23 July 2011

Better Comments

We have a new commenting system DISQUS, which will be a great improvement to the previous. We can now reply directly to comments and have easy conversations amongst one another, without having to say "this is to the seventh anonymous commenter" and so on. You can still keep your privacy as before. Enjoy.


  1. I wish you could keep your blog up to help woman like their body type not some stereotype. I happen to think shorter legs and a longer torso are extremely, outrageously sexy -- not withstanding the fact that I am 6'5" and evenly proportioned. I seem to attract leggy girls, who think of themselves as tall ....

  2. I have to say that your blog is over the top. If your objective is to help women accept their bodies, you are going about it the wrong way.
    First off, you refer to longer-torsoed women as "disproportionate". Consider the fact that there are 3 main vertical body types (balanced, short torso long legs, and short legs long torso). Now consider horizontal body types, of which there are basically 4. Pears are more often short legged because they are bottom heavy. Having shorter legs balances their upper/lower weight placement to prevent structural issues. Likewise, the inverted triangle is top heavy and tends towards having long skinny legs to even things out. Apples are basically heavier inverted triangles or inverted triangles with wider hips, and are commonly leggy. Hourglasses are more evenly distributed in the upper and lower body and therefore tend to have medium length legs and torso. Rulers, depending on how stocky or thin their structure is, will have varying leg lengths.
    Given this infornation, now consider the fact that both pears and stocky rulers (bricks, for lack of better wording) are quite common. These types are of the shorter-leg type. Next, consider that apples and skinny rulers are also common, and often leggy. Hourglasses are least common but the variations in leg length among different body types make for plenty of moderate-legged women too.
    So what is my point? Well, it seems as though short legged women, based on common observation and the above descriptions, comprise at least one third of the female population. Thus making short legs/long torsoes quite normal and NOT "disproportionate" at all as you so crudely put it. If such women are disproportionate, then so are the other 2 vertical body types.
    Apparently there is a perception issue at hand. Because skinny "ruler" types are trendy (boyish figures, with long legs and virtually no curves), they are plastered all over billboards, fashion magazines and the like. Throw in some heels and photoshopping and you have a recipe for disaster. Keep in mind too, that most runway models are undeveloped teens who still have to grow into their legs. And this is what we are brainwashed into believing is "proportionate".

  3. Just to further add, in my program the profs were top notch. They discussed vertical body types as being based on measurements from the hip line. The hip line is where the pelvic bone and femur (thigh bone) join. If half your height comprises the bottom of the feet to the hipline, you are of the balanced vertical type (if less than half, shorter leg/torso ratio, etc). Artistically the balanced type is considered ideal, although any good teacher will tell you that variation is a good thing. And that while fitting an ideal gives a physical advantage, this is not to say that existing outside of statistical ideals makes a person less beautiful. In fact, many of the most beautiful people are unique in some way or another. It's the whole package that works together, not just having extra long legs, etc.

  4. Seems my posts are getting removed. Legs are never longer than 50% of a person's total height except with children and deformed individuals. Find your vertical body type by calculating the percentage of your hipline to the floor in comparison to your total height. Thd hipline is where the femur and pelvic girdle join. Sorry for my technical jargon. I'm a medical illustrator with degrees in art and biology. If the hipline down to the floor equals half your height you are balanced. If shorter, you are shorter legged abd longer torsoed. Longer would make you leggier. Balanced is artistically ideal, but any good prof will remind you that variation is good and proportions, while advantageous to be balanced, are only part of the total package and do not mean everything. Sometimes the most beautiful features are not proportionate but are unique in some way.
    As mentioned in a deleted post, I saw a comment placed by someone wishing to have an inseam longer than half her height. She was already balanced but wanted to be imbalanced. Legs this proportionately long (50% or more of total height) are anatomically incorrect except in small pocket regions of Central Africa and Australia. It seems like posting photos of regularly proportioned women, which most are, save Christina Ricci and a couple of others who have unusually short legs, is not helping such women. Ricci, despite her shorter than short legs, still has a decent figure. And most others on your site are of the short legs/long torso group but are not disproportionate. A few come close to being the balanced type too. Seems misleading and not likely good for women who actually have really short legs. Your site could give them the false idea that they're freaks. Not such a good way to boost confidence.