Hmmm...

LOL...

Aiight Mama, check back later then....

 

28"... told you I had short legs! Why do you think I wear heels all the time?

 

Thats no good.

its simple mathematics, sweety.

basically, if a girl is 5'7" (i.e 170cm)

Her upper body to lower body ratio should range between 0.62 and 0.8--anything above or beyond is unattractive.

Here is a simple example.....her physical proportion is perfect. Ratio= 0.7



If you know your height, measure the length of your legs and subtract it from your over all height then divide the difference by the length measured.

Ie. (Body height – legs) /legs = UB:LB ratio (is it 0.6-0.8...???..yes- good)

All the colors represent different ratios of female sexiness, which should range between 0.6-0.8, except the waist/hips (green), which is best at 0.5 and lower.

As for the legs competition, I got money to waste (haaaaaaahaha). But we'd need to make perfect assurance that the legs being posted are in fact for real members on this site, and not some random stolen legs (yup)

A pic with your legs (full length "body" shot- emphasizing the legs), your name and date attached to make a proper and correct judgment (nothing old obviously, as we want to send you to Waikiki on your current state of hottesticness).

God im fucked

happy victoria day everyone!!!

 

Yep, that's me, like I said I'm pretty evenly split upper to lower body. My ratios on everything else fall within the 'guidelines', but not UB:LB. So I'm not perfect... sigh, sigh, sigh... whatever will I do now?

 

well, that's okay. my inseam is 36" - makes it really difficult to find pants long enough...I've battled that my entire life, lol.

 

Well capris end up being pants on me, so there! I'm like 2" away from being a hobbit... Espy Baggins, Frodo's long lost buxom cousin... LOL!

 

omg...LOL @ Espy Baggins!!! Hmmm....I wonder if they have BM hobbits??

:smt043