The pins on her ...
March 12, 2012 8:57 PM Subscribe
Are very thin legs something that has occurred as a genetic change in the last 100-200 years?
I realize this might be a really dumb question, but I find myself asking it every time I go on my college campus. I am blessed with "sturdy" legs, but I often see younger women with tiny (tiny!) legs. I began wondering if this was something that has changed in the past few centuries. Take, for example this latest MeFi post: these women all belong in the "sturdy legs" category. So, maybe this was just women who were in the exotic dancer career track? But what about this?
I understand that cultural standards of Western beauty changed in the early 1900s and the 1920s emphasized thinness, but I'm asking if this tendency towards stick-thin legs is the result of some biological change -- maybe the expansion of the gene pool to include other ethnicities or backgrounds? Is it simply explained away by the popularity of dieting? If so, does that mean that the women in those exotic dancer photos would have had thin legs if they just dieted?
I realize this might be a really dumb question, but I find myself asking it every time I go on my college campus. I am blessed with "sturdy" legs, but I often see younger women with tiny (tiny!) legs. I began wondering if this was something that has changed in the past few centuries. Take, for example this latest MeFi post: these women all belong in the "sturdy legs" category. So, maybe this was just women who were in the exotic dancer career track? But what about this?
I understand that cultural standards of Western beauty changed in the early 1900s and the 1920s emphasized thinness, but I'm asking if this tendency towards stick-thin legs is the result of some biological change -- maybe the expansion of the gene pool to include other ethnicities or backgrounds? Is it simply explained away by the popularity of dieting? If so, does that mean that the women in those exotic dancer photos would have had thin legs if they just dieted?
The short answer is almost certainly no, we are not that meaningfully different from our great grandparents.
I suspect that the effect you are seeing is but reflects a selection bias where women with thin legs didn't get photographed with their legs bare.
posted by Blasdelb at 9:04 PM on March 12, 2012 [6 favorites]
I suspect that the effect you are seeing is but reflects a selection bias where women with thin legs didn't get photographed with their legs bare.
posted by Blasdelb at 9:04 PM on March 12, 2012 [6 favorites]
I suspect that the effect you are seeing is real that is
posted by Blasdelb at 9:05 PM on March 12, 2012
posted by Blasdelb at 9:05 PM on March 12, 2012
I see what you've noticed, too.
My guess is that people walked a lot more. As a mountain-top dweller as a kid and a walker, I've got big sturdy legs. I have friends who'll drive q block & a half to get mixer or chips or something.
As for sex connotations; I kinda like body hugs from strong-legged women.
posted by porpoise at 9:05 PM on March 12, 2012 [2 favorites]
My guess is that people walked a lot more. As a mountain-top dweller as a kid and a walker, I've got big sturdy legs. I have friends who'll drive q block & a half to get mixer or chips or something.
As for sex connotations; I kinda like body hugs from strong-legged women.
posted by porpoise at 9:05 PM on March 12, 2012 [2 favorites]
(It's actually really hard to find photographs or even paintings of women who were not selected to be body ideals prior to the twentieth century, so the illusion is confounded by an absence of evidence. It's just the same way now -- if you lived in 2212 and wanted to know what women in 2012 looked like, but your only data was images of women selected to be on television or in magazines, you would not even be aware of the number of larger women that exist.
Also, a lot of people were just plain malnourished, didn't get enough to eat as kids or as adults, and they certainly weren't plump. It's just that they also didn't show up in fashion imagery.
posted by Miko at 9:06 PM on March 12, 2012 [8 favorites]
Also, a lot of people were just plain malnourished, didn't get enough to eat as kids or as adults, and they certainly weren't plump. It's just that they also didn't show up in fashion imagery.
posted by Miko at 9:06 PM on March 12, 2012 [8 favorites]
It's definitely just a shift in what society thinks is beautiful. Perhaps you are on a particularly fit campus? There are plenty of sturdy-legged ladies here in Philadelphia.
posted by two lights above the sea at 9:07 PM on March 12, 2012
posted by two lights above the sea at 9:07 PM on March 12, 2012
Barring frequent major plagues that kill say, over half of a population within that time period, 100-200 years is never long enough for something to be a genetic change.
(With plagues - anyone with no immunity to that particular flu/black death etc, is now DEAD. So, why yes - Genetic immunity has gone up!)
posted by Elysum at 9:08 PM on March 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
(With plagues - anyone with no immunity to that particular flu/black death etc, is now DEAD. So, why yes - Genetic immunity has gone up!)
posted by Elysum at 9:08 PM on March 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
It's extremely unlikely humans have genetically changed in that span. More likely, you're noticing more thin-legged young women for whatever reason. I'd be willing to bet those thin legs usually belong to women who are thin all around. FWIW, I have not noticed any particular trend away from "sturdy" legs. There seem to be plenty about here on the West coast. And I do keep an eye on such things.
posted by 2N2222 at 9:08 PM on March 12, 2012
posted by 2N2222 at 9:08 PM on March 12, 2012
My 91-year-old grandmother reports that she was teased mercilessly for her disgusting, scrawny legs that looked like table legs and were totally unattractive because they had no meat on them. Today, she'd have an ideal body. (And I did not inherit her legs, sadly. I look like an exotic dancer from 1890!) I don't think it's genetics. It's just a change in what's considered attractive, so that the tiny-legged women flaunt their legs now, whereas images of attractive women from a hundred years ago are more likely to show women with sturdy legs.
posted by craichead at 9:18 PM on March 12, 2012 [11 favorites]
posted by craichead at 9:18 PM on March 12, 2012 [11 favorites]
Perhaps you are on a particularly fit campus? There are plenty of sturdy-legged ladies here in Philadelphia.
These aren't mutually exclusive - plenty of fit women have big legs. I give you speed skaters, tobogganers and lugers, cyclists, and hikers. I don't know if "sturdy" is supposed to mean fat or just big, but many people have naturally strong legs that are more sturdily built, and with training that tendency can produce some very non-skinny but very fit legs.
posted by Miko at 9:22 PM on March 12, 2012 [7 favorites]
These aren't mutually exclusive - plenty of fit women have big legs. I give you speed skaters, tobogganers and lugers, cyclists, and hikers. I don't know if "sturdy" is supposed to mean fat or just big, but many people have naturally strong legs that are more sturdily built, and with training that tendency can produce some very non-skinny but very fit legs.
posted by Miko at 9:22 PM on March 12, 2012 [7 favorites]
Yeah, my grandma had tiny little legs too. She was naturally thin all her life and also teased for it. And yeah, it's kind of hilarious to think that that tiny legs would seem more fit than sturdy ones.
posted by stoneandstar at 9:26 PM on March 12, 2012
posted by stoneandstar at 9:26 PM on March 12, 2012
I agree with the above comments that most likely that the standards of beauty have changed rather than any genetic reason - hence the many depections of full-bodied women in paintings and old advertisements. I am guessing back then if you were stick-thin it maybe meant that you were lower class/poor and couldn't really afford food, and if you were bigger that meant you were upper-class/wealthier.
posted by littlesq at 9:33 PM on March 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by littlesq at 9:33 PM on March 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
Oh, and I guess maybe it has to do with fertility as well ("child-bearing hips" and whatnot).
posted by littlesq at 9:38 PM on March 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by littlesq at 9:38 PM on March 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
Also consider average socioeconomic background of the women on-campus: excess weight is more strongly associated with poorer folks these days, in general.
posted by smirkette at 9:42 PM on March 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by smirkette at 9:42 PM on March 12, 2012 [1 favorite]
It probably has more to do with the transition of women's role in a male-dominated society from healthy, disease-resistant vessels for future heirs into youthful, bejeweled billboards for wealth and status.
As far as genetics go, I'd think that a youthful appearance – thin waist, pale skin – would correlate well with overall health and fertility.
posted by deathpanels at 9:49 PM on March 12, 2012
As far as genetics go, I'd think that a youthful appearance – thin waist, pale skin – would correlate well with overall health and fertility.
posted by deathpanels at 9:49 PM on March 12, 2012
It's down to nutrition. As people ate better/more, the height of the population increased. Note, that people are much taller these days compared to 100 years ago. Taller women, means longer legs. Longer legs are proportionally thinner-looking. Take the exotic dancers you linked to - these women were squat and plump. Today, an exotic dancer is going to be taller and thinner. So you could say that the genes express themselves a bit differently and there may be epigenetic impact through just a few generations - where in the Western world, people grew taller with each succeeding generation. The ideals changed, so "plump" was no longer in fashion, and you end up with tall women with long legs who are not plump. Thin tall women are going to have long thin legs.
posted by VikingSword at 9:56 PM on March 12, 2012 [4 favorites]
posted by VikingSword at 9:56 PM on March 12, 2012 [4 favorites]
Victoria Beckham, the woman in the first link, is extremely thin - probably underweight by most standards. The women in the other links are much heavier - mid-range in terms of healthy weight to slightly overweight, I'd guess. I bet you're seeing a lot of very thin women on your college campus, which is why their legs are thinner.
posted by insectosaurus at 10:53 PM on March 12, 2012
posted by insectosaurus at 10:53 PM on March 12, 2012
Its changing fashion as others have said.
This blog post sums it up well. The dimensions of the ideal female body appears to go up and down. In the 1920's the flapper girl was a boyish waif. But by the 1950's we were back to the buxom Marilyn Monroe.
The Gibson girls almost always had their legs covered so its impossible to tell what the standard there was, or if there was a standard. It may be, in the case of the 1890's exotic dancers, that men were just excited to see legs at all.
posted by vacapinta at 2:29 AM on March 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
This blog post sums it up well. The dimensions of the ideal female body appears to go up and down. In the 1920's the flapper girl was a boyish waif. But by the 1950's we were back to the buxom Marilyn Monroe.
The Gibson girls almost always had their legs covered so its impossible to tell what the standard there was, or if there was a standard. It may be, in the case of the 1890's exotic dancers, that men were just excited to see legs at all.
posted by vacapinta at 2:29 AM on March 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
Some of this may be selection bias: college is one of the most image-conscious times/places in a young woman's life, and some college populations are more image-focused than others. If you're on a large campus with a fashion-conscious student body, you'll see a lot of thin women. (Plus, these kids are feeding themselves for the first time ever, so there's a lot of experimentation with extreme diets. And their metabolisms are usually super speedy. It's a lot easier to be thin at 19 than at 29.)
When I was a teenager, several of the girls I knew refused to wear shorts or skirts because their legs were "fat" - and they were often medium-thin. So it's very possible that the sturdier-legged women are covering up.
And one more thing: leggings and skinny jeans are in right now. They emphasize thin legs in a way that the bootcut jeans of the '90s and early '00s don't. In this image, the model is in roughly the same pose for the "skinny" and "flare" pants; although her legs are obviously thin no matter what she's wearing, your eyes are drawn to her calves and ankles in the skinny jeans. This doesn't explain the difference between 1890 and now, but if you didn't notice skinny legs ten years ago and are just starting to notice now, this might be part of the reason.
posted by Metroid Baby at 4:54 AM on March 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
When I was a teenager, several of the girls I knew refused to wear shorts or skirts because their legs were "fat" - and they were often medium-thin. So it's very possible that the sturdier-legged women are covering up.
And one more thing: leggings and skinny jeans are in right now. They emphasize thin legs in a way that the bootcut jeans of the '90s and early '00s don't. In this image, the model is in roughly the same pose for the "skinny" and "flare" pants; although her legs are obviously thin no matter what she's wearing, your eyes are drawn to her calves and ankles in the skinny jeans. This doesn't explain the difference between 1890 and now, but if you didn't notice skinny legs ten years ago and are just starting to notice now, this might be part of the reason.
posted by Metroid Baby at 4:54 AM on March 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
This is one of those weird baseline things.
Take a look at pictures of ordinary people from the 70s or earlier and notice how skinny everyone looks. By todays standards many people would say they look anorexic or unhealthy. This is because our societal baseline for ordinary people has moved to be much more 'robust'. The outliers - the beautiful people are now skinny people.
Back when everyone was skinny the beautiful people, the outliers, were the robust ones.
Human sexual selection seems geared towards favouring the non-standard deviates...
posted by srboisvert at 5:07 AM on March 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
Take a look at pictures of ordinary people from the 70s or earlier and notice how skinny everyone looks. By todays standards many people would say they look anorexic or unhealthy. This is because our societal baseline for ordinary people has moved to be much more 'robust'. The outliers - the beautiful people are now skinny people.
Back when everyone was skinny the beautiful people, the outliers, were the robust ones.
Human sexual selection seems geared towards favouring the non-standard deviates...
posted by srboisvert at 5:07 AM on March 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
Check out these vintage ads directed at helping skinny women gain weight for more proof that it has always been a common body type, just not always desirable. (If you want to be popular, you can't afford to be skinny!)
posted by susanvance at 6:17 AM on March 13, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by susanvance at 6:17 AM on March 13, 2012 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I think it's just a "what's in fashion" thing.
I'm one of those sturdy-legged women. I have a BMI of 21.5 now, but a few years ago, thanks to a chronic medical condition, I was in the "underweight" category with a BMI of 17-ish. Even then, NOBODY would have said my legs were skinny. I'm short and my legs are extra-short for my height, and they just look thick no matter what. I've even had my body fat percentage tested several times, and it's around 16.5%, which is relatively low for women... and still, I've got chubby legs. These days, that's considered really unattractive and nobody would pick me as a model, but I guess in the 1890's, it was in, so they took pictures of all those women.
posted by Cygnet at 6:19 AM on March 13, 2012
I'm one of those sturdy-legged women. I have a BMI of 21.5 now, but a few years ago, thanks to a chronic medical condition, I was in the "underweight" category with a BMI of 17-ish. Even then, NOBODY would have said my legs were skinny. I'm short and my legs are extra-short for my height, and they just look thick no matter what. I've even had my body fat percentage tested several times, and it's around 16.5%, which is relatively low for women... and still, I've got chubby legs. These days, that's considered really unattractive and nobody would pick me as a model, but I guess in the 1890's, it was in, so they took pictures of all those women.
posted by Cygnet at 6:19 AM on March 13, 2012
I think it is just what people are paying attention to.
I have something of a mix between thin and "sturdy" legs from years of dancing as a kid, and today I do weight lifting, but I look tiny because I am 5'3 and "small-boned"
People have different body types - people have different shaped noses and ears, some people have a stomach pooch, some people have thick thighs, some people have thin ones, etc. I hear some men talking about how they like "thick" women, and I could change my diet and work out all day every day, but I will never be thick.
I'm not overweight, but I think the general shape of my legs would be the same regardless. I think I would still have "tiny" legs even if I gained weight. Of course, if you look at models, they are most likely practicing some form of dieting.
In high school I was self-conscious about my thin legs...it was more that I thought my calves were too big in proportion with the rest of my legs, but I definitely knew I had thin legs and I haven't always been happy with them.
posted by fromageball at 8:32 AM on March 13, 2012
I have something of a mix between thin and "sturdy" legs from years of dancing as a kid, and today I do weight lifting, but I look tiny because I am 5'3 and "small-boned"
People have different body types - people have different shaped noses and ears, some people have a stomach pooch, some people have thick thighs, some people have thin ones, etc. I hear some men talking about how they like "thick" women, and I could change my diet and work out all day every day, but I will never be thick.
I'm not overweight, but I think the general shape of my legs would be the same regardless. I think I would still have "tiny" legs even if I gained weight. Of course, if you look at models, they are most likely practicing some form of dieting.
In high school I was self-conscious about my thin legs...it was more that I thought my calves were too big in proportion with the rest of my legs, but I definitely knew I had thin legs and I haven't always been happy with them.
posted by fromageball at 8:32 AM on March 13, 2012
Most of the people- both female and male- I've known with really really really thin legs have been alcoholics. I pointed this out to one of them who was a close friend and she said her legs got that way after she started drinking heavily and became malnourished. This is not to say that all alcoholics have thin legs or that all people with thin legs are alcoholics; I've always wondered if her observation had some validity.
posted by mareli at 10:29 AM on March 13, 2012
posted by mareli at 10:29 AM on March 13, 2012
That, and I'm chiming in again to repeat the 'exercise' thing. I.e. walking.
Actually walking places will do a lot for legs.
(A 5 day hike carrying all food & water for the trip will take you from sturdy right into tree trunks! Booyah!)
posted by Elysum at 12:40 PM on March 13, 2012
Actually walking places will do a lot for legs.
(A 5 day hike carrying all food & water for the trip will take you from sturdy right into tree trunks! Booyah!)
posted by Elysum at 12:40 PM on March 13, 2012
Most of the people- both female and male- I've known with really really really thin legs have been alcoholics. I pointed this out to one of them who was a close friend and she said her legs got that way after she started drinking heavily and became malnourished. This is not to say that all alcoholics have thin legs or that all people with thin legs are alcoholics; I've always wondered if her observation had some validity.
Oh yeah, that is totally a phenomenon. There's an expression "martini legs."
posted by BibiRose at 12:52 PM on March 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
Oh yeah, that is totally a phenomenon. There's an expression "martini legs."
posted by BibiRose at 12:52 PM on March 13, 2012 [1 favorite]
Also, remember that in the era when portraiture became in vogue and accessible to people who weren't royalty (from the 16th century up until the age of photography) respectable women were painted with their legs covered by their skirts. At most, one could see an ankle. It's difficult to know how many women had sturdy legs (whether proportionate to the rest of their bodies or not) when they were covered by fabric.
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 7:10 AM on March 14, 2012
posted by Rosie M. Banks at 7:10 AM on March 14, 2012
Also, a lot of people are skinny in college. Girls in their late teens and early 20s are often thin in a very particular way (most fashion models are that age, not coincidentally). I'm 31 now, and very few of my friends have the same proportions they did when they were 20. Even ladies who didn't gain much weight are more hourglass-y these days. Something to do with full physical maturity, I'm guessing. Of course there are plenty of naturally skinny women in their 30s and beyond, but I think many skinny college girls aren't genetically predisposed to stay that way forever.
posted by Nibbly Fang at 11:42 AM on March 14, 2012
posted by Nibbly Fang at 11:42 AM on March 14, 2012
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Miko at 9:02 PM on March 12, 2012 [3 favorites]