The Student Room Group

Girls, what is the reproductive significance of jawlines?

It's reproductively obvious why some men notice thigh gaps or came toes (if women are foolish enough to expose such).

It's reproductively obvious why men take note of wide hips, especially relative to waist, and of buttocks as a near proxy for this.

It's reproductively obvious why men look at visible indicators of ability to nurture newborn offspring.

We can allow that it's reproductively reasonable for women occasionally to look towards a man's bulge (if notable) inasmuch as the closer to the cervix semen is deposited, the greater the chances that a spermatozoon will meet an ovum.

But what is the reproductive relevance of a mandible?
Weak jaw means you'll get knocked out by a more masculine man. Then the girl's baby will be killed cus she picked a weak mate.
Original post by Anonymous
It's reproductively obvious why some men notice thigh gaps or came toes (if women are foolish enough to expose such).

I have to ask…. What do you mean by “foolish enough to expose such”? 🤔
Jacob Rees-Mogg has got like 47 children. So it is possible to be a chinless wonder and still be sexually successful.
Testosterone levels I guess from a biological standpoint

Sex hormones have effects across our whole bodies not just the parts designed to make and nurture a baby
It's always wild to see these takes where men are like "actually I'm sexualising you due to EVOLUTIONARY BEHAVIOURAL PATTERNS" but then have NO qualms about using condoms to avoid having to actually father children they will need to pay child support for.

Basically, that's not how any of that works and you trying to convince yourself otherwise doesn't change that. Humans have been able to ignore biological impetuses for thousands of years, as that's pretty much the way culture was developed. Otherwise we'd just be procreating and hunting and gathering still without engaging in anything such as you know, creating art, developing religions, flying rockets to the moon etc.
I'm surprised that an anon knows correct anatomical and scientific terminology such as mandible, spermatozoon and ovum!
Is this for a scientific research paper? TSR doesn't seem like a good resource for that kind of stuff, may I redirect you to more credible sources of information like google scholar?
(edited 1 year ago)
Original post by Anonymous
It's reproductively obvious why some men notice thigh gaps or came toes (if women are foolish enough to expose such).

It's reproductively obvious why men take note of wide hips, especially relative to waist, and of buttocks as a near proxy for this.

It's reproductively obvious why men look at visible indicators of ability to nurture newborn offspring.

We can allow that it's reproductively reasonable for women occasionally to look towards a man's bulge (if notable) inasmuch as the closer to the cervix semen is deposited, the greater the chances that a spermatozoon will meet an ovum.

But what is the reproductive relevance of a mandible?

Your wording of “if they are foolish enough to do so” has irked me.
A ‘camel toe’ is bunching of leggings that aren’t cut right for the body wearing them. That is not something sexual that is “reproductively obvious” to notice. Also, last time I checked, having a huge arse / small arse was nothing to do with reproductive ability. More so an overly sexualised part of the body that is not “reproductively obvious” to check out, as you say.
A sharp jawline is something that some people like. Or some people don’t care.

Here’s a question for you. Why do men look at females’ breasts and legs and get attracted to them? Last I checked, breasts and legs weren’t a sign of reproductive ability.
it shows high testosterone
Reply 9
Original post by Crazed cat lady
Jacob Rees-Mogg has got like 47 children. So it is possible to be a chinless wonder and still be sexually successful.


In these modern times wealth is probably more useful than being able to fight well. Does he really, can believe women can have such poor judgment however
Nature wins every time. If the pairing of male/female is not suitable or not a genetic perfect match - nature ejects the forming embryo and foetus and causes a miscarriage. Nature is ruthless and does not want poor genetic products to be reproduced.

So our subconscious attractions based on mutual likings are important. We usually choose a compatible 'mate' if the 'spark' is there.

Recessive jaw lines are associated with a lack of testosterone, and lack of dominance in the animal world. Although we have conditioned everyone in the UK to be passive and non aggressive so where do we go now?
Original post by Muttly
Nature wins every time. If the pairing of male/female is not suitable or not a genetic perfect match - nature ejects the forming embryo and foetus and causes a miscarriage. Nature is ruthless and does not want poor genetic products to be reproduced.

So our subconscious attractions based on mutual likings are important. We usually choose a compatible 'mate' if the 'spark' is there.

Recessive jaw lines are associated with a lack of testosterone, and lack of dominance in the animal world. Although we have conditioned everyone in the UK to be passive and non aggressive so where do we go now?


For posterity, it should be noted the above is all nonsense. If "nature" was some kind of intelligent design force deciding when to cause a miscarriage due to "poor genetic products" then the royal family would not have managed to continue procreating through centuries of incestuous marriages...
Original post by artful_lounger
For posterity, it should be noted the above is all nonsense. If "nature" was some kind of intelligent design force deciding when to cause a miscarriage due to "poor genetic products" then the royal family would not have managed to continue procreating through centuries of incestuous marriages...

Speaking of royalty, does that mean that OP finds the habsburg jaw attractive?
Original post by hungrysalamander
Speaking of royalty, does that mean that OP finds the habsburg jaw attractive?

That's one way of keeping things within the family.
Original post by artful_lounger
For posterity, it should be noted the above is all nonsense. If "nature" was some kind of intelligent design force deciding when to cause a miscarriage due to "poor genetic products" then the royal family would not have managed to continue procreating through centuries of incestuous marriages...

Thought the royals do in fact have a fairly wide pool of all Europe's aristocracies to choose from, shouldn't be a problem. 200 North Sentinelese are supposed to have been isolated for, what, 60,000 years without wiping themselves out with genetic burden?
You’re not using the word ‘reproductively’ in the correct context here. The jaw has no reproductive significance because the last time I checked, it has everything to do with mastication, speech and facial expression and nothing to do with procreation.

A desirable/ strong jawline is simply indicative of a class I or class III skeletal relationship.

Quick Reply