Join 44,200+ Looksmaxxing Members!

Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.

  • DISCLAIMER: DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION

    This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website ARE NOT engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. DO NOT use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. DO NOT begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision. Learn more

Proof that harmony is cope

Lovecraftscat

Tomboyfucker
Joined
Mar 15, 2025
Messages
85
Reputation
128
Location
Twin Peaks
Guild
Autism
Here we have a picture of Sean O'Pry next to Matt Boomer, Boomer has almost perfect harmony, as close to perfect as you can get, almost all of his ratios are near ideal, yet next to Sean O'Pry he looks like a normie, this is why features >>> ratios
 

Attachments

  • sean-opry-vs-matt-bomer-this-is-hard-v0-8a89gt7sdila1.webp
    sean-opry-vs-matt-bomer-this-is-hard-v0-8a89gt7sdila1.webp
    36.1 KB · Views: 38
im talking about you saying that harmony is cope
To some extend yeah, I think many people overemphasize harmony and ratios, you can have good harmony and still ultimately get mogged by someone less attractive with better features. But yeah I don't think it's cope cause I have neither so IDRC
 
To some extend yeah, I think many people overemphasize harmony and ratios, you can have good harmony and still ultimately get mogged by someone less attractive with better features. But yeah I don't think it's cope cause I have neither so IDRC
features might be more important than Harmony but It still matters a lot
 
Here we have a picture of Sean O'Pry next to Matt Boomer, Boomer has almost perfect harmony, as close to perfect as you can get, almost all of his ratios are near ideal, yet next to Sean O'Pry he looks like a normie, this is why features >>> ratios
or hes 47 and this is his prime
IMG_9019.webp
 
Here we have a picture of Sean O'Pry next to Matt Boomer, Boomer has almost perfect harmony, as close to perfect as you can get, almost all of his ratios are near ideal, yet next to Sean O'Pry he looks like a normie, this is why features >>> ratios
True, features matter way more than harmony
 
Here we have a picture of Sean O'Pry next to Matt Boomer, Boomer has almost perfect harmony, as close to perfect as you can get, almost all of his ratios are near ideal, yet next to Sean O'Pry he looks like a normie, this is why features >>> ratios
why do they look so weird in this photo
 
What even is your point
Sean DOES have good Harmony , almost all his ratios all ideal. And for a long time on PSL he was the generic example one would give when talking about ratios .
 
Harmony is not cope, bad thread with cherrypicked example of a minor attractiveness difference.
 
What even is your point
Sean DOES have good Harmony , almost all his ratios all ideal. And for a long time on PSL he was the generic example one would give when talking about ratios .
Sean has like around 73% and Matt Bomer 93%
 
Here we have a picture of Sean O'Pry next to Matt Boomer, Boomer has almost perfect harmony, as close to perfect as you can get, almost all of his ratios are near ideal, yet next to Sean O'Pry he looks like a normie, this is why features >>> ratios
Harmony is not cope. You're either attractive or you're not. Features don't mean shit.
 
To some extend yeah, I think many people overemphasize harmony and ratios, you can have good harmony and still ultimately get mogged by someone less attractive with better features. But yeah I don't think it's cope cause I have neither so IDRC
"Mogged" according to who? Brain rotted PSL tards?

Attractiveness is the standard of who mogs.
 
features are more important than Harmony imo
In the real world an attractive person irrespective of features is going to have an easier time getting what they want than an unnatractive person with striking features.
 
In the real world an attractive person irrespective of features is going to have an easier time getting what they want than an unnatractive person with striking features.
striking features are attractive
 
In the real world an attractive person irrespective of features is going to have an easier time getting what they want than an unnatractive person with striking features.
IRL people are gonna look at how good your jaw, cheekbones, nose, eyes etc are, no one is going to pull out a ruler and analyse your ratios
 
IRL people are gonna look at how good your jaw, cheekbones, nose, eyes etc are, no one is going to pull out a ruler and analyse your ratios
People are just gonna notice immediately if your "pretty" or "handsome". They're not gonna analyze your jaw, eyes, cheekbones or nose to make that determination.
 
IRL people are gonna look at how good your jaw, cheekbones, nose, eyes etc are, no one is going to pull out a ruler and analyse your ratios
You don't need a ruler to analyze anything to notice beauty. It's features that you need that for.
 
IRL people are gonna look at how good your jaw, cheekbones, nose, eyes etc are, no one is going to pull out a ruler and analyse your ratios
And it's not any set ratios that make a person good looking. Different ratios will look better or worse on different people.
 
Back
Top