>>96246129Well, if we're splitting women into categories like "skinny" and "overweight," then you pretty much don't have a lot to work with.
Unless you feel like splitting hairs and expanding your list of body types. Which would be silly.
That means you pretty much only have "skinny" women, who are at a healthy or undernourished size (because that term is used for both), and "overweight" women, unless you want to expand that into different levels of being overweight.
So you pretty much just have a grid of what your possibilities are:
-skinny + skinny
-overweight + overweight
-skinny + overweight
Annnnnd that's it.
If we add in "tall" and "short," the list gets slightly longer, but not by much.
-tall/skinny + tall/large
-tall/skinny + short/large
-tall/skinny + short/skinny
-tall/large + short/large
-tall/large + short/skinny
Your options here for pairings is pretty limited if you're boiling it down to height and weight.
You'd have to add in other factors like hair color, hair length, facial structure, whether they wear glasses, etc., in order to really discuss visual prevalence in couplings.
