>>34321197
Also, how the hell are you supposed to pick frames for your faces? The face shape stuff you find online may as well be astrology for all the sense it makes to me, but surely I can't keep walking around a chud stereotype.

>>34318971
7/10 but not in this pic. Great hair, great features, nothing to really point out. I don't know what's up with 4chans baldness obsession, but scanning the height and density of your hairline seems to be the first thing people check on here. I actually had people just deny that some people have high hairlines before it begins to recede at all. Generational trauma from the balding of their forefathers, I suppose
>>34319732
Is this picture angled slightly upwards? I get the sense pretty much all your features are exaggerated by that. Either way, pretty inelegant but 6.5 for how strong they are
>>34319873
Absolutely not, no. Too low quality pic to tell if it's damaged or sparse or anything, but you'll be much more brutal without the hair, it complements your face really well. 6 or 7/10.
>>34320359
7/10.