Does he have a good maxilla position? Look how close his incisors seem to the tip of his nose.
Notice the seeming counterclockwise rotation of his maxilla and how the anterior part sits into his face. Also his eye support seems good. Like all other wide palate types he has a midline diastema.
Also from other pics his chin seems strong despite the fact the teeth aren't THAT far from the tip of his mandible.
Thoughts? Seems a good placement IMO
@Meltcel
hard to tell with such a wild picture.. i bet there was photoshop used here. Do you have a normal picture of him?
Here
Hollow cheeks. Chin projection excellent without it looking like an underbite. No sagging of the hyoid. Good support around eyes despite age.
He also doesn't show any indication of either an overbite nor an underbite despite the fact his teeth aren't textbook straight.
His maxilla is very short. It's interesting to look at, I don't think I've ever seen teeth that close to the nose before. But his maxilla isn't as far forward as it should be.. his face is kind of flat and he doesn't have much zygos. He's not ugly for sure, I mean he's an actor, but his face could be better.
I think you guys put too much stock in idealized morphs. Even in all the mewing and other expansion success stories I haven't seen anyone's face change to where they got super drastic bone remodeling around the zygos. Some people will never have super prominent zygos (they definitely aren't a feature common in those of Western European descent).
I'm not thinking about those morphs. They are very narrow to one specific phenotype that most people don't match up to anyways. But I think that having large zygos is universal to anyone who is robust and well developed. I think that the reason they aren't common in any group is because of diet/lifestyle/orthodontics and whatever else that holds people back from their potential.
Just to use some examples from non morph friendly phenotypes, Adam Levine has good zygos, puts Leary to shame. Kanye West, great zygos, puts Leary to shame. Harvey Weinstein, once king of Hollywood, great zygos, puts Leary to shame. Brad Pitt? Same. Dicaprio? Same. Trump? Great zygos.
I think you'll find once you start seeing it properly that people with large zygos just naturally get more respect and are in positions of power much more often. I don't know why or how this is true but just think about it for a few months and try noticing it.
I'm not sure how to grow the zygos. I had a theory that it had something to do with the temporalis muscle since it inserts through the zygomatic arch, but yeah I haven't seen anyone grow theirs in a before/after picture yet. Maybe someone who thinks they got growth can chime in.
Yeah, but a robust bone structure is largely determined in utero so I don't know that being concerned with that development really means much considering we can't really change it. If you don't have zygos the best maxillary advancement still won't give it to you. I haven't seen it in the success stories either.
Anyway the question was whether he had good maxilla positioning. I am not really impressed with his bone structure either for what it's worth. Do you think he has ideal maxilla positioning ?
As a rule of thumb, if you are not impressed, it's probably not ideal. Leary seems to have decent maxillary position. However, ideal maxillary position would require ideal maxillary width. His palatal width could be around 35mm +-5.
You are not a complete slave to the conditions you were exposed to in womb. Hormonal homeoestasis is largely influencable throughout life. What is determined in womb is setpoint sensitivity for androgenic receptors. Even those are not set in stone. Some have "cured" homosexuality and transsexuality at an adult age by simply achieving what I see as a fundamental change in their epigenetic hormonal setpoints, through diet, lifestyle and some neurosteroids.
Prominence of zygos is mostly a combination of two things: palatal width and maxillary position. Lack of facial harmony itself has little to do with lack of hormone-induced robustness. Facial harmony is available to most regardless of their hormonal status. Beauty may not be, as beauty is more than structural harmony. Make sure not to confuse these two. In my earlier edits my intent was to focus on harmony and proportions, not details concerning beauty and aesthetics.
Some have "cured" homosexuality and transsexuality at an adult age by simply achieving what I see as a fundamental change in their epigenetic hormonal setpoints, through diet, lifestyle and some neurosteroids.
@progress, this is an offensive and inaccurate assertion that is probably best left beyond the scope of this forum. If you want to edit it out of your post, I will delete this comment.
Facial harmony is available to most regardless of their hormonal status. Beauty may not be, as beauty is more than structural harmony. Make sure not to confuse these two. In my earlier edits my intent was to focus on harmony and proportions, not details concerning beauty and aesthetics.
What's the difference between facial harmony and beauty and could you name anyone who has the former but not the latter? I see plenty of people who seem to have a balanced face but wouldn't call them attractive, though personal preference likely comes into play with that. For example, I think many men with bald heads/very short hair can look "featureless" even with great facial development. (for the reverse, Dennis Leary doesn't have a perfect face, but IMO his hair gives him a more distinct look) Same with eyes, either the color or general look of them can seem lifeless regardless of having that horizontal squint to them. That's just what I think, not a fact of any kind. Anyway, are you referring to beauty as how features come together or an arrangement of facial bones along with a hormonal profile that goes beyond just looking harmonious?
Some have "cured" homosexuality and transsexuality at an adult age by simply achieving what I see as a fundamental change in their epigenetic hormonal setpoints, through diet, lifestyle and some neurosteroids.
@progress, this is an offensive and inaccurate assertion that is probably best left beyond the scope of this forum. If you want to edit it out of your post, I will delete this comment.
I will leave it. It is a neutral statement that supports the context I'm arguing for. I'm not here to protect anyone's ego. If a point of view you encounter while browsing the internet from the safety of your bedroom upsets you, it is the mirror you have to point your finger at, not me. I have no power over you. I don't know you, I have never seen you. This is not aimed directly at you, but to anyone who shares similar sentiments.
Take it up to @admin if this is something that truly disturbs you. He is the ultimate justice here. Like you, I merely follow my subjective sense of polite discourse. On my behalf, nothing has been violated. I'm sure you understand.
Facial harmony is available to most regardless of their hormonal status. Beauty may not be, as beauty is more than structural harmony. Make sure not to confuse these two. In my earlier edits my intent was to focus on harmony and proportions, not details concerning beauty and aesthetics.
What's the difference between facial harmony and beauty and could you name anyone who has the former but not the latter? I see plenty of people who seem to have a balanced face but wouldn't call them attractive, though personal preference likely comes into play with that. For example, I think many men with bald heads/very short hair can look "featureless" even with great facial development. (for the reverse, Dennis Leary doesn't have a perfect face, but IMO his hair gives him a more distinct look) Same with eyes, either the color or general look of them can seem lifeless regardless of having that horizontal squint to them. That's just what I think, not a fact of any kind. Anyway, are you referring to beauty as how features come together or an arrangement of facial bones along with a hormonal profile that goes beyond just looking harmonious?
I see it like this: 1) harmony is an aspect of beauty. 2) beauty is more than harmony. Some of it you already brought up. Complexion, color, details, healthiness, attitude, metabolic vigor etc. Health, beauty and function overlap a lot. Pregnant women are known to get a certain glow. A terminally ill patient withers away. The facial structure of neither is necessarily changing, but their perceived beauty is. As for naming particular individuals, I doubt it would turn out the way you expect it to turn out. It's just too subjective. Each of us would have a different opinion.
Some have "cured" homosexuality and transsexuality at an adult age by simply achieving what I see as a fundamental change in their epigenetic hormonal setpoints, through diet, lifestyle and some neurosteroids.
@progress, this is an offensive and inaccurate assertion that is probably best left beyond the scope of this forum. If you want to edit it out of your post, I will delete this comment.
I will leave it. It is a neutral statement that supports the context I'm arguing for. I'm not here to protect anyone's ego. If a point of view you encounter while browsing the internet from the safety of your bedroom upsets you, it is the mirror you have to point your finger at, not me. I have no power over you. I don't know you, I have never seen you. This is not aimed directly at you, but to anyone who shares similar sentiments.
Take it up to @admin if this is something that truly disturbs you. He is the ultimate justice here. Like you, I merely follow my subjective sense of polite discourse. On my behalf, nothing has been violated. I'm sure you understand.
I trust that you intended no offense, and my delicate sensibilities aren't aggrieved, but the notion that someone's sexual orientation or gender identity is a disease that can be cured is wrong, and the LGBT community has been subjected to abusive conversion therapy based on this pseudoscience for too long. I just don't want some impressionable young person reading this forum to take your ignorant statement as authoritative that their identity or orientation can be changed with enough determination like their craniofacial dystrophy. Since I've addressed the issue, I don't really care if you don't want to change the post, but @admin has stated before that discriminatory language shouldn't be tolerated.
Calling my point of view discriminatory is disappointing, but I acknowledge, understand and accept your differing view on the matter. I know my perspective is not popular, but to my defense I did not choose it. It chose me. I have no choice but to embrace it as a truth, because that is how it appears to me. As you wisely said, there should be no need to discuss this further within our community. We simply exist in different realities. Luckily we have enough common ground to build our relationship on mutual agreements instead of disagreements.
I don't think we should go down the path of censoring "wrong think". This is a forum that pretty much solely operates around scrutinizing concepts and ideas to help work towards more informed and effective solutions. While I don't necessarily agree with what he said it doesn't seem at all like he's harbouring ill intent towards such groups and doesn't seem discriminatory (in the very modern sense of the word) at all. People here seem mature enough to reach their own conclusions without being manipulated. If you both really disagree with what the other is saying then perhaps you should have a civil discussion about it instead of going down the path of quieting dissenters. There's enough censorship and labeling in discussion circles at the moment and it's clear that not tolerating people who have have different views doesn't help them or communities at all.
Skull and Jaw Correction
Join hundreds who are Tensegrity Mewing, enhancing the good results of mewing and reversing damage. Free Newsletter and Classes
Your email is safe with us, we don’t spam