By how much will a NW3 hairline decrease your attractiveness?

[BurningCoals]

So from reading around here and other places, it seems that most people seem to think that complete baldness will make you drop on average of around 2-3 points in attractiveness from having a full head of hair (though it can be more or less depending on the person).

But how much will having a Norwood 3 hairline, but with decent hair density elsewhere, make you drop in terms of points? And I don't mean a slightly worse NW2, I mean an actual NW3, like that of 1980s Bill Murray.

When there is some serious recession going on which significantly damages the framing of your face, but you are still a long way from being bald.

Thoughts?

 

[justinbieberscombover]

Looking at Murray's pics, I realize that at that point the more stylish decision might be to keep it buzzed (not shaved).

 

[BurningCoals]

Looking at Murray's pics, I realize that at that point the more stylish decision might be to keep it buzzed (not shaved).

Possibly, but idk. Murray got some notable forelock thinning which would probably just be exposed and emphasized way more if he buzzed. Also I think he would look kinda bland, like the grown out balding hair is a distinctive look for him and sort of part of his persona. Though that’s just for him, could be different for your average guy. Bad news for me though, from some angles my hair looks almost just like his in those pics...

I think he would look weird af with a slick shave though, even these days with his current NW5-6.

 

[Will Be an Egg in 5 years]

A lot. But some older guys cant pull it off well

 

[Matt3535]

NW3 is when the shitshow starts, truly.. That's the first time people perceive you as balding, everything before that is mere child's play.

Some can pull it off, like Murray shows excellently, plenty of women swooned over him and still do. But it is the last stop, the last possible exit to take measures. Anything beyond NW3 is hell. I'm glad I started finasteride at the first sign of a NW2.5 on one side.

 

[WaccWaccWacc]

This is a pretty dumb post. There is no correct answer. Looks are subjective.

 

[justinbieberscombover]

There is no correct answer. Looks are subjective.

Right

 

[NAVI]

Right

I think some one did an experiment where they got rated 10 people on looks from different people. Final list came out to be the same in every case pretty much. I think looks are subjective is not that true , bald will always be worse looking than hairy and likewise for other traits.until people are similar looks wise, it's easy enough to tell who is better and who is ugly.i still don't understand why people tell looks are subjective. For me long hair is always better on guys than buzz cut, and bald is even worse. Reminds me of why people shave when they start balding

 

[justinbieberscombover]

I think some one did an experiment where they got rated 10 people on looks from different people. Final list came out to be the same in every case pretty much. I think looks are subjective is not that true , bald will always be worse looking than hairy and likewise for other traits.until people are similar looks wise, it's easy enough to tell who is better and who is ugly.

They are a mix of objectiveness and subjectiveness. Some of it is science (ratios), some of it is preference and personal perception. I've done more experiments and researches on this than any other person on the planet.

 

[NAVI]

A lot. But some older guys cant pull it off well

A receding hairline can make even the best looking people look average.

 

[justinbieberscombover]

At the end of the day, if you want to be the absolute best version of yourself, you go ahead and get your money up and get that transplant without crying and being overtly dramatic like one of the few posters above.

 

[justinbieberscombover]

Beauty is objective. In nature, in architecture, in art, in music, in people. All who say otherwise are ugly and coping.



This

You sound like an incel lol

Show an "objectively attractive" guy to a bunch of women and you'll get a range of opinions, not all of them will go "OMG he's so hot". Some will say not my type or just ok etc. Grow up and deal with it.

 

[justinbieberscombover]

And that's why you have looks-obsessed incel communities such as Lookism where teenagers and men in their 20's waste years and years fighting each other and tearing each other apart like autists over their perceived attractiveness level of other males.

If attractiveness was completely objective you'd see nothing but agreements. It would be so obvious that no one would even need to debate it.

Look up every thread they have about Justin Bieber. Some swear his beauty is ideal. Some swear he's just an average kid with fame (if you check what women think about him you'll get a range of opinions too). No matter how hard they try to prove their claims by analyzing his features, at the end of the day it's all dumb because no one can prove sh*t.

 

[justinbieberscombover]

You can get your hairline fixed and attention from women will go way up for sure. But there'll still be women who are simply not attracted to you. That's life, now enough with the crybaby incel posting.

 

[NAVI]

You sound like an incel lol

Show an "objectively attractive" guy to a bunch of women and you'll get a range of opinions, not all of them will go "OMG he's so hot". Some will say not my type or just ok etc. Grow up and deal with it.

Only if women were not the most complex species. Women subconsciously take into account things they don't know themselves. It's just not looks they rate attractiveness on.

 

[NAVI]

And that's why you have looks-obsessed incel communities such as Lookism where teenagers and men in their 20's waste years and years fighting each other and tearing each other apart like autists over their perceived attractiveness level of other males.

If attractiveness was completely objective you'd see nothing but agreements. It would be so obvious that no one would even need to debate it.

Look up every thread they have about Justin Bieber. Some swear his beauty is ideal. Some swear he's just an average kid with fame (if you check what women think about him you'll get a range of opinions too). No matter how hard they try to prove their claims by analyzing his features, at the end of the day it's all dumb because no one can prove sh*t.

In Bollywood, Aishwarya Rai is unanimously beautiful for everyone.

 

[justinbieberscombover]

Only if women were not the most complex species. Women subconsciously take into account things they don't know themselves. It's just not looks they rate attractiveness on.

Well visual attraction is complex within itself. Facial features are one factor. What a man expresses in his appearance, how his smile is perceived to them, his styling and so on can all affect attractiveness.

 

[BurningCoals]

The answer is "a lot"

View attachment 154867

The correct answer is that anything above a low NW2 is game over. NW7 - 3 all make you look like sh*t. Norwood 4 doesn't look any less bad than NW6. You will look "bald" with all of them.

The hairline is everything. I'm sick of these companies developing new things focusing on f*****g crown balding. Worrying about crown balding is retarded. Minoxidil, finasteride and dermarolling and transplants if you absolutely must can restore crown thickness just fine.

But the hairline? Your only option it is seems is transplants, which take forever to heal, leave scars, and 9/10 look like sh*t anyway.

The hairline is easily the most-important thing for attractiveness. Even people (men and women) with less shapely faces can still look good if they have a good hairline. A lot of other things can be forgiven or corrected via simple, affordable surgery or even over the counter products. You can change your diet and work out if you're fat. You can remove unwanted hair easily. You can fill in crown hairloss quite easily. You can easily remove skin lesions, etc. But if the hairline goes? You're fucked.

Meh, he doesn't look that much worse imo.

The hairline is very important, but I think the crown is important as well. A bald spot on the crown is like the sign that you're balding, there is no doubt about it at that point. I remember when I first got into this hair loss stuff, and the bald spot at the crown was the thing I feared the most. Also at least with a receding hairline it blends into your (expanding) forehead, but with crown balding you get a spot of skin in the middle of a sea of hair, which looks uglier imo.

It does depend on the severity, I'd take a slightly thin spot at the back of my head that could be passed off as a cowlick or covered up with a combover or concealer over a NW3. But I'd rather take a NW3 over a gigantic bald spot at the back.

Also, isn't a receding hairline easier to fix with transplants than crown balding? IIRC the crown requires way more grafts for it to look full.

 

[justinbieberscombover]

Meh, he doesn't look that much worse imo.

The hairline is very important, but I think the crown is important as well. A bald spot on the crown is like the sign that you're balding, there is no doubt about it at that point. I remember when I first got into this hair loss stuff, and the bald spot at the crown was the thing I feared the most. Also at least with a receding hairline it blends into your (expanding) forehead, but with crown balding you get a spot of skin in the middle of a sea of hair, which looks uglier imo.

It does depend on the severity, I'd take a slightly thin spot at the back of my head that could be passed off as a cowlick or covered up with a combover or concealer over a NW3. But I'd rather take a NW3 over a gigantic bald spot at the back.

Also, isn't a receding hairline easier to fix with transplants than crown balding? IIRC the crown requires way more grafts for it to look full.

Well you won't get a thick and dense crown without a few thousand grafts but you can get low coverage which is still way better than having a bare crown. Bald spots are far more distracting than fully covered up with low density.

 

[BurningCoals]

This is a pretty dumb post. There is no correct answer. Looks are subjective.

Meh, the effects of moderate but not severe hair loss isn't really explored much, that's why I found it interesting.

Yeah it is often subjective, although a full head of hair does look better than a bald head, so I was wondering how much of an impact moderate hair loss could have. There might not be an objective answer though.