There are plenty of skinny women out there with unattractive legs. Haven't you seen older skinny women with those sagging knees?

Once you get older,.some women have attractive legs and some don't. Shouldn't affect what you wear in public as long as you aren't letting your butt hang out.

Inappropriate is an odd word choice here. Of course it’s not inappropriate to show fat legs when the dress code permits any size visible legs. The weight does not change how appropriate it is, the dress code does that. However, is it advisable to show off fat legs? No. Nor is it advisable to show off cellulite, bony legs, sinewy legs, hairy legs, etc. Some of you are too literal for wisdom.

I think if your legs look bad, you should cover them.

I wouldn't say it's inappropriate, but I like to look my best and my legs are not my best feature so I cover them.

I'm busty with a small waist and show those off more and don't think that's inappropriate either.

Tacky, ill-fitted or incorrectly sized clothes can be in appropriate, though.

I don’t get the question. I don’t think whether your legs are fat is the issue. The more important question is whether it’s appropriate to show legs at all. Obviously it is always appropriate (in Western culture at least) to wear something that is knee length or below the knee. For shorter lengths it depends on the setting and your comfort level. I’m 40, pretty thin, and there is no way I would wear booty shorts. If I wear something that is mid thigh then it tends to be with tights.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know, I’m torn. Does it look good? Well, no. But I get people of all sizes don’t want to be hot and want to wear something cool and comfortable.

But the more flesh you have, the easier it is to look “inappropriate.” Im thin with an A cup. I could wear a plunging neck dress and still look acceptable in most settings since I have zero cleavage. Someone with a DD can’t. Well, they could... but others would judge them more harshly

If your boobs and cleavage are down by your legs where OP was asking about, that’s a really deep plunge and you probably don’t look acceptable in it.

I’m fat and I wear shorts. I hate being hot. I do love that the fat shamers keep showing their colors.

But the sentiment is the same. Someone wearing 3 inch inseam shorts with long, thin, toned legs is going to be perceived a lot differently than someone wearing 3 inch shorts with rolls of inner thigh fat hanging out and cellulite all over.

Not really. One is more about patriarchal beliefs regarding vulgarity and one is more about patriarchal beliefs about how women’s bodies “should” look, aka fat shaming. Vulgarity and fat shaming aren’t the same thing, except that women are the ones most likely to aggressively police other women’s appearances.

Why do you think a healthy woman's body is vulgar?

Fat and skinny people can have unattractive legs, aged legs, lived spots or cellulite. That’s one thing that doesn’t matter at size 2 or 20.

Anonymous wrote:I lean towards inappropriate. Not a fat shamer, I think fat people (like skinny people) look gorgeous in outfits that fit their bodies well. It's kind of like taking pictures of your home. If you had a wall that had a scrape or smt you would hide that with a well placed object.

You actually are a fat shamer. Likening someone’s bodily condition to a defect or damage is the definition of fat shaming. Tell a fat woman that she needs to clothe herself so that you don’t have to see it is fat shaming. Telling someone to exist with a greater degree of misery in summer heat because you think seeing it is somehow damaging to you is fat shaming.