I was playing around with a couple of faces in photoshop today, trying to figure out their specific pathologies. This face belongs to one of the original female actors in M.D. House. What is peculiar about this gif is that her jaw, cheeks and forehead become stronger when the face is rotated around an axis that causes her mid-face to recess towards the skull.
This kind of movement illustrates:
- how dorsal bump disappears
- how gonial angle increases
- how forehead gets stronger appearance
- how the direction of bite aligns with that of eyes as the bite swings down.
Chin, philtrum, nose, and the contour along cheek all seem to be in more pleasing alignment with each other:
Looking at Yay's latest progress pics, I think similar increased concavity of the face, with the eyes as the principal axis, can be noticed:
Thoughts welcome.
The morph you did is interesting, and I like looking at morphs, but if her bones moved like that in real life I think she'd be dead.
Let's look at this case:
These pictures above are the best real life example we have of someone altering their gonial angle.
It looks like in his case that the back of jaw grew straight down leading to a longer ramus (check near the earlobe), and that his zygos grew as well in order to accommodate the more forward position of the jaw. But did the maxilla tilt as well? And did this lead to recession? If his maxilla did tilt, it didn't tilt back into his face like in the morph, but instead swung open like a door on a hinge (check pics 3 vs 4). Perhaps this is how midfaces can get shorter. Maybe it's not about maxilla length, but about maxilla angle. Just a thought.
So to conclude I don't think that expansion/growth has to lead to recession.
But what do you see?
Because the maxilla goes upwards and more "into" the face because when recessed it goes AWAY from it.
Like a door hinge, the front of the maxilla is lifted.
This makes perfect sense to me. When the maxilla goes forward it also goes up. After all the forces from the tongue near the incisive papilla drive it this very direction.
This is the ideal maxilla.
I am so glad I can now get my tongue near the incisive papilla so that I can make progress like this. This truly is how forward growth works. Recession goes in the opposite direction (with gravity).
Your morph went away from gravity.
This is a bit unrelated, but I'm not sure if this idea has any merit to warrant a new topic. Hoping to get some feedback.
So Yay's pic with the arrows got me thinking. I once read something about the CATS founder and how he treats Down's Syndrome patients. If I recall correctly, he basically compresses their face using force from the top and bottom. Force from the bottom is covered by mewing... but what about some force from the top?
Attached is a screenshot from a massage routine based on Golki therapy (a Korean massage therapy intended to create a "small face")
Is this type of force on the skull, while mewing, a good compliment to mewing...? Could it help with duck face? Any potential dangers...?
ETA: I guess you could get a similar sort of effect if you were mewing while doing a headstand as well...?
Remember this pain... and let it activate you.
This is excellent. I think I may have noticed similar progression as Yay. My face does seem more concave.
This will vary based on a person's specific condition, but typically the tongue should be pushing parallel to the occlusal plane (the line along which the teeth sit, and the alveolar ridge is). In studies done on maxillary protraction with devices, they have noted that pulling along this plane causes growth and rotation of the maxilla. This rotation is (Person in front of you, facing right) counter-clockwise. In other words, the back molars come vertically closer to each other and the front teeth move vertically away from eachother - but the mandible rotates so occlusion and a closed bite is maintained.
I think this is that posterior open bite that the starecta appliance tries to fix with a wedge. If the maxilla is pushed forward to its proper position, the posterior open bite closes as the maxilla rotates. The rotation is accompanied by growth at the sutures as well, so overall it just looks like a more full midface. I think what is missing in your morph is the forward growth - it doesn't just rotate where it is, it grows forward and rotates up.
https://www.slideshare.net/indiandentalacademy/maxillary-protraction-drmmvaradharaja
There is another study/lecture where I learned that the primary point of resistance against forward maxillary movement is the zygomatic buttress. This is where you get the "I feel it in my cheekbones" resistance when you really get the posture and force down correctly. You might feel it alternatively on the outside of your cheekbones or on the interior near the nose.
This resistance point is also the rotational hinge point in growth. If you push the maxilla directly against it, it grows forward. If you push from underneath, you have counterclockwise rotation, and vice-versa. This is from maxillary protraction facemask studies (bone anchored).
My own profile has become more concave as I have expanded. I haven't really rotated a ton either. However I assume there has been some. I think seeing less gum means that this upward rotation is happening.
Hopefully that nice eye effect happens as well. Being the maxilla also would push the brow up theoretically. It is a very aesthetic quality IMO which looks good on both sexes (it doesn't appear to be dimorphic either)
We have people who disagree, people who agree and people who are a bit of both :D. Couldn't have gone better.
@allixa While his photos are inconveniently different from each other, and his still existing dorsal bump and the angle between his ear and mandible makes me wonder whether something about his anatomical function is still amiss (he looks improved, but not ready), I get what you mean. Your sentiment about maxilla swinging as if on a hinge certainly makes sense. The actual question for me is: what is the hinge? No rotation happens in isolation. Where is the exact axis along which maxillary rotation happens? I suspect it is somewhere around the eyes, because of both their proximity to the tongue and the anatomical utility of sight. My animation may be a little misleading if taken literally, I attempted to picture the general relative dynamics between the changing facial proportions, not necessarily absolute movement.
@Meltcel Yes, that seems reasonable.
@greensmoothies There may be some merit to this. I have noted leaning against a wall with the top of my forehead causing pleasant pressure within the skull. I was unaware whether or not it is productive, but now that you mentioned it too, it seems worth some experimentation.
@admin I agree about the retouched pic lacking in forward growth. I was not successful in achieving proper looking forward growth for the pic. I just couldn't get it all fit together in a pleasing way. Of course, facial harmony is a matter of mere millimeters so the problem might be a matter of me not willing to be meticulous enough to produce a good example. Thanks for the slides, I have to mull over all this.
Here is another "study" of Rashida Jones from last night:
From cute to gorgeous in 1½ seconds. If there is interest I can continue posting these.
Forward growth should really be termed UPWARD growth as it better conveys the way the bones shift position.
Forward growth should really be termed UPWARD growth as it better conveys the way the bones shift position.
I could go with that. While it's mostly the directional alignment of facial features that causes the perceived forward appearance, it's the concrete upward movement that allows the alignment to be reached. The face as a whole does not move as much forward as it seems to.
From cute to gorgeous in 1½ seconds. If there is interest I can continue posting these.
Definitely keep posting morphs. I find them interesting.
Now as far as Rashida Jones is concerned, you have to be careful because she has a different skull type than the woman in your first post due to her ethnicity. By morphing her skull in that way you're actually completely changing her genetics. Remember there was a user in here a while ago asking if he could fix his 'duck lips' through mewing when in reality it was a genetic thing. TGW stated that he doesn't want this forum to go too much into racial talks so I won't press the issue too much but just keep an eye out for that.
As for where the hinge is:
I'm thinking that it is the sutures under the eyes along with the sutures that run between the eyes near the bridge of the nose. Like @Meltcel stated, due to the way the tongue pushes on the palate, there might be more growth on the lower sutures than the upper ones which creates that hinge effect.
This is a bit unrelated, but I'm not sure if this idea has any merit to warrant a new topic. Hoping to get some feedback.
So Yay's pic with the arrows got me thinking. I once read something about the CATS founder and how he treats Down's Syndrome patients. If I recall correctly, he basically compresses their face using force from the top and bottom. Force from the bottom is covered by mewing... but what about some force from the top?
Attached is a screenshot from a massage routine based on Golki therapy (a Korean massage therapy intended to create a "small face")
Is this type of force on the skull, while mewing, a good compliment to mewing...? Could it help with duck face? Any potential dangers...?
ETA: I guess you could get a similar sort of effect if you were mewing while doing a headstand as well...?
That would compress the cranial space over time wouldn't it? I'm worried it would have a negative effect on the brain.
My own profile has become more concave as I have expanded. I haven't really rotated a ton either. However I assume there has been some. I think seeing less gum means that this upward rotation is happening.
Hopefully that nice eye effect happens as well. Being the maxilla also would push the brow up theoretically. It is a very aesthetic quality IMO which looks good on both sexes (it doesn't appear to be dimorphic either)
Does it look more concave simply because the jaw is more prominent now, or did the middle of your face actually sink in? In the pictures below you can see that without the jawbone being visible, the face after mewing looks more convex, but when the jawbone comes into play, it looks more concave like you say. It might be similar to an optical illusion.
My own profile has become more concave as I have expanded. I haven't really rotated a ton either. However I assume there has been some. I think seeing less gum means that this upward rotation is happening.
Hopefully that nice eye effect happens as well. Being the maxilla also would push the brow up theoretically. It is a very aesthetic quality IMO which looks good on both sexes (it doesn't appear to be dimorphic either)
Does it look more concave simply because the jaw is more prominent now, or did the middle of your face actually sink in? In the pictures below you can see that without the jawbone being visible, the face after mewing looks more convex, but when the jawbone comes into play, it looks more concave like you say. It might be similar to an optical illusion.
I doubt the middle of the face sinks in. If anything I find I have more "filler" below my cheeks. When I touch my face it feels less sunken. The maxilla has filled in more of the skin around my nose so in this way it isn't concave at all.
But, check that guy's ears. They are tilted. His midface neither lost nor gained convexity. He just has a tilt.
As far as I go, What has become concave (relatively) is my lip to nose relation. My lips don't push out as much and my chin has come forward. This is what is more concave.
However, My natural profile is actually convex anyway due to my phenotype. I doubt my chin will ever go past my upper lip. What I do predict though is given my current progress that my lips will flatten out and my profile will have a Nick Bateman / Adam Levine quality where the chin is strong but the upper lip is still ahead of it. I have a similar phenotype to Adam Levine which is why I say this
So it won't be a true concave profile (still convex) but more concave than it is with a down swung maxilla.
In essence while swinging the maxilla upwards makes lips pout less, the actual shape of your bones will determine your end result. Orthotropics/oralmyofunctiaonal therapy can't change your genetics, just theoretically get you to where you should be with healthy alignment.
Not every person has the genetic potential for a David Gandyesque profile nor should they want one. I know if I get maxilla movement to the ideal I probably won't have my chin in front of my lips. My skull just wasn't built for that which is why I predict a more convex result like that of Adam's
In the end beauty IS about illusion. Beauty is synonymous to sum of parts coming together as a greater whole that can only be felt but not sensed, because it is not really there. That is what makes is alluring.
Ah yes, my bad, I asked the hinge question regarding maxillary rotation, but what I really meant whether there is specific hinge/anchor point around which it would be convenient to center the whole facial rotation, similar to what I attempted in the OP. Individual bone movement is certainly induced through sutures, but I think the overall hinge effect itself is just a result of combined growth from all sutures rather than some sutures growing more than others. Well, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But if you remember that lady who was unhappy with the results of her palatal expansion, she had nice cheeks, but no facial concavity (or convexity depending on your perspective) to support it. In a way, by solely expanding one suture, overall facial harmony/alignment can worsen until the rest of the skull is encouraged to catch up. Every suture operates within a different dimensional axis. Aesthetic alignment can happen only when these axises are dynamically resting against each other (tongue posture enables this). Kind of like the skin of a soccerball.
To me those two particular pictures you chose are deceiving because they are taken from angles that coincidentally exaggerate the differences. Bassed on eye visibility, hairline/forehead ratio and the location of ears it seems that the left picture is taken from a slightly more posterior, and possibly higher angle, both of which distort the face in a way that the angle of the second picture counters.
But the REAL problem about my argument is this: Where do we center the head in before/after pictures?
And the answer is: depends on where the growth has happened and by how much. And that it is next to impossible to determine from pictures. At best we can determine that the face has improved.
Phenotypic variance in aesthetics is a good point. However, because there is not much phenotypic variance in anatomical function, and because form follows function, every sufficiently healthy human should be capable of developing aesthetically coherent, pleasing proportions. Generally all who develop pleasing proportions, do so out of lifestyle factors, not genetics. Birth defects and genetic illness excluded. What I achieved for Rashida was increased facial coherence.
Indeed, I am not saying she could look exactly like this, but that she could have proportions similar to this.
To be honest, I don't really understand what is being debated in this thread. I guess we are asking if the goal is to move all of the maxilla up and forward, or if we are moving the bottom of the maxilla up and forward (including the palate, alveolar process, etc.) while tilting back the top of the maxilla (including the frontal process and infraorbital margin), perhaps hinging around the zygomatic process.
I have always thought about it as a transposition of the entire maxilla up and forward. If anything, I have been trying to achieve rotational movement in the opposite direction (tilting the top of the maxilla forward rather than backward). Mew talks about this a little in the design of his MewVector headgear. Here is an image taken from this lecture ( https://youtu.be/-pzL3ETuiKc?t=14m53s ).
The posterior attachment points add that rotational arrow. In my case, when I smile I have gingival exposure in the back of my mouth above my molars and bicuspids, but all of my gums and part of my teeth are covered by my lips in the front. This makes me think that I need to bring up my posterior maxilla more than my anterior. This would have the effect of tilting the top of the maxilla forward. So I have incorporated those posterior anchorage points in my DIY headgear design and I've angled down the central anterior attachment point so that all of the vectors in the front are pulling forward. I also think this is why Mewing with the posterior 1/3 of the tongue is important. I am not totally sure how this comports with the slides that @admin posted above. Maybe Mew's vectors are like figure A.
Am I misunderstanding this thread's debate? I would appreciate any help reconciling these ideas.
@Meltcel Adam Levine's face is significantly recessed. The archetypal phenotype of that man would look vastly different. Perhaps something like this:
The rough angle of ears and eyes is a good indicator of where the mandible should be pointing at. The jaw in your picture misses the angle by like 45 degrees.
That's a nice morph @Progress but phenotypically there is no reason why Adam Levine should look this way.
There is no reason to believe he nor the guy below are recessed. Some phenotypes carry a convex profile even if properly positioned. This is just the way those particular bones are proportioned. Especially in many narrow skulled individuals.
If you want to know what a recessed Adam Levine looks like, I know a guy (me). If he was recessed like you think he is, how and why did you come to that conclusion?
Your archetypal phenotype with such concave proportions is seldom found in narrow/long skulled individuals. Adam Levine would at best look like Nick Bateman with more expansion and upward growth. I also have NEVER seen someone go from naturally convex to concave profile even with surgery. Have you? I would like to see examples. I doubt Adam would look that way even if he mewed since birth. Not all healthy profiles have to look that specific way
Model Nick Bateman has a flat and convex profile. His upper lip is ahead of his chin by a few millimeters. Still harmonious, still aesthetic.
Yes there is, because phenotypical variation is about measurable dimensions and minute details, not aesthetic proportions. The dimensions and details are already there in the pic. I only have to manipulate the proportions until they match the needs of a more optimal anatomical function. It creates a good estimation, but a horrible prediction, so please don't take it as that.
The reasons are similar as for the Rashida Jones line overlay I posted. Form, function, nature, evolution & reproduction, beauty, aesthetics, golden ratios, mathematics, all that crap. They are all part of the same framework. If connecting these concepts seems unintuitive to you, ruminate on it for a while. Assume the connection exists, and you will be quicker to perceive it.
Allegedly humans have low genetic diversity compared to our evolutionary brothers. Look at this group of chimps:
Then consider this:
That group of primates you just saw? More genetically different to other chimps than all of humanity amongst itself. (I, like you, am not willing to delve further into inspecting the legitimacy of this statement). Yet they all look like generic chimps with subtle variation. They look the same, because they all live the same life, which is one that is supportive to the maintanenace of anatomically fit form and function. For humans, being anatomically fit means having a mandible that is a bit less than horizontal. Excessively tilted mandible is always a sign of A) dysfunction B) lack of development C) both
You are not born as a phenotypical "birdface", because such phenotype does not exist. You MAY THOUGH be born as an epigenetical birdface. A lot about the lives of the immediate ancestors influence the genetic expression of the offspring. Such could partly explain what is going on with this family from Mew's lecture:
Bateman does not have optimal development (further confirmed by posture), but he is blessed with good features. He can get away with it, just like many Hollywood actors can. Actors and models are either good looking people, or average people with lucky flaws. Bateman is latter. His chin single-handedly saves his profile. Someone else with such proportions could be considered average.
This is a bit unrelated, but I'm not sure if this idea has any merit to warrant a new topic. Hoping to get some feedback.
So Yay's pic with the arrows got me thinking. I once read something about the CATS founder and how he treats Down's Syndrome patients. If I recall correctly, he basically compresses their face using force from the top and bottom. Force from the bottom is covered by mewing... but what about some force from the top?
Attached is a screenshot from a massage routine based on Golki therapy (a Korean massage therapy intended to create a "small face")
Is this type of force on the skull, while mewing, a good compliment to mewing...? Could it help with duck face? Any potential dangers...?
ETA: I guess you could get a similar sort of effect if you were mewing while doing a headstand as well...?
That would compress the cranial space over time wouldn't it? I'm worried it would have a negative effect on the brain.
It's possible and I'm thinking that the top of the head isn't the ideal counter-pressure point. But I honestly don't know even if this might be a good idea to begin with. But that said, I'm intrigued by the additional force I felt on my maxilla while Mewing when trying this. It also brought to mind something that Mew once said about the Mackenzie chin tuck (MCT). Some people were asking if the MCT would worsen a receded chin, and he said it would make it better because the backwards force of the tuck actually ended up promoting forward growth, in the end. Related concept? Not totally sure. So I don't have a mind for this sort of thing at all it seems and I think I need some playdo and another pair of hands to see what kind of movement potentially occurs with these combined forces. For example, what happens when I apply ~500g of force in an up and out direction from the bottom (as with Mewing) then ~500g pressure down and in from the top. Or should the force from the top be applied differently? Keep in mind, I'm not even sure if top-down force ought to even be applied in the first place, just speculating here...
The aforementioned Golki therapy has such movements applying downward and inward force, with the intention being to effectively mould a "smaller face" (not actually smaller in the strict sense of the term, they just use force to make the face not as long and more horizontal+forward grown by promoting the same sort of growth that Mewing can, and then lymphatic drainage massage to remove puffiness of the face + various other modalities)
And guys, sorry about the use of the term "duck lips" and maybe that comment was off-topic ITT, but is there a better term to use? Maybe some parameters for discussing this phenomena more appropriately could be established? It's just that... pretty sure Mewing caused it for me, as it wasn't something I had prior to Mewing, but I still believe in the process and hope that discussion about complimentary modalities etc can be explored related to this phenomena. Perhaps there's something wrong with my Mewing technique and best practices for avoiding this phenomena can be established. So far, I'm exploring open-mouth chewing (OMC), face pulling (Plato's method or with fingers and thumbs), myobrace, and having some hope that it's all perhaps just an awkward stage prior to the upswing of the maxilla.
To be honest, I don't really understand what is being debated in this thread. I guess we are asking if the goal is to move all of the maxilla up and forward, or if we are moving the bottom of the maxilla up and forward (including the palate, alveolar process, etc.) while tilting back the top of the maxilla (including the frontal process and infraorbital margin), perhaps hinging around the zygomatic process.
I saw a comment on claimingpower once about face pulling (or in this case, it's more like... pushing?) with the thumbs on the zygomatic process, the belief being this helps with the upswing of the maxilla?
What if you could anchor your face pulling on the Zygomatic process of the maxilla rather than the teeth? If you insert your thumbs inside your mouth along the vestibule (between the cheeks and upper gums) until you reach behind the Zygomatic process, hook the tips of your thumbs around that projection and then apply force pulling up and out, it generates a satisfying sensation that feels like it could, if maintained, achieve more efficient adjustments.
Doesn't feel satisfying to me, more weird. Any thoughts on this face pulling technique?
Remember this pain... and let it activate you.
To be honest, I don't really understand what is being debated in this thread. I guess we are asking if the goal is to move all of the maxilla up and forward, or if we are moving the bottom of the maxilla up and forward (including the palate, alveolar process, etc.) while tilting back the top of the maxilla (including the frontal process and infraorbital margin), perhaps hinging around the zygomatic process.
I saw a comment on claimingpower once about face pulling (or in this case, it's more like... pushing?) with the thumbs on the zygomatic process, the belief being this helps with the upswing of the maxilla?
What if you could anchor your face pulling on the Zygomatic process of the maxilla rather than the teeth? If you insert your thumbs inside your mouth along the vestibule (between the cheeks and upper gums) until you reach behind the Zygomatic process, hook the tips of your thumbs around that projection and then apply force pulling up and out, it generates a satisfying sensation that feels like it could, if maintained, achieve more efficient adjustments.
Doesn't feel satisfying to me, more weird. Any thoughts on this face pulling technique?
Funny, I remember noticing that comment too, and I remember experimenting with inserting my thumbs inside my mouth behind the zygomatic processes and pulling up and forward for a few sessions. It feels intriguing, but I've never been able to make much progress from finger pressure alone on the teeth/alveolar ridge or the zygomatic processes. I think the commenter was trying to figure out that mysterious "Neymarjr technique" mentioned in that article that CP eventually abandoned and we never really learned about. The hints suggested that it involved temporary anchorage devices (TADS), since it required "minor surgery." So this comment seems to be alluding to the idea that you could insert the TADS into the zygomatic processes rather than the alveolar ridge and use that as the attachment point for extra-oral traction. I doubt that was actually Neymarjr's "revolutionary" method. But his reports of dramatic results were compelling.
Yes there is, because phenotypical variation is about measurable dimensions and minute details, not aesthetic proportions. The dimensions and details are already there in the pic. I only have to manipulate the proportions until they match the needs of a more optimal anatomical function. It creates a good estimation, but a horrible prediction, so please don't take it as that.
The reasons are similar as for the Rashida Jones line overlay I posted. Form, function, nature, evolution & reproduction, beauty, aesthetics, golden ratios, mathematics, all that crap. They are all part of the same framework. If connecting these concepts seems unintuitive to you, ruminate on it for a while. Assume the connection exists, and you will be quicker to perceive it.
Allegedly humans have low genetic diversity compared to our evolutionary brothers. Look at this group of chimps:
Then consider this:
That group of primates you just saw? More genetically different to other chimps than all of humanity amongst itself. (I, like you, am not willing to delve further into inspecting the legitimacy of this statement). Yet they all look like generic chimps with subtle variation. They look the same, because they all live the same life, which is one that is supportive to the maintanenace of anatomically fit form and function. For humans, being anatomically fit means having a mandible that is a bit less than horizontal. Excessively tilted mandible is always a sign of A) dysfunction B) lack of development C) both
You are not born as a phenotypical "birdface", because such phenotype does not exist. You MAY THOUGH be born as an epigenetical birdface. A lot about the lives of the immediate ancestors influence the genetic expression of the offspring. Such could partly explain what is going on with this family from Mew's lecture:
Bateman does not have optimal development (further confirmed by posture), but he is blessed with good features. He can get away with it, just like many Hollywood actors can. Actors and models are either good looking people, or average people with lucky flaws. Bateman is latter. His chin single-handedly saves his profile. Someone else with such proportions could be considered average.
The people you posted (especially the child) have no profile in the manner of Levine. In fact Levine's profile more closely resembles the non Western man anyway. Adam does not have a weak chin and in fact has a profile that is harmonious and healthy.
Adam doesn't have a bird profile whatsoever. Just a convex one. Can you show me examples where someone went from convex to concave? I haven't seen any posted here thus far.
The neymar fiasco was a scam, and everything that he said can be dismissed. The userbase was desperate for results, and a person shows up describing an incredible secret new technique that they built themselves. Neymar also said that he was under 20 and in school. Somehow this amateur school child convinces a surgeon to just do whatever he asked, and to pay him out of pocket. Then this incredible prodigy - despite absolutely stunning results and the ability to convince surgeons to play with his face - is unable to show any before-after X-rays or pictures (which the surgeon would obviously have taken).
Other accounts appear shilling for the product, culminating in neymjar requesting thousands of dollars from desperate people via email. The blog then promotes this technique in a post. Of course, you have to send your money pretty much anonymously to someone living in Brazil - right. Once (Reportedly) dozens of people had sent in their thousands of dollars, CP disappears from updating his website, the comments sections become unusable. I contacted Neymar myself, and the website link he sent me (maxillamethod.com) is now up for sale.
CP started trying to juice people for money right away with his website, starting off with a paid forum that people kept having trouble cancelling their memberships to. I bought the membership, looked around, and was thoroughly disappointed that I had been tricked into thinking I would see results there. Couple that with the fact that his career was in marketing, he was offering the whole "Give me your email for a free ebook" crap - As soon as he got visitors his main intent was to start pulling as much money out of the userbase as possible.
Either neymar scammed everyone (including CP, who allowed his users to be targeted for a scam), or CP and a friend scammed people together. For tens of thousands of dollars. Fortunately I do not think the number of people scammed is as high as they reported - they simply made up fake participants to give the feeling of legitimacy.
If it walks like a scam, quacks like a scam, shows no proof like a scam, asks for thousands of dollars sent to Brazil like a scam, then completely disappears with no trace for over a year like a scam... Neymar was scam. And CP should be ashamed for either being a part of it, or allowing to happen to his users.
The neymar fiasco was a scam, and everything that he said can be dismissed. The userbase was desperate for results, and a person shows up describing an incredible secret new technique that they built themselves. Neymar also said that he was under 20 and in school. Somehow this amateur school child convinces a surgeon to just do whatever he asked, and to pay him out of pocket. Then this incredible prodigy - despite absolutely stunning results and the ability to convince surgeons to play with his face - is unable to show any before-after X-rays or pictures (which the surgeon would obviously have taken).
Other accounts appear shilling for the product, culminating in neymjar requesting thousands of dollars from desperate people via email. The blog then promotes this technique in a post. Of course, you have to send your money pretty much anonymously to someone living in Brazil - right. Once (Reportedly) dozens of people had sent in their thousands of dollars, CP disappears from updating his website, the comments sections become unusable. I contacted Neymar myself, and the website link he sent me (maxillamethod.com) is now up for sale.
CP started trying to juice people for money right away with his website, starting off with a paid forum that people kept having trouble cancelling their memberships to. I bought the membership, looked around, and was thoroughly disappointed that I had been tricked into thinking I would see results there. Couple that with the fact that his career was in marketing, he was offering the whole "Give me your email for a free ebook" crap - As soon as he got visitors his main intent was to start pulling as much money out of the userbase as possible.
Either neymar scammed everyone (including CP, who allowed his users to be targeted for a scam), or CP and a friend scammed people together. For tens of thousands of dollars. Fortunately I do not think the number of people scammed is as high as they reported - they simply made up fake participants to give the feeling of legitimacy.
If it walks like a scam, quacks like a scam, shows no proof like a scam, asks for thousands of dollars sent to Brazil like a scam, then completely disappears with no trace for over a year like a scam... Neymar was scam. And CP should be ashamed for either being a part of it, or allowing to happen to his users.
lol, awesome account of the whole fiasco! Did you see any of cp's before and after pictures when you accessed the membership section?
my story: http://www.aljabri.com/blog/my-story/
The people you posted (especially the child) have no profile in the manner of Levine. In fact Levine's profile more closely resembles the non Western man anyway. Adam does not have a weak chin and in fact has a profile that is harmonious and healthy.
Adam doesn't have a bird profile whatsoever. Just a convex one. Can you show me examples where someone went from convex to concave? I haven't seen any posted here thus far.
The people I posted are not a comparison to him. They are part of a separate point. Am I hard to read or are you hardly reading? I am Finnish, English I am just winging so not everything will get expressed clearly.
Yes, as we both said, Adam does have a stong chin. It is so strong that it compensates for his recessed mandibular position. His face appears sufficiently healthy and harmonious, not because it truly is, but because his features make up for his flaws. Part of beauty is illusion, and the other part which is not, serves as a clear marker of anatomical health. Bateman for example has got a good illusion going on. But it's still one that becomes obvious when compared to real, structurally coherent beauty:
You have to remember that everything that pushes on maxilla pushes INTO the skull too, by the necessity of how maxilla is attached to other bones. As the nasal bone is forced to explode outward, the eyes are fitted deeper into their sockets. Look at how deep into the socket area the maxilla extends.:
Proper posture will UNIFY the vectors of jaw angle, eye/ear direction, nasal, forehead, bite direction etc.
I don't know how you define facial concavity and convexity and what it means to "go" from one to another, so until you elaborate on your question, I will pass.
Here is another example/approximation of the directions into which proper posture will guide the skull.
Centered around eyes:
Note that I have not resized any feature (intentionally), only moved around and smoothened. Nose seems to get smaller, because a properly positioned and developed maxilla has large nasal base/opening, allowing the bulk of the nose to sit deeper in the face.
Centered around ears, now this looks like the typical "forward upswing" that the results are usually described as:
I feel that the latter term is a too local description for the changes that occur all around the skull. While one half of the skull is upswinging forward, the other half is downswinging backward. Tongue acts as a mediator between these movements (and more), ensuring that all change happens in good taste regarding both function and aesthetics.
You're all over the place boyo.
I asked how you came to the conclusion Adam is recessed just because he doesn't have a profile you deem ideal. I still haven't gotten an answer from you. As a guy making morphs I don't know how you can determine someone's level of recession simply by them not having what you deem an ideal profile.
Anyone can make a morph of what they think *might* happen if someone's profile advanced but that is coming from a place of assuming they are recessed to begin with. How did you determine this?
Also, to the concave vs convex thing, I consider a concave profile something where the chin is ahead of the upper lip. A convex one would be like Batman or Levine. The upper lip ahead of the chin.
In none of the success stories have I seen the quality of the profile change. They become stronger and more pronounced but I haven't seen someone whose upper lip is ahead of their chin go to having their chin ahead of their upper lip. Have you?
The neymar fiasco was a scam, and everything that he said can be dismissed. The userbase was desperate for results, and a person shows up describing an incredible secret new technique that they built themselves. Neymar also said that he was under 20 and in school. Somehow this amateur school child convinces a surgeon to just do whatever he asked, and to pay him out of pocket. Then this incredible prodigy - despite absolutely stunning results and the ability to convince surgeons to play with his face - is unable to show any before-after X-rays or pictures (which the surgeon would obviously have taken).
Other accounts appear shilling for the product, culminating in neymjar requesting thousands of dollars from desperate people via email. The blog then promotes this technique in a post. Of course, you have to send your money pretty much anonymously to someone living in Brazil - right. Once (Reportedly) dozens of people had sent in their thousands of dollars, CP disappears from updating his website, the comments sections become unusable. I contacted Neymar myself, and the website link he sent me (maxillamethod.com) is now up for sale.
CP started trying to juice people for money right away with his website, starting off with a paid forum that people kept having trouble cancelling their memberships to. I bought the membership, looked around, and was thoroughly disappointed that I had been tricked into thinking I would see results there. Couple that with the fact that his career was in marketing, he was offering the whole "Give me your email for a free ebook" crap - As soon as he got visitors his main intent was to start pulling as much money out of the userbase as possible.
Either neymar scammed everyone (including CP, who allowed his users to be targeted for a scam), or CP and a friend scammed people together. For tens of thousands of dollars. Fortunately I do not think the number of people scammed is as high as they reported - they simply made up fake participants to give the feeling of legitimacy.
If it walks like a scam, quacks like a scam, shows no proof like a scam, asks for thousands of dollars sent to Brazil like a scam, then completely disappears with no trace for over a year like a scam... Neymar was scam. And CP should be ashamed for either being a part of it, or allowing to happen to his users.
does CP = Claiming Power?
I m with Progress on this, you should only try to move maxilla up and forwards instead moving up or up and back. 🙂
does CP = Claiming Power?
Yes
You're all over the place boyo.
I asked how you came to the conclusion Adam is recessed just because he doesn't have a profile you deem ideal. I still haven't gotten an answer from you. As a guy making morphs I don't know how you can determine someone's level of recession simply by them not having what you deem an ideal profile.
Anyone can make a morph of what they think *might* happen if someone's profile advanced but that is coming from a place of assuming they are recessed to begin with. How did you determine this?
Also, to the concave vs convex thing, I consider a concave profile something where the chin is ahead of the upper lip. A convex one would be like Batman or Levine. The upper lip ahead of the chin.
In none of the success stories have I seen the quality of the profile change. They become stronger and more pronounced but I haven't seen someone whose upper lip is ahead of their chin go to having their chin ahead of their upper lip. Have you?
You are missing the point here, concave/convex profile type "theory" has little to do with proper/optimal facial developement, as you can see in this article : http://www.vorply.com/entertainment/list/your-facial-profile-type-can-reveal-a-lot-about-your-personality/ So you are saying concave profile is more prefered one ? , basically that means every person with undrbite and class 3 malocclousion has proper facial developement.
Yes - There is clearly a difference in his lower third due to the dental work. But due to his phenotype, his face was still flat and it was very hard to notice changes in the midface or jawline.
He's just not someone who would, even with ideal development, have a sharp jaw or prominent cheekbones etc. Completely moon faced phenotype with a tendency to have lots of fat stored on the face, so all the before after comparisons were completely underwhelming. I can't post them because I've never contacted him and he is clearly trying to keep them private.
The private forums did not have impressive results, even with lots of expensive dental work. I've seen much better results sent to me from users here or elsewhere on the internet.
These pictures are really interesting. In the upper right photo where the two heads are superimposed on one another, it looks like the 'after' head is WAY longer than the before one. Since the ears are in the same place and the same size I have to ask: do you think his face actually grew that far forward? That would be an insane amount of change if so. Is it just a camera trick? What could account for that?
These pictures are really interesting. In the upper right photo where the two heads are superimposed on one another, it looks like the 'after' head is WAY longer than the before one. Since the ears are in the same place and the same size I have to ask: do you think his face actually grew that far forward? That would be an insane amount of change if so. Is it just a camera trick? What could account for that?
His head is ever so slightly turned toward the camera in the second photo. That would account for some of the change in length, especially if you are then trying to match the ear, which is now at a different angle and will mess with the rest of the face when resizing.
It's really difficult to get a perfect before and after photo since our heads can pivot and tilt in so many different degrees. I'm not saying he hasn't had significant progress. I think he has! But still images, especially when we can't pinpoint depth of field and angle, are a deceptive marker.
You're all over the place boyo.
I asked how you came to the conclusion Adam is recessed just because he doesn't have a profile you deem ideal. I still haven't gotten an answer from you. As a guy making morphs I don't know how you can determine someone's level of recession simply by them not having what you deem an ideal profile.
Anyone can make a morph of what they think *might* happen if someone's profile advanced but that is coming from a place of assuming they are recessed to begin with. How did you determine this?
Also, to the concave vs convex thing, I consider a concave profile something where the chin is ahead of the upper lip. A convex one would be like Batman or Levine. The upper lip ahead of the chin.
In none of the success stories have I seen the quality of the profile change. They become stronger and more pronounced but I haven't seen someone whose upper lip is ahead of their chin go to having their chin ahead of their upper lip. Have you?
How do I determine recession? First I ask whether 1) the face has undeniable beauty 2) the face looks like it belongs to a healthy adult. If no, then I get more serious and start comparing the aesthetic lines provided by the orientation of several individual characteristics:
- eyes
- mandible
- nose
- ears
- forehead
- back of the neck
Together they become a powerful clues into the details of the maldevelopment. In each face you have to determine, mostly by trial and error, what already is close to where it should be and what is not. I seek to perceive how these features are aligned with each other and how they are not.
(If you are talking about being over the place, this example is all over the place. Not to be taken literally, intended to express the general idea).
Actual experience of beauty is subjective, but beauty as an abstractable entity is at least semi-objective (if this is your sticking point, we can discuss it further). There is not that much variation amongst unique experiences of subjective beauty. People of the world (and mammals in general) are hardwired to appreciate same innate characteristics of our 3D reality. Function of beauty is universal. Only the superficial form varies. When you know how to abstract beauty, you can recognize beauty everywhere. If you refuse to define beauty, you will never begin to comprehend it, and thus my words will never make sense to you.
I think I have explained everything you have requested to know. Morover I think I have provided everything you need to reach your own conclusions. If you can't agree, please, ask more questions until you can.
I reject the usefulness of your definition of convexity/concavity, because chin is prone to individual variation to much larger extent than the general proportions of the face. Chin/lip angle does not tell how recessed the face as a whole is. It will only reveal the specific relationship between those two features.
**
As for success stories, they are indeed scarce. However, what I am talking about ITT is not necessarily what is achievable at at an adult age, but what could have been achieved. Only time will tell by whom such faces could be achievable.
Since the ears are in the same place and the same size I have to ask: do you think his face actually grew that far forward? That would be an insane amount of change if so. Is it just a camera trick? What could account for that?
I think it's possible that in reality the ear are not in the same location. The skull may have expanded both forward and backward, and thus ears simply assumed whatever location the surrounding bones assumed.
There are several videos by Mike Mew about measuring facial height and convexity; some are about hard tissue and others about soft tissue. I just posted 2 down below but there are more. In fact, there is one by John Mew that goes into some of the details being discussed here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjiLocZ-7Bg
my story: http://www.aljabri.com/blog/my-story/
I think the profile your morphs give Adam don't account for the fact he is a small framed individual. Those morphs look like the bone development of a boy who had a higher amount of prenatal testosterone. Adam's face even if it came forward I doubt would look that way due to the fact he is a smaller framed individual. I have seen faces like those on more robust males. He isn't very robust so any advancement he would have would be in millimeters to the point he wouldn't look like the exaggeration you made.
I don't think he is as recessed as you do. His hyoid doesn't sag much for one, and when he smiles he reveals no gum. His eye support is also very healthy and even if his lower third isn't prominent , he displays all other aspects of being forward grown.
For example, your morph of Rashida Jones actually made her look more masculine as her lower third came to prominence by too much. This goes into the whole idea of beauty being both objective (universal standards) and subjective (people's unique proportions make sense on THEM).
Adam of course could benefit from llooking more like your morph but judging by his frame and skull overall he would never achieve such results.
I think the profile your morphs give Adam don't account for the fact he is a small framed individual. Those morphs look like the bone development of a boy who had a higher amount of prenatal testosterone. Adam's face even if it came forward I doubt would look that way due to the fact he is a smaller framed individual. I have seen faces like those on more robust males. He isn't very robust so any advancement he would have would be in millimeters to the point he wouldn't look like the exaggeration you made.
I don't think he is as recessed as you do. His hyoid doesn't sag much for one, and when he smiles he reveals no gum. His eye support is also very healthy and even if his lower third isn't prominent , he displays all other aspects of being forward grown.
For example, your morph of Rashida Jones actually made her look more masculine as her lower third came to prominence by too much. This goes into the whole idea of beauty being both objective (universal standards) and subjective (people's unique proportions make sense on THEM).
Adam of course could benefit from llooking more like your morph but judging by his frame and skull overall he would never achieve such results.
Frame has nothing to do with direction of facial developement, niether testosterone, i doubt Angleina Jolie, Jessie J, Bethany Joy Lenz all have high levels of testosterone. Floyd is also smaller framed inividual , but see the difference:
And yes i agree beauty is both objective and subjective, e.g you could say Floyd has better facial development objectively, but i think most women would pick Adam over Floyd.
I think the profile your morphs give Adam don't account for the fact he is a small framed individual. Those morphs look like the bone development of a boy who had a higher amount of prenatal testosterone. Adam's face even if it came forward I doubt would look that way due to the fact he is a smaller framed individual. I have seen faces like those on more robust males. He isn't very robust so any advancement he would have would be in millimeters to the point he wouldn't look like the exaggeration you made.
I don't think he is as recessed as you do. His hyoid doesn't sag much for one, and when he smiles he reveals no gum. His eye support is also very healthy and even if his lower third isn't prominent , he displays all other aspects of being forward grown.
For example, your morph of Rashida Jones actually made her look more masculine as her lower third came to prominence by too much. This goes into the whole idea of beauty being both objective (universal standards) and subjective (people's unique proportions make sense on THEM).
Adam of course could benefit from llooking more like your morph but judging by his frame and skull overall he would never achieve such results.
Frame has nothing to do with direction of facial developement, niether testosterone, i doubt Angleina Jolie, Jessie J, Bethany Joy Lenz all have high levels of testosterone. Floyd is also smaller framed inividual , but see the difference:
And yes i agree beauty is both objective and subjective, e.g you could say Floyd has better facial development objectively, but i think most women would pick Adam over Floyd.
I won't argue whether women will choose either since I never had interest in such a subject matter in this thread.
Your pics are not a good representation. Floyd's head is raised and Adam's is not .
Also, Floyd's frame is small in terms of height. I meant Adam had a small frame in terms of narrow shoulders and small wrists. I wouldn't call Floyd a narrow guy by any means. Adam is. This is what I mean by robust. Robust men have broader shoulders. Adam has a narrow lanky frame akin to that of a woman which is why his facial development would never be as dimorphic as the morph made by @Progress
Look at his small build
Also you need to know the difference between testosterone levels and prenatal testosterone exposure. Prenatal testosterone exposure absolutely affects the way a person's face will develop . people with mote prenatal T develop more masculine features like a reduced gonial angle and a very prominent jjawline. The fact that Adam has a lower third which isn't very prominent and the fact he hhas a small mouth and an overall more frail frame means he most likely had very little prenatal T exposure.
Floyd and many fighters are naturally more broad shouldered and also have clavicles that are wider. This is what prenatal T does. Your current T levels won't affect that which is why bodybuilders who take ggrams of drugs and T change their natural frame size.
FFinally, Floyd's brow development isn't as pronounced as Adam's due to ethnic variation. This makes Floyd seemingly have more forward growth (and many Black men in general) but this is because of lack of brow protrusion compared to Whites, not necessarily because forward growth may be present. Although in the case of many successful fighters, their maxilla placement is usually ideal anyway.
In my view, hormones are indeed valid point in terms of dimensions like mandibular length and chin prominence, but not in terms of proportions. My "morphs" result in slightly exaggerated features, out of laziness. It's mainly the proportions themselves I am focusing to, not dimensions. The spatial relationship of jaw, ears, forehead etc. This is all determined by function, not genetics. The actual shapes and sizes of the indivudal features are not that relevant, as aesthetic & functional harmony is available to almost any combination of facial features.
Modern women are extraordinarily neotenous, which is why Rashida's changes may seem more masculine. In reality it could be described as "more adult". Her features have matured in the mathematical sense of beauty. What I did to her was an objective improvement, proven by the increased alignment of the aesthetic lines I posted. Even without them, the improvement is evident. Moreover, ancient females had even more "masculine" looks (this slide is also from Mew's lecture):
Strong features are not necessarily masculine. They are just healthy. We have lost touch with what healthy structure is.
There are many, many different combinations of recession. Levine not having visible gumline doesn't mean his face is in ideal alignment. Hugh Laurie for example hardly has any gum visible, yet he is significantly reccessed:
You can never judge the face based on an individual feature, but based on how they all features align together. It's not obvious what parts of the skull are close to fully developed and what are not.
An interesting point you bring up is the correlation between robustness of face vs robustness of body. This is both hormonal and functional:
1) Roomy skull allows for robust posture
2) robust posture allows for increased androgenicity
3) robust posture allows some bones of skull, shoulders, clavicles and ribs ro expand just like the palate does
Then all these feeds off of each other. People with robust skulls have robust bodies because they have robust skulls, and they have robust skull because they have robust bodies, and so on. There is a definite correlation as you have noticed. But the cause is not as definite.
We mah have lost touch of what healthy structures are. That is true. But masculine PROPORTIONS still exist. An exagerrated lower third is absolutely a masculine trait . the primitive woman you posted does not have lower third prominence the way your Rashida morph did. Women have lower thirds equal to their upper thirds usually. This is a feminine face regardless of chin prominence, how square the jaw is, etc.
Dimorphic proportions still exist and a woman with feminine proportions would ideally not have her lower third too developed past her upper third. In fact most female faces have all thirds equal.
Women who look more masculine may be attractive the same way slight neoteny can make men aesthetic, but we shouldn't assume a more masculine woman is healthier, just that she had more prenatal T exposure .
Also, we have to be careful with looking at everything ancient as ideal. We as a people are more neotenous as a whole and this IS NOT a bad thing
Finally that ancient woman did not really look all that masculine. She has a flat feminine (neotenous ) forehead, full lips, large eyes, and a decently sized forehead. Idk what is so masculine about hher other than her gonial angle. Realistically people can hhave 1 or 2 opposite sex features and still be attractive (many male models have slight femininity)
...
There is another study/lecture where I learned that the primary point of resistance against forward maxillary movement is the zygomatic buttress. This is where you get the "I feel it in my cheekbones" resistance when you really get the posture and force down correctly. You might feel it alternatively on the outside of your cheekbones or on the interior near the nose.
This resistance point is also the rotational hinge point in growth. If you push the maxilla directly against it, it grows forward. If you push from underneath, you have counterclockwise rotation, and vice-versa. This is from maxillary protraction facemask studies (bone anchored).
I have been feeling this but I think I have mostly just rotated my maxilla counterclockwise. How can I be sure that I'm pushing on it correctly? I can see and feel much better orbital support and most of the other expected benefits of mewing, but I think my midface may have become longer and only my very front teeth touch anymore when I bite! Can this be reversed?
Umm maybe this is way off topic now but my eyes seem to be getting way more hooded (which because of my low brow and already hooded eyes makes me nuts lol) but I know for a lot of people this is a happy feature! It makes sense if my eyes are more supported...
@apollo I don't believe there can be such universal guidelines for maxillary movement. Some will benefit from such movement, others will not. If my pictures look worse to you and @Meltcel, that's a shame, but understandable. This thread has not significant enough value to justify keeping on explaining myself. I'll just accept the reception and move on. Thanks to all who participated.
Pushing posterior tongue alone without anchoring anterior tongue against papilla leads to a different kind of recession/imbalance than failure to engage posterior tongue. The posterior tongue is more about neck and spine than just the tongue itself, while the anterior tongue is more about the teeth and the palate. At least this is how it seems to me.
Umm maybe this is way off topic now but my eyes seem to be getting way more hooded (which because of my low brow and already hooded eyes makes me nuts lol) but I know for a lot of people this is a happy feature! It makes sense if my eyes are more supported...
So have mine. I think it looks better, but I'm not sure.
Pushing posterior tongue alone without anchoring anterior tongue against papilla leads to a different kind of recession/imbalance than failure to engage posterior tongue. The posterior tongue is more about neck and spine than just the tongue itself, while the anterior tongue is more about the teeth and the palate. At least this is how it seems to me.
I think I've done this. What can I do? I have basically tried to follow Allixa's advice in here: /community/community/main-forum/has-anyone-felt-their-cheekbones-slip-or-move
@apollo Ahh apologies, I accidentally replaced your message with my reply when I intended to quote it.
Hi @progress, I don't mind that you erased my post because it was mostly a reiteration of my comments from earlier in the thread, and I appreciate that you took the time to respond. I think I understand your perspective a little better, which is mostly to say, correct protraction vectors depend on the individual situation. However, I would prefer if you copied your response and pasted it into your own post, rather than leaving it on my post so that it doesn't appear to put words in my mouth, especially when people quote it in subsequent posts as @silver has above. I could delete it myself but I don't want to erase your answer to my question. I don't know if I agree with the assertion @silver quoted but it looks like I am the one who said it. I'd also appreciate if @silver could edit his post to take my name off of the statement. Thanks!
@progress, is Dolph Lundgren (Ivan Drago in Rocky IV) close to the development you are trying to simulate with your morphs?
Umm maybe this is way off topic now but my eyes seem to be getting way more hooded (which because of my low brow and already hooded eyes makes me nuts lol) but I know for a lot of people this is a happy feature! It makes sense if my eyes are more supported...
So have mine. I think it looks better, but I'm not sure.
Hooded eyes are a positive feature. They are a sign of good facial development. If your eyes are getting more hooded it means you are doing something right.
@Apollo Dolph has what I would call decent development. His androgenic features make up for his flaws. Still, it's clear that his palate is not very wide, and pics of him smiling confirm:
Dolph Lundgren is a great example of someone with great development bone wise due to prenatal T exposure. Guys who are so robust despite flaws like a narrower palate are saved by features such as a wide and long ramus, large teeth, and a low gonial angle.
This means that simply seeing robust (or gracile) features on someone doesn't tell you the story about their bone positioning .
We have people who disagree, people who agree and people who are a bit of both :D. Couldn't have gone better.
@allixa While his photos are inconveniently different from each other, and his still existing dorsal bump and the angle between his ear and mandible makes me wonder whether something about his anatomical function is still amiss (he looks improved, but not ready), I get what you mean. Your sentiment about maxilla swinging as if on a hinge certainly makes sense. The actual question for me is: what is the hinge? No rotation happens in isolation. Where is the exact axis along which maxillary rotation happens? I suspect it is somewhere around the eyes, because of both their proximity to the tongue and the anatomical utility of sight. My animation may be a little misleading if taken literally, I attempted to picture the general relative dynamics between the changing facial proportions, not necessarily absolute movement.
@Meltcel Yes, that seems reasonable.
@greensmoothies There may be some merit to this. I have noted leaning against a wall with the top of my forehead causing pleasant pressure within the skull. I was unaware whether or not it is productive, but now that you mentioned it too, it seems worth some experimentation.
@admin I agree about the retouched pic lacking in forward growth. I was not successful in achieving proper looking forward growth for the pic. I just couldn't get it all fit together in a pleasing way. Of course, facial harmony is a matter of mere millimeters so the problem might be a matter of me not willing to be meticulous enough to produce a good example. Thanks for the slides, I have to mull over all this.
Here is another "study" of Rashida Jones from last night:
From cute to gorgeous in 1½ seconds. If there is interest I can continue posting these.
She looks worse after her face gets rotated.
30 yo, need to expand palate, move maxilla upward and forward, reduce gonial angle.
I was wondering what Yay's latest pic was. I'm looking at her chin, and it reminds me of how mine has transformed. It's stronger, wider. Looks fine on her, but I'm not sure if I like mine. Her face looks much more symmetrical. I did lose the bump on my nose, I realized this the other night. My dad had that, and I noticed in my thirties that I had it too. But the other night it dawned on me it was gone! I kept looking for that bump I shared with my dad. The bridge of my nose has almost that cute little swoop I had as a child. This is all interesting. I just had my tongue tie released in January/February (mine was so tight, took two times). It feels much more free to plaster on the roof of my mouth. I can push my maxilla more freely.
Here’s my progress. Picture on left was a year ago- I had never even heard of tongue posture. Picture on right is me with 5 months mewing to the best I could with a tongue-tie, then 3months or so after my frenectomy, mewing without the tongue tie.
Yesterday while taking this pic, I was trying very hard to make the same exact facial expression. Which is why I don’t look too enthusiastic 😂.
In some ways I like the changes and other ways, I’m not too sure.
Nevertheless, I was was a little freaked when I saw the difference. The human body, skull, bones, maxilla, jaw, sutures, etc. It’s all fascinating. I’m 48 btw.
Here’s my progress. Picture on left was a year ago- I had never even heard of tongue posture. Picture on right is me with 5 months mewing to the best I could with a tongue-tie, then 3months or so after my frenectomy, mewing without the tongue tie.
Yesterday while taking this pic, I was trying very hard to make the same exact facial expression. Which is why I don’t look too enthusiastic 😂.
In some ways I like the changes and other ways, I’m not too sure.
Nevertheless, I was was a little freaked when I saw the difference. The human body, skull, bones, maxilla, jaw, sutures, etc. It’s all fascinating. I’m 48 btw.
You reverse aged!
Here’s my progress. Picture on left was a year ago- I had never even heard of tongue posture. Picture on right is me with 5 months mewing to the best I could with a tongue-tie, then 3months or so after my frenectomy, mewing without the tongue tie.
Yesterday while taking this pic, I was trying very hard to make the same exact facial expression. Which is why I don’t look too enthusiastic 😂.
In some ways I like the changes and other ways, I’m not too sure.
Nevertheless, I was was a little freaked when I saw the difference. The human body, skull, bones, maxilla, jaw, sutures, etc. It’s all fascinating. I’m 48 btw.
Your face looks much better in the after photo. Healthier, more well developed, more robust, etc. I also see more of a glow to your skin but I'm not sure if that's from mewing or from something else.
About your jawline, I can see why you might have reservations about it. Nowadays when everyone goes through braces and eats soft foods etc, you don't see jawlines like that on women too often. But in my opinion it looks good.
If you want to see inspiration for that type of facial structure try and look up celebrities from the 50s -70s. Back then having a well developed face was much more common and I think you will find that the new face you are heading towards is a much better one and a positive change that you shouldn't feel unsure about.
@Allixa her jawline didn't even become all that robust either. If you look at her lower third/middle third relationship, it is practically unchanged and is still feminine (the two thirds look almost equal).
I think the tautness around her skin just makes her more aware of her jawline. But truth be told, the added benefits such as an increase in eye support negate any sort of "masculine" gains in bone positioning.
Also @RoseBing, remember this isn't your "final" look. Many things are being fixed at the moment so understand it all won't happen at once. But at the end of the day you look younger so that is a win
From cute to gorgeous in 1½ seconds. If there is interest I can continue posting these.
Definitely keep posting morphs. I find them interesting.
Now as far as Rashida Jones is concerned, you have to be careful because she has a different skull type than the woman in your first post due to her ethnicity. By morphing her skull in that way you're actually completely changing her genetics. Remember there was a user in here a while ago asking if he could fix his 'duck lips' through mewing when in reality it was a genetic thing. TGW stated that he doesn't want this forum to go too much into racial talks so I won't press the issue too much but just keep an eye out for that.
As for where the hinge is:
I'm thinking that it is the sutures under the eyes along with the sutures that run between the eyes near the bridge of the nose. Like @Meltcel stated, due to the way the tongue pushes on the palate, there might be more growth on the lower sutures than the upper ones which creates that hinge effect.
This is a bit unrelated, but I'm not sure if this idea has any merit to warrant a new topic. Hoping to get some feedback.
So Yay's pic with the arrows got me thinking. I once read something about the CATS founder and how he treats Down's Syndrome patients. If I recall correctly, he basically compresses their face using force from the top and bottom. Force from the bottom is covered by mewing... but what about some force from the top?
Attached is a screenshot from a massage routine based on Golki therapy (a Korean massage therapy intended to create a "small face")
Is this type of force on the skull, while mewing, a good compliment to mewing...? Could it help with duck face? Any potential dangers...?
ETA: I guess you could get a similar sort of effect if you were mewing while doing a headstand as well...?
That would compress the cranial space over time wouldn't it? I'm worried it would have a negative effect on the brain.
What do you mean Rashida has a different skull type?
Why did you rotate the eyes back into the head? That's not how it works.
Why did you rotate the eyes back into the head? That's not how it works.
Look through the testimonial pics. This happens for most if not all people with results
The eyes don't quite move. The maxilla moves a bit up, then a bit forwards. There is then sphenoid tilting up. The nasion and frontal bone are relatively stable/ static and they do not move.
It’s wonderful to see an adult using only mewing make so much progress! Your jaw symmetry is much more balanced.
In the end beauty IS about illusion. Beauty is synonymous to sum of parts coming together as a greater whole that can only be felt but not sensed, because it is not really there. That is what makes is alluring.
Ah yes, my bad, I asked the hinge question regarding maxillary rotation, but what I really meant whether there is specific hinge/anchor point around which it would be convenient to center the whole facial rotation, similar to what I attempted in the OP. Individual bone movement is certainly induced through sutures, but I think the overall hinge effect itself is just a result of combined growth from all sutures rather than some sutures growing more than others. Well, these are not necessarily mutually exclusive. But if you remember that lady who was unhappy with the results of her palatal expansion, she had nice cheeks, but no facial concavity (or convexity depending on your perspective) to support it. In a way, by solely expanding one suture, overall facial harmony/alignment can worsen until the rest of the skull is encouraged to catch up. Every suture operates within a different dimensional axis. Aesthetic alignment can happen only when these axises are dynamically resting against each other (tongue posture enables this). Kind of like the skin of a soccerball.
To me those two particular pictures you chose are deceiving because they are taken from angles that coincidentally exaggerate the differences. Bassed on eye visibility, hairline/forehead ratio and the location of ears it seems that the left picture is taken from a slightly more posterior, and possibly higher angle, both of which distort the face in a way that the angle of the second picture counters.
But the REAL problem about my argument is this: Where do we center the head in before/after pictures?
And the answer is: depends on where the growth has happened and by how much. And that it is next to impossible to determine from pictures. At best we can determine that the face has improved.
Phenotypic variance in aesthetics is a good point. However, because there is not much phenotypic variance in anatomical function, and because form follows function, every sufficiently healthy human should be capable of developing aesthetically coherent, pleasing proportions. Generally all who develop pleasing proportions, do so out of lifestyle factors, not genetics. Birth defects and genetic illness excluded. What I achieved for Rashida was increased facial coherence.
Indeed, I am not saying she could look exactly like this, but that she could have proportions similar to this.
I'm not so sure. I think many could think she looks better before. Women tend to look nice with an arc / convex shape. Anyway... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlVgp8aIJyg There really is not measurement... but the only measurement (as Dr. John Mew states here)... is a vote! She looks younger on the left, as chins come forward with age.
The reason expansion can look like recession is because a wider palate allows for the face to widen, making it look as if it got shorter (recessed into the skull) when really the added width just makes the balance more favorable to a shorter ratio. In other words the midface appears to shorten vertically when it really widens horizontally. Then, the mandible can come forward making the lower third longer and the midface look less prominent.
This is a bit unrelated, but I'm not sure if this idea has any merit to warrant a new topic. Hoping to get some feedback.
So Yay's pic with the arrows got me thinking. I once read something about the CATS founder and how he treats Down's Syndrome patients. If I recall correctly, he basically compresses their face using force from the top and bottom. Force from the bottom is covered by mewing... but what about some force from the top?
Attached is a screenshot from a massage routine based on Golki therapy (a Korean massage therapy intended to create a "small face")
Is this type of force on the skull, while mewing, a good compliment to mewing...? Could it help with duck face? Any potential dangers...?
ETA: I guess you could get a similar sort of effect if you were mewing while doing a headstand as well...?
This is genius. Occasionally these forums have real gems.
Gigachad master of mewing and orthotropics here.
This phenomenon is exactly this:
Mewing does not do anything to the cheekbones, it only brings forwards the upper jaw improving your forward growth.
You must combine bonesmashing of the cheekbones, and optionally zygo arches if you want as well, but importantly the cheekbones, with mewing. Use a hammer or anything and just gently tap 100 times per side per day and it will stimulate cheekbone growth.
You can't just mew you will ascend but look weird, you need to grow the zygos too my mewers.
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
