Here is our brave reader number two, she says: "Many of the women you have posted have very long, lovely legs! Or perhaps that's just compared to me. I have very, very short legs. My inseam is 23 inches, and my full height is five feet and one inch. I've always heard that dreaded comment from friends: "You have a great torso BUT....your legs are too short." Oh, I know. I've forever hoped that I'd have a miraculous growth spurt and catch up with my peers at their 5'8'' or 5'9'' statures. But no, I've always been the small one. My short legs make it impossible to "work" an outfit like my long-legged friends. I've been left in their shadows for far too long (Figuratively and literally)! Of course, I'm the short one in the photos. I kept some of my friends in for contrast."
Dear reader, by looking at the photos I can see you are indeed short, however, your proportions appear close to balanced, your legs are not "very, very short", only a little bit short, it's your overall height that is petite. In fact your proportions are almost the same as your tallest friend where both of you are on the beach, with her everything is long (torso & legs), with you everything is shortish (torso & legs). Besides you have a nice body, slim yet curvaceous, with a very pretty face (I've seen it), so stop your insecurities.
I think in many cases we see ourselves much more disproportionate then we truly are, that is how it is with me, and the first photo submitter and you too.
Posts
I think you measured your inseam incorrectly. You measure from the floor to the very top of where your legs top and your crotch begins. I have a friend who is your height, but you look leggier. And she measured at about 28 inches.
ReplyDeleteYou all have a dusting of Body Dysmorphic Disorder.
ReplyDeleteI bet the guys just drool over you.
ReplyDeleteYou look best in the tighter tops. Baggy t-shirts and sweatshirts rate high in the comfort factor, but make you look blockier, and you don't have the height to compensate for it.
ReplyDeleteTo your advantage, very few tall women who can look spindly like tall your friend, can rarely 'work' your shirt like you do in the brown one. I'm talking about the overall curviness of the torso, from the great shoulders, the beautiful waist, the lovely hips, etc.
Kristen Davis is around 5'4 I think but you have a similar shape and body proportion. I know of all the Sex and the City gals, guys always told me they found her to be the sexiest.
ReplyDeleteI always thought it would be leggy Kim Cattrell as the guys' favorite but have been told emphatically that women prefer Kim guys prefer Kristen....
Audrey
First poster, my inseam is 28 inches and I have 5'3". My bodu rather seem same the girl of pictures.
ReplyDeleteIt´s relative.
Second poster, I agree. Some people here maybe have body dismorphic disorder. Maybe me too.
You are so cute.
ReplyDeleteYeah, your proportions sound about right at 28 and 5'3". BUT, there is no way that she's 5'1 and 23 inch inseam!!!
ReplyDeletePerhaps, she's 27 or so a couple inch difference but 5 inch difference in leg between you and her, c'mon?!!! Especially, if you and her have a similar proportional look.... She mismeasured.
It would be better if we knew her CI or leg ratio, but it would depend on accuracy....
ReplyDeleteI would buy the 23 inch inseam if she were 4'8, but she's 5'1.
ReplyDeleteYou can also wear the super short shorts and look sporty, sweet and fresh.
ReplyDeleteI, on the other hand, would look like I'm prostituting myself. Not in that sexy way they show in magazines, but in the trashy real life vulgar way.
You also seem to like lighter or medium wash jeans. In the cut of the jeans on the bottom, a darker wash or rinse can be more slimming and elongating. Though if you feel like a lighter color jeans, then go for it! It's not use wearing something you don't feel is you or you aren't comfortable with.
ReplyDeleteWhat's with all the horizontal stripe long socks?
ReplyDeleteYou also look like you have a pretty good ass, from the pic of you in the blue tank. And nice boobs. Geez, what are you complaining about?!
ReplyDeleteI think your bag in the last pic look just fine. But it made me think of bag size. Something I've noticed with the trend of large bags and traveling over the holidays. Petite women can sometimes look overwhelmed by large totes or purses on the arm.
ReplyDeleteI like your legs. They look curvy and athletic. Never stick like, no knobby knees, etc. It's too bad we can't see faces because I think the face is 50% or more of a person's looks.
ReplyDeleteMaybe, she measured from the top of the inside of her leg to the top of her ankle instead of the feet....
ReplyDeleteThe girl on the picture is not disproportionate, but just short. There are a lot of people like that, especially Asians.:) And they don't bother.:)))
ReplyDeleteAlso, there are 2 advantages of not very long legs
1) Long-legged women have low sex drive. Long ago, when I was a teenager and fashion for "hangers" was even stronger than now, an older friend of mine,a guy very popular with women, said, when such chicks were passing by: "Don't be jealous, they are only for looking, but for a relationship/sex they're boring!" And he did not want to flatter me, we were just neighbours. Please read this
http://www.womanknows.com/relationship/news/133/
And it's true! I read the same in several interviews of professional sexologists (who were male), and they all said the same thing. Pity these interviews are in Russian, otherwise I would post links as well.
2) People with excessively long legs have weak bones (and bad health in general!). About 15 of my associates and friends broke their legs once or twice in their life. And more than 100% of them had legs longer than average, and thin. One of them was my ex-boyfriend, I felt sorry for him. But another one was a chick from my university group. She was so damn proud of her long legs that almost directly said she was better than me. So, when she broke her leg, I was sort of... not glad, but did not feel sorry for her at all. I know it sounds childish. But here's the fact: we're stronger and healthier.:)
you have unrealistic expectations. most women are not 5'9 or 5'8.
ReplyDeleteYou have a lovely figure.
ReplyDeleteYou have a nice curvy figure with a great top half and very enviable tiny waist, but your legs are on the short side. You don't have a long torso, so don't particularly fit with this blog in that sense, but at the same time there are people with your length torso and longer legs. No doubt you know this, and aren't insulted. I'm the same, not a hugely long torso, but my legs could still have at least a couple more inches for my overall height. I don't believe your inseam is 23" though. I would guess about 27". I am 5 foot 2 and a half and my legs are about 29". Yours certainly don't look 6" shorter than mine, maybe 2" at the most.
ReplyDeleteThe last pic of you in the jeans and blue shirt is a good look, as it gives the impression that your legs end slightly higher.
I am wondering though, if every single person that posts their pic is going to be told they don't have short legs. Let's be honest, otherwise there's little point in the blog.
'It's too bad we can't see faces because I think the face is 50% or more of a person's looks.'
ReplyDeleteThe relationship between face and body in terms of perceived attractiveness is interesting (and depressing maybe).
I think an attractive face is worth more than any physical attributes of the body. Think about it. A woman with a very attractive face, but average body will be considered attractive overall. A woman with an average face and great body will probably not be considered attractive. I read a quote once 'A beautiful figure is worth nothing without a beautiful face'. It has limits obviously, a woman who has a beautiful face but is very fat for instance will still not be considered attractive. But if she is slim, with legs that are short, she still will be. But a woman with Elle McPherson's figure, but a totally average face will not likely be seen as a 'hottie'.
I have quite a pretty face. I am no stunning beauty, but it has nice proportions, big eyes, small nose, nice shape overall (although I wish I could have liposuction on my cheeks lol). I have been told I am pretty or beautiful countless times. While I would love to have endless legs, and they are certainly top of my wish looks wish list, I would not swap them for a plain face.
Interesting responses and call for honesty.
ReplyDelete1. But, I think what's worrisome is that Brave Reader 2 isn't someone who wants to be an inch or two taller, or just average. This is a person who wants to go from 5'1 to 5'9. It's disconcerting because it seems to supersede all the other above average things she has going for her. Maybe, it's age and maturity? Or something a little deeper?
2. It's confusing. I think most of us are learning and aren't sure what we're seeing. It would help to include accurate inseams, heights, CI and leg ratios to make it relevant instead of guesswork. I'm betting she's 54% CI or 46% leg which we've learned is low normal.
BUT despite this, she doesn't look that disproportionate.... honestly. She seems leggier than Christina Ricci. And similar, but even better than Jessica Simpson. So, proportioned very, very normally for her height. I've seen women shaped like her on the street, in the supermarket, in every ethnic group and country I've ever traveled and lived in. And more often than not, when I've seen people her height they're more apt to look like her than look like Kylie.
3. Proportions also include your horizontal body shape (your curves, waistline, etc). And it is just as important as your vertical one (length of torso, legs) to how you look. The two interact to provide people with the impression of what you look like.
4. To give BR2 the benefit of the doubt, I think sometimes there can be a disconnect between how we look, and who we feel we are internally. Sometimes, the 6'3 guy with the square jaw is rather shy, not so outgoing or authoritative, or the first one to charge up a mountain. And vice versa with the 'cute' short girl - sometimes she is.
5. BR2 probably looks best in the last pic because it's from a distance, not photographed at a perspective disfavorable to her because it has to include her taller friends. it helps just as much as her clothing.
6. We may or may not realize it consciously, but we carry most of the differences in height in our legs. Not in our torsos. There's a tendency people have to blame their legs for shortness because that's where they see the lack of length, like BR2 and her friends.
But it's because when we sit down, we seem about the same height or just a few inches different sometimes. Which can be concealed by slouching or exaggerated by those with good posture.
But an inch or two in your torso corresponds to that same increase in your thigh length and then increased again by added length in shins/lower legs. So that your friend who seems barely 1.5 inches taller than you sitting down is suddenly 4-5 inches taller when they stand up.
But, to BR2 and her friends, they overemphasized the shortness of her legs, because that may be see when they look at her from their taller perspective. In addition, it's true that short height can be a real problem, resulting in discrimination and prejudice especially for guys.
Audrey
"I am wondering though, if every single person that posts their pic is going to be told they don't have short legs. Let's be honest, otherwise there's little point in the blog."
ReplyDeleteOK dear readers you do have a valid point, we have been sort of bashing the celebrities, putting exaggeration on their proportions while doing the opposite with us regular girls. But the intent of this blog is to give the readers better self confidence and to help us all feel better about ourselves.
And it does seem to be turning that in the three cases of photo submission, including myself, that our view of our bodies was more exaggerated than reality. meaning we all thought our proportions were much worse then they were in actuality.
However I do still agree with you so I will be as honest as possible in my comments, while still being kind and nurturing.
- Audrey thanks for your smart and great comment.
"it's true that short height can be a real problem, resulting in discrimination and prejudice especially for guys. "
ReplyDeleteAudrey, I wouldn't completely agree with that. I think it's just a complex in our heads. Actually, fashion for long legs is supported only by women with long legs and some homosexual designers.;)
Do you remember these numerous stupid articles in internet, like 'scientists found that men prefer women with legs 1.4 of the body"... and something like that?? Well, being a scientist myself, I know how some papers are written. So i found the original of this paper. Here it is:
http://www.femininebeauty.info/f/leg.body.ratio.pdf
As you see, they asked 71 UNDERGRADUATE BRITISH students, out of which 31 were FEMALES. And then they make such a general conclusion!!! To make such a general conclusion like "men prefer women with long legs", you have to ask at least several THOUSAND people different ages, different cultures, different nationalities, different personality types and so on, especially concentrating on those who are less affected by mass media (and British undergraduate students are zombied by it + most of them will change their preferences after 25 years old). So this is a fake, anti-scientific paper written by absolutely illiterate people. But this information has been caught by mass media and spread. Also, there is a great number of plain-looking long-legged women (you know this type - unsexy rectangular figure 80x70x80), who love this myth and support it on every internet forum about beauty. So I suggest we should be really confident about ourselves.:))))
i think short legs with long torso is more attractive than way too short torso with longer legs. we at least have heels to trick the short legs and when we gain little bit of fat in the belly, it doesn't show that much!!
ReplyDeleteWhat about Jennifer Aniston? She has an average if not below average face and a killer body.
ReplyDeleteOr Kristen Dunst and Reese Witherspoon. Both are pretty average (body and face), but I guess being blonde makes up for it. Gywneth Paltrow also has an average face - did you see her in brown hair in the movie Bounce with Ben Affleck?
It's a toss up. People here lament having short legs or a long torso. But, it's possible to have legs that are too long.
ReplyDeleteLook at Naomi Campbell.
http://www.modelsandmoguls.com/2010/02/02/naomi-campbell-gets-naked-for-love/
She may look wonderful in a Valentino, but naked or in a swimming suit she looks like a guy. The height and long legs of a guy, man hips and thighs that lack curviness. Maybe, your height and curves can make clothes difficult but without them or in bathing suits you look very womanly.
Here's Cameron Diaz.
http://www.denimology.com/2010/03/cameron_diaz_in_american_eagle_denim_shorts.php
Maybe, you think her legs look great. But, to me they look way too long. And without the hips and butt for those shorts. She kind of a looks like a trannie.
I'm sorry but just because you have long legs and a short torso does not mean you look like a guy. Look at Candice Swanepoel:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.skinnyvscurvy.com/hot-models/mega-bikini-treat-candice-swanepoel.html
Also Jessica Simpson has a long torso but she doesn't have much of a waist.
I looked at your pic of Candice. What the hell are you talking about? I think it serves my point.
ReplyDeleteCandice has a very, very feminine waistline and curvy hips, although she is slim and tall with long legs.
My point is that if you're tall like a guy, short waisted, with hardly any waist, no hips or straight dude hips followed by straight muscular thighs... Then, well you like a dude. Especially, in a bikini or nude. Although you may look spectacular in a evening gown.
In contrast, a lot of shorter, curvier woman though they may not look stunningly elegant in clothes, or can sell clothes, they look A LOT better in a bikini (or at least look like a woman), or probably in the buff.
I'm not downing the tall, leggy, short waisted. I'm just saying they both have their advantages, disadvantages, no? We almost never talk in the media about the down side of being leggy and short waisted. We're sold that we should want to look like Naomi and Cameron.
There's a reason that the bikini models and Playboy models are generally shorter, longer waisted, and curvier than the high fashion models. One type is sexy and womanly and the other aesthetically androgynously beautiful.
ReplyDeleteDid you even look at the images I posted?
Maybe I misunderstood you but I thought you said that women with a short torso and long legs tend to look manly but Candice has a short torso (relative to her legs) and she looks very nice. But it's true, I'd rather look like Rachel Bilson than Naomi and Cameron. The idea for me would be Candice's body. Because she is curvy AND has disproportionately long legs.
ReplyDeleteAlso Miley Cyrus and Blake Lively have a short torso and long legs and their bodies are feminine....
ReplyDeleteMiley Cyrus is not tall like you're average guy, and while she's shorter waisted, she's not as extreme as Naomi and Cameron.
ReplyDeleteAnd Blake Lively has that rare combination of being tall and curvy. Boobs, hippy, and womanly legs. Nor is her torso that short. She has a long torso followed by even longer legs.
Remember just because you have long legs, it doesn't mean you necessarily you're short waisted. You can have a long torso and long legs. And you can have short legs but not necessarily be long waisted.
ReplyDeleteI think Lady Short Legs has a long torso with medium or long legs. The second girl with the voice teacher is well balanced. And this third girl here is short, with shortish legs but doesn't look like she has a long torso.
Probably because I think most women (not all women) with long torsos have to hit a certain height, maybe at least 5'3 to look like they have a long torso. Although being short, you of course can look like you have short legs - because being short, you're legs are generally shorter than those taller than you.
But to have a long torso that's not just proportionally short compared to yourself but to the rest of us well then I think you have to reach a certain height like I said.
Yeah, and I think even with these tall model women types even if they look shorter waisted and long legged compared to their own bodies, they may especially if they're hitting 5'10 will have longer torsos than the rest us.
ReplyDeleteEven Gisele Bundchen may have a longer torso than me, although may be not as much as we would expect if we just compared to us standing up side by side.
Many women have feminine bodies even though they have a short torso and long legs. Well Candice is tall and has a short torso and long legs (as extreme as Cameron imo). Her torso looks longer than it really is because it's so narrow.If you don't believe me, look here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.skinnyvscurvy.com/miranda-kerr/victorias-secret-hotties-what-sexy-bombshell-edition.html.
http://www.skinnyvscurvy.com/celebrity-weight-measurements/candice-swanepoel-bikini.html
Candice is 5'8" (she is listed at 5'9.5" but she is really under 5'9") so she is not even that tall yet her legs are the longest out of the bunch. Compare her legs to Rosie's who is proportionate.
http://www.skinnyvscurvy.com/celebrity-weight-measurements/candice-swanepoel-bikini.html
How manly your body does not have that much to do with leg length...
I'm just saying like there's a tendency (not a rule) that short legs and long torsos go together so do long legs and short torsos. Each have their good and bad points.
ReplyDeleteCandice has a feminine body although she does have a very leggy look. She looks short waisted in the pink bikini, but in the other blue/purple swimming suits, she looks like she has a long torso followed by even more incredibly long legs.
She doesn't have that straight no waist, hipless, no thigh look like Cameron or Naomi. And yeah, that straight short waisted type of torso followed by the super leggy look, yeah, I think it looks like a feminine guy or like hermaphroditic, androgynous look.
I'm a little confused about inseam. I measured my inseam to be about 30 inches and I'm 5'8". Yet you guys are telling me her inseam is probably about 28" when she is 5'1". I have a long torso but not THAT long. Do you think I measured wrong?
ReplyDeleteHere are some pics:
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/983/80658065.jpg/
http://img442.imageshack.us/i/rsz77291187417138217161.jpg/
http://img208.imageshack.us/i/10223115904962904716119.jpg/
The middle pic shows my disproportion best. I actually look leggy in the last one.
By the way, why are you so defensive about it?
ReplyDeleteI guess you're right. I actually read it's a masculine trait to have long legs. Men are the leggier sex. I just have leg lust lol...My inseam is only 30" and I'm 5'8".
ReplyDeleteLol, I didn't mean to come off as so offensive.
ReplyDeleteWe all do, but I think it blinds us to seeing reality. And are you sure that you measured your inseam correctly.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm not sure. I haven't measured my inseam in 2 years but I distinctly remember it being just over 30". I'm not sure what the average inseam for my height is. It's frustrating because I want to know whether I'm disproportionate or not.
ReplyDeleteThen you should read the proportions/Cormic post.
ReplyDelete>>What about Jennifer Aniston? She has an average if not below average face and a killer body.
ReplyDeleteOr Kristen Dunst and Reese Witherspoon. Both are pretty average (body and face), but I guess being blonde makes up for it. Gywneth Paltrow also has an average face - did you see her in brown hair in the movie Bounce with Ben Affleck?<<
This is an interesting post for two reasons. Neither are much to do with this blog, but I'm sure we're all interested anyway.
Jennifer Anniston does indeed have a great body and average face. Her body is her selling point, yet she is not overly leggy. Rather, she is that unusual thing, perfectly proportioned (as in just very balanced, not the hugely leggy proportions of models). Her legs don't go on forever, but they are just long enough to give her a great figure, and combined with her other proportions, she has an amazing figure overall.
The other point, which is nothing to do with this blog, but is a pertinent issue for women nonetheless, is why blonde hair (and to a lesser extent blue eyes) tend to confer attractiveness, regardless of the actual attractiveness of the face.
Blondes are not necessarily seen as the most attractive people on Earth (regardless of the cliche), on the contrary I'm sure a lot of people would name a brunette as their most attractive choice (white or otherwise). However, it is clear that a face that would not be deemed attractive with dark hair can be deemed beautiful with blonde hair. Brunettes (white or otherwise) have to actually have a beautiful face to be seen as beautiful, blondes don't always.
>>I'm a little confused about inseam. I measured my inseam to be about 30 inches and I'm 5'8". Yet you guys are telling me her inseam is probably about 28" when she is 5'1". I have a long torso but not THAT long. Do you think I measured wrong?
ReplyDeleteHere are some pics:
http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/983/80658065.jpg/
http://img442.imageshack.us/i/rsz77291187417138217161.jpg/
http://img208.imageshack.us/i/10223115904962904716119.jpg/
The middle pic shows my disproportion best. I actually look leggy in the last one.<<
You need to go away because you have obviously come on this site to ridicule people who have short legs ad long torsos.
You obviously have long legs compared to your body length, so don't come on here fishing for compliments!
I'm the girl whose photos were posted. First of all, to the other girl who posted photos: You're very long legged. However, most of the length is in your thighs, not your calves, so that may explain why your legs look long but measure as "Short."
ReplyDeleteEveryone is correct in saying that I don't have the exact body that the blog concentrates on, which is long torso, short legs. I'm just short all over, as you can see here in some other photos:
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5002/5264337065_a2a5bea429_b.jpg
I find it to be a huge disadvantage. Men don't notice you, they notice the long-legged girls first. Pants are a nightmare. It's very difficult to look glamorous or eye-catching when there's nothing really remarkable about your figure except that you're at elbow-height.
Most of the celebrities posted, too, have quite long legs. If that's considered short, what am I? I've done quite a lot of research, and virtually every man will prefer long legs, and girls agree that long legs are more feminine and that short legs look stumpy and hobbit-esque. I'd love to emebrace my short legs, but these days it's getting increasingly difficult to do so!
Sorry for hijacking this post. I'm not fishing for compliments. I was just inquiring about inseam and wanted to show that my legs aren't that short yet my inseam implies that they would be. Look at the 3rd pic, I obviously have a long torso. Actually I found a better pic. Although this outfit may not be the most flattering and I think it exaggerates my long torso:
ReplyDeletehttp://img406.imageshack.us/img406/658/rsz45426147418422721516.jpg
Yeah I definitely do not have legs long for my frame. It just goes to show how much apparent proportion can vary from pic to pic. Also I'm slimmer in the first pics I posted so that helps to make my legs longer as well.
In response to the girl whose pics were posted... Even though a lot of guys like the leggy type a lot of guys I know prefer petite girls. I actually think your body is more attractive than your friend's even though she has long legs because you have such a hips to waist ratio in comparison to her and it looks more feminine to me. I think a long torso goes with a small waist. As you can see in the pic, my waist isn't as defined as yours so that's why I'd rather have a shorter torso.
Marylin Monroe is now called "short-legged". But so many men like her.:)
ReplyDeleteI have to post this after Brave Reader 2's one comment--my husband has told me MULTIPLE TIMES that he prefers proportionately short-legged women to long-legged women. I don't think he says that just to make me feel better. Personally, I don't see the appeal, but he says that girls with long legs look like insects. So... maybe he's just one out of a million guys who prefers short legs to long, but there are a couple of men out there like that!
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'm the one who posted the above: I want to clarify something. I only said "I don't see the appeal" because of how badly I wish MY legs were longer. I hope I didn't sound snotty or anything. My grandparents always told me "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and that's true, I just hate my own proportions so much that sometimes I think I make the mistake of thinking everyone else must view the concept of being short-legged as I do.
ReplyDeleteAs someone with similar proportions, albeit at a taller height it's never been about 'embracing' or loving my short legs. That would be flying in the face of social reality. And I always thought attempts to do so built me up for failure by a careless remark here and there.
ReplyDeleteBut, you can try and see, as people have been trying to do with their comments, to FOCUS on the positives, what you like about yourself or at least those good things people have been telling you. Give them their weight.
Think of your height or your short legs only as you would in knowing your coloring for choosing a color of lipstick that would complement you.
In my comment that short height leads to prejudice and discrimination especially for guys, I meant that it is harder for guys to be short. Not that guys don't like short girls. Because they do. They're much more flexible in this regard than women I think. I can't count how many times I've seen really tall, big guys with petite women. It's a frequent pairing.
Is 5'1 such a short height for a woman? To engender this amount of feeling? I never thought so. I have thought being under 5' would be hard, but in my travels I've seen very attractive, very small women and didn't think it was the end of the world.
Given all things being equal, I"m sure guys would choose a girl with long legs. All things being equal would you choose a 5'8 guy or guy who's 6'1? But in life all things aren't equal.
Hopefully, this doesn't feed into your neurosis. There is so much exaggeration, distortion, and inability to see anything else in your mirror. But if it doesn't speak to you, maybe it will speak to someone else.
Audrey
Is it a good idea to post pictures of yourself face and all? I was surprised. But, you look like that girl from Party of Five. Lacey Chabert, is her name I think? Pretty girl. I thought she was good in Mean Girls.
ReplyDeleteAudrey
What is the point of speaking to the implications of inseams if you haven't measured your inseam, or haven't measured your inseam accurately? Or calculated any of your other measurements? There seems something wrong in wanting someone else to tell you if you have short legs.
ReplyDeleteAudrey
"You obviously have long legs compared to your body length, so don't come on here fishing for compliments!"
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this I thought, yes, longer legs shown on a woman here would incite some whiplash from the rest of us. But I think BR1 and BR2 as well as LSL herself did not share their pics for compliments, nor would any others who share pics of themselves. All of us have issues with our bodies, whether or not others see any merit in our personal complaints. Someone with proportionately longer legs compared to someone else might invite some hidden jealousies (I know I was a little cranky with Lady Short Legs when I realized she has better proportions than me--no offense, LSL, you're awesome!) but still I think the point of this site is for us to encourage one another, right? So I don't mind handing out a few sincere compliments if it makes someone feel better... because I CERTAINLY know what it feels like to go to bed and wake up every day for a spell absolutely HATING what I look like. Being rational has nothing to do with anything sometimes. Because you can say you have nice hair or eyes or skin or whatever, but if all you see one day is your *legs* than all the rest won't matter until you've personally worked through whatever internal issue you're dealing with.
If you come on saying you have short legs when you don't, then you're going to look like you're fishing. If you come on like LSL and say I thought my legs were short, but my leg ratio is pretty good actually, then I think it's going to incite a different response. BR2 is understood to be short and have short legs by her and everyone else. Stop justifying.
ReplyDeleteWho's justifying what? Internal perceptions of the self are just as valid as physical issues that are more tangible. I personally didn't look at that girl's pictures in the links she posted, so maybe she is very long-legged and I don't know it, but it can still be a very real thing for someone to have body issues and for them to perceive themselves in a very negative light. Body Dysmorphic Disorder is very real; perhaps the concept is more familiar to those of us with obsessive personalities or OCD outright. Granted, it's a relatively simple thing to measure your legs and see whether or not you're proportionate, but I don't think that might take away from the fact that someone really hates how they LOOK because they might hate who they ARE. So what's being justified? You can feel bad for someone if they're that desperate with themselves.
ReplyDeleteInternal perceptions not matched by reality if a BIG F'N DYSMORPHIA. No validity at all. We are not psychologists. Your laziness in making any effort to measure yourself (FOR YOURSELF by the way) and then weighing in on the discussion is not helpful.
ReplyDeleteI like FISHING. Her response was fast and insightful.
Um... who are you yelling at? I'm not the girl who originally posted that comment with the links. I was just throwing in some possible perspective on the situation, as an outsider.
ReplyDeleteI personally have measured my legs and torso and done the whole Cormic Index thing and can assure you that I *personally* am quite disproportionate. But the validity of my personal less-than-ideal proportions could still be seen by an outsider as nonsense if all they see is my hair, or my health, or something else that they PERSONALLY desire for themselves. It is all perspective, when you boil it down.
I just have to wonder why are you so angry about this?
If you hate how you look because you hate who you are, and it has no basis in physical reality, then how do you expect anyone or anything to help you, BR2. Not to mention the confusion of comments weighing on inseams and what those inaccurate inseams are supposed to mean.
ReplyDeleteBR2 didn't post that.
ReplyDeleteAnd is your 23 inseam correct, BR2? If you can't see anything else besides your height then yes, I don't see how anything done or said is going to make you feel any better. It's in your hands. It's your life.
ReplyDeleteBut it's not internal perceptions with the girl with long legs. She has stated that she has actually measured her inseam and that it is 30". Looking at her pic, there is no way that that is anywhere near correct. But maybe she just measured to her ankle or something.
ReplyDeleteActually, I have just looked at her pic again, and her legs are shorter than I first thought. Her lower leg from knee to foot looks proportionally short. From knee to top looks long, and that is what I originally focussed on, but even then it is not clear from this picture where her legs actually stop and torso begins.
ReplyDeleteSome people have way too much free time in their hands...Hey, maybe you should start a new blog. I want to see if my wrist is proportional to the rest of my hand. Jeez!
ReplyDeleteAwesome body! Her legs are not too short at all, IMO, just a little bit, as you said. But maybe that's only when compared to such a great, lean and curvy torso. Lucky girl!
ReplyDeleteIdk why the girl thinks her legs look short. To me they look fine especially since she has great upper body, waist, hips butt & legs. Actually I'd rather have your body than what I have. Your body looks so feminine & great. (I have long legs btw)
ReplyDelete