OK, so the study in question wasn’t specifically about Angelina Jolie, but while I was reading this article about

how Canadian researchers used Photoshopped images of women to determine the golden ratio of distance between their eyes and mouths that would make them appear most attractive,

I was shocked by some of the stars who don’t meet the guidelines they found. I mean, besides Jolie, they also mentioned…

OK, so the study in question wasn’t specifically about Angelina Jolie,

but while I was reading this article about how Canadian researchers used Photoshopped images of women to determine the golden ratio of distance between their eyes and mouths that would make them appear most attractive,

I was shocked by some of the stars who don’t meet the guidelines they found. I mean, besides Jolie, they also mentioned…

…Elizabeth Hurley. Really? So they’ve found scientific measurements that people find beautiful (which by the way, say that woman’s pupils should be 46% of the width of her face from ear to ear,

and the distance her eyes and lips must 36% of the overall length of her face), yet two of the most gorgeous women on the planet don’t fit them. That’s a head scratcher, right?

Well, the authors say it’s all because, ultimately, it’s probably more important how attractive men found the individual features themselves than where exactly they’re placed on the face.

But I’d also argue that the thing about the golden ratio is that it’s simply measuring what appeals to us in a face without any context at all. And that’s not really accurate because beauty is more than just what we think is pretty when we first see a picture.

Sure, we may be drawn to shots of people whose right side matches their left and whose eyes are the perfect distance apart, but in real life, I think we often find beauty in quirks. Or spirit.

Take, for example, Susan Sarandon, who is pretty in pictures, sure, but catch a few seconds of her walking or even better, talking, and suddenly she’s a total sex pot.