Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jcold]

In this topic I’d like to review few studies that discuss leg-to-body ratio and attractiveness of males and at the end discuss these findings on my case.

I’d like to start with “The effect of leg-to-body ratio on male attractiveness depends on the ecological validity of the figures” by T. Versluys and J. Skylark since it the most sophisticated I’ve found on this matter.

The review of this study could be found here:
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/10/28/men-slightly-longer-legs-are-more-attractive-women-12044

Basically, authors have found that man with slightly longer legs is more attractive.
Authors proposed not to use most common measurement of leg from ground to cotch (perineum). Instead total leg length was measured as the height to the trochanter landmark on the hip minus ankle height, which was calculated as the distance from the floor to the lateral malleolus landmark on the ankle.

They base their limb measurement techniques on the database of male participants in the 1988 US Army Anthropometry Survey (ANSUR).
www.humanics-es.com/ADA317770.pdf

The total, trochanterion and lateral malleolus (ankle) heights could be found on pages 270, 286 and 222 respectively. The mean of those measurements are:
Total height: 175.49 cm (69.09’’)
trochanterion height: 92.65 cm (36.48’’)
lateral malleolus height: 6.69 cm (2.63’’)
Thus, (92.65-6.69)/175.49 = 0.4898
This ratio is close to the one of the generated average male model in the study that is 0.491.
As the study indicates  the most attractive ratio for male is between 0.491 and 0.506. That is about 0.4985.

I have ratio of (86-6.5)/170 = 0.4676
To obtain the desired ratio of 0.4985 I would need to lengthen my legs by:
(79.5+x)/(170+x)=0.4985
x= 10.5 cm
What do you think about this reasoning?

[CaptainAmerica]

What I think is that no woman really cares about some arbitrary ratio between leg-to-body unless you are at retarded extremes (look at how short guys like Bruno Mars look, looks too paedomorphic in full body images, also how ridiculous and frail long-legged guys like Peter Crouch look).

This will have really no impact on your success with women, like at all. I would say shoulder-to-waist ratio is far more important, significantly more important, but even in terms of total attractiveness I still believe 70% of it is face, 20% of it height, and the rest being fitness and other athletic indicators (like shoulder-to-waist ratio mentioned).

[Jcold]

Thank you for your reply CaptainAmerica.
I agree with you that there are other qualities that influence attractiveness than leg-to-body ratio. The attractiveness is not the most  important to me. I’d rather wanted to use this study to find out if I’m not going to negatively influence my body proportions with the procedure.

[CaptainAmerica]

Thank you for your reply CaptainAmerica.
I agree with you that there are other qualities that influence attractiveness than leg-to-body ratio. The attractiveness is not the most  important to me. I’d rather wanted to use this study to find out if I’m not going to negatively influence my body proportions with the procedure.

I've yet to see a member come back here and say that they had people comment negatively about their proportions, in the dozens of diaries I've skimmed through at least. The only one I can think of is an angry ex-girlfriend (DoingItForMe) who was mad at him for deciding to get LL in the first place. Most people say their friends don't notice, think they just got thinner, and a minority report better success with women and dating.

You'd be surprised at how little the average person notices about someone else. People will not realize things like sitting height, shoe size, eye color, head size, etc.. Unless they are really paying attention. I know someone with a really, really small head I mean almost microcephalic maybe a 6 inch in length head and I told him and he never realized his entire life and was devastated by it, even though I was joking about it. Obviously we all pay attention to these things because we are a bit mental from being short guys but you'd be surprised as to how little people pay attention to body dimensions and physical attributes in general (although they may not notice them, I certainly feel like they still do have a subconscious impact on people, for example, I don't think it's a coincidence that for all my life broad-shouldered men seem to be a little more aggressive/pushy/extroverted than other males).

Also, when society calls teases people as "leggy" it seems to be kind of tongue in cheek, kind of like calling a very thin attractive girl "all bones" it's mostly a good thing to hear.

[myloginacct]

This just confirms what most of us should know. Disproportionate is not necessarily less attractive. Humans love sexual markers of the body, even if they're disproportionate to the overall body size. Just making them bigger seems to do the trick for our minds.