What if the desired android is to be a preferred gender? Which will you select? The initial frame of reference of this document is feminine.

If you have selected a masculine version of an android, then you must realize that even the human embryo starts with an undefined sex outside of the sex chromosomes. There should be enough information within the theory and practice nature of this book to make the necessary design changes for your male android.

Getting an image is either ridiculously easy because you already have one OR it is very difficult because you may not have any notion yet. This chapter needs to be only one (or a few) page(s) long for the purpose. In a sheet protectorSee footnote 1 is a specimen like the photo in a new picture frame that you may remove so that you may have a repository for the sketch, photograph, or other illustration in the form of a portrait of your desired android.

Black and white is as good as (if not better than) color for the purpose of image interpretation. Expand the picture to as large as practical so that it will be easier to get the necessary measurements and other dimension approximations. However, the worksheet has not been tested, yet, for any other scale than full size. Therefore, it is suggested that you photocopy your desired image until it is full size. Most modern copiers have very fine increments in reduction and enlargement.

The specimen provided (following this chapter) may come from any source. Portraits have been collected from magazines, catalogs, etc. for years for no apparent purpose at the time.

A FACE STUDY

As was mentioned previously, constructing a Hatfield Type Android begins with a feminine bias like the beginning of a human body. Since the particular artifacts and art work of this handbook are intended to be female where that matter is pertinent, a question arises:

What makes an attractive feminine face? What is masculine attractiveness versus feminine beauty?

"Masculine attractiveness" is almost an oxymoron. Maleness, related to masculinity, is associated with a body where form follows function; form is less important than function. "Smooth and silky" is feminine where "tough and `knarly'" are usually masculine attributes.

Defining a pretty face has been a matter of discussions for centuries. In a way, most agree that "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it."

However, some have applied scientific methodologies to this question. Farkas [p.95] found that "women with above average [read "attractive"] faces had a larger biocular width than nose width." This seems to mean that slender noses or wider spaced eyes are more attractive.

Farkas used two pictures; one to illustrate an "attractive" face and the other to depict a "below average" face. The aspect that seemed to provide the most difference is about the mouth level and behind the lips. This line of attention seems to pass between the molars. The attractive face is thinner than the below average face along this line.

There were a few other technique used to make the below average face appear worse. The eyes were whitened out so only the eye fissure was apparent. Also, the subject's hair was parted to form a bilateral "bang" that can make any face less appealing. Shaping her eyebrows a bit could improve her appearance at the eye level too.

    Reviewing this, I thought of an experiment. I cavitated my cheeks as I watched the effect in a mirror. With practice, a better-than-life portrait could be taken of someone who is not shaped the most desirable.

L. M. Boyd has said a few interesting things about this matter in his column. "The perfect oval face is a rarity among women." [15 May 1990]

Apparently he may have seen some of Farkas' (or his peers) work when his column cited that the averages of facial characteristics [anthropometrics] of beauty contestants were evaluated in three dimensions. The "winners were almost exactly average. ... It is averages that's beautiful." [7 Sep. 1990]

The French philosopher Rene Descartes;
    "was particularly attracted to eyes imperfectly aligned. But almost any distinctive characteristic about the eyes tends to heighten romantic appeal, according to our Love and War man's sources. It's said to contribute to the intense interest so many western men show in Far Eastern women." [13 Nov. 1989]

What makes the female eyes more attractive than men or more attractive than other women? It is not eye color: The man's eyes and the woman's (no makeup apparent) in an available test set appear to be the same. Spacing? The man's and the woman's both measured 160 on the 60 scale (of an engineers scale). Eye fissure height-to-width appears a candidate; giving the bigger, rounder eye appearance. The "one eyebrow" of the man is definitely male. Female skin is generally smoother and sleeker and their eyebrows are generally neater; with a defined edge.

    One of my observations is that pretty faces seem to have the least prominent supraorbital ridges. This pair of skull ridges may be softened by extra female and some particular racial tissue thicknesses.

Although some female faces do not meet the anthropometric "average" for standard attractiveness, some girls appear quite "precious." How can this be if their anthropometric ratios are not "average?"

Descartes, as previously cited, suggests that some imperfections are, in fact, desirable. Common or familiar racial or ethnic factors may be a part of this answer.

Examine the specimen (assuming that you have picture of a female) or your desired android in your copy: Is she attractive? If so, is it because she is "average" meaning that her facial measurements and ratios are near the arithmetic mean for her population by race? Is her face soft and sleek and otherwise void of features that could be described as "masculine;" with such affectations like squarish or "chiseled?" Or is she pretty because there is some endearing quality to her image?

Perhaps there is a combination of answers. An anthropometrically pretty face may still have the "darling imperfection."

LESS THAN ATTRACTIVE

This chapter is the appropriate place to insert this mini-dissertation about appearance standards. The previous section has been about attractiveness, so this one is for those less than attractive. After all, making a "troll" may have certain commercial value.

There are several degrees that are substantially less than attractive. First is "ugly." "Ugly" is not a kind word and sometimes used charitably.

Next there is "youghly." It is worse than ugly.

Then there is "one bag ugly." It is worse than youghly because a bag is put over the subject's head to hid the hideous features.

And then there is "two bag ugly." Of course this is the most hideous of all. In addition to the bag over the ugliest victim's head, one is put over yours for protection in case the subject's bag comes off.

Where does "butt-ugly" fit in this scale? Perhaps between ugly and youghly.

OF STATURE

The matter of your android's stature needs to be addressed. Stature defines the remainder of your android by height, apparent weight, build, and certain other aspects.

There are at least three aspects that pertain to female androids. These are the apparent length of the leg to overall height; "leggy," the apparent roundness of the hips or of the gluteus muscle group; "hippy," and the ampleness of the breast; "busty."

One of these aspects for female androids is the importance of the leggy quality. A leggy woman appears to have longer legs than another woman her height who is not so leggy or "well endowed." "Well endowed" is a term usually associated with larger than average mammaries. Some fashion trends were calculated to enhance the appearance of a woman's leg to make it seem longer: High heels, short or slitted skirts and dresses, and high cut leg openings in swim wear.

Also, a woman may have narrow, average, or wide hips. The attractive woman, "narrow" and "wide" are relative. "Narrow" could be slender, juvenile, or boyish. "Wide" could be mature or full figured.

The gluteus muscle group is usually sized commensurate with the pelvis width. A larger than normal gluteus give the appearance of an enhanced "fanny." The bustle of yester-year must have met men's needs because most women now work to keep the size of that area small. Fashion artifacts like pleats and darts emphasize a thin-to-average frame at the hips and waist.

Most woman are very self conscious about the appearance of their breasts. Too many wrongly believe that they are under endowed. Reduction or enlargement or reconstructive mammoplasties are very common operations. Historical fashions have squeezed breasts together like melons or squashed them like road-kill. Like the hipline, darts in dresses and jackets emphasize small and average bust lines.

    "It's a matter of literary record that one of the most compelling young women in human history - Helen of Troy - was exceedingly small busted." [Boyd, 23 April 1990]

    The average woman adds four inches, from 34.2 to 38.2, to her bust line from age 25 to 50. [Boyd, 24 July, 1992]

So, what is the perfect figure? There are likely several authorities on the matter. Josephine Lowman described where the hip measurement is equal to the bust measurement and the waist is ten inches less. She also defined the legs as the thigh circumference as six inches less than the waist, the calf 6.5 inches less than the thigh, and the ankles 4.5 inches less than the calf.

Betty Grable's legs were measured as: Ankles; 7.5 inches. The calf at twelve inches. And the thigh at eighteen inches according to Boyd [16 Nov. 1990].

Eleanor King described the vertical portions in equal quarters. The first quarter is from the top of the head to the bust line. From the bust line to the hips is the second quarter. The third quarter is from the hips to the knees. Finally, the fourth quarter is from the knees to the floor. The location of the hips and the knees is the center of articulation.

The following picture may be replaced by one that suits you better for your android. Perhaps if you are undecided about who you want yours to resemble, you can start with this one.