P
psl6by2028
Iron
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2025
- Posts
- 71
- Reputation
- 39
So as most of us know, surgerymaxxing is one of the only ways to ascend multiple tiers of looks (ltn -> htn, mtn -> cl) provided you are not a fat/bloated. However, it is also common knowledge that simply getting surgeries left right and centre without a proper plan will simply result in looking uncanny and potentially even worse than being natural.
Excuse me if I make a few grammatical mistakes, I am drunk right now and can't even feel the keys I am typing on after attending the club and getting absolutely 0 play. Side note, it's crazy how much blackpill unfolds in the club when everyone resorts to their 'primal instincts' via a little shot of alcohol.
Remember one thing, HARMONY MOGS ALL
So of the 4 pillars of attractiveness: harmony, angularity, dimorphism, features, harmony is the base for all others. If you have dimorphism, features and angularity but no harmony it simply will render you an ogre, think modern Jordan Barret (albeit he still has quite a bit of harmony).
This is part of the reason natural beauty is very hard to replicate via surgery, and why many surgery-maxxing journeys end up with the patient looking uncanny, simply because they have little harmony but insane angularity and dimorphism. Features can, to an extend, compensate for a lack of harmony but even in this case the features need to work harmoniously together, think hunter eyes and strong jaw - hunter eyes with a recessed lower third would simply look stupid.
Measuring Harmony
So you might be thinking, ok sure, harmony is the most important pillar, but how can we even measure it. Muh beauty is intrinsic, muh beauty cannot be measured. No.
Ratios = Harmony. But not just the 5 or so ratios commonly touted here. You need to consider almost every ratio on your face. If even one ratio strays drastically from the population average then you will end up looking uncanny. Below is a BOTB thread with 38 important ratios on the face:
https://looksmax.org/threads/38-mos...nd-the-ideal-measurements-high-effort.956143/
Before you ratio copers come in the comments below, you need to understand that these ideal ranges are not based on muh golden ratio but rather via studies conducted to explicitly identity which ratio is most attractive, e.g. a 110 - 125 degree gonial angle is scientifically proven to be most attractive because PEOPLE THEMSELVES voted them to be. This ties into the idea that specific ratios are attractive because the host person himself was attractive rather than the ratio itself being attractive, but we will ignore that for now and assume the ratio itself is what makes them attractive.
When you start to stack nearly 40 ratios, you will likely find you don't meet nearly all of them, which makes sense given you are browsing this forum. I will reveal my own ratios to make you feel better:
Understand that these ideal ratios likely stem from the population average, which further ties into the idea that the 'most average' face in a given population will be the most attractive (not average in attractiveness, average in facial features). You all seem to think you want to become 'gigachad' with every single ideal feature on your face, e.g. Hernan Drago. But the truth is, while Drago undoubtedly holds appeal and high harmony, he is simply outclassed by models such as Chico and Simon Nessma who are known for their insane harmony rather than features.
https://looksmax.org/threads/averag...rageness-1-striking-feature-is-ideal.1078922/
A plan
Ok so you understand that harmony is king and you actually don't want to become like Hernan Drago with every single striking feature under the sun.
To develop a surgerymaxxing plan, you need to find a way to combine several surgeries to essentially perfect your ratios, and in the process you will develop at least 1 or 2 striking features (in the lower third especially, it's not really possible to have perfect ratios while not having a striking jaw). Surgerymaxx based on your ratios and find a combination which both minimises the number of surgeries you need while perfecting as many ratios as possible.
Of course, some ratios such as ESR and midface are more important than others, so I will likely have to create a refined surgerymaxxing guide in the future. This is actually a good idea to implement AI, which could identify different surgical procedures put together to fix your individual scenarios. This also explains why surgerymaxxing may not work for everyone, there may simply not exist a combination of surgery to fully fix all your crucial ratios - ESR and eye spacing are the main ones here, unfixable usually without OBO.
This also explains why most people cannot simply softmaxx their way to htn/cl, since most ratios are fixed in place by bone and cannot be changed. You can get a little more appeal by clearing skin, improving hair and frauding pfl via eyelashes, but you will never truly overcome these ratios determining your harmony until you can get procedures done.
Bimax can fix a lot of lower third ratios, but it does not fix all ratios, which explains why most people getting bimax do not automatically ascend to chad as some of you here may think happens - you are simply focusing on your biggest flaw when you say 'all I need is bimax'.
anyways I may update this in the future once I've thought this out a bit more clearly, let me know if you have any thoughts regarding this.
Excuse me if I make a few grammatical mistakes, I am drunk right now and can't even feel the keys I am typing on after attending the club and getting absolutely 0 play. Side note, it's crazy how much blackpill unfolds in the club when everyone resorts to their 'primal instincts' via a little shot of alcohol.
Remember one thing, HARMONY MOGS ALL
So of the 4 pillars of attractiveness: harmony, angularity, dimorphism, features, harmony is the base for all others. If you have dimorphism, features and angularity but no harmony it simply will render you an ogre, think modern Jordan Barret (albeit he still has quite a bit of harmony).
This is part of the reason natural beauty is very hard to replicate via surgery, and why many surgery-maxxing journeys end up with the patient looking uncanny, simply because they have little harmony but insane angularity and dimorphism. Features can, to an extend, compensate for a lack of harmony but even in this case the features need to work harmoniously together, think hunter eyes and strong jaw - hunter eyes with a recessed lower third would simply look stupid.
Measuring Harmony
So you might be thinking, ok sure, harmony is the most important pillar, but how can we even measure it. Muh beauty is intrinsic, muh beauty cannot be measured. No.
Ratios = Harmony. But not just the 5 or so ratios commonly touted here. You need to consider almost every ratio on your face. If even one ratio strays drastically from the population average then you will end up looking uncanny. Below is a BOTB thread with 38 important ratios on the face:
https://looksmax.org/threads/38-mos...nd-the-ideal-measurements-high-effort.956143/
Before you ratio copers come in the comments below, you need to understand that these ideal ranges are not based on muh golden ratio but rather via studies conducted to explicitly identity which ratio is most attractive, e.g. a 110 - 125 degree gonial angle is scientifically proven to be most attractive because PEOPLE THEMSELVES voted them to be. This ties into the idea that specific ratios are attractive because the host person himself was attractive rather than the ratio itself being attractive, but we will ignore that for now and assume the ratio itself is what makes them attractive.
When you start to stack nearly 40 ratios, you will likely find you don't meet nearly all of them, which makes sense given you are browsing this forum. I will reveal my own ratios to make you feel better:
Ratio, ideal range, my measurement.
- Gonial angle: 112-123 degrees, 129 degrees
- Facial thirds: 29.5-36.5, 31.0%, 35.3%, 33.7%
- Eye separation ratio: 44.3-47.4, 49.5%
- Total facial convexity angle: 137.5-148.5 degrees, 130 degrees
- Facial convexity angle: 168-176 degrees, 156 degrees
- Cheekbone position: 81-100%, 76.8%
- Jaw frontal angle: 84.5-95 degrees, 106 degrees
- Mandibular plane angle: 15-22 degrees, 24.3 degrees
- (Palperable axis) Canthal Tilt: 5.2-8.5 degrees, 4 degrees
- Ramus to mandible ratio: 0.59-0.78, 48.2%
- FWHR (width / height): 1.9-2.06, 1.87
- Total FWHR (height / width): 1.33-1.38, 1.36
- Submental cervical angle: 91-110 degrees - CANNOT MEASURE
- Nasofrontal angle: 106-129 degrees, 121 degrees
- Eye spacing: 0.93-1.04, 1.08 (eyes not horizontally wide enough, can improve via higher pfl?)
- Upper to lower lip ratio: 1.4-2, 1.44
- Nasofacial angle: 30-36 degrees, 43 degrees
- Eyebrow setness: 90-95%, 87%
- Chin to philtrum: 2.05-2.55, 3.38
- Nasolabial angle: 94-117 degrees, 102 degrees
- Nasal projection: 0.55-0.68, 0.476
- Nasal width to height ratio: 0.62-0.88, 0.51
- Nose width to mouth width: 1.38-1.53, 1.29
- (eye width to height ratio)Eye aspect ratio: 2.8-3.6, 3.3
- Midface ratio: 0.93-1.01, 1.14 (midface ‘too short’, or lips are too high up. Need to increase philtrum length)
- Neck width: 90-100%, 87%
- Recession relative to Frankfurt plane, a lot
- Bigonial width: 85.5-92%, 89%
- Medial canthal angle: 20.42 degrees, 22 degrees
- Nasomental angle: 125-132 degrees, 116 degrees
- Orbital vector: Positive, Negative
- Nasal tip angle: 112-125 degrees, 105 degrees
- Gonion to mouth relationship: Gonion below mouth, yes
- Mentolabial angle: 108-130 degrees, 114 degrees
- Eyebrow tilt: 5-13 degrees, 16 degrees
- Brow ridge inclination: 13-24 degrees, 8.7 degrees
- Lower facial proportion: 30.6-34, 33.7%
- Bitemporal width: 84-95%, 84.6%
Understand that these ideal ratios likely stem from the population average, which further ties into the idea that the 'most average' face in a given population will be the most attractive (not average in attractiveness, average in facial features). You all seem to think you want to become 'gigachad' with every single ideal feature on your face, e.g. Hernan Drago. But the truth is, while Drago undoubtedly holds appeal and high harmony, he is simply outclassed by models such as Chico and Simon Nessma who are known for their insane harmony rather than features.
https://looksmax.org/threads/averag...rageness-1-striking-feature-is-ideal.1078922/
A plan
Ok so you understand that harmony is king and you actually don't want to become like Hernan Drago with every single striking feature under the sun.
To develop a surgerymaxxing plan, you need to find a way to combine several surgeries to essentially perfect your ratios, and in the process you will develop at least 1 or 2 striking features (in the lower third especially, it's not really possible to have perfect ratios while not having a striking jaw). Surgerymaxx based on your ratios and find a combination which both minimises the number of surgeries you need while perfecting as many ratios as possible.
Of course, some ratios such as ESR and midface are more important than others, so I will likely have to create a refined surgerymaxxing guide in the future. This is actually a good idea to implement AI, which could identify different surgical procedures put together to fix your individual scenarios. This also explains why surgerymaxxing may not work for everyone, there may simply not exist a combination of surgery to fully fix all your crucial ratios - ESR and eye spacing are the main ones here, unfixable usually without OBO.
This also explains why most people cannot simply softmaxx their way to htn/cl, since most ratios are fixed in place by bone and cannot be changed. You can get a little more appeal by clearing skin, improving hair and frauding pfl via eyelashes, but you will never truly overcome these ratios determining your harmony until you can get procedures done.
Bimax can fix a lot of lower third ratios, but it does not fix all ratios, which explains why most people getting bimax do not automatically ascend to chad as some of you here may think happens - you are simply focusing on your biggest flaw when you say 'all I need is bimax'.
anyways I may update this in the future once I've thought this out a bit more clearly, let me know if you have any thoughts regarding this.
