You just admitted it yourself unless you believe that asian features somehow aren't the result of facial features and bone structure.
Two Chads and Normie brother
Which one is "normie" brother in your opinion? They are all really good looking, and quite tall(shortest brother is 180 cm). The one on the left is tallest sure, but also have weakest jaw which he wants to cover up. Not to mention that his oldest brother on the right have pretty much same hairline, despite being 10 years older(+ he have strongest jaw). Sure, one on the left looks better NOW than his 10 years older brother, but he has this type of pretty boy handsomness so I doubt he will look better than his older brother in 10 years. I would really really like to looks like the guy on the right, despite I'm almost 10 years younger. He is at least Chadlite tier, and he is almost 40. It still didn't ended for him, and for me it not even ever started
Normie is the manlet brother. He's not bad looking for sure, but when you compare him to his brothers he's the worst one at both face and height. The middle one is the best looking. I would say most foids would pick him. Don't know how the youngest one will age. Hard to tell.
What are you on? Asian features are obiviously about bone structure, and so is attractiveness, what the debate is about is whether the bone structure that causes an attractive face is genetic or not. Just because asian features and attractiveness share one feature (that is, bone structure) together, doesn't mean they share another feature (that is, being caused by genetics).
Cope . It’s all about who you are on the inside
I agree 100% that middle one is best looking, but also Chris Hemsworth has by far best status of them all. He is pretty much big movie star, while Liam is some third tier actor, and oldest one I don't know if he is actor at all, I mean he had few small roles in movies but I doubt that's his main occupation
....are you trolling?
Either bone structure is genetic or it isn't. Claiming it's genetic when it comes to ethnicity but not when it comes to "attractiveness" makes absolutely zero sense.
There's no magical "attractive" bones that develop mainly based on environment.
You don't understand. Attractiveness is a sign of health, and while yes, this does include genetic health, this does not exclude other forms of health. Ethnicity is genetic, and is not related to health. You can be of any ethnicity and healthy, or of any ethnicity and unhealthy. Different traits of different ethnicities come from either random variation or adaption to environment.
Your environment does shape your bones. Like I said, just because both ethnicity and attractiveness is determined by bone structure, that does not mean that they are both determined by genes, just because ethnicity is determined by genes
Again identical twins who were separated at birth prove that looks at 99 percent genetic.
https://www.dailydot.com/irl/twins-zeng-yong-china-reunited-sina-weibo/
Separated at birth, reunited after 41 years....they look the same.
http://www.larepubliquedespyrenees....s-l-existence-de-sa-soeur-jumelle,1179678.php
Separated at birth, reunited after 45 years....they look the same.
Separated at birth, reunited after 21 years....they look the same (ignoring the hairstyle).
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...s/health-news/spot-the-difference-304783.html
Separated at birth, reunited after 40 years....they look the same.
I could keep going, but obviously you're hellbent on believing environment matters more than genetics despite evidence and logic being strongly against you.
Face facts. You weren't "cheated" out of a decent bone structure. You didn't "grow wrong" because of your environment. It was never in the cards for you.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
