Recently on Jezebel.com, a (mostly) gossip blog, there was a post about short legs. According to the link, which was a Reuters article found on the MSNBC site, it said that women with shorter legs are more prone to liver disease. While Reuters said nothing about height, I'm reminded right away that many people equate height with leg length, especially if the person is not petite. Lots of tall people would go up to a person who is, say, 5'2" and tell her that her legs are "so short" because she buys pants with a 29" inseam. If you're 5'2", 29" isn't short at all. It's all about proportion. But for some reason, in the eyes of the general public, only tall people can have long legs. Well, of course, if you consider "long" 34"+.
So I ask you readers: What's your definition of "long legs?" Do you have to be tall? Or, can a shorter person, who is say, 5'3" or 5'4", but wears 33" pants (one inch longer than many "standard" sizes) without alterations or heels have "long legs?"
