Do you prefer more robust or gracile faces, and why?

[Anglo-Celtic]

A more robust skull is indicative of better development and nutrition. The more robust of a skull, the easier chewing and breathing are, the better the natural posture, in addition to being more resistant to blunt-force trauma. If you look at the top MMA fighters, they're all large-skulled with a thick, low-set supraorbital ridge and high, forward cheekbones; in comparison to the general population.

How does that translate to women? Are women, with very gracile skulls, more likely to be on the lower end of development, or is that just a guy thing? My noggin' is a bit *too* robust and thick, to the point where heavy blows, with body parts and certain objects, don't impact me as much as many people. I guess that I'm hardheaded in more ways than one.

[jakob]

How does that translate to women? Are women, with very gracile skulls, more likely to be on the lower end of development, or is that just a guy thing?

It's relative. They're naturally going to be less robust than men due to genetics and hormones, just like they'll have wider hips, narrower shoulders, shorter stature, etc. A cro-magnon woman from 10 thousand years ago will be more robust than modern women to a similar degree a cro-magnon man would be to modern men.

[Anglo-Celtic]

It's relative. They're naturally going to be less robust than men due to genetics and hormones, just like they'll have wider hips, narrower shoulders, shorter stature, etc. A cro-magnon woman from 10 thousand years ago will be more robust than modern women to a similar degree a cro-magnon man would be to modern men.

That makes perfect sense, and Neanderthal women very well could have been stronger than modern men too. MTG demonstrates that possibility (duck). What about modern women, though? Do very gracile women fit into the puny and scrawny category like some men do?

[jakob]

Do very gracile women fit into the puny and scrawny category like some men do?

Yes, I think so, though as you're probably aware this doesn't have the same social repercussion due to the pseudo feminine nature of it. Conversely, more robust men are seen as more masculine and appealing typically, though there is a ceiling to it, particularly with younger women, but the same applies to the female inverse too.

[Anglo-Celtic]

Yes, I think so, though as you're probably aware this doesn't have the same social repercussion due to the pseudo feminine nature of it. Conversely, more robust men are seen as more masculine and appealing typically, though there is a ceiling to it, particularly with younger women, but the same applies to the female inverse too.

I think that there's a thread on that very topic. There was "too feminine" and "too masculine", and "just right" was the preference. I think that the emotional take is that women want to feel safe with a robust man, but they might feel threatened by a *too* robust man. I'm likely just being a geek, though.

[Richmondbread]

I think intermediate looks best.