Longer-Legged People More Attractive, Scientists Say

[LWsciencejunkie]

I'm only 5'2. Always wished to be taller, not necessarily for aesthetic reasons- it's just inconvenient! However, I never noticed being small made a difference in how attractive I or other women are thought to be. It always, in point-of-fact, seemed guys about a foot taller than me were more interested than shorter guys- and I married one. He is 6-'2 and over twice my weight. I think in terms of initial attractiveness in our western culture it's more about height-to-weight and hip-waist-bust proportions, and symmetrical facial features. For some reason, younger girls seem more and more to be attracted to more androgynous-looking men. THAT I don't get. Look at the male models, etc...NO CHEST HAIR- YUCK! My spectacularly gorgeous daughter dates pretty boys, only one has been more than 5 inches or so taller than she is. Pretty boys. EWWWWW.

What about those studies that showed tall men and women attain higher levels of management? Napoleon complexes? Huh. Taller does mean better nutrition during childhood- if you were also given the genes to exploit that better nutrition. That would show that a prospective partner would come from successful genetic stock?

[grumpy]

LWsciencejunkie wrote:

I'm only 5'2. Always wished to be taller, not necessarily for aesthetic reasons- it's just inconvenient! However, I never noticed being small made a difference in how attractive I or other women are thought to be. It always, in point-of-fact, seemed guys about a foot taller than me were more interested than shorter guys- and I married one. He is 6-'2 and over twice my weight. I think in terms of initial attractiveness in our western culture it's more about height-to-weight and hip-waist-bust proportions, and symmetrical facial features. For some reason, younger girls seem more and more to be attracted to more androgynous-looking men. THAT I don't get. Look at the male models, etc...NO CHEST HAIR- YUCK! My spectacularly gorgeous daughter dates pretty boys, only one has been more than 5 inches or so taller than she is. Pretty boys. EWWWWW.
What about those studies that showed tall men and women attain higher levels of management? Napoleon complexes? Huh. Taller does mean better nutrition during childhood- if you were also given the genes to exploit that better nutrition. That would show that a prospective partner would come from successful genetic stock?

Caresselah:
I didn't read the article. Does it refer to height or the ratio of leg length to torso length?
I do know that ballet teachers will not take prospective dancers whose legs are not longer than the torso.
Long legs do seem to be more graceful at any height. At the ballet and in figure skating many female performers are relatively short.

[LWsciencejunkie]

grumpy wrote:

<quoted text>
Caresselah:
I didn't read the article. Does it refer to height or the ratio of leg length to torso length?
I do know that ballet teachers will not take prospective dancers whose legs are not longer than the torso.
Long legs do seem to be more graceful at any height. At the ballet and in figure skating many female performers are relatively short.

Grandpa G!
A lower center of gravity really helps, and if you are doing figure skating, ballet and gymnastics, smaller women are simply lighter women and can defy gravity more easily.
Also, at the cusp of adulthood, legs lengthen, it's a sign of robust health in young adulthood and a likely prospect, male or female, to have a fertile mate and strong babies. And, again, having those longer legs mean that one's parents did a good job of providing for their child, and further suggests that you might come from a successful heritage.

It is one of those funny evolutionary conundrums, though. The size/strength differences in male and female humans is called "sexual dimorphism". In a species the degree of sexual dimorphism implies what sort of mating arrangements were the norm. In species that did the one big male and a harem, like elephant seals, elk, and gorillas, there is a huge difference in males compared to females. In humans, where there were probably either pairs or several wives depending on one provider per wife/wives living in cooperation with other family-groups, there is sexual dimorphism, but not as extreme, and in species where there is a sexual free-for-all, hardly any. The males compete less with each other, the females don't depend as much on males for protection and providing food, so the sexes are about the same size, like cheetahs.
It would make sense to me that if a man would desire big sons, he'd be well advised to look for a tall wife? My son is a six-footer, but not as tall as his six-'2 dad.
And again, it was always the really tall guys that went for me. I never necessarily thought one way or another about height, myself. Don't like scrawny guys, though.

[yclala]

I have the perfect average proportion. I'm not too unpleased by my curvy butt and normally proportioned legs at 5'8". When I used to have less butt as a prepubescent, my torso did look longer but when actually measured, my legs are a bit longer than the upper half of my body.