fbpx
Notifications
Clear all

NOTICE:

DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION

This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website are not engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. Do not use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. Do not begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision.

Show me good forward growth

Page 2 / 2
EddieMoney
(@eddiemoney)
500+ Forum Posts

@silver

Not even sure where the personal attacks came from. Nor the idea that I think any of these models have CFD.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 29/02/2020 5:51 am
EddieMoney
(@eddiemoney)
500+ Forum Posts
Posted by: @horatio

@eddiemoney

Now this is getting laughable. Her eye shape is top tier, maybe not super rare or cat like but still top tier. Eye color is absolutely not enough to make someone a model and it's NEVER as important as eye shape. I think you are seriously downplaying her because she doesn't fit into your theory. Now I'm not gonna contest the importance of the angelic skull for women but what you probably forgot is the fact that angelic skulls look good precisely because of the good forward growth they display. And no, the average woman doesn't have the forward growth or facial development of Hilary Rhoda, I mean this should be obvious, she is a model for a reason.

So if her robust bones are the reason she is a model, why do so few female models have a large ramus and mandible like her? The other ladies posted here don't have that type of face.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 29/02/2020 5:54 am
EddieMoney
(@eddiemoney)
500+ Forum Posts
Posted by: @progress
Posted by: @eddiemoney

Hilary Rhoda would be cuter with a smaller mandible

Posted by: @eddiemoney

Rhoda's good looks aren't attributed to her tall ramus or prominent mandible. No woman (or man) is made attractive by a large mandible, anyway. 

To me it seems that the harmony of her whole face is very much dependent on her having a large mandible. With a smaller mandible she would lose that geometrical equilibrium that keeps the eyes fixed on the face. I agree that she could be 'cute' in the sense the local grocery store girl is cute,  but there is no doubt how much her large mandible defines her beauty:

She looks way better with a shorter face. Left: androgenic and athletic. Right: estrogenic and angelic 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 29/02/2020 5:57 am
gewgerg
(@gewgerg)
10+ Forum Posts

@eddiemoney

women have shorter ramuses than men which is why they're chins look weaker and shorter on average.

It's why women get away with overbites more than men as it unintentionally symbolizes sexual dimorphism  

ReplyQuote
Posted : 29/02/2020 6:00 am
EddieMoney
(@eddiemoney)
500+ Forum Posts
Posted by: @gewgerg

@eddiemoney

women have shorter ramuses than men which is why they're chins look weaker and shorter on average.

It's why women get away with overbites more than men as it unintentionally symbolizes sexual dimorphism  

Yeah, and most of the women posted here (especially that brunette with the Arabic tattoo on page 1) have that type pf face.

Meanwhile the one woman who is an exception is seemingly touted as the standard for some reason. Oh well. 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 29/02/2020 6:09 am
Silver
(@silver)
100+ Forum Posts
Posted by: @eddiemoney

@silver

Not even sure where the personal attacks came from. Nor the idea that I think any of these models have CFD.

I'm sorry you took it that way.

CFD is just a way of describing imperfect facial development. Everyone has CFD—it's an inclusive spectrum. These models have CFD because they don't have perfect facial development, but no one does. I understand what you mean, but using CFD as a term to refer to particularly bad cases of relative dysfunction is confusing and misleading.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 29/02/2020 8:21 am
Silver
(@silver)
100+ Forum Posts
Posted by: @eddiemoney
Posted by: @horatio

@eddiemoney

Now this is getting laughable. Her eye shape is top tier, maybe not super rare or cat like but still top tier. Eye color is absolutely not enough to make someone a model and it's NEVER as important as eye shape. I think you are seriously downplaying her because she doesn't fit into your theory. Now I'm not gonna contest the importance of the angelic skull for women but what you probably forgot is the fact that angelic skulls look good precisely because of the good forward growth they display. And no, the average woman doesn't have the forward growth or facial development of Hilary Rhoda, I mean this should be obvious, she is a model for a reason.

So if her robust bones are the reason she is a model, why do so few female models have a large ramus and mandible like her? The other ladies posted here don't have that type of face.

I don't think the premise of the question is sensical in light of the theory of CFD. The only "feature" that makes sense to scrutinize in isolation is the position and shape of the maxilla, because it's the keystone bone. The maxilla determines all the other bones' position and shape. Mew has said as much.

The reason few models seem to have such a prominent ramus/mandible is two-fold: the level of CFD (and androgenic hormone profile, to a lesser extent) that would result in such a face usually results in a face that isn't as attractive as when there's less CFD.

The other reason is that models, and female models in particular, and especially female high fashion models are not really selected for the same qualities that straight men find attractive (a.k.a. conventional beauty). Fashion designers are overwhelmingly gay men, and speaking purely empirically, they prefer female models who look like pubescent boys. See: http://femininebeauty.info/becoming-a-supermodel I think leading Hollywood actresses are a better pool to draw examples from, but even there, as Mike Mew says, their development is "okay."

ReplyQuote
Posted : 29/02/2020 8:39 am
Elwynn
(@elwynn)
200+ Forum Posts

Just to tack on to what @EddieMoney was saying, consider this picture of a reconstruction of a paleolithic, female teenager:

paleolithic

Clearly, her face is very well-developed, and the jaw is exceptionally prominent. Does her development look healthy? Absolutely. Would the average, modern man find her attractive? Some would, but I think that most would consider her a little too masculine. If her jaw were less developed, she would likely look more feminine. On the flip side, many modern men would become more attractive if they could exchange their jaws for hers.

I don't want to take a side in the argument between Eddie and Silver, but I do see Eddie's point: women can sometimes benefit from less facial development because it could make them appear more feminine (sometimes), whereas this is less likely to be the case for men, who are interested in looking masculine.

 

24 years old

ReplyQuote
Posted : 29/02/2020 10:17 am
Autokrator and liked
qwerty135
(@qwerty135)
50+ Forum Posts
Posted by: @elwynn

Just to tack on to what @EddieMoney was saying, consider this picture of a reconstruction of a paleolithic, female teenager:

paleolithic

Clearly, her face is very well-developed, and the jaw is exceptionally prominent. Does her development look healthy? Absolutely. Would the average, modern man find her attractive? Some would, but I think that most would consider her a little too masculine. If her jaw were less developed, she would likely look more feminine. On the flip side, many modern men would become more attractive if they could exchange their jaws for hers.

I don't want to take a side in the argument between Eddie and Silver, but I do see Eddie's point: women can sometimes benefit from less facial development because it could make them appear more feminine (sometimes), whereas this is less likely to be the case for men, who are interested in looking masculine.

 

I don't know how accurate that scientist/artist's interpretation of a Paleolithic teen is, considering they only had the skull to base the soft tissue off of. At the very least, I don't know how representative of the average Paleolithic teen that interpretation is. I'd expect the midfacial protrusion of anyone from the Paleolithic Era to be absolutely staggering (simply look at skulls from the era and the prominence of the zygomatic arch, there's a widespread scientific consensus that skulls of that era had extremely prominent midfaces), and this picture doesn't show that. I'd also expect a much more compact face with a lower gonial angle, considering the large amount of mastication the individual likely engaged in on a daily basis (lower gonial angle offers more mechanical efficiency in chewing, which is one reason why we see uniformly low gonial angles in ancient populations -- I'm not saying that a low gonial angle is necessary for attractiveness, simply that they were very much commonplace at the time).

I think increased bone development is not mutually exclusive from a proportional lower third for women. For instance, look at this interpretation of a Mesolithic woman:

mesolithic

Her maxillary growth/development is much greater than most modern people (look at the ogee curve and midfacial protrusion), and yet her lower third is not "masculine". Now, I know it's an artist's interpretation, but I've seen people with similar development before in real life. Further bone development in women does not always lead to masculinity/an increased lower third proportion.

Honestly, I think a female can have a large ramus/mandibular length and still have a proportional lower third, we just don't see a lot of that in society today because of what @silver was getting at -- that almost everyone has some degree of CFD, as they don't do the extended chewing of our ancestors, nor do they have the masticatory muscle strength, nor the midfacial protrusion/cheekbones. The women who don't have as much bone development retain their angelic look with increased soft tissue prominence, and the women who do have more bone development don't grow in the way our ancestors did and thus sometimes have masculine lower thirds, greater facial height than is optimal, etc.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 29/02/2020 10:58 am
Captain Horatio Hornblower
(@horatio)
50+ Forum Posts
Posted by: @progress
Posted by: @eddiemoney

Hilary Rhoda would be cuter with a smaller mandible

Posted by: @eddiemoney

Rhoda's good looks aren't attributed to her tall ramus or prominent mandible. No woman (or man) is made attractive by a large mandible, anyway. 

To me it seems that the harmony of her whole face is very much dependent on her having a large mandible. With a smaller mandible she would lose that geometrical equilibrium that keeps the eyes fixed on the face. I agree that she could be 'cute' in the sense the local grocery store girl is cute,  but there is no doubt how much her large mandible defines her beauty:

I also want to point out that she looks worse in the after picture because her chin looks recessed, her jaw weak and her maxilla looks vertically grown . In other words, in the after picture she looks like the ''high CFD'' version of her. And this is what I was trying to say all along. You need bones to have a good craniofacial development for both men and women. Someone like Barbara Palvin has a small chin but her mandible is already more developed and protruding than 99% of women. Angelic skulls have more bone growth than the average woman because you need good bone growth to have good forward growth and you need good forward growth to have an angelic skull.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 29/02/2020 5:11 pm
Silver
(@silver)
100+ Forum Posts

@qwerty135 @horatio

That's exactly what I'm getting at. I would also add that that artist's recreation of a Paleolithic girl is very unlikely just because her palate is nowhere near as wide as we know people from that time had. I would be curious to see the skull(s) that was based on.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 29/02/2020 11:08 pm
EddieMoney
(@eddiemoney)
500+ Forum Posts
Posted by: @horatio
Posted by: @progress
Posted by: @eddiemoney

Hilary Rhoda would be cuter with a smaller mandible

Posted by: @eddiemoney

Rhoda's good looks aren't attributed to her tall ramus or prominent mandible. No woman (or man) is made attractive by a large mandible, anyway. 

To me it seems that the harmony of her whole face is very much dependent on her having a large mandible. With a smaller mandible she would lose that geometrical equilibrium that keeps the eyes fixed on the face. I agree that she could be 'cute' in the sense the local grocery store girl is cute,  but there is no doubt how much her large mandible defines her beauty:

I also want to point out that she looks worse in the after picture because her chin looks recessed, her jaw weak and her maxilla looks vertically grown . In other words, in the after picture she looks like the ''high CFD'' version of her. And this is what I was trying to say all along. You need bones to have a good craniofacial development for both men and women. Someone like Barbara Palvin has a small chin but her mandible is already more developed and protruding than 99% of women. Angelic skulls have more bone growth than the average woman because you need good bone growth to have good forward growth and you need good forward growth to have an angelic skull.

I don't think Barbara Palvin has a jaw that is more developed and protruding than 99% of women. From this view she has a Class 2 Div 2 dentition, which is very common in lots of people. In fact, you can see her retroclined upper incisors here.

barbara palvin actriz 3 a

The high incidence of Class 2 Div 2 faces would show that her jaw doesn't have any sort of magical prominence unseen in other women. In fact, she has a very short maxillary height which means her jaw lacks downward growth, as is the case in Class 2 Div 2.

283c22d14a6c9b8d0dd7e08fde719050

Now let's compare that with Rhoda

Hilary Rhoda Harpers Bazaar Kazakhstan 2016 Editorial03

There is no debate about who has more bony prominence. Rhoda clearly does. Rhoda has a longer ramus, longer middle third, and more prominent chin. But, Palvin is the one who has the more angelic look. So I still disagree that forward growth produces an angelic skull because Rhoda has clearly more forward (and downward) growth than Palvin, yet Palvin who has less bone on her face looks angelic. And Palvin also has a Class 2 Div 2, meaning there was some lack of growth happening anyway. 

Finally, I do agree the short faced morph of Rhoda could look better. Partially because women with short faces don't have long philtrums or wide mouths, yet the morph posted kept her long philtrum and wide mouth. Palvin has a shorter face than Rhoda and doesn't maintain a wide mouth and long philtrum. And again, Palvin has the more angelic/neotenous/feminine look and has a way less developed jaw. 

I still posit that less bone looks better on feminine faces on most cases. Not less to the point of looking like she has a developmental delay, but less vertical growth in the middle third, upper lip (Rhoda has a vertically longer midface than Palvin), and less growth in the ramus. Am I saying Rhoda is ugly? That's not even the discussion. My point is I have visual displays that show the advantage of less bone growth on a female face. Hilary Rhoda = athlete face, Barbara Palvin = angel face. 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 01/03/2020 12:26 am
Elwynn liked
Page 2 / 2

THE GREAT WORK

Warning:
Your Cranial Sutures Need To Be open for CranioSacral / Jaw Development!