. And no the glabella isn't proportionate to the supraorbital, look at jaric. Have you not seen countless examples of small ipd wide pfl and vice versa? What determines their size is genetics not interrelation between them. But during growth, everything grows proportionally to the initial ratios.

Glabellar width has no influence on PFL. PFL is literally just the width of the eyeball.

How the fuck are you measuring the width of Jaric’s bony glabella? I hope you realize that the length of the eyebrows has no relation with glabellar width.

“what determines their size is genetics not interrelation between them”

This is like saying that length of the mandible and protrusion of the chin are not interrelated because it’s determined by genetics.

Mandible and chin are anatomically connected, so a longer mandible means a more forward positioned or protrusive chin. The glabella connects the Supra orbital ridges. Wider glabella means the ridges are farther apart.

The fact that genetics is responsible could not be more irrelevant.

 

[TheEndHasNoEnd]

Glabellar width has no influence on PFL. PFL is literally just the width of the eyeball.

View attachment 1155944
How the fuck are you measuring the width of Jaric’s bony glabella? I hope you realize that the length of the eyebrows has no relation with glabellar width.

“what determines their size is genetics not interrelation between them”

This is like saying that length of the mandible and protrusion of the chin are not interrelated because it’s determined by genetics.

Mandible and chin are anatomically connected, so a longer mandible means a more forward positioned or protrusive chin. The glabella connects the Supra orbital ridges. Wider glabella means the ridges are farther apart.

The fact that genetics is responsible could not be more irrelevant.

View attachment 1155950

You're the one claiming that wider glabella requires wider supra orbital ridges. Supra orbital ridge width= pfl. You didn't say supra orbital ridge SET, you said WIDTH. No shit the supra orbital ridge SET is controlled by the glabella width, that's what makes the ipd in the first place. We are talking about ipd here but also your claim that longer mandibles mean more protrusive chin is also incorrect. There's an negative correlation between mandible length and ramus length. And a long ramus is positively correlated with a protrusive chin. The reason being is upswing. A longer mandible is a sign of downswing and as a result the chin doesn't protrude and instead grows downward.

 

[MisterMercedes]

You're the one claiming that wider glabella requires wider supra orbital ridges. Supra orbital ridge width= pfl. You didn't say supra orbital ridge SET, you said WIDTH. No shit the supra orbital ridge SET is controlled by the glabella width, that's what makes the ipd in the first place. We are talking about ipd here but also your claim that longer mandibles mean more protrusive chin is also incorrect. There's an negative correlation between mandible length and ramus length. And a long ramus is positively correlated with a protrusive chin. The reason being is upswing. A longer mandible is a sign of downswing and as a result the chin doesn't protrude and instead grows downward.

“Supraorbital ridge width = pfl”

Holy shit you are confused about anatomy. PFL or the length of the fissure is literally the width of the eyeball. Barrett has wider supraorbital ridges or brow than Angelina Jolie, Angelina Jolie has higher PFL.

https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/54661cbf024277bb31eaab2f/1:1/w_690,h_460,c_limit/s-angelina-spread-vf-1214-cop.jpg

I don’t know what you’re referring to by supraorbital ridge set, but I have been referring to the distance between the ridges or width this entire time.

Your talk about mandible anatomy makes me realize I’m taking with someone who is so confused, possibly beyond saving. However, I will try to explain.

Chin is connected to the mandible. When the mandible lengthens, the chin is more forward positioned or protrusive.

DiCaprio’s mandible is longer, and thus is chin is farther away or more forward projected from his cranium:

Mila Kunis’ mandible is shorter, and thus the opposite is true:

https://media.glamour.com/photos/5695a30bd9dab9ff41b33a8c/master/w_1600%2Cc_limit/beauty-blogs-girls-in-the-beauty-department-2011-02-27-0227-oscars_beauty_2011_mila_kunis_hair_bd.jpg

A downswing mandible or high occlusal plane doesn’t lengthen the bony chin and definitely isn’t determined by ramus height. When the occlusal plane is high, both jaws or rotated down and back, which may make the lower third look longer, but the bony chin has not lengthened.

Long chin, not a high occlusal plane/downswing jaws.

Long chin is a male dimorphic trait and there is no research showing males have higher occlusal planes.

 

[Deleted member 685]

“Supraorbital ridge width = pfl”

Holy shit you are confused about anatomy. PFL or the length of the fissure is literally the width of the eyeball. Barrett has wider supraorbital ridges or brow than Angelina Jolie, Angelina Jolie has higher PFL.

View attachment 1155976

https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/54661cbf024277bb31eaab2f/1:1/w_690,h_460,c_limit/s-angelina-spread-vf-1214-cop.jpg

I don’t know what you’re referring to by supraorbital ridge set, but I have been referring to the distance between the ridges or width this entire time.

Your talk about mandible anatomy makes me realize I’m taking with someone who is so confused, possibly beyond saving. However, I will try to explain.

Chin is connected to the mandible. When the mandible lengthens, the chin is more forward positioned or protrusive.

DiCaprio’s mandible is longer, and thus is chin is farther away or more forward projected from his cranium:

View attachment 1155981
Mila Kunis’ mandible is shorter, and thus the opposite is true:

https://media.glamour.com/photos/5695a30bd9dab9ff41b33a8c/master/w_1600%2Cc_limit/beauty-blogs-girls-in-the-beauty-department-2011-02-27-0227-oscars_beauty_2011_mila_kunis_hair_bd.jpg

A downswing mandible or high occlusal plane doesn’t lengthen the bony chin and definitely isn’t determined by ramus height. When the occlusal plane is high, both jaws or rotated down and back, which may make the lower third look longer, but the bony chin has not lengthened.
View attachment 1155982
Long chin, not a high occlusal plane/downswing jaws.

Long chin is a male dimorphic trait and there is no research showing males have higher occlusal planes.

See this is exactly what I said, you just make up so much dumb bullshit people won't even bother replying back. @thecel and @TheEndHasNoEnd obliterated you

 

[thecel]

See this is exactly what I said, you just make up so much dumb bullshit people won't even bother replying back. @thecel and @TheEndHasNoEnd obliterated you

I’m cooming. I’ll be back soon.

 

[Deleted member 685]

I’m cooming. I’ll be back soon.

Bro u still cooming?

 

[TheEndHasNoEnd]

See this is exactly what I said, you just make up so much dumb bullshit people won't even bother replying back. @thecel and @TheEndHasNoEnd obliterated you

thanks bro. I seen you debate a few times too and i like that you have nuance. It seems that 99.99% of people cant have nuance for the life of them, they just see things in black and white. Such surface level thinking, not being able to see cause and effect, and ignoring accumulation and long term. Naturally, having a more nuanced view leads to more left leaning beliefs, but maybe thats why people avoid nuance? To seem “based?” I dunno, but its good to know theres others like you around, kinda keeps my sanity lmfao.

 

[Deleted member 685]

thanks bro. I seen you debate a few times too and i like that you have nuance. It seems that 99.99% of people cant have nuance for the life of them, they just see things in black and white. Such surface level thinking, not being able to see cause and effect, and ignoring accumulation and long term. Naturally, having a more nuanced view leads to more left leaning beliefs, but maybe thats why people avoid nuance? To seem “based?” I dunno, but its good to know theres others like you around, kinda keeps my sanity lmfao.

Thanks, I try my best.

 

[Nisse]

To preface, a good ipd and es ratio is needed for facial harmony, this thread is not an attempt to debunk that.


Many people here cite that wide set eyes are dimorphic, citing that men have wider ipds than women on average, such as shown:
View attachment 506241
But the actual reason for this is that men simply have bigger skulls than women, which would correlate with a wider ipd. What people do seem to overlook though is the ipd RELATIVE to the bizygo (ie. the ES ratio). Ipd is as good of an example to dimorphism as height is, there can be a woman taller than a man but the man will still have more masculine looking face, bigger hands, feet, skull, deeper voice, wider shoulders, etc. Let's look at bizygomatic width values:
View attachment 506255
If we were to take the 50th percentile of both bizygo and ipd and calculate it to ES ratio for both genders, we get that males have an average ES ratio of .4475 and females .4626. Now let's say we match the female bizygo to the male 50th percentile bizygo, that would mean matching it to the 95th percentile female bizygo. To calculate the corresponding es ratio of the female bizygo, we must look at the 95th percentile female ipd. As it turns out, a 14.3cm bizygo on a female matches with a 67.5mm ipd, the same bizygo on a male matches with a lower ipd of 64mm.


TL;DR: The wider the spaced eyes relative to the skull, the less dimorphic it is

Wide IPD's look feminine af. Average/ slightly above is ideal.

 

[Nisse]

slightly longer ipd than average is ok, slightly shorter than average is death. Unless professional NBA athlete 200 cm tall and multimillionair.

Unless ones ipd is so narrow that normies might point it out, it doesnt matter.