Swami et al. showed line drawings of men and women that varied the length of the legs relative to height, and had the figures rated for appeal by men and women.(1, pdf)
Men and women judged similarly. For a given height, the judges preferred longer legs in women and shorter legs in men.
Fig. 1. Higher leg-body ratios (relatively longer legs) were preferred in women and lower ones in men.
For the same height, women tend to have longer legs. Hence this study reported a preference for exaggerated sexual dimorphism.
When women wear high heels, they make their legs appear relatively longer. High heels are not good for posture, but again, patriarchy cannot be blamed for this. Women are doing it to make themselves appear more feminine and appealing.
The paper has some shortcomings:
In the line drawings, the authors achieved longer legs by stretching the legs in the photo editor, making them thinner in the process, but thinner legs will count against the appeal of men. So it is possible that a better study will show a similar find, but not that the shortest legs shown in the line drawings are optimally preferred in men.
The authors cited some literature to argue that men most strongly prefer women with average height, but the correct interpretation is that over a very broad height range, men do not really care how tall a woman is. As one approaches the extremes of height, it becomes more difficult for women to find men, and hence women closer to average height will be more successful with men than women who are much shorter or much taller, but this isn’t the same as an optimal preference for average height in women.
References
- Swami, V., Einon, D., and Furnham, A., The leg-to-body ratio as a human aesthetic criterion, Body Image, 3, 317 (2006).
It is also very likely, that a better study,( where stretching the legs in the photo editor would not make them thinner in the process),would show that the longest legs shown in the drawings are not preferred in women. I prefer number 13 the most, then nr.12, and then nr.14 in women, and nr.11 and 12 in men.
prefer number 12 the most nice shape for the women, then 11 and 13 are stil just fine. for the men, I prefer 10,11 and 12
Actually, I think for the same height and/or torso length men actually have longer legs. So really men have proportionally longer legs than women on average which kinda makes sense in an evolutionary perspective because men don't need that extra torso length/space for pregnacy.
Aram, can you provide any evidence that men have proportionally longer legs?
I was surprised to see proportionally shorter legs rated more attractive for men. I am a recreational bodybuilder (drug-free, so nothing like the behemoths in the magazines) and I have always considered that my shorter legs detract from my appearance. I am very broad-shouldered, which normally creates a top-heavy effect, but I have countered it with very well developed leg muscles. The unfortunate part is that even though I am generally mesomorphic, even when I am very lean, I appear much stockier ("endomorphic") than the typical mesomorph. Based on the results of this study, though, it seems I should be rejoicing. :)
I don't know how people get the idea men have longer legs than women proportionally
a) growth is estrogen fuelled (So I heard, correct me if I'm wrong), on a mutant programme, concerning the very tall they talked about amazingly tall male opera singers that had been castrated (A paradox though, if estrogen is the growth hormone then why are men taller in most cases...)
b) With girls shorter than me I've noticed more often than not their legs are equal length (Of course I haven't met that many women in the world so it's not a strong argument)
c)Women actually have short upper bodies compared to men
d)Okay these are extreme cases but look at tall men, their legs are actually shorter in ratio terms compared to average people whereas tall women have very high ratios
e) A possible answer, perhaps the women with shorter legs were less active in puberty? Boys tend to be more active than girls physically...
What does interest me is why western people have longer legs than eastern, it's very apparent (I myself am chinese and my legs were measured at 27 inches, my height is 68 inches so in comparative terms I have short legs)
Another thing I notice is for most people though our heights vary several inches standard trousers don't so much, just wondering why that is. Anyhow I know nothing and I think you need a very big sample if not population of people to justify the argument either way for leg length, plus it's no good pairing people of very different heights
Revised argument about ‘leg-length to height’ ratio and attractiveness
There has been a debate above about whether women or men have relatively longer legs. I should have thought more about this issue before posting. Aram mentioned women needing extra torso length/space for pregnancy. This sounds reasonable, and it has been shown that women’s attractiveness increases with an elongated abdominal region, but the rib cage of women is expected to be relatively smaller (including vertically shorter). So one doesn’t expect the entire torso of women to be relatively longer than in men.
Peter mentioned that growth is estrogen fueled. Actually, there are many growth factors (growth hormone, testosterone, etc.), but the estrogen estradiol has a much more powerful effect on the growth of long bones than testosterone, which comprises of both accelerating growth and promoting the fusion of the growth plates, which will ultimately stop further increase in height.
One reason why women are on average shorter than men is that they develop under higher levels of estradiol, which has a potent effect on growth plate fusion. The other reason has to do with some genes on the Y chromosome that result in male-specific growth and have no counterparts in women.
It has been my observation that in women, the lower legs are relatively shorter for a given leg length and upper legs relatively longer, but what about leg length for a given height? These issues do not make it obvious which group has relatively longer legs, but I didn’t think about all this before posting the article.
Sorokowski and Pawlowski performed a similar study, and the following is an excerpt from this study –
So the finds do not suggest relatively longer legs in women. Sorokowski and Pawlowski found that the judges preferred slightly relatively longer than average legs in both men and women. They also employed the figures used by Swami et al. except that they were blackened, and still found a preference for slightly relatively longer than average legs in both men and women.
Here are details about the study –
They attempt to explain a preference for slightly longer than average legs in terms of health variables, but there also is the issue that humans have developed relatively longer legs compared to the ancestral species and hence there will be an aesthetic preference along these lines.
A study reportedly found that the longer the legs (irrespective of height) the less chance a man has of a heart attack, but actuaries think very tall men are at high risk of early death(presumably due to XYY and Marfans). Barbie has extremely long legs as do artists pin-ups(apart from Fritz Willis),GI Joes legs don't look long.
Looking at the short legged figures I get an impression of small overall size, indeed most people with short legs are of below average height so the Polish results may be due to lack of enthusiasm for short men.
Studies are often on subjects of higher than average social class which means less testosteronised on average,a high proportion of the most testosteronised men are not in colleges ect. where subjects are recuited, it is worth bearing in mind that Polish men have a rather high finger ratio.
Men having slightly short legs for the same height would be more heavily built - a masculine trait.
Hi, I'm a final year medical student, and I did a semester in paediatrics and had to read up a fair bit on growth and developement and stuff. Testosterone has the effect increasing height and increasing the leg : body ratio. This is why when a seemingly taller man and a shorter woman sit down, they height difference is diminished. Longer legs are evolutionaryly more advantageous -- you can ran faster and farther, you are better able to support your torso etc.
So why do guys like long legged girls? This must be one of the great ironies of life and physical attraction. Our genes, including those that controll sexual dimorphism as well as sexual attraction, are the results of random mutations after all. It's a wonder that they posses the order that they do, so it's not hard to imagine they must be a little non-sensical here and there.
Long leg legth in females is not the only physical attraction that's wierd in terms of having no explanation from a reproductive or sexually dimorphic angle. What about long necks and big collar bones on females? These are also attributes that are enhanced by testosterone and not oestrogen. Ever wondered why so many boys seem to have longer eyelashes than their sisters? I think this is a testosterone things as well -- you know, like facial hair.
Perhaps there are actually relevent genetic reasons as to why we find body parts attractive in the sex that does not naturaly come by them. For example, collar bones stick out more when you are thin, long necks disappear into flesh as you get older, and a healthy weight and youthfulness are relevent to the reproductive ability of females.
Can't think of a similar reason for legs though. I'm going with it's a media thing. Having grown up in subcontinental Asia for ten years, I can assure you that nobody slobbered over long legged girls. In fact, most parts of a woman were supposed to be smaller than most parts of a man, including legs. Even a long neck was considered unattractive.
Lin said "Testosterone has the effect(of) .. increasing the leg :body ratio "
I'm interested in a reference for this and whether it would mean the most masculine women having the greatest leg:body ratio?
Stating the obvious, lengthening of the legs is the amongst the last changes before adulthood, most human beings with short legs are juveniles.
Lin said "when a seemingly taller man and a shorter woman sit down their height difference is diminished"
Its been diminished by half, if you mean disproportionately - I think women have better posture. Men especialy tall men tend not to sit bolt upright.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3805117.stm
Men tend to have bigger heads and thicker necks as well as more massive ribcages which creates an impression of shorter legs as a proportion of total height. This might explain short legs being considered feminine.
The last sentence should read: This might explain long legs being considered feminine.
The current evidence would seem to suggest that LBR (leg to body ratio) is actually non-gender dimorphic, excluding a few outlier studies which have employed some odd statistical maneuvers to demonstrate their claims.
The aesthetic appeal of "leggy women" may not actually reflect preference for absolute leg to body ratio measurements, but may reflect preference for slender body shapes which place relatively more emphasis on torso weight reduction than on lower limb weight reduction. The consequent body shape (skinny torso, shapely slender legs) gives the impression of long legs in women which are currently a marketing ideal, whereas in fact it is just an illusion deriving from a shapelier body.
In men, there is greater emphasis on torso mass (especially upper thoracic mass) which confounds the overall aesthetic in the other direction, giving the impression of shorter legs. External genitalia may also add to this confounding effect.
Post new comment