Reply to Is it more attractive to be a short woman?

Forum Index » Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)

Reply to "Is it more attractive to be a short woman?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I’m 5’1. I’m attractive and popular, but I’ll never have the elegance of a 5’8 woman. “Cute” is more common. Similar to Kristin Chenoweth. It used to intimidate me when I’m at work and most men are a full foot taller, but I’m used to it now. I absolutely love being short.

I will say that it’s hard to be thin, but even harder to be a thin petite woman. I have to be at a much lower weight to be thin, but I’d really like to eat as much as everyone else.[/quote]

You can be perfectly elegant as a short woman.  It’s just a bit harder because elegance is typically associated with being slim and the shorter you are the more difficult that can be.  But it’s totally possible depending on your style.[/quote]

Elegance is nearly exclusive for the tall, as is regal. I've never seen a short regal man or woman.[/quote]

I mean, there's so many... Elizabeth Taylor, Calista Flockhart, Joan Collins, the list goes on and on.

Though I dont know how many men truly care about "elegant", tbh. I think that's more of a thing women and gay men look to. [/quote]

Calista Flockhart is 5'5" tall -- not short. She's also like a 00 and has been her whole life.

Elizabeth Taylor was short 5'2", but she was also thin when she was young, and as she aged and gained weight (while working incredibly hard to keep it off -- she famously got very heavy after recovering from surgery and then advocated for some nutty weightless techniques to take it off) she became less attractive. Who aged better: Elizabeth Taylor at 5'2", or Audrey Hepburn at 5'7"?

There are elegant short women but it's incredibly hard to pull off because you need need to create the illusion of length. That means staying slim, but it also means having longer elements to your body -- a longer neck and limbs that are proportionately long compared to your torso. A 5'10" woman can have a big bust and hips and still look elegant. A 5'2" woman with a big bust and hips will need to maintain a size 4 or smaller to pull off elegant, plus probably commit to heels, dressing monochromatically, and certain hairstyles.

The world is not full of elegant short women. The average short woman over the age of 40 looks matronly and heavy.[/quote]
 :roll: Did Audrey Hepburn have surgery that made her gain weight? She was also a ballerina and suffered during WWII with lack of food. [/quote]

You are missing the point -- the PP claimed that there are "many" short women who are elegant, and then listed one woman who is not short, another woman who famously fought her weight in middle age, and Joan Collins (who has had more work done than the Chrysler Building). Short women are often cute, sexy, gorgeous, etc. But "elegant" usually gets applied to taller women because a taller frame has longer lines and that is usually what is implied by elegance. Short women can look elegant but usually need to be super thin AND get some assistance from high heels and strategic dressing.

This thread is so weird because the question posed by the OP is "Is it more attractive to be a short woman?" and most people are like "more attractive? no" but that doesn't mean short women aren't good looking. Women can be very attractive at any height, whether you are talking a curvaceous 5'2" Salma Hayek or an statuesque Elizabeth Debicki at 6'3" and everywhere in between.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics