In various lookism and blackpill forums, hunter eyes are considered to be the ideal eyes for men. They are alluring eyes, vertically narrow, deeply set, hooded, with a positive canthal tilt and an interpupil distance (IPD) within the normal range. The hoodedness of these kinds of eyes comes from a combination of a protruding brow ridge, fat tissue above the eyes, and solid 'under-eye' support caused by robust cheekbones and square orbital sockets.
In technical terms, all humans have 'hunter eyes,' i.e., forward-facing eyes that allow them to focus on and pursue prey, like what is found among other predatory animals. Hunter eyes can be considered the opposite to 'prey eyes,' that is, eyes that are located on the skull's side that aids prey animals in spotting potential threats in their peripheral vision.
Sex differences[edit | edit source]
Hunter eyes are a sexually dimorphic trait. Vertical narrowness, i.e. a high width-to-height ratio (with a low level of vertical scleral show) is considered the essential aspect of hunter eyes. In Caucasians, men's eyes have a greater width-to-height ratio than women's, while women's eyes are rounder, i.e. more neotenous. The same sex difference has been found in Asians and Africans. The sex of human skulls can also be identified based on whether the eye sockets are more round or more square. Though, the correlation between the eye's width-to-height ratio and global facial masculinity was close to zero and non-significant in one study, suggesting it is not uncommon for men to have hunter eyes without having a particularly masculine face in general, despite the feature itself being sexually dimorphic.
Women's round and cute eyes are closer to 'prey eyes'; however, women have a very slightly smaller interpupillary distance than men, rather than their eyes being peripherally positioned like in prey animals.
Attractiveness[edit | edit source]
Scientifically, it is an open question to which extent hunter eyes are directly attractive to women. Research on facial masculinity suggests that the role of most facially masculine features are generally overstated as an aspect of facial attractiveness for men, as most of these features do not play much of a role in driving female's evaluations of the attractiveness of male faces. These features possibly play even less of a role in driving actual mating outcomes for men. Nonetheless, individuals that are generally considered objectively attractive, such as male models, often appear to have pronounced hunter eyes. Men with hunter eyes look highly dominant and threatening, with a piercing, predatory gaze. Their eyes impart a distinctive look on those that bear them, suggesting they are generally considered to be alluring.
Despite them likely being a masculine sexually dimorphic trait, hunter eyes are also generally seen as an attractive feature among women, with many prominent actresses and female entertainers possessing this feature. As well as being sexually attractive, hunter eyes in women may be associated with perceptions of greater sexual availability, possibly driving men's attraction to the women that have these kind of eyes.
A 2023 study found that the width-to-height ratio of the eyes and level of exposure of the sclera were not significant associated with attractiveness judgements in European men or women. This suggests that these particular sexually dimorphic ocular traits, overlapping but not the same as the concept of 'hunter eyes', do not play much of role in physical attractiveness in both sexes.
Evolution[edit | edit source]
Deep-set hunter eyes may be an evolutionary adaptation for combat, hunting and male intrasexual competition, protecting men's eyes from fists, claws, sticks etc. and/or may serve to merely intimidate other males.
More examples of hunter and 'prey eyes'[edit | edit source]
See also[edit | edit source]
References[edit | edit source]
- Hajnis K, Farkas LG, Ngim RCK, Lee ST, Venkatadri G (1994) Racial and ethnic morphometric differences in the craniofacial complex. In: Farkas LG (ed) Anthropometry of the Head and Face, 2nd edn. Raven Press, New York, pp 201-218