" I still can't figure out why people think a mesh has a gender. shrug bonni" Look at the mesh as a wireframe: If it has density in the breast area (e.g. any Vickie) there is scope for large perturbations in this area without the mesh appearing as "squared off" points in the curved parts, if there is little density there the jaggies will appear. Check the underside of the breast area on Steph 1 compared to Vicky 1/2 at large breast sizes. Muscle structure, again compare the mesh of Mike 2 (or Steph 1) with Vicky 1/2. There is extra density - and thus more scope for smooth morphs - in all the major muscle areas. The mesh "follows" the underlying human muscle structure with complementary mesh density. So, no mesh doesn't have gender, but it can be developed to support one gender over the other, with less work/overexploitation of the mesh to achieve the desired effect. And lest someone reads this post to mean that a unimesh can't be done, I'm not saying that. Extra mesh density doesn't do a great deal of harm - within reason if it is under used in say the breast or hip area, so it seems entirely possible to create a true "unimesh" that supports male and female representations equally, i.e. is a superset of needed higher mesh density areas. The issue with Daz's approach that has lead to this "genderization" discussion is that Daz did not set out to design a unimesh, instead they extended their V3Male morphs into M3, (subsequently) renaming V3 a "unimesh". Had they repeated their V2 to V3 mesh subdivision process on M2 to make M3, then included the higher mesh density from V3 in the breast area, they would have had something they could justify as a unimesh. (They could also have usefully added some mesh density in the hip area too, but that stays into a different issue ;-)