You're measuring midface ratio wrong.

[Deleted member 21044]

The classic measurement technique where you divide the IPD by the disctance between eye level and upper lip ridge is dumb.

That's because lip sizes can vary and skew the measurement while having the same optical effect.

That's why i believe the measurement should be taken from eye level to middle of the lip line.

This way the ratio is reliable. I believe 1:1 ratio is ideal in this method, which means slightly shorter midface than when measured by the standard technique.

Spoiler: Tagging nosebreathers

@Dr. Mog @krisal @justshower @5'7 zoomer @ascension! @Shitfacegoodbod=mog @anticel @julianchicago @Mouthbreath @PURE ARYAN GENETICS @beatEMinGTA @Grel Hellscream @ohwellmaxxing
@ripcordgod1

 

[Jigen]

The classic measurement technique where you divide the IPD by the disctance between eye level and upper lip ridge is dumb.

View attachment 2065619

That's because lip sizes can vary and skew the measurement while having the same optical effect.

View attachment 2065617

That's why i believe the measurement should be taken from eye level to middle of the lip line.

View attachment 2065618

This way the ratio is reliable. I believe 1:1 ratio is ideal in this method, which means slightly shorter midface than when measured by the standard technique.

View attachment 2065634

Spoiler: Tagging nosebreathers

@Dr. Mog @krisal @justshower @5'7 zoomer @ascension! @Shitfacegoodbod=mog @anticel @julianchicago @Mouthbreath @PURE ARYAN GENETICS @beatEMinGTA @Grel Hellscream @ohwellmaxxing

If I sent you my face in PM’s could you calculate my mid face ratio and say it’s good, bad or normal?

 

[Deleted member 21044]

If I sent you my face in PM’s could you calculate my mid face ratio and say it’s good, bad or normal?

Sure, pm.

 

[LiteralCaucasian]

This means that the FwHR should be measured differently too. IPD will be ruled out, etc.

 

[Deleted member 21044]

This means that the FwHR should be measured differently too. IPD will be ruled out, etc.

Fwhr yes but why ipd ruled out?

 

[Deleted member 17872]

Mouthbreather

 

[LiteralCaucasian]

Fwhr yes but why ipd ruled out?

These changes in measurements mean that others may be changed as well. Why measure it at the cheekbone width when you can do it at the hairline, or something.
I don't think we should mess with these measurements since they were made by actual professionals.
Message creatingattractive on Gmail if you want.

 

[Deleted member 21044]

Mouthbreather

Ik but i'm recovering. I got 110° GA.

 

[Deleted member 21044]

These changes in measurements mean that others may be changed as well. Why measure it at the cheekbone width when you can do it at the hairline,

That would make no sense since hairline hasn't much to do with bone structure. Just as lips. That's why my technique is better.

or something.
I don't think we should mess with these measurements since they were made by actual professionals.
Message creatingattractive on Gmail if you want.

 

[LiteralCaucasian]

I got 110° GA.

You must've measured it wrong then, that's too low. Not downturned at all.

 

[dimorphism]

The classic measurement technique where you divide the IPD by the disctance between eye level and upper lip ridge is dumb.

View attachment 2065619

That's because lip sizes can vary and skew the measurement while having the same optical effect.

View attachment 2065617

That's why i believe the measurement should be taken from eye level to middle of the lip line.

View attachment 2065618

This way the ratio is reliable. I believe 1:1 ratio is ideal in this method, which means slightly shorter midface than when measured by the standard technique.

View attachment 2065634

Spoiler: Tagging nosebreathers

@Dr. Mog @krisal @justshower @5'7 zoomer @ascension! @Shitfacegoodbod=mog @anticel @julianchicago @Mouthbreath @PURE ARYAN GENETICS @beatEMinGTA @Grel Hellscream @ohwellmaxxing
@ripcordgod1

RIP @krisal

 

[Deleted member 17159]

Then most people wouldnt have 1:1
But I also do think that the measurement method is stupid, because midface length shouldn't be compared to your eye distance.
A wide pair of eyes don't really offset a long midface, it just looks like you have wide eyes and a long midface. The ratio we invented is arbitrary.

 

[Deleted member 21044]

You must've measured it wrong then, that's too low. Not downturned at all.

No lol. I measured right i'm not a retard. Ideal is 90° that's what i'm aiming for. i already reduced by about 10° in a year by clenching.

 

[Deleted member 21044]

then most people wouldnt have 1:1

Most people have maldeveloped bone structure. Makes sense.

 

[dimorphism]

Sure, pm.

What software would u use to measure it

 

[Deleted member 21044]

What software would u use to measure it

Looksrate of PS.

 

[LiteralCaucasian]

Ideal is 90°

Are you retarded? 90° GA is FUCKING HORRIBLE

 

[Deleted member 18879]

Makes no sense as someone with big lips will still be perceived as having a shorter midface vs thin ones, so the original measurement method is correct.

 

[Deleted member 21044]

Are you retarded? 90° GA is FUCKING HORRIBLE

Brutal cope. That's what healthy craniofacial development gives you.

Higher angles are considered an orthocranial defect and are detrimental to biting and breathing physiology. Evolutionarily unfit and therefore inherently unattractive.

 

[LiteralCaucasian]

Brutal cope. That's what healthy craniofacial development gives you.

View attachment 2065648

Higher angles are considered an orthocranial defect and are detrimental to biting and breathing physiology. Evolutionarily unfit and therefore inherently unattractive.

 

[Deleted member 25667]

Makes no sense as someone with big lips will still be perceived as having a shorter midface vs thin ones, so the original measurement method is correct.

It's better measuring using OP's method in terms of surgery planning considering the middle of the lips are mostly determined by bones whereas the thickness of the lips are a soft feature

 

[Deleted member 21044]

View attachment 2065651

What? It's literally how the human jaw is meant to develop you idiot.

 

[Deleted member 25667]

Brutal cope. That's what healthy craniofacial development gives you.

View attachment 2065648

Higher angles are considered an orthocranial defect and are detrimental to biting and breathing physiology. Evolutionarily unfit and therefore inherently unattractive.

gonial angle of 90 makes you look like a cube, it's not ideal

 

[LiteralCaucasian]

What? It's literally how the human jaw is meant to develop you idiot.

I find it quite difficult to believe that a 90 degree jaw is ideal. That's not healthy.
It may be a sign of clenching and such issues.

 

[dimorphism]

Looksrate of PS.

Over for me tbh
but yet again it's white people ratios

 

[Deleted member 21044]

gonial angle of 90 makes you look like a cube, it's not ideal

"Muh 90° isn't ideal!!"

OP:

 

[Deleted member 19798]

Brutal cope. That's what healthy craniofacial development gives you.

View attachment 2065648

Higher angles are considered an orthocranial defect and are detrimental to biting and breathing physiology. Evolutionarily unfit and therefore inherently unattractive.

Is that real?

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

Brutal cope. That's what healthy craniofacial development gives you.

View attachment 2065648

Higher angles are considered an orthocranial defect and are detrimental to biting and breathing physiology. Evolutionarily unfit and therefore inherently unattractive.

is that really 90° though? looks a bit more

and look dolph here. certainly more than 90°

 

[Deleted member 21044]

is that really 90° though? looks a bit more

and look dolph here. certainly more than 90°
View attachment 2065660

Yea he's got like 105 irl or something. It's just a frauded pic for illustration.

 

[Deleted member 18879]

View attachment 2065654

View attachment 2065655

View attachment 2065656


"Muh 90° isn't ideal!!"

OP:

View attachment 2065658

they're more like 105-115 or so, that is perfect imo. none of them are flat 90

 

[Deleted member 21044]

Is that real?

Yes. Two biggest slayers i know both have 90° mandible. They're extremely healthy and good at sports.

 

[Deleted member 21044]

they're more like 105-115 or so, that is perfect imo. none of them are flat 90

Lemond has 90 or very close.

 

[Nebula]

Absolutely retarded post. This "new" ratio favours too compact people which is unideal. Basically black are considered ideal in this department jfl. Every other race can suck dick

 

[Deleted member 25667]

View attachment 2065654

View attachment 2065655

View attachment 2065656


"Muh 90° isn't ideal!!"

OP:

View attachment 2065658

inb4 "muh science"

But there's way too many opposing findings that say ga of 90 is no where near ideal.

The ideal male jaw angle--An Internet survey - PubMed

Photogrammetric analysis of panel preferences lead to constructs with values useful for the design of 3D printed jaw angles.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

770 people did a survey. Conclusive evidence that a gonial angle of 125-130 is the most aesthetically pleasing.

 

[Deleted member 21044]

inb4 "muh science"

But there's way too many opposing findings that say ga of 90 is no where near ideal.

The ideal male jaw angle--An Internet survey - PubMed

Photogrammetric analysis of panel preferences lead to constructs with values useful for the design of 3D printed jaw angles.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

770 people did a survey. Conclusive evidence that a gonial angle of 125-130 is the most aesthetically pleasing.

Yeah and ideal height is 5'8.

You're retarded. These bluepilled "studies" are a joke. What matters is evolutionary biomechanics.

The idiots who made the "study" can't even spell Frankfurt plane. JFL if you fell for that shit.

 

[Deleted member 25667]

Yeah and ideal height is 5'8.

But that doesn't take face into account, when swiping on tinder women aren't only factoring for height. Whereas the study I linked only factors for jaw, the participants were asked "what jaw looks the most aesthetically pleasing"

What matters is evolutionary biomechanics

Mechanical principles != Ideal for attracting the other sex nor are they the most aesthetically pleasing.

The evolutionary biomechanics for being 6'4 make no sense if you take human physiology into account, your lifespan is shorter, youre likely to be slower, your joints/bones are more likely to erode, spinal injuries will be present. Yet women would rather sleep with a 6'4 male than a 5'10 despite the 5'10 one having better evolutionary biomechanics.

 

[Deleted member 21044]

But that doesn't take face into account, when swiping on tinder women aren't only factoring for height. Whereas the study I linked only factors for jaw, the participants were asked "what jaw looks the most aesthetically pleasing"

People can't/don't want to rate sincerely. Just go on reddit or ask your friends how you look. Also i saw the pictures they shown and there's often a wole face or big part of it, which HEAVILY influences the rating.

Mechanical principles != Ideal for attracting the other sex nor are they the most aesthetically pleasing.

Cope. Traits are selected as attractive because they offer an advantage in survival and procreation. That's the basic principle of evolution.

The evolutionary biomechanics for being 6'4 make no sense if you take human physiology into account, your lifespan is shorter, youre likely to be slower, your joints/bones are more likely to erode, spinal injuries will be present. Yet women would rather sleep with a 6'4 male than a 5'10 despite the 5'10 one having better evolutionary biomechanics.

No you're just close minded. 5'10 does NOT have better biomechanics. What use is it that the 5'10 guy has slightly longer lifespan potential, when he will get murdered by the 6'4 before he can ever fulfill it? Height (up to a certain point) is a huge evolutionary advantage.

 

[Deleted member 25667]

Cope. Traits are selected as attractive because they offer an advantage in survival and procreation

Uhh ye bro having hair offers a massive advantage in survival. Baldcels must've been massive incels in the hunter gatherer days which is probably why balding is so rare nowadays

That's the basic principle of evolution

basic principle

basic

Exactly. There are a multitude of other "principles" you have to take into account when analysing the sexual selection within a species. It's no where near as simple as muh trait offers higher chance of fighting success = good trait

 

[Deleted member 21044]

Uhh ye bro having hair offers a massive advantage in survival. Baldcels must've been massive incels in the hunter gatherer days which is probably why balding is so rare nowadays

Do you even know what the function of hair is lol? Main purpouse is to provide insulation and skin immunity.

Researchers identify cellular pathway that regulates inflammatory hair loss

NIH researchers reveal new insights about the relationship between hair and hair follicles and the skin’s immune system.

www.niams.nih.gov

Hair on head stayed as human brain grew disproportionately energetically demanding compared to other organs. Head hair minimises heat loss from brain (which has 39°C) and protects scalp from infections, which can spread to the brain.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5256556/#:~:text=Learning%20points-,Minor%20damage%20to%20the%20scalp%20may%20lead%20to%20intracranial%20infection,patients%20with%20minor%20scalp%20injuries.

Bald people didn't exist in hunter gatherer times, just as people with high gonial angle. They can only afford to exist today because of cuck letting them stay alive.

Exactly. There are a multitude of other "principles" you have to take into account when analysing the sexual selection within a species. It's no where near as simple as muh trait offers higher chance of fighting success = good trait

Not only fighting success but survival success. The only thing that's not simple about it is knowing which one is more important and by how much.

 

[Deleted member 25667]

Do you even know what the function of hair is lol? Main purpouse is to provide insulation and skin immunity.

Researchers identify cellular pathway that regulates inflammatory hair loss

NIH researchers reveal new insights about the relationship between hair and hair follicles and the skin’s immune system.

www.niams.nih.gov

Hair on head stayed as human brain grew disproportionately energetically demanding compared to other organs. Head hair minimises heat loss from brain (which has 39°C) and protects scalp from infections, which can spread to the brain.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5256556/#:~:text=Learning%20points-,Minor%20damage%20to%20the%20scalp%20may%20lead%20to%20intracranial%20infection,patients%20with%20minor%20scalp%20injuries.

Bald people didn't exist in hunter gatherer times, just as people with high gonial angle. They can only afford to exist today because of cuck letting them stay alive.


Not only fighting success but survival success. The only thing that's not simple about it is knowing which one is more important and by how much.

What's the evolutionary purpose of having a large penis tbhtbh??

 

[Deleted member 21044]

What's the evolutionary purpose of having a large penis tbhtbh??

It ensures smooth transmission of sperm into the cervix. Long dick is more likely to get a girl pregnant.

Sexual biomechanics are very interesting ngl, i'm gonna make an ideal penis thread if i have time.

I made this some time ago:

The healthy physiological erection angle is 45°. This trait was very cleverly evolutionally selected.

1. A projectile shot at this angle travels the longest distance. This allows ideal semen dispersion.

2. Most importantly if you imagine the trajectory of a moving pelvis while having sex, it creates a curve. If you then visualise the point where the penis base lies on this curve at a given time and create a tangent of the curve at said point, the tangent will have the exact direction a 45° erected penis would have at the given point. A 45° erection creates a smooth extention of the thrusting curve and allows the vector of force to be parallel with the penis, thus ensuring maximum impact on the head and even friction on all parts of the shaft.

Another evidence is that the vaginal canal of a woman bent forward and held by man from behind (which is the natural sex position) points upwards at this angle. This was evolutionally caused by the erection angle itself.

There's many parameters beside length.

 

[5'7 zoomer]

Certified nose breather

 

[5'7 zoomer]

What? It's literally how the human jaw is meant to develop you idiot.

Deserves a ban from the whitepill tag

 

[Deleted member 21044]

Deserves a ban from the whitepill tag

I removed this nigga already. But nothing against him.

 

[ripcordgod1]

Brutal cope. That's what healthy craniofacial development gives you.

View attachment 2065648

Higher angles are considered an orthocranial defect and are detrimental to biting and breathing physiology. Evolutionarily unfit and therefore inherently unattractive.

our brain just takes any failo as a genetic deformity
that's why even if ur shit gonial angle is caused by poor habits and not genetics its still gonna be unattractive
humans like every other animal we should all look really similar but instead our failos are what define us which is completely wrong

 

[thecel]

Are you retarded? 90° GA is FUCKING HORRIBLE

cope

The Side-Effect Fallacy of Looks Theory and Why Gonial Angle Is Overrated

People often determine the importance of a trait by examining how much attractiveness is affected by altering the trait. E.g. by using morphs like these: People conclude, from these morphs, that the gonial angle is one of—if not the—most important factors in a jaw’s attractiveness. Wrong...

looksmax.org