What is your definition of "Voluptuous" vs "Curvy" vs "Amazon" vs "BBW"

Before anything else I would like to clarify this is not an "Attack BBW's thread" so please stick with answering the title question.

The purpose of this thread to try to bring some clarity to the historically vague application of these terms in the hobby.

My image of voluptuous is the hour glass full firm breasted, proportionately smaller waist and full firm booty. Possible belly dancer pooch in tummy area or large but firm thighs.
The body tends to be on the soft side but certainly wouldn't be viewed as overweight.
I think Monroe or even Kim Kardasian.

My image of curvy would be similar but more fit especially in the belly and thighs. Also breasts and butt aren't necessarily as large but they are similar to voluptuous as far as the symmetrically smaller waist, hour glass hips, firm round butt and full breasts. Bikini model types. My ex wife and last GF both were petite, slim/trim yet extremely and naturally curvy.
I think Salma Hayek or Catherine Zeta Jones.

Amazon is a woman who is tall and large, fairly fit but may or may not possess the hour glass figure, breasts or booty size. She may even possibly be lacking in those areas. Regardless you would want her on your side in a bar fight.
None come to mind.

BBW is a kinder gentler translation of disproportionately overweight.
BBW's may or may not have any breasts size. Many do but they tend to fall or hang due to fat content. They usually have booty size but that doesn't mean it will be firm and round. It can be round or flat while large and again tends to fall or hang due to fat content. Also the limbs tend to be large as well.
Overall shape tends to be round or pear rather than hour glass.
None come to mind.

All of the above can possess a beautiful face and talented BCD skills.

How do you personally define the above categories? Please keep it honest without any direct bashing please. If any of the above ain't your cup of tea that's great but don't deliberately insult or attack the one's who aren't.

The definitions given each category are for the most part accurate. The problem / issue is "over weight" and how that's interpreted by each provider. Provider can be 10-30 lbs over weight or she could be 100-200 lbs. over weight. In both cads they are over weight. Same goes for the guys. The biggest problem is when providers use the classifications other than BBW when in fact they are just that. It seems rather insulting when a lady who is 130-140 calls herself "curvy" and so does the lady who is 180-280.

Spinner: 100 rule
Average: 100-140
Curvy: 140-170
Voluptuous: 140-170
Amazon: 170-250 Must take in height (above 5'8")
Small BBW: 170-225 (under 5'4")
BBW: 170-500
WTF: 500+

Personally I thing providers should list both weight and height and let their pictures do the talking. The fact that they are providers makes them ALL BEAutiful! IJS

Overall I think your definitions are fair. I have two friends that I refer to as my BBAs (Big Beautiful Amazons) which would relate to your Amazon definition since both are "solid". Since "Amazon" isn't a searchable key in the Provider look-ups, and you were looking for someone like that, would you search a combo of height and "athletic"?

Is there a reason you've omitted Thin and Slender?

Is there a reason you've omitted Thin and Slender? Originally Posted by Loxly

This wasn't intended to be a thread about all body types. It was about the hobby vagueness in usage I've noticed between the above mentioned terms.

I suppose if your asking my definition of those two I would have to reply with:

Slender would be one who is proportionately or naturally slim with a healthy look. They may or may not have a cute bubble butt and may or may not have full breasts due to augmentation. Those with naturals tend to have perky although small breasts. They rarely have much of an hour glass going on. Many Japanese and Thai women fall into this category.

Thin simply brings to mind one who is unhealthy in appearance with more of a boney or emaciated aura than sexy slim appeal.
Non athletic thin/boney women commonly have a high fat content although very slender looking in clothes. When undressed body parts such as flat ass tend to sag due to fat content. One of the fattest women I've ever seen nude looked sexy and slender in clothes. When the clothes came off literally everything drooped. Talk about a major buzz kill. I just couldn't follow through.

This is a great thread. It really is. I have a hard describing myself sometimes. Writing ads is not my favorite part of this, just not sure what words are accurate of my body type. For instance, I had one review a while back who described me as "a bit curvy". But then, I had another client who didn't think that was accurate at all, and I guess was expecting a much heavier woman. He described me as skinny. Now, I don't think I'm thin. I would not put that in an ad or in my profile. I do; however, work out a lot, so I have good muscle tone especially in the legs and buttock areas. I have put "athletic" in an ad before, but honestly, I feel like if I were 10 pounds thinner with the same muscle tone, might be more accurate. I guess I would fall into the "average" build. However, you don't want to put that in an ad as that doesn't sound too enticing. Kind of implies average looks, which I think is not accurate of me either. I've also been described a "voluptuous", which I always thought was code for fat. What about the term, "built to play"? Seems like it used to be used and was used to denote a particular body type. Maybe the hour-glass figure you mentioned, Cody. But, I guess that one is not particularly helpful in the pursuit of clarity.

This wasn't intended to be a thread about all body types. It was about the hobby vagueness in usage I've noticed between the above mentioned terms.

I suppose if your asking my definition of those two I would have to reply with:

Slender would be one who is proportionately or naturally slim with a healthy look. They may or may not have a cute bubble butt and may or may not have full breasts due to augmentation. Those with naturals tend to have perky although small breasts. They rarely have much of an hour glass going on. Many Japanese and Thai women fall into this category.

Thin simply brings to mind one who is unhealthy in appearance with more of a boney or emaciated aura than sexy slim appeal.
Non athletic thin/boney women commonly have a high fat content although very slender looking in clothes. When undressed body parts such as flat ass tend to sag due to fat content. One of the fattest women I've ever seen nude looked slender in clothes. Literally everything drooped. Talk about a major buzz kill. I just couldn't go there. Originally Posted by Codybeast

Given that the person lists ALL of their statistics an informed decision could be made as to what category they might fit into. As SL pointed out 150 lbs @ 4'10" would be quite different than 150 lbs @ 5'10".

Exactly! Height has everything to do with it. But let's face it.... You need to be pretty fucking tall to make 300 look like curvy! IJS

I like your math I would be considered Average on your scale.

The definitions given each category are for the most part accurate. The problem / issue is "over weight" and how that's interpreted by each provider. Provider can be 10-30 lbs over weight or she could be 100-200 lbs. over weight. In both cads they are over weight. Same goes for the guys. The biggest problem is when providers use the classifications other than BBW when in fact they are just that. It seems rather insulting when a lady who is 130-140 calls herself "curvy" and so does the lady who is 180-280.

Spinner: 100 rule
Average: 100-140
Curvy: 140-170
Voluptuous: 140-170
Amazon: 170-250 Must take in height (above 5'8")
Small BBW: 170-225 (under 5'4")
BBW: 170-500
WTF: 500+

Personally I thing providers should list both weight and height and let their pictures do the talking. The fact that they are providers makes them ALL BEAutiful! IJS Originally Posted by Still Looking

I like your math I would be considered Average on your scale. Originally Posted by Sexy Katrina

Perhaps "average" on the weight scale, but definitely distributed "better than average" (at least from topographical distribution observed in your profile).

<-- Amazon at 5'10.

Here's my definition of each body type based on images, going from top to bottom:

Picture 1 - Voluptous

Picture 2 -- Curvy

Picture 3 -- Amazon

Picture 4 -- BBW (in her younger days, she's a lot thinner now)

http://youtu.be/HiDOMuhpqUo





IB

I like your math I would be considered Average on your scale. Originally Posted by Sexy Katrina

After careful review of your show case.....I'd say you WAY above average!

<-- Amazon at 5'10. Originally Posted by brownsugarbaby

Are you between 170-250? Then yes!

Are you between 170-250? Then yes! Originally Posted by Still Looking

Yes! I see that you are about to start trolling all of my little posts .