So, I've been studying up on that golden ratio stuff, and made my own golden ratio face graph.

It's all about proportion, centering, and alignment. http://i.imgur.com/Z5qO1.jpg

The purple circles represent the areas of discrepancy. The purple circle at the bottom right corner of her jaw, is there because her jaw is not proportional to the other side. The large black rectangle is suppose to align your pupils with your jawline. As you can see, they do not, therefore that is a discrepancy.

The medium sized black rectangle within the largest black rectangle is supposed to align the top arches of the lips to the bottom arch of the lower lip. In that area, she's fine. Then you must find the proportions of her lips. You do this by dividing her lip in half with another black line. Then you divide that newly made rectangle into two, based on the ends of her lips back to the center. In the purple circle you see there on the left side of her lips, there is an "excess" of upper lip in the lower lip. This is because to fit the golden ratio, her lips must be in a natural smile which would be the only way to not have that "excess". Therefore, that is a discrepancy.

The large green rectangle on her right eye is supposed to align the center of her eyes, to the lower center of her nose, back to the far end of her eye. As you can see in the purple circle, the end of her eye does not match up with the corner of the rectangle, therefore, is a discrepancy. There is also a smaller green rectangle within the larger green rectangle. That is a line that supposed to align the end of her nostril, to the closer corner of her eye. As you can see, it does not match up and is therefore a discrepancy. Because of this, we know that her eyes are off center and that they should be realigned to match and brought up a bit higher and more to the right.

The largest orange rectangle over the girl's iris of her left eye is supposed to align the closest corners of her eye with the ends of her iris. If you zoom in, you can see that the top right corner of that rectangle does not match up with the corner of her eyelid (without misaligning with the ends of her iris) and is therefore a discrepancy.

Lastly, the long rectangle is supposed to run through the center of the pupil to connect to the far ends of the eyelid and as you can see, the bottom left corner does not align onto the eyelid (without misaligning with the center of the pupil) and is therefore a discrepancy.

Pretty random but I thought it was cool.

TL;DR: This girl is mathematically ugly.

So instead of treating women as sixual objects, we're now treating them like mathematical problems?

Hooray for us?

No, of course not! Men can be mathematically ugly too!

I just used a girl because it was the best facial frontal I could find on short notice.

Yeah....sorry, if someone claimed another person (man or woman) was 'ugly' due to their facial proportions not matching some "Golden Ratio", I'd consider them to be the unattractive one.

It's science, you can't help but feel she is ugly whether you like it or not.

EDIT: Though, she is not 100% ugly. Everyone has slight discrepancies because achieving a perfect golden ratio is impossible. She only has a few obvious discrepancies as many people do. So, she's not really "The Face" of mathematical hideousness, but an example.

And women always ask why I bring my ruler on the first date.

You have got to be [censored] kidding me....

Sorry mate, but calling a girl ugly based on her physically not matching your ideal ratio of facial proportions makes you personally about as attractive as a poo. I for one think that girl in the pic isnt bad looking at all, and I'd easily find her more attractive than someone who aligns themselves to the thinking in the OP.

This is so shallow I am hoping for the sake of the human race it's a deliberate troll.

I see how this makes me sound like a dike, but it's science, evolution, biology! You guys can't challenge it, you can try by reigning in talking about personality and stuff, but our primal human instincts are what differentiate the pretty from the ugly, naturally.

Not sure if joking or knows nothing about science, evolution, or biology.

You must be trolling.

Initially sure, but you can reprogram your feelings and thoughts. We aren't limited to base responses, or we would be no better than animals.

Edit
Oh god we got ourselves a junior mathematician trying to teach us about subjects outside of his scope of expertise. Ie psychology and biology. Would someone stick a giant pocket protector over him so we don't have to listen to such driveling nonsense?

Millions years of evolution to the human form has shaped us to what we are today. Every human form has a ratio of beauty to fulfill. This is where the line is drawn. There is no "ugly" when i comes to fat, thin, thick, faces. It's about proportion. So, a big nose must be paired with big eyes in order to fulfill the ratio of beauty properly.

So, are you saying you can challenge evolution? The process that has formed perfect cheek bones, perfect eyes, the perfect jawline, perfect proportions, over many years of trial and error?

Meh, you don't need maths to know who is and isn't ugly. Fix her hair, clear her skin up, and make her lose some weight. 7.5/10 at least.

Proportionality and all that are well and good theoretically, but pretty much no one really gives a damn.

Edit: That isn't to say, you're completely wrong, I mean, yeah, she isn't perfect looking, but what I mean is, for all intents and purposes (primarily mating, in this case) it wouldn't make a difference.

Yes, yes it does.


Of course I can. Ever heard of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Concepts of beauty and attractiveness are entirely subjective. You can't simply throw out a mathematical ratio and state "this makes someone good looking". Yes, there are traits generally considered to be attractive to other humans, but those are more the result of societal pressure than personal choice. I find personality far more important than physical looks. I'd rather spend my time with an 'unattractive', intelligent woman than some dumb bimbo. My 'natural instincts' tell me that my time is better spent with someone with a brain than briasts. I'd happily spend hours debating over your point of evolution as well, but we'd find a rather large brown bear bearing (see what I did there) down on us. Frankly I find your comment of "you can't challenge evolution" to be one of the funniest things I've had the joy to read on here.

If you honestly think that a mathematical ratio determines a person's attractiveness, then God help any women you go out with Dalek.

That's what I'm talking about. This is a black and white, mathematical view. Math is primal. It has existed forever and can not be changed, only rediscovered and reimagined. So, since math is base, so must be our perspective on base beauty.

Math is nothing. It's the universe that has existed and humans that systematized these numbers into math. It isn't primal. It's not innate. There are no golden ratios. They can change over time.

Edit
I still fully endorse my proposal to stick a giant pocket protector over him so we don't have to listen to this.

OP, show us your face on your "beauty scale"

I can challenge your claims that a face ratio is the only thing that matters.

Evolution has programmed us to prefer good genetics. This isn't limited to the face. It includes shape, size, and proportion in all body parts down to the toes, physical fitness, hair and skin color, flexibility, agility, intelligence, speech, personality, body language, and all sorts of other things.

Then there's the social factors on top of that, because we're social creatures. Wealth, position, family, friends. Then there's the fact humans are more capable of weighing checks and balances than other species. In many, many cases we'd consider ourselves better off with an "inferior" mate because other options come with too many negatives.

Calling a girl ugly because her face isn't biologically perfect is the epitome of shallowness. If you're serious, you should be ashamed.

As for your misunderstanding of biology, point us to the genes which force us to always prefer a perfect face.

As for your misunderstanding of science, point us to the studies which show humans always prefer a perfect face.

Did you know we are biologically programed to prefer women with oversized hips because they have a higher chance of surviving birthing?

Wheres this golden ratio for the whole body?






And this.

I mentioned that earlier. It's trial and error. Each set of humans has their own golden ratio. I'm sure that neanderthals had their own ratio of beauty in reference to their faces and so do we. In a billion years, so will those humans. It changes, here is no end to this system, only when that species of human becomes extinct.


This is what I mentioned earlier about primal beauty. I am not factoring in societal factors and such. I know all about the bodily ratio though, there is a separate ratio for that as well. Same as the face but on the body.

I don't normally lol...

but when I do, it's at amazing things like this.

And who determines whether a particular trait is beautiful or ugly? This kind of reminds me of some 'scientific' study where the briasts or face of some hot starlet of the moment is declared to be 'perfect'. Yeah, I think Liv Tyler is hot too, but that doesn't make it science.

*makes dismissive wanking motion*

I would gladly because I have done face graphs for myself already, but physically. I am fairly proportionally and I'm glad about it!

But I lack a powerful enough camera to take a picture like this. When I do, I will be sure to get back to you.

I read somewhere that for men, the shoulder to waist ratio is 1:7. Don't quote me on that though, it was a while ago.

Edit: http://www.askmen.com/sports/bodybuilding_900/974_the-golden-ratio.html

Personally it still sounds bogus to me though.

Edit 2: I meant 1 : 0.7

How stupid of me.