What Consitutues BBW?

It seems there are 3 issues.

1) The term BBW is perceived as disparaging by some. If Big Beautiful Woman is a disparaging phrase, then what can be used that is not.

2) The pics don't match with what's real (they are old, Photoshopped, or someone else entirely.) This one is a thorn in my side. I am acquainted with those that arrived to meet a lady, only to leave after they realize pics were very old. This breeds hard feelings and unsavory reviews. The pics need to be at most 6 months old.

3) Reviewers. This one I think cannot be improved because each person has their perfect eye. What is my perfect woman may not be yours. I do think that we all tend to embellish a bit in our stories. Some of it is our opinion and some is our ego.

If you die because she climbed on top, she might be a so-called BBW:

Overweight Woman Gets Probation in Boyfriend's 'Sitting' Death
Wednesday, January 20, 2010


Print ShareThisAn overweight Ohio woman who killed her boyfriend by sitting on him, told a judge she was sincerely sorry for squashing the father of her three children, Fox8.com reported.

Mia Landingham, who was believed to weigh around 300 pounds at the time of the August incident, pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter Wednesday in Cleveland.

Her lawyer told the Judge Carolyn Friedland there was a history of domestic abuse between Landingham and her 120 pound boyfriend, Mikal Middleton-Bey.

"I just want to say that I am sincerely sorry about this situation," she said. "I wish I could take it back."

The judge sentenced Landingham to three years probation and 100 hours of community service — much to the dislike of the victim's family.

"So basically you can say that I can go sit on somebody and get probation?" one of the victim's sisters told Fox8.com. "I feel there wasn't no justice."

Its just this swingin' dick's opinion, but if you're asking, "Am I a BBW/BBM?", you already know the answer... Originally Posted by enderwiggin

I think the ladies in this thread were asking as a rhetorical device to demonstrate how ridiculous the 2.2 lbs per inch calculation is in determining a BBW.

I can't define BBW, but I know it when I see it. My ex was a BBW. Oh, make that BUW.
TopCat

I agree about the the weight issue. Muscle weighs much more than fat and is also part of the reason why males tend to be heavier than women even when the woman "looks" bigger. I weigh over 200lb. and often people look at me and say "How??". By BMI standards I'm over weight by 30-40lb (i'll admit its probably more like 15-20lb )

Then again... on average how many women are truly athletic and muscular?? It just isn't that common. When I read 5'6" and 165lb, I'm automatically thinking "hrmm ok, big girl". However, I am still looking for pics and physical description to back up or debunk that perception.

Weight, height, and body frame all play into what I consider for my thinking of thin, healthy, thick, or obese. BBW, athletic, thick, spinner, thin, voluptuous curvy, etc. are subjective terms that vary with the individual. I imagine, no strike that, I KNOW my BBW classification is higher than tbone2u's for example. I don't like it when guys and girls get bent out of shape over these terms. This goes for age as well +/- 3yr is not a big deal but 10 damn sure is.

Accurate photos that show your body and reviewers who give objective physical descriptions are what I look for. Pics of a provider that only show her face, squished boobs, or butt are red flags about the other regions not shown. Generally if a lady finds parts of her appealing she is going to show it off.

It's already been stated that one of the worst things a provider can do is misrepresent herself. If you have 3 year old pictures and you don't look like you did three years ago then you need new pics. In fact I think the idea of new pics every 6mo. is a fantastic and should be a gold standard. They don't need to be supermodel shots. Just get topcat to come over and do a review.

Same goes for the guys writing reviews. I often stammer when I read things like "slight mama tummy, barely noticeable" and the title of the review is "I-10 melissa blows my mind!". Or when things are left out entirely like the fact the person has yellowed or missing teeth, has burn scars, or missing appendage. Odds are that reviewer has just lost all credibility with me.

I think the ladies in this thread were asking as a rhetorical device to demonstrate how ridiculous the 2.2 lbs per inch calculation is in determining a BBW. Originally Posted by Sensual Sophia

I didn't mean that to disparage anyone. I'm an equal opportunity pervert. . I'm just saying, if you're big you're big. If that's a problem for a hobbyist, fuck 'em.

I couldn't agree with IB more. The scale stated earlier was a starting point for a generic rule, then the specifics of a person would need to be considered. I know a girl who is 5'8" and weights about 140lbs (ok per the scale and looks really nice) but when she works out like she did when she played softball in college her weight gets to 150 to 160 but she is much more tone and fit. Still looks good.

The generic scale would say she is approaching BBW but looks say she is not. Again the scale is a starting point for generic use. Some of the women on here that have said 'I am not BBW', I would disagree (from the pics), others I completely agree are no where close (again from the pics).

I think I need a trip to Houston to verify.

...or missing appendage. Originally Posted by island_beau

lol, i hate when people fail to mention that.

Same goes for the guys writing reviews. I often stammer when I read things like "slight mama tummy, barely noticeable" and the title of the review is "I-10 melissa blows my mind!". Or when things are left out entirely like the fact the person has yellowed or missing teeth, has burn scars, or missing appendage. Odds are that reviewer has just lost all credibility with me. Originally Posted by island_beau

Well said,
It helps to try to take the reviewer into consideration. It is easy enough to look up past reviews and read "reviews" of the review.
Anyway, some on here have established reputations for posting more accurate reviews than others and they also have a "standard" that they seem to have set for themselves. That is usually easy enough to figure out. Honesty and consistency are the keys.

Oh, and not having to wade through all the drama and shit helps too. I'm just sayin'.

You know you are fat when:

You can’t cross your legs anymore
You can’t bend over and pick something up
When the scale it says to be continued
You have boobs and your a guy
The store that you buy your clothes at has the name "tent" in the title
When you hold in your stomach and you still look fat
You can't reach your own behind after using the toilet
You can’t enlarge the seat belt any more

5'5" and 180. BBW or not? You be the judge:

http://images02.xn4.org/40300/www_plus613_net_ab6a.jpg

5'5" and 180. BBW or not? You be the judge:

http://images02.xn4.org/40300/www_plus613_net_ab6a.jpg Originally Posted by meryt

That woman could kill a man during DATY by squeezing his head between her thighs. Seriously buff. But a totally flat stomach. I'd say she's big boned with a LOT OF muscle and a teeny bit of padding. This is not usually what most people mean when they say BBW.

Curvy, thick, bbw, been CALLED it all in reviews when a guy describes my appearance. probably even been CALLED fat..but one thing the review and the description ensures..they were atleast CALLING point being, one man's bbw is another mans "curvy" or "thick" there is no pure definition since the term BBW simply stands for Big Beautiful Woman "Big" could include many things, could be tall and muscular, could be fat, could be obese, I mean "big" can describe many things..as a kid i would say look at that "big" truck...was the truck fat? or was it "bigger" then the other trucks I had seen..

a girl that is 5'9 is "bigger" then a girl that is 5'2 is she now a bbw? or is it because the generally accepted meaning implies a girl has to be "fat" to be a bbw? and just cuz its generally accepted doesn't mean everyone or anyone for that matter has to abide by that same standard..

hence the term "bbw" really could describe a wide range of people..short and fat, obese, TALL and muscular, extra padding...anyone not 5'2 105 lbs what is bbw to one guy, isn't what the other guy has as his mental picture of "bbw"

in the end, doesn't matter how one is labeled, as long as pics accurately show what a guy is getting, labels mean nothing since no one can clearly define them...spinners, bbw's, thick girls, there is only generally accepted ideas of which NOT everyone goes by or has the same opinion about..

as long as the guys are calling, the reviews and pics are accurate..what does it matter

Holey begeez! I think I just crapped my pants. Meyrt??? You should have put a warning on that link. But I'm not gonna comment on it, that lady might find me and crush me with those thighs.
Topsomebodyelse

I think the ladies in this thread were asking as a rhetorical device to demonstrate how ridiculous the 2.2 lbs per inch calculation is in determining a BBW. Originally Posted by Sensual Sophia

I agree that is a ridiculous calculation. By that standard this lady who reports her weight at 150 would be BBW haha whatever...

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=11657

~1tga