How does your face change when you grow up?

Question

What features become prominent or enlarge?? Anything?

Or is it different with everyone?

Answer 1

My nose got bigger,  I got lovely little wrinkles around my eyes,  and my once smooth looking skin isn't so much anymore.

Answer 2

apsolutely change

but looks remains in face when i was young

Answer 3

well most of it is to do with your eye sockets so you did put this in the right place...my 3 month old daughter was born with a little eye and it does not sit in her eye socket properly...this means that there is no pressure to push the eye socket out which then moves the cheek and jaw bones...so until the put expanders in to make the socket move outwards she has a diff shape to her face on either side.... your face if fully formed and will only change with a broken jaw or nose when you are 14 yrs old....it will then only get fatter and thinner with weight gain or loss

Answer 4

It's different with anyone, though for most people, when you age, you grow into your eyes, and your face thins out.

Answer 5

People age differently. Some will age fairly well, and look young at the age of 60 while some won't. Other than the fact that our ears and nose continuously grow, we all age differently.

Answer 6

Your nose grows an inch every year.

Answer 7

....

Answer 8

ur nose gets bigger-unfortunately ...lol

ur ears get bigger, ur face gets gets different..lets if u gain weight ur face will get fatter and wider...if u lose weight ur face will be normal

if u lose 2 much weight ur face will be boney and weird

good luck

xoxo

Answer 9

your face loses/gains elasticity is the main thing

Answer 10

um i watched this thing on csi where they aged a child, i dont really remember but it was cool.

Answer 11

Now I have crows feet and my face droops a little bit .My nose and mouth are the same :) and I am still just as cute as I ever was...I just appeal  to the 40 year old men instead of the 20' year old men but that's OK I am 53 :) and married !

Answer 12

cheeks loose fat and the face becomes more defined

Answer 13

I FOUND THIS ARTICLE TO BE QUITE INTERESTING...HOPE THIS HELPS!

Appearance and Circumstance: Miasms, Facial Features, & Homeopathy - Grant Bentley

Written by the principal of the Victorian College of Classical Homeopathy in Melbourne, Australia, this fascinating new book teaches you how to diagnose SEVEN primary miasms: psora, syphilis, sycosis, tubercular, syco-psoric, syco-syphilitic, and cancer miasms. What is truly unique about this book is that this author provides DETAILED information about facial features to diagnose these miasms.

Reviewed by Jon Gamble BA ND DipHom

Grant Bentley offers us a contention which, while simple, is also profound if it proves to be correct. It is this: each person has one dominant miasm. That miasmatic dominance remains throughout one's life and can be seen in the physical facial characteristics. Since the facial characteristics don't change, neither can the dominant miasm.

This is a refreshing, intelligent and original work. Bentley has spent many years examining the faces of those patients who had received successful homeopathic prescriptions. From those observations he has drawn conclusions about miasmatic facial characteristics. This is the refreshing part of the work, since the crux of his system rests upon clinical observation, not more lofty theories, of which our profession already has too many. The benefit of this system is clear: it narrows down the remedy selection. If you take all seven miasms (including syco-psora; syco-syphilis; cancer and tubercular), then from your final repertorization of the case you need only choose those remedies which feature strongly in the patient's miasm. Bentley includes some 40 pages of patient photographs which aid one's understanding of these miasmatic facial features.

This is the next bit of intelligent work: Bentley has re-examined the traditional materia medicas to determine in which respective miasm a remedy belongs. Any homeopath would sever their right arm to narrow down remedy selection choices in this way. So far, he has worked out the miasmatic classification for 70 polychrests.

The third part of Bentley's work describes miasmatic themes. This has been determined by observing patterns in the stories presented by patients who have responded well to a remedy from a specific miasmatic class.

Bentley has also described miasms by a colour. The reason for this is that a patient would rather be classified as "blue" than "syphilis". The colour scheme is consistent with the miasmatic themes Bentley has described.

As this work has only just been published, it remains to be seen whether it will be adopted by the profession; Bentley concedes that the work is in its infancy. My sense is that it will not only be adopted, but will also become a homeopathic milestone.

Now that I have extolled the virtues of what I think is a great piece of work, I am going to play the devil's advocate.

First: the contention that the same miasm remains dominant throughout one's life and does not change because the facial features don't change. One might argue that a correct remedy may diminish a miasmatic dominance ("peel off a miasmatic layer") without there being a corresponding change in the physical features. A long nose, after all, is not a disease symptom and one would not expect it to change after administration of the simillimum. One may accept that a dominant miasm fashions the genetic material which creates a life, yet the amount of time needed to change facial features once formed by a simillimum which removes the dominant miasm may be too short in a human lifetime.

There is, however, much support from our homeopathic forefathers for Bentley's contention, such as in the words of J H Allen: "We see [the chronic miasms] in every feature--in the shape and contour of the body--the visual expression, the face, nose, lips, ears, mouth --."

Another objection may be this: it may be unreliable in some respects to determine a person's miasm by the disease they suffer, for example, a person who is psoric may contract syphilis. In this case, can Bentley be sure that from his original clinical observations he chose the right miasmatic classification?

Another objection: facial features change as a result of life experience: a depressed person's mouth sags downwards after many years; an angry person eventually develops tight, narrow lips. May not life experience also fashion one's face, and lead one to catagorise the patient in the wrong miasm? (I suspect Bentley would differentiate a "functional" downturned mouth from an "inherent" one: he has certainly said that the extremes of age make for much more difficult miasmatic classification. I suspect he would also say that the way a patient responds to life experience also relates to their miasm.)

Having played the advocate, I wish to conclude by placing Bentley's work in a historical context. There is more than ample support from our homeopathic forefathers for the ideas and conclusions Bentley has made. The only other work of which I am familiar which classifies patients according to physical features is Vannier's La Typologie et Ses Applications Therapeutiques Les Temperaments Prototypes et Metatypes (1955). However in comparison, Vannier's work is lofty and highly speculative. One can't argue with the methodical clinical observation Bentley has used to formulate his work. I suspect even Dr H would concede a transient grunt of approval.

I have no hesitation in recommending this work to all my colleagues. Since Bentley often quotes from the Buddhist scriptures throughout his book, I shall similarly conclude with a quote from the Kalama Sutta: Don't just believe it because it sounds good, nor disbelieve it because it conflicts with your philosophy: go out and try it for yourself.