# when is she a ssbbw?



## tony101 (May 13, 2013)

So when is she considered a ssbbw ,is it by wight or bmi or look.


----------



## BigFA (May 14, 2013)

All of the above. I would speculate that 275 lbs. and up certainly qualifies for SSBBW status if a woman is of average height of 5'3 to 5'8. And of course how she looks and carries the weight. You know it when you see it. BMI is just a function of the ratio of height to weight.


----------



## largenlovely (May 14, 2013)

I always heard the general consensus was 350 and up. I think in order to be a member of the supersized board here, you have to be at least 350.


----------



## liz (di-va) (May 14, 2013)

tony101 said:


> So when is she considered a ssbbw ,is it by wight or bmi or look.



Who is "she"?


----------



## loopytheone (May 15, 2013)

liz (di-va) said:


> Who is "she"?



Cat's mother?

...given your avatar I couldn't resist this answer!


----------



## b0nnie (May 15, 2013)

BigFA said:


> All of the above. I would speculate that 275 lbs. and up certainly qualifies for SSBBW status if a woman is of average height of 5'3 to 5'8. And of course how she looks and carries the weight. You know it when you see it. BMI is just a function of the ratio of height to weight.



I really don't think 275 is considered SSBBW, I was around 270ish at my biggest, I'm 5'3" and wore a size 22/24 which is nowhere near large enough to be considered supersize. I think it depends on how a women looks more then how much she weighs, everyone is so different.


----------



## Tad (May 15, 2013)

I think the term started in the clothing area, where a lot of plus sized stores only carried up to a size 26. If you were larger than that you weren't "plus sized" so people called it "super-sized."

Of course, since then clothing sizes have inflated, and more stores carry larger than a 26, so does that mean that you have to be larger to be super-sized than you did half a generation ago?


----------



## bostonbbwluv (May 19, 2013)

I always went by the look. I know it when I see it.


----------



## lcc42 (May 31, 2014)

My wife was 5'0" and 250 pounds when we met 16 years ago and I would have considered her a bbw. She is currently 303 pounds, much rounder especially in her belly and is fat all over. For her height and current weight and proportions I would consider her to be a ssbbw.


----------



## firefly (May 31, 2014)

lcc42 said:


> My wife was 5'0" and 250 pounds when we met 16 years ago and I would have considered her a bbw. She is currently 303 pounds, much rounder especially in her belly and is fat all over. For her height and current weight and proportions I would consider her to be a ssbbw.



Sweetheart, I think _everybody_ in this forum knows now about your wife's weight, height and weight gain. No need to post about it a dozen more times in necro-threads...


----------



## CastingPearls (Jun 1, 2014)

firefly said:


> Sweetheart, I think _everybody_ in this forum knows now about your wife's weight, height and weight gain. No need to post about it a dozen more times in necro-threads...


He first started posting as a woman too. Hmmm.


----------



## ed1980 (Jun 10, 2014)

I have always associated the concept of SSBBW (the so called 350 lb or 150 KG) with the medical concept of super obese (BMI over 45).


----------



## RabbitScorpion (Jun 10, 2014)

ed1980 said:


> I have always associated the concept of SSBBW (the so called 350 lb or 150 KG) with the medical concept of super obese (BMI over 45).



But at 5'0", a mere 232 pounds will make a BMI of 45.

I would propose a BMI of 50 or greater may be a measure.

Another possible definition: 

BBW Nothing for you at A&F
BHM Nothing for you at most popular stores, except Walmart

SSBBW Nothing for you at Catherine's
SSBHM: Nothing for you at Walmart.

Another measure I've heard others use is whether one is unable to walk a mile on account of weight alone.

I had an SO with a BMI near 50 who was quite athletic in 1986 (23y). She could play a mean game of softball. We loved walikng on trails and beaches together.
In 1996, we went to Yellowstone. At 33y her BMI was about 60. We toured the park, she would stop at an attraction, have me leave the car, walk around, take pictures and describe the scene with a walkie-talkie as she waited in the car. I SO wish we had gone to Yellowstone earlier


----------



## CastingPearls (Jun 10, 2014)

RabbitScorpion said:


> But at 5'0", a mere 232 pounds will make a BMI of 45.
> 
> I would propose a BMI of 50 or greater may be a measure.
> 
> ...


Catherine's goes up to a size 5X. I shopped there when I was a SSBBW.


----------



## bigmac (Jun 11, 2014)

b0nnie said:


> I really don't think 275 is considered SSBBW, I was around 270ish at my biggest, I'm 5'3" and* wore a size 22/24 which is nowhere near large enough to be considered supersize*. I think it depends on how a women looks more then how much she weighs, everyone is so different.



Yes, a size 22/24 is just a BBW. My definition would be based on size. If all the clothes in the local department store "Women's" section are too small you're supersized (i.e. 30/32 or larger).


----------



## cebe (Jun 11, 2014)

I think BMI is more important than just weight because it depends on both weight and height. For sure, the same weight for a little woman of 5 or a 6 or more like some tennis women for example dont give the same impression.
Personally I have a trick : when I take a woman in my arms, if my hands do not touch in her back, it is a ssbbw. 
Odd ? maybe but thats what I like


----------



## Kaleetan (Oct 19, 2014)

My guidelines are when she's above a size 24. 14-24 is BBW.


----------



## GhostEater (Oct 20, 2014)

I think this is definitely one of those things where you know it when you see it. I also think height plays into it. 

I think I might be super sized but I can't really judge myself accurately. I hypocritically always feel a lot thinner than I really am even though I know I'm huge.


----------



## furious styles (Oct 20, 2014)

the real question is - why do we care



she's fat

it's hot

the end


----------



## GhostEater (Oct 20, 2014)

It's a matter of definition. The term gets thrown around a lot on the site so it doesn't hurt to talk about semantic bullshit. As for me I'm just making conversation here. 

But I get what you're saying man. In the end it really doesn't matter.


----------



## furious styles (Oct 20, 2014)

GhostEater said:


> It's a matter of definition. The term gets thrown around a lot on the site so it doesn't hurt to talk about semantic bullshit. As for me I'm just making conversation here.
> 
> But I get what you're saying man. In the end it really doesn't matter.



don't mind me man, not an attack. just being a dick haha. 

but honestly, there is never going to be one definite point where 'ssbbw' begins. i think we should just appreciate human beings as individuals and maybe not reduce them to size specific abbreviations.


----------



## GhostEater (Oct 20, 2014)

Nah, I getcha. This site's kind of all over the place. 

On the one hand there are people with real specific preferences, folks with fetishes, not to mention all the porn written or otherwise. I'm not casting aspersions on any of those. I'm just saying that sort of stuff comes with labels by definition. 

But then the majority of the site seems like its just people trying to be people and live without labels cause that's what everybody does to fat people in the first place. Just people trying to connect outside themselves since it's hard in the 'real world' where people make their minds up about you on the spot. 

The two sides of the site get mixed together and I know I can't be the only one who gets whiplash from it. Like, I'm not saying it should change I'm just saying its kind of weird is all from a newcomers perspective.


----------



## loopytheone (Oct 20, 2014)

GhostEater said:


> Nah, I getcha. This site's kind of all over the place.
> 
> On the one hand there are people with real specific preferences, folks with fetishes, not to mention all the porn written or otherwise. I'm not casting aspersions on any of those. I'm just saying that sort of stuff comes with labels by definition.
> 
> ...



To be honest I have never really noticed that. There is a difference between the folks who only post on the Plus Site Payboard and the rest of the forum but if you don't go on the PSP then you aren't likely to notice it, in my opinion. Then again, I have little interest in porn-type things so I just sort of ignore those boards.

As for whether or not you are supersize, I would say not. I know my ex was about 5'6 and 450lbs and I would have put him as borderline SSBHM. I know I have a friend who is about 6'3 and 550lbs and I would say he was borderline as well, whilst a lot of other people would say they definitely were. It just depends.

And for what it is worth, I, for one, don't have any problem with labels whatsoever. They are just words to describe something about yourself in a way that is easy for other people to understand. Instead of saying 'I am attracted to bigger men' every time it is easier to write 'I am a FFA'. Or instead of writing that I am 5'2 and 180lbs, it is easier to write that I am a BBW. At the end of the day, I think that labels only become a problem when they are applied to other people. You have the right to label yourself whatever you like, it is only when you start insisting other people conform to your idea of that label that it is a problem. Just my opinion anyway!


----------



## GhostEater (Oct 20, 2014)

I just gotta get used to it I guess. Big Handsome Man isn't really a bad label to have at the end of the day.


----------



## bluetech (Oct 22, 2014)

A fun personal definition that I have is you are an ss[bbw/bhm] if you are fat enough that you could hypothetically lose half your weight and still be considered fat.

It's still a subjective definition, as it depends on at what point you would consider yourself fat. But it provides a line in the sand because for some reason people feel the need for such a thing. 

But in the end, it's a label, and therefore only useful if you see value in assigning yourself a label.


----------



## choudhury (Oct 28, 2014)

Yep, just an arbitrary label in the end. However, it does capture a fun distinction and experience that I think many FAs have: the difference between noticing that a woman is "big" or "plump," and going - WHOA!

"WHOA!" is the SSBBW alarm bell going off in the FA's noggin, and that's the sign that a lady has crossed over into SSBBW territory. I have this response to my wife sometimes - "whoa, she's really big now!" Yet she is 270 and 5'3, not "SSBBW" by the criteria of many around here. Bottom line is, it's that sweet feeling that marks off SSBBW from BBW to my mind.


----------

