There’s another thread about sexuality, gender, and leg crossing.
In my opinion it’s more likely to do with how fat you are. Fatter you are, less likely you are to cross your legs.
So please answer in this poll.
(It is anonymous so you don’t have to worry about admitting your weight if you don’t want to)
Prefer isn’t the right word. At my current weight, I am unable to comfortably cross my legs.
By crossing, do you mean crossing at the knees? Ankles? Ankle on knee? All of the above?
I mean it however the poll-ee interprets it
I don’t cross my legs because arthritis makes it painful. I’ve been all over the map WRT my BMI over the last 7 years, and obesity is not a consideration.
I agree with the OP, I have found a correlation between my body weight and the comfort with which I can cross my legs; namely, when I am heavier it is less comfortable to cross my legs.
I’m at a healthy weight now, but I used to be about 50 pounds heavier. Heavy or light, I’ve always crossed my legs. That said, I cross my legs with one ankle atop the other knee, which might be a more comfortable way to do it when you’re heavier.
It’s hard for me to cross my legs . . . not because of my weight, but because of serious knee problems.
I’ve never liked crossing my legs and although I’m overweight now since I sit with my feet tucked under me I don’t think it’s related to weight (for me at least)
I’m not overweight and I have no problem crossing my legs. But I do have a bit of a spare tire and I’ve found it’s affected the way I tie my shoelaces. Used to be I would tie them with my leg between my arms. Now that’s getting harder to do.
I put that I’m a bit overweight but it’s not in my legs or arms. It’s all in my abdomen and face (thanks for the genes there Dad). I can cross my legs with ease but that leg will still get numb eventually and I have to switch sides.
Given my druthers, I like to slouch and sprawl my legs all over when I’m seated. But sometimes that’s not possible (not enough leg room or it’s a more formal setting), in which case I’d settle for putting my legs in the “figure 4” crossed position, or having my legs crossed at the ankles, or having my legs not crossed but less sprawl-y. And I’m a bit flabby these days.
It’s not that I don’t prefer it, it’s that I can’t get them crossed.
When in public I do sit fairly lady-like with my ankles crossed though.
I’ve had trouble crossing my legs since hitting puberty, even back in middle school when I was a size 3. I have a short frame already, and my legs are *very *short. It seemed that even when my thighs had a normal circumference, their length wasn’t sufficient to make crossing easy. I’ve always been able to do the ankle-knee and ankle-ankle crosses (regardless of size), but I’ve never been able to do the elegant/classy/feminine knee-knee cross without discomfort.
However, feminine crossing aside, I’ve always been able to tuck a leg under the opposite knee (like a seated flamingo). I’m doing that right now, at work. That’s the most comfortable way for me to sit in an office chair, because it relieves pressure on my tailbone (which has been messed up ever since I sledded into a tree in college). My BMI is around 50.
Wait, what?
It’s not unheard of for someone to be within the “normal” weight range, but still have more around the middle than ideal.
He didn’t say he was “in the normal weight range” - he said he was not overweight. If you have a “spare tire”, you’re overweight. That’s just a fact, not an opinion and it’s not a judgment either, just an observation.
Perhaps it depends on your definition of “overweight” and “spare tire”. My BMI is 23.0, and “overweight” is generally defined as a BMI of 25 or more. I happen to be skinny everywhere except around my middle… I think of it as “a bit of a spare tire” but perhaps others would not. If you define overweight more generally as “having more than an optimal amount of body fat”, then I could be considered overweight.
You’re wrong, factually. You don’t have enough information to say he’s overweight. You don’t know his body weight. *Weight *and *mass *aren’t the same thing. A mass of fat weighs less than an equivalent mass of muscle weighs. And BMI (and the thread title) *only *takes weight into account, not %bodyfat. It’s quite possible for someone to have a high %bodyfat, a surfeit of mass in the stomach, and a deficit of mass in the limbs. If they have a small enough limb mass and the spare tire isn’t very large, they can easily be underweight (or normalweight) for their height.
You could argue they’re overfat. I’d argue back that BMI doesn’t care about fat, just weight. And the thread title is about weight. So %bodyfat is irrelevant to the thread.