0
Thumbs Up |
Received: 4,730 Given: 5,555 |
The very case when science is far enough from the common folks - Pattinson has a kind of bulged-in face, which lacks symmetry because of that (wife's opinion).
In Hollywood, and even on this forum there are some members who are more handsome.
Thumbs Up |
Received: 23,081 Given: 56,859 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 23,081 Given: 56,859 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 23,081 Given: 56,859 |
Thumbs Up |
Received: 1,840 Given: 2,076 |
He's so ugly. He even has freakish unsymmetric eyes where the right eye has higher upper eyelid exposure and a more protruding eyeball, but his left eye (which looks better and more chinky) has an inner epicanthic fold:
Thumbs Up |
Received: 7,095 Given: 24,273 |
I think attractiveness is subjective, but it isn't in any substantial way based on the fucking 'golden ratio'. Saying facial symmetry is "objectively" attractive to 99.999999% of human beings is not science. That's Daily Mail nonsense.
Spoiler!
I recall seeing a John Cleese documentary about Phi, years ago now, about how your facial symmetry and ratio of your features dictates how 'beautiful' you are. So beauty is governed by maths, not science.
'Scientists' produced a wire-frame model of the perfect human face and overlaid it onto prime Elizabeth Hurley - she was near as damn it within all the lines.
Spoiler!
Thumbs Up |
Received: 12,441 Given: 31,606 |
Brits look best, yes, but I am not a fan of his looks, I prefer for example Robbie Williams or Jason Williamson
Thumbs Up |
Received: 24,207 Given: 15,978 |
What’s done in darkness will come to light
Thumbs Up |
Received: 6,272 Given: 5,610 |
I think he is attractive but more beautiful than Brad Pitt no way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks