How does that account for high heels? The most obvious effect is to make the woman wearing them taller, which decreases a difference between the average man and the average woman.
I suppose that they give the appearance of shorter feet.
They also make the woman taller compared to other women. If being shorter than average can lower status, then once some women wear high heels, the others can’t afford not to follow suit.
That’s pretty vague. I can think of many more direct ways to “emphasize the legs and the thighs”. For example, one could dangle bells from them. As for the more “female” body posture, what about that posture is particularly feminine, other than that it is the posture induced by high-heels? Did women have a greater tendency than men to walk around on their tip-toes in the EEA?
What they do is make the legs look longer, as well as forcing changes in posture, tilting the pelvis forward and increasing lumbar curvature, which generally has the effect of making the female hip structure look more pronounced (forces a gait that involves more hip movement, &c.).
They also tend to result in back problems if worn too often; excessive lordosis of the lumbar spine isn’t good for you.
The part about making the legs look longer is hard to fit into the “accentuate sexual dimorphism” account. But I see your point about forcing a gait that involves hip movement. I don’t quite see why high-heels would do that, but that’s probably just because I don’t understand the body mechanics well enough.
I hadn’t realized this. Looking online, I see that people prefer larger leg-to-torso ratios in women than in men. But I’m having trouble finding references for the claim that women naturally have larger leg-to-torso ratios. I expect that you’re right, but would you be able to point me to some documentation that this ratio disparity is natural and universal?
People often don’t believe this and ask for peer-reviewed studies, etc.
I also did a lot of casting about Pubmed for any article actually specifically discussing whether there’s a difference in this dimension. But the result that there is no difference between sexes was so reliably reproduced (without comment, you have to look at the tables) anytime I found a study that collected that data (usually in the aim of answering a more interesting question) that I can only assume it is simply ambient knowledge for anyone doing anthropometry and thus not considered worth publishing, discussing or citing.
Which, interestingly, allows the mistake to propagate among people who don’t do anthropometry.
For some reason long legs are attractive, possibly because it signals health, an individual grown to full height. This actually applies to both sexes, though generally men can’t get away with raised shoes quite as easily (half an inch extra on the heel is typically all you’ll find).
I don’t quite see why high-heels would do that, but that’s probably just because I don’t understand the body mechanics well enough.
High heels essentially force the wearer to walk on the balls of their feet; the presence of the shoe heel prevents the heel of the foot from dropping naturally when stepping. This has the effect of reducing ankle motion; the higher the heel, the more pronounced the effect.
Try forcing your ankles to maximum extension (foot angled downward) and slowly walking around; you’ll probably feel unbalanced slightly. If you experiment a bit, you’ll find that walking feels more stable in this pose if you tilt your pelvis slightly (arch your back as if leaning backwards, but keep your torso upright) and walk with a hip-swinging motion (I suspect this helps due to keeping the center of gravity lower).
not citing this, but I read that long legs in women could be a signal of youth. A young girl who just reaches maturity is all lanky long limbs. The proportions even out as she gets older. Sexual selection would favor those who can keep a youthful proportion later in age.
Same argument goes for a blond head. The younger the woman, the lighter her hair (generalizing, European).
I’ve seen women’s magazine articles that advise walking around the house in heels to build up your muscles so you don’t keel over in public. So yes, there may be an exercise component.
To be specific, exaggerating sexual dimorphism. Business suits emphasize shoulders, for example.
How does that account for high heels? The most obvious effect is to make the woman wearing them taller, which decreases a difference between the average man and the average woman.
I suppose that they give the appearance of shorter feet.
I had always heard they create an exaggerated feminine gait. Check the hip motion.
They also make the woman taller compared to other women. If being shorter than average can lower status, then once some women wear high heels, the others can’t afford not to follow suit.
High heels are impractical. They don’t allow running and other sports. The same goes for long fingernails.
Doing impractical things is classic signaling. The less practical the stronger the signal.
Sexual dimorphism refers to physical features, not to abilities as such.
They emphasize the legs and the thighs, and create a more “female” body posture.
That’s pretty vague. I can think of many more direct ways to “emphasize the legs and the thighs”. For example, one could dangle bells from them. As for the more “female” body posture, what about that posture is particularly feminine, other than that it is the posture induced by high-heels? Did women have a greater tendency than men to walk around on their tip-toes in the EEA?
What they do is make the legs look longer, as well as forcing changes in posture, tilting the pelvis forward and increasing lumbar curvature, which generally has the effect of making the female hip structure look more pronounced (forces a gait that involves more hip movement, &c.).
They also tend to result in back problems if worn too often; excessive lordosis of the lumbar spine isn’t good for you.
The part about making the legs look longer is hard to fit into the “accentuate sexual dimorphism” account. But I see your point about forcing a gait that involves hip movement. I don’t quite see why high-heels would do that, but that’s probably just because I don’t understand the body mechanics well enough.
It fits. Women have long legs relative to their torso; men have short legs relative to their torso; so longer legs are more feminine.
I hadn’t realized this. Looking online, I see that people prefer larger leg-to-torso ratios in women than in men. But I’m having trouble finding references for the claim that women naturally have larger leg-to-torso ratios. I expect that you’re right, but would you be able to point me to some documentation that this ratio disparity is natural and universal?
There basically isn’t any difference.
People often don’t believe this and ask for peer-reviewed studies, etc.
I also did a lot of casting about Pubmed for any article actually specifically discussing whether there’s a difference in this dimension. But the result that there is no difference between sexes was so reliably reproduced (without comment, you have to look at the tables) anytime I found a study that collected that data (usually in the aim of answering a more interesting question) that I can only assume it is simply ambient knowledge for anyone doing anthropometry and thus not considered worth publishing, discussing or citing.
Which, interestingly, allows the mistake to propagate among people who don’t do anthropometry.
Thanks. By the way, your link sends me to a page saying that I need to join a group to view the content.
For some reason long legs are attractive, possibly because it signals health, an individual grown to full height. This actually applies to both sexes, though generally men can’t get away with raised shoes quite as easily (half an inch extra on the heel is typically all you’ll find).
High heels essentially force the wearer to walk on the balls of their feet; the presence of the shoe heel prevents the heel of the foot from dropping naturally when stepping. This has the effect of reducing ankle motion; the higher the heel, the more pronounced the effect.
Try forcing your ankles to maximum extension (foot angled downward) and slowly walking around; you’ll probably feel unbalanced slightly. If you experiment a bit, you’ll find that walking feels more stable in this pose if you tilt your pelvis slightly (arch your back as if leaning backwards, but keep your torso upright) and walk with a hip-swinging motion (I suspect this helps due to keeping the center of gravity lower).
not citing this, but I read that long legs in women could be a signal of youth. A young girl who just reaches maturity is all lanky long limbs. The proportions even out as she gets older. Sexual selection would favor those who can keep a youthful proportion later in age.
Same argument goes for a blond head. The younger the woman, the lighter her hair (generalizing, European).
yeah, what he said, except that i couldn’t find the words to explain it in English.
High-heels can also work the calf muscles, over time contributing to an arguably more shapely leg.
If women wore them during exercise, rather than once a week when they’re heading out to party.
I’ve seen women’s magazine articles that advise walking around the house in heels to build up your muscles so you don’t keel over in public. So yes, there may be an exercise component.
Physical fragility.
On the other hand, more people wear business suits at work than in nightclubs and the like. So I don’t think that’s the whole story.
Also, in certain parts of the world it’s unfashionable for men to not be clean-shaven, which decreases sexual dimorphism.