The Physical Characteristics of Different Style Identities Correspond to Real Visual Signifiers of Age and Sex
How's that for a click-baity title, ha ha?
(Seriously though, I might be the only person alive who prefers long and dry over short and grabby. I am wholly a nerd.)
At any rate, here's what I mean: In my Style Identity system, when I say that a physical characteristic reads as womanly, or manly, or mature, or childlike, that's generally because that (average) physical difference exists in real life.
We are all unconsciously aware of the visual signifiers of masculinity and femininity, of maturity and youth. We make instantaneous judgments about other people's age and masculinity/femininity based on visual cues we're not even aware that we are processing.
Here are some examples of what I mean.
* * * * *
You may notice that I didn't mention Ethereal, Dramatic, or Classic in this article.
Classics are easy: Imagine that you averaged all male features and all female features. Beauty in a female Classic represents a face that's slightly to the feminine side of that perfect average, and beauty in a male Classic represents a point that's slight to the male side. In Classic men and women both, nothing's noticeably big, or small, or sharp, or round, or high, or low, or full, or thin, or wide, or narrow. See more about that beauty here.
As for Ethereals and Dramatics, their beauty derives from archetypes that aren't based in human physical reality. That's a long post, though, so I'll save it for next week. :-)