• applebusch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    this feels like one of those shrink wrapped dinosaur situations. like they arent doing a good job estimating how her soft tissue would have been distributed at all. why are her eyebrows so low, why are her cheeks so lean, why is there so much tissue below her lips, why is her hairline so high and with a bit of a widows peak? it feels like they put a mans tissue distribution on a womans frame completely uncritically and called it good.

    edit: i think the harsh drop lighting theyre displaying this under is making it way worse too. it might not look quite as bad with softer more diffuse lighting.

    • Zarobi@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Yeah this looks completely wrong to me… Like sure, they would look very different, but they wouldn’t be indistinguishable from men. Even from an evolutionary perspective that’s just silly.

      Even today we have women that have “facial bone structures we associate with masculinity” as they describe. It’s not like we are working blind and trying to reconstruct a dinosaur or an extraterrestrial. Though maybe for some scientists, women are similarly rare.

      I looked up some examples of “masculine women faces” online in 2 minutes. Even though they look “masculine”, they clearly don’t look like Gigachad or whatever this reconstruction is.

      example photos