whynotheels Posted November 29, 2006 Posted November 29, 2006 I'm wondering if someone can answer this math related question. Pick a cute girl of your choice. Say Charlize Theron --she was adorable in 'The Italian Job' --almost as cute as the Mini Cooper she was driving. How big would her thighs, inseam, and feet be if she was 6 foot 5???? I'm curious if my legs are porportionally the same as a woman's and I just happen to be a bigger version. Somehow in my mind, I'd feel better if I had the same porpotions as a cute girl. I don't want to be lumped in with the women that should have hung up the heels and hose 60 pounds ago. Hope that makes some sense.
new_look Posted November 30, 2006 Posted November 30, 2006 i dont think anyone moves up in proportion take chris 100_575 for example who is probably a good 6 inch taller than me, a way bigger built chap than myself, yet has feet 2 sizes smaller at sz7 than my sz9..... my gf is slim but the same height as me and wears size 5 were all different
chris100575 Posted November 30, 2006 Posted November 30, 2006 Hi there New_look, good to see you around mate! As he said, everyone's proportions are different the best you could get would be a very rough approximation. Chris
Dr. Shoe Posted November 30, 2006 Posted November 30, 2006 It is to do with bone and gender. Aperson's forearm is the same length as their foot and so is their face. This is a fixed rule so if someone has a naturally long face then they'll have big feet and long arms. Girls tend to be finer boned and have smaller heads and so will have smaller feet and shorter arms. In fact one of the proceedures in the "sex-change" process includes cranial reduction and FFS or Full Facial Feminisation which will involve rhinoplasty, chin implants, re-alignment of the jawline and a shaving of the brow ridges. Graduate footwear designer able to advise and assist on modification and shoe making projects.
dr1819 Posted November 30, 2006 Posted November 30, 2006 That's easy - divide your measurements by your height and multiply by hers. Then, compare the results to her measurements. There's definately more to it than mere proportionality. I've dated several girls who were the same height as I was and even one who was much taller (by 4 inches), yet all had the same size foot as I did (the one who towered over me) or smaller (all the rest). All had smaller heads, including the one who towered over me, even though she had longer forearms. It's the difference between testosterone and estrogen and what each do to the bone structure of the individual.
Guy N. Heels Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 There's definately more to it than mere proportionality. I've dated several girls who were the same height as I was and even one who was much taller (by 4 inches), yet all had the same size foot as I did (the one who towered over me) or smaller (all the rest). All had smaller heads, including the one who towered over me, even though she had longer forearms. It's the difference between testosterone and estrogen and what each do to the bone structure of the individual. Right-on! This is not a straight-forward math problem. Most any high schooler can set up a ratio & proportion equation and plug-in the numbers. But nature and DNA don't necessarily abide by such math formulae. How you'd go about figuring-in the gender factor - I have no idea. And Isaac Asimov ain't around to help you out on this one either. Keep on stepping, Guy N. Heels
dr1819 Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 Well, on a gross scale, physics definately plays a role which is why elephants don't look like ants and spiders. On less of a scale, the larger the individual, the thicker, meatier they'll be. Consider the petites of the world as compared to those women who're genuinely six foot. It's not genetics - it's survival of the fittest.
Tljakes Posted December 15, 2006 Posted December 15, 2006 Well, on a gross scale, physics definately plays a role which is why elephants don't look like ants and spiders. On less of a scale, the larger the individual, the thicker, meatier they'll be. Consider the petites of the world as compared to those women who're genuinely six foot. It's not genetics - it's survival of the fittest. Charlize Theron is belieed to wear a size UK 8 Shoe......... Why tiptoe through life only to arive safely at death?
Guy N. Heels Posted December 17, 2006 Posted December 17, 2006 Well, on a gross scale, physics definately plays a role which is why elephants don't look like ants and spiders. On less of a scale, the larger the individual, the thicker, meatier they'll be. Consider the petites of the world as compared to those women who're genuinely six foot. It's not genetics - it's survival of the fittest. NOPE! I have to disagree. When anthropologists can dig-up a human skull and forensic scientists can determine from the size and shape of the skull if they're dealing with a male or a female, and even give us a fairly accurate depiction of the person's appearance - well I have to say genetics. Unless we're going to subscribe to "crystal-ball" science, there has to be some definitive way of determining sex, age, and all the other things I've seen them come up with. So how can the rules that apply to the forensics of bones that are known to be hundreds and even thousands of years old be any different when applied to living, breathing humans today? The answer is quite elementary, they aren't! Therefore, it cannot merely be a matter of survival of the fittest. There has to be something else. Keep on stepping, Guy N. Heels
Recommended Posts