I noticed (and became fascinated with) thigh gaps when I was a teenage boy, before there was a well-known word for the phenomenon. It was a feature of some women’s bodies that I found particularly exciting, presumably because it drew my eye to the genital area. But I would like to draw a distinction between this sort of sexual taste and an opinion about what looks good. I mean, I also get turned on by big breasts, but I would never say that small-breasted women don’t look good.
I’m a man, and I agree, I hate it.
I just watched mistmage’s link to make sure I’m talking about the same thing and by the looks of it, not so much. What that showed is extemely thin women with the accordingly thin legs. I was under the impression that thigh gap simply meant thighs that don’t touch / rub together. So, what the OP would seem to be saying is that he doesn’t like thin women. He’s entitled to his opinion but still a gross thing to say.
Okay fine, you’re skinny and oppressed. Put a sock in it, beanpole.
I’m with Trinopus in not having known what “thigh gap” was. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.
Hey I readily admit that I appreciate certain female forms more than others, but yeah, it is not any individual feature in isolation that is attractive, it is a gestalt, and how that gestalt is carried and packaged.
Never having noticed “thigh gap” as a feature my guess would be that it would only occur on women with very low BMIs. To the degree that extremely skinny has been imposed by certain cultural elements as being that which women should aspire to, I would think that thigh gaps are not likely part of the package that is ideally attractive anywhere near as much as one would imagine from their occurrence in fashion models. Men don’t buy fashion magazines to ogle; they more often ogle models with some more curves than that.
Probably relatively few women who are not models have thigh gaps and my guess is that some who are already quite beautiful and certainly not heavy are dieting in, heh, a vain pursuit of getting one. If true then that much to me seems effed up.
I think they’re kind of cute. Not a must-have, but not really a bad thing or turnoff.
With regard to Marilyn Monroe this is largely a myth. Monroe was slim by modern standards, and there are probably plenty of Hollywood starlets today who are larger than she was. Simon Doonan designed an exhibit of Monroe’s clothes for an auction, and said that “Marilyn was shockingly and unimaginably slender. She was sort of like Kate Moss but fleshier on top. Didn’t see that coming, did you? When it came to finding mannequins to fit her dresses, I simply couldn’t. M.M.’s drag was too small for the average window dummy.”
According to this Marilyn Monroe site (which seems to be frequently cited by others), the studio claimed that Monroe’s measurements were 37-23-36" while according to her dressmaker she was 35-22-35". Wikipedia gives Kate Moss’s measurements as 34-26-35.5", although she is an inch and a half taller taller than Monroe was.
Alas, they were! (10 point.)
Still, c’mon. 5! For a guy, that’s just fine!
True dat!
If they say I’m a five/ten in their minds that translates to an eight/ten in mine. It works. 
Mmm…elbow gap. drool
I like a thigh gap because it gives me an emergency escape route.
That you need big ear muffs?
But it’s perfectly acceptable for a woman to reject a man based on his height…
So should this thread have been titled “Mind the gap?”
All the short guys I know got chicks.
Just sayin’, shallow people aren’t gender specific.
I must be weirded with me it is the eyes I am hooked long before the thighs
As a rule of thumb, the man should be at least as tall as the width of the woman’s thigh gap.
Like bugger it is! Who here has said this is “perfectly acceptable?” Who, anywhere, has said this is “perfectly acceptable?”
Gonna call bullshit on this one, bub.
I, as a fairly short guy, say it is perfectly acceptable.
No woman ever was ever obligated to find my single self (way back when) attractive, and it was always perfectly acceptable for any woman to reject me as a love interest because I was not attractive to her.
If a particular woman was turned off by my height or relative lack thereof … fine. And of course some preferred taller guys and rejected me from any further consideration on that basis alone. So? A few women did not and one of them married me. That one is a bit pissed off now that I lost the curly hair that she did find attractive but dems da breaks. But yes when I first asked her to dance at a party she said yes partly based on her judging me physically. And I likely would not have chosen her to ask if I did not superficially judge her as attractive to me (and still do).
Physical attraction is not all physical … other features, like being comfortable in one’s own skin, humor, smarts, how someone makes us feel about ourselves, go a long way and are perhaps larger aspects of attraction … but of course part of it is based on superficial features. Denying that most of us do make those judgements regarding potential romantic partners, be they for as short of an interaction as a dance, or a hook-up, or for a long term, possibly til death do we part, relationship is not creepy, but it is a bit of an absurd claim to make.