Do I look better curvy or slim? (pics)

I have a BMI at the very low end (not that it should matter). I think OP looks great in both pics. I don't understand how anyone could think she looks not good in either pic, and I certainly can not understand anyone saying the second pic looks fat or disproportionate. The reason people are wondering if the pic is from when she was still growing is because the OP is still a teenager right now! So, it's within common sense to wonder. Also she mentioned having a restrictive diet. So, that needs to be considered (what that could mean). She can continue working on her fitness, but the curves may be an aspect of the change that happens usually between the age of 15 and 16, when a girl goes from a teenager's body frame into her woman body frame. I had curves when I was 15, but I was extremely slim. At 16, I was still extremely slim (98 pounds), and my waist was just as small, but I had a slight enough change in my bone structure and curves that a tight dress no longer fit my hips/booty and breasts. Our bone structure and development changes during the teen years and settles down somewhere between age 16 and our 20's.

You look A LOT better in the 1st picture in my opinion (nice and slender).

Not to be rude, but it looks like you have some lower-belly pouch in the second picture. Your body also looks more disproportionate at a highter weight. You appear to be bottom-heavy (I am the same). Not saying you look fat, just average as opposed to slim.

Ignore the women saying you look like a 13 year old at a lower weight, they are probably just jealous/bitter.

Oh, and people on here tend to have a BMI on the higher end, so I think they are biased when they say that the second one looks better (they probably subconscioucly feel they have to defend heavier weights).

I'm slender and bit bony myself, so I don't think I'm biased saying her second one looks better. All women at a healthy weight have a natural small lower belly that protrudes a bit due to internal organs. She doesn't appear bottom heavy in either picture.

Not to be rude, but from your profile pic I would say that you are pretty far from being bony. Take it as a compliment, you don't seem to like that look anyway.

I stick to my opinion, I think the OP looks a lot more attractive in the first pic. I don't see how fatter legs make her more womanly.

Not to be rude, but you are making assumptions and saying things that show your ignorance. I don't see how you can see from my profile picture that I am not slender or bony, it's a sitting down picture. I have another one on my profile if you'd care to go look. I"ve also lost weight since both pictures were taken. I'm 5'8" and 130 lbs. I think it's interesting you are so willing to criticize everyone else's pictures when you don't even have one of yourself available. And using the term "fatter" to describe OP's legs in the 2nd picture is just offensive, by the way.

All I'm saying is that your profile picture proves otherwise. Could be the angle, but your arms/chest etc are not what most people would consider bony. I don't think that people's upper body changes much when they sit down, does it? Also, you currently have a BMI of 20, which is considered perfectly healthy/normal (as opposed to underweight).
Generally speaking, I don't like it when people claim to be speaking from their own experience when that doesn't appear to be the case.
The person who posted this question asked people to compare her body in two different pictures. This is what I did. To me, her legs do look noticeably fatter(=bigger) in the second picture, especially her thighs. I fail to see how that is offensive. It's not like I said they were gross or anything.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but SHE asked us to comment on her appearance...I think it's way more helpful when people are honest.

So anyone with breasts is not slender?

Actually, I was referring to your upper body in general, which includes arms and shoulders as well. When I try to tell whether someone is slender or not I usually don't look at a particular body part since some people have disproportionate bodies, but I may look at what their upper (and lower) body looks like as a whole.

Everything, and i repeat everything, in your upper body looks normal to me in that picture. Normal as in healthy (which is what most people consider ideal, no?), far from overweight but also not bony at all.

I do understand what you are saying. I've lost more than 10 lbs. since that picture was taken. My other picture is closer, but still about 8 lbs heavier than now. Did you see that one?

I hadn't, but I did just now and it looks to me like you have a proportionate body and you are at a weight at which you don't have to worry about it being too low or too high (a BMI of 20, or even 21 or whatever it is in those pics is FAR from high anyway). Just cause I said you didn't look bony to me doesn't mean I think there's something wrong with your weight (just like saying someone is fattER is not the same thing as saying someone is fat).

You look great both ways. I would say the "curvy" look is more sexy while the slim pic is more...I don't know, like you're 13 or something. Girlish?

I'm not asking anybody to lie. I have a different opinion. FatTER is not a word that I would apply to her at all. And I personally have a different perception. She does not look bottom heavy to me. I don't see that. She has curvy hips/thighs and then breasts on the top. She has a small rib cage and shoulders, but that's why she has a small waist and curvy figure. The curves are a result of there being a smaller part of the body in contrast to the other parts. Bottoms look heavier when there is a small waist and small rib cage. And small waists usually coincide with a small rib cage. And small shoulders are usually connected to a small rib cage. This is not an argument. It's a difference in opinion and perception. So you express yours. I express mine. You don't have to change and neither do I.

I have a BMI at the very low end (not that it should matter). I think OP looks great in both pics. I don't understand how anyone could think she looks not good in either pic, and I certainly can not understand anyone saying the second pic looks fat or disproportionate. The reason people are wondering if the pic is from when she was still growing is because the OP is still a teenager right now! So, it's within common sense to wonder. Also she mentioned having a restrictive diet. So, that needs to be considered (what that could mean). She can continue working on her fitness, but the curves may be an aspect of the change that happens usually between the age of 15 and 16, when a girl goes from a teenager's body frame into her woman body frame. I had curves when I was 15, but I was extremely slim. At 16, I was still extremely slim (98 pounds), and my waist was just as small, but I had a slight enough change in my bone structure and curves that a tight dress no longer fit my hips/booty and breasts. Our bone structure and development changes during the teen years and settles down somewhere between age 16 and our 20's.

For the last time...I said she looks fattER than in the first picture...not fat. I even said she looks average weight-wise (I didn't know that average equals fat). She asked. Whether she looks good or not is a matter of opinion. I told her mine. I prefer a BMI of 19 to a BMI of, say, 23 (no idea what hers is in those pictures, but it's definitely higher in the second one). Are we supposed to lie to her?
I also said she is bottom-heavy (so am I). That is not a lie. She appears to carry most of her weight in her thighs. Isn't it better to tell people the truth so that they'll know what clothes flatter their body-type the best?

Woooah, are you still in here?