# Ideal size for a BBW?



## squeezablysoft (May 2, 2016)

*I made a thread asking this question about BHM's, now it's the straight FA/gay FFA's turn. What do you think is the perfect BBW size, subjectively for you personally as an FA/gay FFA? You can use poundage/measurements/other indicators (double-chin, sausage fingers, etc.) whatever works for you but I used BMI for the poll cause weight is just so variable depending on height for true fatness level.*


----------



## balletguy (May 3, 2016)

Great poll. However it is tough to chose one. I am interested to see the results.


----------



## squeezablysoft (May 3, 2016)

balletguy said:


> Great poll. However it is tough to chose one. I am interested to see the results.



*It is a multiple choice poll, you can pick as many responses as you want. *


----------



## landshark (May 3, 2016)

I've found the size is far less important to me than the basic shape. I don't get attached to a number on the scale, though I generally like 300+ pounds. I don't have a "max weight" or a minimum so much as a strong preference for a basic shape. That being big butt, big soft belly, and if she has big boobs that's a bonus. Thankfully my wife has all three!


----------



## Tad (May 3, 2016)

happily_married said:


> I've found the size is far less important to me than the basic shape. I don't get attached to a number on the scale, though I generally like 300+ pounds. I don't have a "max weight" or a minimum so much as a strong preference for a basic shape. That being big butt, big soft belly, and if she has big boobs that's a bonus. Thankfully my wife has all three!



Short form: Pretty similar to what he said ^^^^

Long form: Actual size is only one amongst many factors in what attracts me to someone. Yes Im an FA in quite a broad way (i.e. more than just sexual attraction, but that too), but there are so many aspects of personality, sexuality, various aspects of looks  So I answered the polls (ticking more than one box on each of them), but size alone covers a minority of what makes someone attractive to me. 

Heck, when I met my wife she was pretty thin (she wouldnt have been on this chart at all, having been in the normal BMI range at the time, although certainly not scrawny), and back then I knew what I liked, but there was enough other good there that I decided to date her despite the lack of fat, and I was simply fortunate that she put on weight over time (Id hoped for that, but hadnt been counting on it  and Id been hoping that she wouldnt get as big as her Mother was at the time, but I was willing to accept that that could happen too (it didnt)).

Basically for me the individual (both physically and mentally/emotionally) always matters so much more than the category you might be able to fit them in.


----------



## landshark (May 3, 2016)

You are a man with exquisite taste, Tad! Out of curiosity, do you have a "too big" threshold? Given you were concerned about your wife getting as big as her mom?


----------



## Tad (May 3, 2016)

Well, that was a very long time ago, my tastes have probably broadened and changed since then. More particularly, that was pre-web by a few years and I’d not lived in particularly fat areas, so I’d met very few SS women. Most, including her mother, were not particularly well presented and many of those I had met really did not look all that healthy or happy. 

Her mother in particular didn’t leave the house much (a mix of mild agoraphobia, difficulties in getting around, and fat shame), seemed to subsist mostly on sweet iced-tea and had skin and hair tone consistent with not very well balanced nutrition, and wasn’t the sort of body shape I found all that attractive. The fact that she couldn’t get a size 26 coat buttoned up over her belly I didn’t have a problem with, but that she didn’t move around much or eat well or look healthy, that was obviously not so attractive. Given my naivety and lack of exposure, I kind of associated those things with being as fat as she was. I remember thinking along the lines of &#8216;well, maybe there is an upper limit on how fat I’d like my GF to get, because I wouldn’t want her in the state her mother is. I’m not quite sure how close to that sort of weight she could get and still stay active and healthy, with encouragement toward a better lifestyle, but probably less than her Mom.” (I thought this was a real potential, because I was naive enough to give credence to the old saw about &#8216;if you want to know what a girl will look like when she’s older, look at her mother,” and being an FA I hoped she’d get fatter, so the question to my mind was &#8216;how fat do I want her?’)

I still find a body in motion way sexier than one sitting on the couch all the time, so my &#8216;too fat’ level is not so much because I don’t think it looks good, as because it just becomes such a hindrance to enjoying life eventually. (ETA: I'm more touch-oriented than visual, and more softness is never going to feel bad to my touch, so yah, fatter and fatter can be a huge turn-on to that part of me, but there is just so much more to a long term relationship)


----------



## landshark (May 3, 2016)

Understandable, Tad. I should clarify: when I say I don't really have a "too big" I mean purely weight. I've know women north of 400 pounds who were mobile and able to function at every day life. In these instances weight wouldn't be an issue to me. Mobility and ability to just...live life is important to me. I couldn't be in a relationship with some unable to move. Unless (God forbid) the person I'm already with becomes immobile from a car accident etc. I don't think I could stand by and watch her gain to immobility (and I know she doesn't want that for herself). That is my "too big." It's not related to a specific weight.


----------



## balletguy (May 4, 2016)

This is an interesting topic. I wish I could vote again. I don't think I fully read everything. ...great topic...looking forward to the results.


----------



## choudhury (May 4, 2016)

Weirdly, perhaps, I'm not too up on 'BMI' as an indicator. I tend to think it terms of poudage, even though that's less precise. I picked 'class III' but as others have said, the 'number' is not the main thing...there are SSBBWs I find very sexy and others that I don't, just as there are merely chubby BBWs that I find very sexy. But all things being equal, I'd say that 'class III' is where I'd typically fall.

In terms of "too big," I tend to agree with Happily married. Immobility or visibly obvious health problems are not attractive to me personally; a healthy, mobile, and happy SSBBW would represent the idea to me.


----------



## landshark (May 4, 2016)

balletguy said:


> This is an interesting topic. I wish I could vote again. I don't think I fully read everything. ...great topic...looking forward to the results.



Instead of voting again you could spell out your qualitative thoughts. There's a lot more to it than just voting. Voting is just quantitative but how we feel about something can't always be easily quantified. What are your thoughts on the subject?


----------



## balletguy (May 4, 2016)

Fair enough. ..I have dated women in most of the groups listed. I would not be against any of the ones listed. My last GF was somewhere between a 3 and a 4. Of course personality etc plays a part as well.


----------



## Tad (May 4, 2016)

happily_married said:


> Understandable, Tad. I should clarify: when I say I don't really have a "too big" I mean purely weight. I've know women north of 400 pounds who were mobile and able to function at every day life. In these instances weight wouldn't be an issue to me. Mobility and ability to just...live life is important to me. I couldn't be in a relationship with some unable to move. Unless (God forbid) the person I'm already with becomes immobile from a car accident etc. I don't think I could stand by and watch her gain to immobility (and I know she doesn't want that for herself). That is my "too big." It's not related to a specific weight.



This is mostly hypothetical, but I think that the combination of my feelings of more softness is always good and a body in motion is sexy (and associated with that, exertion is hot), suggests that to me my upper limit could be heavily attitude dependent. That is, I think that I may have a sweet spot where big enough to make getting around and fitting in noticeably more difficult intersects desire to go out and do things and enjoyment of overcoming challenges. That is to say, the point where size and weight play a role in decisions on a near daily basis, and may impact the what and how of activities, but doesnt stop things outright. (this applies in my thoughts to both partner and myself, individually or collectively)

For example, where moderate amounts of walking or standing, or even modest numbers of stairs, are feasible  but it is worth doing some planning in advance if more than one activity is going to demand such things to keep the total from being too much. Where going to the beach for the day may be reasonable, but where certainly we wouldnt park a mile from the beach entrance and then walk a long way down the beach on top of wanting to enjoy the water. Where walking from one gate to another of an airport is probably OK if there is enough time to sit down for a rest in the middle, but definitely a tight flight change wouldnt make sense and where we would at least look at whether driving there was feasible, to avoid the whole spare seat issue. Where it is possible to go out to see a movie, if we choose a theatre with the right seating. Where getting up from the ground without help is possible, but enough work to make one think twice before dropping down to the ground in the first place (but choosing to do so sometimes anyway). Basically on the cusp of too fat to do many normal activities but taking pains to keep doing them so that they do stay possible, if a bit challenging.

But this conclusion is only something I came to way later in life than my dating years, long after being married, having had years of discussions in places like this, having experienced more of things being easy or hard, etc.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (May 4, 2016)

In order to be the perfect size, a BBW should fit inside her own skin.


----------



## squeezablysoft (May 4, 2016)

Tad said:


> This is mostly hypothetical, but I think that the combination of my feelings of &#8216;more softness is always good’ and &#8216;a body in motion is sexy’ (and associated with that, &#8216;exertion is hot’), suggests that to me my &#8216;upper limit’ could be heavily attitude dependent. That is, I think that I may have a sweet spot where &#8216;big enough to make getting around and fitting in noticeably more difficult’ intersects &#8216;desire to go out and do things’ and &#8216;enjoyment of overcoming challenges.’ That is to say, the point where size and weight play a role in decisions on a near daily basis, and may impact the what and how of activities, but doesn’t stop things outright. (this applies in my thoughts to both partner and myself, individually or collectively)
> 
> For example, where moderate amounts of walking or standing, or even modest numbers of stairs, are feasible &#8211; but it is worth doing some planning in advance if more than one activity is going to demand such things to keep the total from being too much. Where going to the beach for the day may be reasonable, but where certainly we wouldn’t park a mile from the beach entrance and then walk a long way down the beach on top of wanting to enjoy the water. Where walking from one gate to another of an airport is probably OK if there is enough time to sit down for a rest in the middle, but definitely a tight flight change wouldn’t make sense and where we would at least look at whether driving there was feasible, to avoid the whole spare seat issue. Where it is possible to go out to see a movie, if we choose a theatre with the right seating. Where getting up from the ground without help is possible, but enough work to make one think twice before dropping down to the ground in the first place (but choosing to do so sometimes anyway). Basically on the cusp of &#8216;too fat to do many normal activities’ but taking pains to keep doing them so that they do stay possible, if a bit challenging.
> 
> But this conclusion is only something I came to way later in life than my dating years, long after being married, having had years of discussions in places like this, having experienced more of things being easy or hard, etc.




*Think I know what you mean about "exertion is hot", I mentioned something similar in this post, even came up with a lil acronym (EWF=Exertion While Fat): http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2174400&postcount=169

I'm not yet obese but my disability puts me in an activity category similar to what you discussed here, where things are difficult but not impossible. My weight may be somewhat of a contributing factor though, as there are things that are harder for me now than they used to be even though CP is not a progressive condition. But then again it could just be age, since ppl with CP are prone to premature wear-and-tear on joints and such. I move slower than I used to (I'd need to anyway since my balance isn't what it used to be), my knees and back hurt sometimes, I have difficulty getting up from sitting and I never lay down on the floor anymore cause I can't get back up without something to pull up on and afterwards don't talk to me for about 10 minutes cause I'll be too busy trying to not die and keep my heart from running out of my chest. This is compared to 10 years and 60 pounds ago. 

I've been told since I was a kid that it's only a matter of time before I lose the ability to get around on my knees and become totally chair-bound. I've fought it this long but wonder what will happen as I continue to age and gain. I'm afraid I may have to face the "stop gaining or become immobile" point at a much lower weight than most. But in my case immobility could be just a matter of time anyway, and gaining weight may simply hasten the inevitable.*


----------



## op user (May 5, 2016)

*Tad,

*I like your idea about needing to take her size into consideration.


----------



## choudhury (May 5, 2016)

You know, Tad makes a good point. Two things I've noticed over the last year or so about my wife, who is 5'3 and has slowly-but-steadily gained about 120 lbs over the past 20 years to now being around 290 lbs, are that

1. She walks more slowly than she used to, and quickly gets out of breath if she has to keep up with the brisker pace that thin people generally set;

and 

2. Stairs are more challenging than they used to be. She has to be a bit careful going down them, because she can't see her feet; and she has to sort of haul herself when going up. 

(2) in particular is kind of a turn on. 

There are other little things, too...like tying shoelaces being more difficult, having to squeeze into booths in restaurants, occasionally getting looks from people who you KNOW are thinking 'whoa, that lady is big!' The other day she came back from the washroom in a restaurant and a guy at the next table started talking to his date about the show The Biggest Loser - obviously watching her go by brought that to mind. 

Perfectly mobile, perfectly functional, but entering that region of being 'almost' too fat to do X or Y. That IS hot.


----------



## landshark (May 5, 2016)

choudhury said:


> There are other little things, too...like tying shoelaces being more difficult, having to squeeze into booths in restaurants, occasionally getting looks from people who you KNOW are thinking 'whoa, that lady is big!' The other day she came back from the washroom in a restaurant and a guy at the next table started talking to his date about the show The Biggest Loser - obviously watching her go by brought that to mind.
> 
> Perfectly mobile, perfectly functional, but entering that region of being 'almost' too fat to do X or Y. That IS hot.



Some of the other little things get me too. Like last night we were getting ready to get into it. As she stripped down I scooted toward the middle of the bed, apparently too close to her side. She said, "Uh...I'm huge so you'd better give me a little more room than that!" 

Or the other day we were at the store and she pointed out a picture of a whale. I said that I liked whales (legitimately meant the animals) and she said, "It's a good thing because you're married to me! You'd better hope I don't decide to swallow you!" 

Generally my wife is not happy with her weight, but when she can approach it playfully like in these two examples...:bow:


----------



## bigmac (May 5, 2016)

An interesting phenomenon is that what I consider an ideal size increased until I was in my late 30s and has been decreasing since. Right now, all other things being equal -- which of course they never are, I'd say I'd prefer a tall but not particularly large BBW. Say 5'9 to 6'0'' and about 200 to 240 pounds.


----------



## tomy27 (May 6, 2016)

Interesting pol and here are my thoughts.

I have to admit that I fantasise about dominant, very tall (up to 8 or 9 feet) and extremely overweight women. There are very little limit for my fantasy and the women in my dreams could easily have an BMI above 100. But it is not the weight itself. The woman of my dreams has a classic hour glass figure with ample thights, a large round butt and extremely large breasts and as said she is very dominant. I think in my fantasy weight stands for power. The women of my fantasy are active and independent. This brings me back to reality. In reality there is no 8 feet tall woman and in reality there is almost no way to be active and independent with 600 or 700 pound. Yes I have to admit that pictures of super size women arouses me but only the pictures. It stops imeditately when I see them on video because it is obvious how exhausting the live at that weight is. To make a long story short to me that is the point. In reality my ideal woman is active, dominant, has an hourglass figure, very large breasts and long hair and to come back to the question an BMI between 40 and 49.

@bicmac: It is the same for me. The woman of my dreams has become larger and larger but it turned maybe ten years ago and I would say since then it comes back from pure fantasy to something more realistic.


----------



## landshark (May 6, 2016)

^ Wow, that's pretty big even if you're using Amazons as your baseline! I can understand the appeal, though. I had (briefly) a tall, thick GF years ago. I'm 5'7" and at the time weighed maybe 155 or so. She was Over 6', very thick, big butt, thick torso and boobs so big I almost didn't know what to do with them. Plus when we went out in public she wore heals so the top of my head barely passed her shoulder. She was AA and one night in the theater line a couple white girls were looking at us and she finally said, "Yeah, that's right I got one of your cute little white boys. Usually I keep a leash on him." It was fun. Unfortunately she was uneasy to be around black men with me, and was entirely fixated on our racial differences, and that was ultimately what drove us apart. But after our culminating argument to break up, we met a few hours later and had a level-headed "it was fun while it lasted" conversation, hugged and said goodbye. Good times.


----------



## op user (May 7, 2016)

> * boobs so big I almost didn't know what to do with them*



This can't be true or actually should be added on the ideal elements of a BBW.


----------



## Jon Blaze (May 7, 2016)

I am generally more attracted to big women than thin women. My preference range is 180-550ish depending on the person. But shape has become more important than size over time, and my preferences start at the the first category (25-29). 

Some of my favorite models represent an ideal, and are also some the biggest women I'm attracted to (e.g. Kellie Kay, Boberry, Foxy Roxxie, Golden). But there are some who are slightly smaller (Britt, Marilyn) that are my ideal. I'm also attracted to a lot of mainstream plus-size models and copslayers (Ivy Doomkitty, Denise Bidot, Jada Sezer) at a similar level. It depends on the person. Most of women I've dated range from 190-350, but the number being smaller than my range of attraction is not from lack of trying.


----------



## jbevan70 (Aug 20, 2016)

If we're talking about personal fantasy ideals, then mine would definitely go beyond hyper obese, women in at least the 700-800 lb range or above (body styles similar to Suzanne Eman, Mz. Fluff. Though I know this is unlikely given the health risks at such a size.


----------



## socrates74 (Nov 29, 2016)

BMI is like the metric system to me. Do I really have to convert .


----------



## bigmac (Nov 29, 2016)

bigmac said:


> An interesting phenomenon is that what I consider an ideal size increased until I was in my late 30s and has been decreasing since. Right now, all other things being equal -- which of course they never are, I'd say I'd prefer a tall but not particularly large BBW. Say 5'9 to 6'0'' and about 200 to 240 pounds.




The real world doesn't really care about ideal anything. My new GF is 5'7" and about 330 pounds.


----------



## fuelingfire (Nov 30, 2016)

I really don't think there is an ideal size.


----------



## AmandaLynn (Nov 30, 2016)

I just calculated my BMI, 41.1, whoa!


----------



## Dromond (Nov 30, 2016)

BMI is BS.

I don't have an ideal size. My only limit is "not skinny."


----------



## Tad (Nov 30, 2016)

Well, BMI gives a more accurate gauge than weight on its own, but I do admit that this is a bit like saying a weather report giving you temperature and pressure gives you a better idea of the weather than just temperature -- you are still not getting all the information that you'd want to really understand. 

Unfortunately height and weight are easy to measure, and BMI was chosen to be easy to calculate (even if all along people realized that we don't actually scale at square of height -- ease of calculation was chosen over accuracy). More informative measurements about body composition tend to be harder to get, so not generally available

In other words, for things like setting up size classifications, I don't see other accessible alternatives at the moment. I'll agree that classifications can create problems, can be misleading, and are always arbitrary, but at the same time there can be information gathered from them.


----------



## landshark (Nov 30, 2016)

I don't really see any value to BMI as it factors only height and weight and ignores other factors such as muscle mass, bone density, organ tissue, etc. It also has a somewhat arbitrary classification system. What makes a 25 overweight and a 24.9 normal? My BMI (171, 5'7") is 26.8 which puts me solidly iverweight. If everyone in Dims met and I tried to tell everyone I was overweight you'd all laugh at me!


----------



## Tad (Nov 30, 2016)

All I was saying was that overall "BMI 26.8" says more than just "171 pounds" does. 

What easily measurable/calculatable value would you rather use than BMI?


----------



## AmyJo1976 (Nov 30, 2016)

AmandaLynn said:


> I just calculated my BMI, 41.1, whoa!


Mine says 43.9


----------



## landshark (Nov 30, 2016)

Tad said:


> All I was saying was that overall "BMI 26.8" says more than just "171 pounds" does.
> 
> What easily measurable/calculatable value would you rather use than BMI?



But there are a lot of H/W combinations that can get you to a 26.8 or any other BMI for that matter. I'm not sure there is one-stop shop metric, nor do I really believe there's a need for one. With that said, I believe height, weight, and BFP can really give someone an idea of what kind of shape someone is in. Far more so than BMI.


----------



## fuelingfire (Dec 1, 2016)

BMI is the easiest method.

I am sure there is a different name for this but I think the most accurate is considered to be a density test. They take your weight. Then you sit in a tank with water up to your neck. They measure how much the water rises once you are in the tank. I think this is really only done on professional athletes, to help monitor optimal nutrition for the athlete. It’s rare.

I gave up on any faith in BMI when I was about 22. I went to see my doctor for my yearly physical. I don’t remember my exact weight at the time, probably around 170-180. A week early I used the caliper test (involving pinching and measuring certain fatty areas of the body), which said I had 6% body fat. I had a six pack, that was clearly visible even when sitting down and not flexing my stomach muscles. I am sitting in the room without a shirt on. My doctor doesn’t really look at me and is just staring at my chart. After a bit of silence, he says to me, “did you know that you are clinically obese?” So, after a pause, I asked him, “How much weight do you think I should lose?” Still not looking at me, he said, “I think you will be okay as long as you don’t gain any more weight.” I was severely controlling my dietary intake, to the point where I was always hungry. I think the easiest way I would have lost weight then would have been to stop weightlifting. I think it would have really been unsafe for me to have lost more body fat at that point.


----------



## socrates74 (Dec 1, 2016)

In the attraction phase of a relationship, size 18 is kind of the minimum *. Size 34/36 is kinda the max where she can get an off the rack swimsuit at a non specialty retailer. I kinda like to occasionally** wrestle and feel the weight of a woman. So her and my maneuverability matters. A larger woman is always going to get hotter (body temperature) wise than I am. So, that seems to be the managable range for living together.

* generality, woman vary and have other nonBbw attributes. If she loses or gains later that's *her*
** I would do it every day but thats not real life.


----------



## lewrs (Dec 12, 2016)

It's really complicated because for me it isn't such a number as much as it is shape, looks and such. TBH I can find most big girls attractive if she has a BMI of ~35 or greater. Ideally I would want a girl that is big enough that I find attractive that also is happy with their weight so +250 ibs is what I go for usually with the intention of getting it closer to 250ish.


----------



## TwoSwords (Jan 28, 2017)

Honestly, it varies, but if what I'm seeing in these BMI charts is accurate, I don't usually see girls of less than 40 who give me that sense of serene beauty that a larger woman has.


----------

