Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, being thin, my thighs don't touch, but in proportion to my body they are not really skinny, just slender. Part of it is they tend to be thicker the other way, supporting my "bubble butt". But I think most people would still say they're thin.
I prefer slender legs, on both men & women. Shapeliness & length make a difference also. Ugly legs on a man is a real turn-off for me, I must admit.
I heard once that ideal legs touch in 3 places - at the knee, mid calf & at the ankle.
Whether your thighs touch or not is not due to being thin. It has to do with your body structure. Of course, fat can certainly cause the thighs to touch, but thinness does not mean that they don't.
Seems to me there is a middle ground between thin and heavy. My legs are slender. My body is slender. If I said my legs are thin, it would mean skinny and they aren't skinny, nor are they heavy.
My wife has some of the thickest legs I've ever seen and that is SOOOOOOO sexy... of course, I've always liked fat women so it's to be expected that I'd like thick legs. I like substance and strength.... thin legs seem unsubstantial and flimsy to me. Thick legs seem strong.
I am female (but bisexual) and definitely prefer thin legs.
Perfect legs imo.
You do realize, don't you.....that this person is "starved", right? OMG...I don't see how anyone can find this appealing. There's no muscle tone. It's nothing more than skin draped over bone. This is a sad, sad picture.
I am a woman, but I am going to voice my opinion anyway. I don't think the fit/thin deal is used appropriately either but I think a more thick leg looks better on a woman.
That one picture posted is ghastly to me. It looks like a mannequin for one thing, and when a woman has legs and a gap between the thighs like that, they just do not look healthy.
The "thin/thick" distinction is pretty much totally subjective outside the ends of the curve. What does Serena Williams have? That's what I like. I call it athletically thick.
I suppose I agree that legs shouldn't touch above the ankles, but is it common for them to touch at the thighs on an in-shape woman? I'm unable to pick between thin and thick legs, though if a very high percentage of the weight is in the legs, no thanks. Also, I have a vague fear that thick legs signal higher risk of getting fat someday.
My thighs touch a tiny bit at the top when I stand with my feet shoulder width apart, and I run at least 4 miles daily, and wear a size 6.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OMG...I don't see how anyone can find this appealing. There's no muscle tone. It's nothing more than skin draped over bone. 
This is a sad, sad picture.