# BBW or SSBBW



## Dravenhawk (Oct 7, 2007)

I see these terms tossed about on various discussion topics. A person claiming a weight of 330 lbs may call themselves a BBW where another at say 290 lbs may call themselves a SSBBW. I am thinking along the lines on how boxers are classified by weight for thier division. Givin an average height of say 5'6" I am thinking it may be classified something like this.

Fly Weight Beautiful Woman under 120 lbs

Chubby Beautiful Woman 121 lbs to 199 lbs

Heavy Beautiful Woman 200 lbs to 275 lbs

Big Beautiful Woman 276 lbs to 399 lbs

Super Sized Big Beautiful Woman over 400lbs

I see the SSBBW class being claimed by people who are just way Way WAY too skinny to own that prestigious title. I would like to hear what others think about the way weight classification is considered and where the benchmarks are. Being rather new to the size acceptance boards I would like some clairfication and input here.


Dravenhawk


----------



## exile in thighville (Oct 7, 2007)

Dravenhawk said:


> WAY too skinny



I fucking hate reading these words on here. Reminds me of the pricks who say "WAY too fat" in the real world. Let people label themselves however they wish. A system is moot; who's going to refer to themselves as an HBW and then change that if they go down ten pounds?

My preference: "Fat woman" or "Fat man" works just fine. Desensitize the word, people. We don't need to dance around it more than we already do.


----------



## troubadours (Oct 7, 2007)

Dravenhawk said:


> I see the SSBBW class being claimed by people who are just way Way WAY too skinny to own that prestigious title.



:doh: dohdohdohdodhiodh


----------



## Shosh (Oct 7, 2007)

What burns me is that there now seems to be more desireable weights within what is supposed to be a weight/size acceptance community. Must we have all these classifications?


----------



## Scott M (Oct 7, 2007)

Susannah said:


> What burns me is that there now seems to be more desireable weights within what is supposed to be a weight/size acceptance community. Must we have all these classifications?



He made no reference to the desirability of any size, he merely stated that small women were claiming they were Super-Sized. If a 5'4" man stated that he was "NBA height" you'd think he was misrepresenting his height, but it doesn't follow that you think he's ugly. I see nothing wrong with clearly defining terms such as BBW/SSBBW, etc.


----------



## Shosh (Oct 7, 2007)

Scott M said:


> He made no reference to the desirability of any size, he merely stated that small women were claiming they were Super-Sized. If a 5'4" man stated that he was "NBA height" you'd think he was misrepresenting his height, but it doesn't follow that you think he's ugly. I see nothing wrong with clearly defining terms such as BBW/SSBBW, etc.



The prestigious title of SSBBW? Sounds like he is defining that as more desirable to me mate. Ok I understand that people have preferences, but once again women's bodies are up for comparison and scrutiny even in a size acceptance community. There really is nowhere for women to hide when it comes to our bodies.


----------



## stan_der_man (Oct 7, 2007)

Dravenhawk said:


> ...
> I see the SSBBW class being claimed by people who are just way Way WAY too skinny to own that prestigious title. I would like to hear what others think about the way weight classification is considered and where the benchmarks are. Being rather new to the size acceptance boards I would like some clairfication and input here.
> 
> 
> Dravenhawk


You seem like a good guy Dravenhawk, and just honestly exploring things. A word to the wise here... this subject has been hashed out before, many moons ago. Search the threads from way back, you'll find it having been thoroughly discussed. Making arbitrary weight classifications of women isn't going to win you any praise. Actually, making arbitrary classifications about women in general isn't going to get you positive response unless you are very articulate in how you approach the subject, and have a good (or interesting) reason for doing so. Saying that some women are "just way Way WAY too skinny to own that prestigious title" (of being SSBBW), isn't starting this thread out on a positive note, and is probably heading you strait for a flame-o-rama.

One thing you need to consider is that people have different heights and builds. Somebody can be "supersized" (whatever that really is anyway...) and weigh less because they are short, just as one example. Attempting to establish firm numbers for these classifications is simplistic at best.


Just sayin'...


Stan


----------



## FatAndProud (Oct 7, 2007)

aw gawd. another definition we must conform to. yay :|


----------



## 1300 Class (Oct 7, 2007)

Although definitions can be negative, any community eventually begins to form classifications and definitions within itself. What they actually are, is open to debate. Its how communities function, and individuals establish within the collective an 'identity'. 

Learnt that in some stupid class a few years ago, and is only slightly relevent to the current discussion.


----------



## Shosh (Oct 7, 2007)

Australian Lord said:


> Although definitions can be negative, any community eventually begins to form classifications and definitions within itself. What they actually are, is open to debate. Its how communities function, and individuals establish within the collective an 'identity'.
> 
> Learnt that in some stupid class a few years ago, and is only slightly relevent to the current discussion.



Hey Jack,

Shall we make some size classifications for the men here also, or is it just for the women? 

Meanwhile did you check yer My Space page? Joe Dirt has made an appearance on it.


----------



## Shosh (Oct 7, 2007)

Dravenhawk said:


> I see these terms tossed about on various discussion topics. A person claiming a weight of 330 lbs may call themselves a BBW where another at say 290 lbs may call themselves a SSBBW. I am thinking along the lines on how boxers are classified by weight for thier division. Givin an average height of say 5'6" I am thinking it may be classified something like this.
> 
> Fly Weight Beautiful Woman under 120 lbs
> 
> ...



Look I am sure you are a nice, well meaning guy. It can be hard to describe to a man how we feel as women, in terms of the unrelenting critique and classification of our bodies.
I just want to be able to come here and escape all that scrutiny.
I know what it felt like to be new once so I kind of understand where you are at.
Be happy.
Shosh


----------



## Zoom (Oct 7, 2007)

SSBBW is such a stupid term. If you're Super Sized you're already Big. Are there any Super Sized Smalls? Also "Beautiful" is ridiculous. Do people _have_ to say they're beautiful? I mean, outside of affirmations and sloganeering, there's no point. Let us men say it to you instead.

So, SSW sounds fine.

In any case, those who prefer SSBBW will insist they can call themselves it at whatever size they wish. The usual number has been a minimum of 300 lbs., but anyone can jump on the bandwagon.

It's more of an attitude than a number.


----------



## Ample Pie (Oct 7, 2007)

Beautifully put. I'd rep you if I could.



dan ex machina said:


> I fucking hate reading these words on here. Reminds me of the pricks who say "WAY too fat" in the real world. Let people label themselves however they wish. A system is moot; who's going to refer to themselves as an HBW and then change that if they go down ten pounds?
> 
> My preference: "Fat woman" or "Fat man" works just fine. Desensitize the word, people. We don't need to dance around it more than we already do.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Oct 7, 2007)

The SSBBW threshold is 320 for average height. Why? Because 300 is 2x2x3x5x5 whereas 320 is 2x2x2x2x2x2x5. See?


----------



## mossystate (Oct 7, 2007)

Maybe the OP could just find like minded men and you all can have meetings and discuss this crap, ad naseum. Even if I were of the most desireable class(  ), i would not give you the time of day, as this is not the first time you have put your foot in it..but..I guess other FA's can stroke you if they feel a need. I would hope that every woman in the exalted group...won't.


----------



## William (Oct 7, 2007)

Hi

I agree with you and sometimes I get the same feeling when I hear weight gain encouragers says things like a Woman is better because she gained a 100 pounds. Personally when I see the before and after photos I liked the way the Woman looked at both weights.

William




dan ex machina said:


> I fucking hate reading these words on here. Reminds me of the pricks who say "WAY too fat" in the real world. Let people label themselves however they wish. A system is moot; who's going to refer to themselves as an HBW and then change that if they go down ten pounds?
> 
> My preference: "Fat woman" or "Fat man" works just fine. Desensitize the word, people. We don't need to dance around it more than we already do.


----------



## jellomizer (Oct 7, 2007)

Just using weight is really not a good method. It really depends on a lot of things. Weight, Height, body type. If a woman is tall at 6'5" and Muscular she but still skinny she could easily be 250 lbs. vs. someone who is 4'8" and 250 lbs not muscular would be a SSBBW.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Oct 7, 2007)

A woman who just happens to be over 120 pounds is probably not "chubby". Like 5"6 and 123 pounds, depending on bone structure and muscle is probably closer to average or slender, not chubby.

And if you haven't picked up on it, the whole "let's classify women's bodies" isn't being very well received.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Oct 7, 2007)

I think it's worth considering that everyone is Super in some respect? Size is just one "dimension" (NPI). Visible Super-irority is cool but I happen to first heart intellectual mass. As it happens I have found a preponderance of the intellectual and personality characteristics that light me up in VERY large ladies. Don't know zackly why that is but I won't try to deny the pattern. What I will say is this; one dimensional objects are non-existent, unreal, physical impossibilities! If all you look at is some effing number on the scale you are reducing the possibility of anything warranting the label relationship to an equal absurdity. 

SS may be a valid sexual classification but I honestly feel it has very little context in terms of social or romantic interaction. Loving is finding what's super about someone; cherishing and acknowledging it. Objectifying is reducing anything about another person to a single element. JMO.


----------



## SoVerySoft (Oct 7, 2007)

I am realllllllly short and realllllllllly round. Hence, I believe the term for me is "Jumbo Shrimp". 


p.s. I am proud of how you all handled this disagreement. Just about all of you made your points without attacking. :wubu:


----------



## Frankhw (Oct 7, 2007)

Personally I think classifying people by size is just far too subjective to come up with anything more than general categories. As has been pointed out one person's BBW/BHM is the next person's LBW/LHM and the nexts person's SS...

I agree that once past the initial impression given by appearance when you meet someone, *Personality and Interests* matter more.

That being said if I'm just gadding about _enjoying the scenery_ as it were I find I roughly rate the categories as follows. 
at a given height of 5' 4"
Small BW <130 
Medium BW ~130-160 
Large BW ~160-250 
Big BW ~250-450ish?
Super Sized Big BW 450ish +

I've found that I tend to rate the categories *(NOT THE WOMEN THEMSELVES)* by how much effort and leverage I'd need to use to manhandle the individual if I was interested. 

Please note I am a former farm boy and currently a laborer where knowing how to use leverage was/is important.

And for reference my wife is currently somewhere in the middle of my BBW category


----------



## Dravenhawk (Oct 7, 2007)

I apologise for offending anyone with my original post. I was only seeking some clarity from the things I read on these forums. I find all women beautiful, I just lean toward the bigger gals as my own personal preference. Even the creators of the Dims matching system classify women into fat, bbw, ssbbw. I wanted to know where the boundry lises are. People are always overrating or underrating things. Advertisers have used the word "ultra" to the point of absolute meaninglessness. I am ultra new to this, sometimes I say supersized stupid things. and have the tact of a big bungling wanker. I am learing here and what everyone has to say has personal meaning to me and I want to improve myself learn and grow and I am bound to make mistakes please forgive me. I wish I had never made this post now. I will be much more cautious when taking risks now.

Dravenhawk


----------



## Jes (Oct 7, 2007)

A very serious question that offers my input: why does any of that matter? At all? Why is using a term for a woman decided by that woman not enough or not fitting? Terms and numbers and patterns all fall by the wayside when a certain person wants to be known by/called a certain thing. Even if that term doesn't agree in the least with what you think it is, why use another term? And if it's about wondering what a describer means when using a term, then that describer probably has a very different notion of the term, so there's still no uniformity (and there can't be, as we're seeing here b/c everyone has a different idea, and every woman of the same weight or the same height will look different). I don't know why it's important to get all positivistic in this realm, unless it's another case of fat as a hobby and just plain ole being fat. I do understand that love of fat is a hobby (I don't want to say fetish) and that a hobby needs to be actively pursued. You have to DO a hobby. And so coming up with numbers and charts and all of that factors in, but I don't think this is a quantifiable thing, and it's also troubling to people who don't have fat as a hobby (like me. I'm just fat). So that's where some of the resistance is coming from, Dravenhawk, if you're feeling it. Is it the hobby aspect of this that you're harkening to? That might be a better approach to start with, then, instead of saying that the women who use certain terms for themselves are, for lack of a better term, wrong. 

Again, I do sometimes wish there were a board just for dudes, b/c clearly, Dravenhawk isn't alone in this positivistic approach to fatness.


----------



## SoVerySoft (Oct 7, 2007)

I think it's great that Dravenhawk took the criticism in this thread to heart and didn't get defensive or leave in a huff.

But I do understand his original question. The problem (or fact of the matter, actually) is - that there ARE labels. And he is just trying to sort them out and understand them.

The bigger (philsophical) issue is whether or not there should be, I suppose. But just because we dislike labels, that doesn't mean they will ever go away.


----------



## Carrie (Oct 7, 2007)

SoVerySoft said:


> But just because we dislike labels, that doesn't mean they will ever go away.


I just wish they didn't itch the back of my neck so.


----------



## AnnMarie (Oct 7, 2007)

Carrie said:


> I just wish they didn't itch the back of my neck so.



Yer' old skool... most of my shirts are tagless now. 

Get with it, you aging, tag-wearing itch.


----------



## Carrie (Oct 7, 2007)

AnnMarie said:


> Get with it, you aging, tag-wearing itch.


Pardon me, but did you just label me?


----------



## Shosh (Oct 7, 2007)

Dravenhawk said:


> I apologise for offending anyone with my original post. I was only seeking some clarity from the things I read on these forums. I find all women beautiful, I just lean toward the bigger gals as my own personal preference. Even the creators of the Dims matching system classify women into fat, bbw, ssbbw. I wanted to know where the boundry lises are. People are always overrating or underrating things. Advertisers have used the word "ultra" to the point of absolute meaninglessness. I am ultra new to this, sometimes I say supersized stupid things. and have the tact of a big bungling wanker. I am learing here and what everyone has to say has personal meaning to me and I want to improve myself learn and grow and I am bound to make mistakes please forgive me. I wish I had never made this post now. I will be much more cautious when taking risks now.
> 
> Dravenhawk



Hi, 
There is nothing to forgive. I wish I hadn't made a few posts too.  
Susannah


----------



## Tina (Oct 7, 2007)

Sometimes I think there is too great a tendency to categorize and sub-categorize. What does it matter, really? And who gets to be the Ultimate Decider? IMO, it doesn't matter one little bit what the categories are and who fits in them and who doesn't. Beauty is beauty, fat, thin, masculine, feminine. Eh.


----------



## Shosh (Oct 7, 2007)

Tina said:


> Sometimes I think there is too great a tendency to categorize and sub-categorize. What does it matter, really? And who gets to be the Ultimate Decider? IMO, it doesn't matter one little bit what the categories are and who fits in them and who doesn't. Beauty is beauty, fat, thin, masculine, feminine. Eh.



Yes Tina. That was what I was thinking also. Maybe I was being a lil sensitive. Who me? 

Carry on the convo.

Susie


----------



## Tina (Oct 7, 2007)

Shosh, I must admit I didn't read the whole thread, so I don't know what you were doing.


----------



## Jes (Oct 7, 2007)

SoVerySoft said:


> I think it's great that Dravenhawk took the criticism in this thread to heart and didn't get defensive or leave in a huff.
> 
> But I do understand his original question. The problem (or fact of the matter, actually) is - that there ARE labels. And he is just trying to sort them out and understand them.
> 
> The bigger (philsophical) issue is whether or not there should be, I suppose. But just because we dislike labels, that doesn't mean they will ever go away.


i'm wondering if someone can tell me why there are labels, I guess. That might help one use them, right? And if they aren't really reliable, then the whole thing maybe needs to be revised? I guess I'm still trying to get at: why? In what way do you want to use them? Let's say everyone in the universe agrees that there are cut offs: 188 lbs. 214 lbs. 278 lbs. Ok. But then... how do you want to use those, and why? Answering that might be the key to determining the terms.


----------



## exile in thighville (Oct 7, 2007)

Rebecca said:


> Beautifully put. I'd rep you if I could.



Thanks! I haven't seen you around here much lately


----------



## exile in thighville (Oct 7, 2007)

SoVerySoft said:


> I am realllllllly short and realllllllllly round. Hence, I believe the term for me is "Jumbo Shrimp".



LOL I wish I could rep you


----------



## stan_der_man (Oct 7, 2007)

Jes said:


> i'm wondering if someone can tell me why there are labels, I guess. That might help one use them, right? And if they aren't really reliable, then the whole thing maybe needs to be revised? I guess I'm still trying to get at: why? In what way do you want to use them? Let's say everyone in the universe agrees that there are cut offs: 188 lbs. 214 lbs. 278 lbs. Ok. But then... how do you want to use those, and why? Answering that might be the key to determining the terms.


I seem to remember a thread somewhere on Dims that had a good explanation of this. Labels, if not taken to the point of stereotyping or categorizing things as good or bad can be useful if they are used as "descriptors", in other words, a tag that is a quick description of something.

For whatever reason it may be necessary for a man or a woman to describe their size, it's probably more desirable to say "large", "small", "supersized", "mid-sized" or whatever, as inaccurate or variable as those descriptions may be than it would be for these people to have to spell out their weight and measurements all the time. As unpalatable as it may be for some people to be judged by their size, in intimate relationships men and women may have preferences as to the size of a potential partner. I don't see the point of not revealing ones size in such a case. Having convenient descriptors for size in and of itself, isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Stan


----------



## Ample Pie (Oct 7, 2007)

I still read the boards from time to time; just don't have much to say .


dan ex machina said:


> Thanks! I haven't seen you around here much lately


----------



## stan_der_man (Oct 7, 2007)

dan ex machina said:


> SoVerySoft said:
> 
> 
> > I am realllllllly short and realllllllllly round. Hence, I believe the term for me is "Jumbo Shrimp".
> ...


Dan, I covered you on some reps for SoVerySoft!

Stan


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 7, 2007)

Susannah said:


> What burns me is that there now seems to be more desireable weights within what is supposed to be a weight/size acceptance community. Must we have all these classifications?



My thoughts too- will we ever be "good enough" anywhere? :doh:


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 7, 2007)

Susannah said:


> Hey Jack,
> 
> *Shall we make some size classifications for the men here also, *or is it just for the women?
> 
> Meanwhile did you check yer My Space page? Joe Dirt has made an appearance on it.



Gawd, I can't get that penis thread out of my mind now.....what a HUGE disappointment that turned out to be (pun intended )


*goes to make a size chart for the guys and will tell them who gets a "prestigious title"*


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 7, 2007)

Rebecca said:


> Beautifully put. I'd rep you if I could.



'tis okay...I got him


----------



## Russ2d (Oct 7, 2007)

The only problem I have with this thread is that Dravenhawk apologized- you didn't do anything wrong Draven... you shouldn't have apologized. Here's how I basically break it down in my mind

175-200 is a chubby girl
201-274 is fat
275-400 is BBW
401- on up is SSBBW 

and yes I prefer SSBBW too. Oh and Mossy when you said you wouldn't give him the time of day, I was thinking the exact same thing about you.

Some people here need to grow up. Classifications and labels exist because that is how the human brain works, how it organizes and analyzes.. and most people living on this planet have real preferences with whom they'd like to be physically intimate with and this comes with recognizing what makes those people different from others - shocking I know... 

So for some of you there should be no definition to BBW, no definition to "plus" size, no definition to Supersize? So I guess you must have BIG problems with Dimensions then? 

Dravenhawk the only crime you're guilty of is being honest and allowing youself to be duped into apologizing to some of the criers here. Don't let others who have their own personal issues keep you from being honest either with your questions, comments or preferences and desires.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 7, 2007)

So what about those labels for the men since they are a "necessary evil"?

There are plenty of FFAs on this forum- why aren't they "confused" about what to call the men they desire? Why isn't there a chart for the BHMs? since it's soooooooooooooooo important to have one........

I mean, would it be OKAY for an FFA to say she finds something wrong with men under 400 lbs? Call them "anorexic" even? Isn't what turns her on sexually THE most important thing about this community?


How come the 400+ lb BHMs don't get "prestigious titles" ?


----------



## LoneyFatGirl (Oct 7, 2007)

Ned Sonntag said:


> The SSBBW threshold is 320 for average height. Why? Because 300 is 2x2x3x5x5 whereas 320 is 2x2x2x2x2x2x5. See?



Huh??


----------



## mossystate (Oct 7, 2007)

Russ...first off..I am wounded...deeply.

The label thing is lame..yes...but the issue for me is what the fallout is...it becomes not just about a preference, but a means to alienate..the words used are usually very telling.


----------



## Shosh (Oct 7, 2007)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> So what about those labels for the men since they are a "necessary evil"?
> 
> There are plenty of FFAs on this forum- why aren't they "confused" about what to call the men they desire? Why isn't there a chart for the BHMs? since it's soooooooooooooooo important to have one........
> 
> ...




Yes, very true. I feel like we are always as women being classified in the wider world, that when we come here it would be nice to escape all of that.
I am in a unique position, in that at 207 pounds I am too fat for regular guys and too thin to get that prestigious title that I so crave.


----------



## Tina (Oct 7, 2007)

Russ2d said:


> Some people here need to grow up. Classifications and labels exist because that is how the human brain works, how it organizes and analyzes.. and most people living on this planet have real preferences with whom they'd like to be physically intimate with and this comes with recognizing what makes those people different from others - shocking I know...


Yes, we do all classify various things in life on some level. Thing is, your classification is just in your own mind and for your own use only. There is no arbiter who decides what the classifications are and who fits them, so IMO doing so is just a form of mental masturbation. Utimately, your 'classifications' are meaningless to most anyone else.


> So for some of you there should be no definition to BBW, no definition to "plus" size, no definition to Supersize? So I guess you must have BIG problems with Dimensions then?


Uh, no. Otherwise, I wouldn't have let myself be featured in an issue of the print mag and I certainly wouldn't be posting, let alone moderating, here. BBW, BHM, SSBBW and the like are just shorthand, and in my mind rather benign. What I do not find benign is your rather condescending, rabid response. We are all allowed an opinion, you know, and it's not exactly unusual for women to resist being labeled as if we are cuts and grades of meat. Your own male privilege evidently allows you to discount that fact.


----------



## Shosh (Oct 7, 2007)

Russ2d said:


> The only problem I have with this thread is that Dravenhawk apologized- you didn't do anything wrong Draven... you shouldn't have apologized. Here's how I basically break it down in my mind
> 
> 175-200 is a chubby girl
> 201-274 is fat
> ...



I think telling people to grow up here is very mean spirited Russ. There does not seem to be a whole lot of sentiment for the admiration and love of women here, just their physical size. If we are talking about preferences I would have to say that I prefer a man that is an admirer and lover of women primarily and then an admirer of my body type. We are not cattle mate.


----------



## troubadours (Oct 7, 2007)

Susannah said:


> Yes, very true. I feel like we are always as women being classified in the wider world, that when we come here it would be nice to escape all of that.
> I am in a unique position, in that at 207 pounds I am too fat for regular guys and too thin to get that prestigious title that I so crave.



yeah.. i'm with you here. i hate feeling like i'm not big enough (even though yes, i am gaining and i do like being bigger). it's no one's place to say how big is " big enough" but my own. sigh


----------



## Jes (Oct 7, 2007)

I agree that most people have preferences in terms of who they want to get it awn with. but i'm not sure how labels, which can only ever be approximations at best (and sometimes way off) connect with that, exactly. If it's possible to only be interested in sex with a woman over 400 lbs, say, regardless of build or height, or personality (or, for that matter, a woman with a great personality who weighs 325 lbs), then _that_ is the label right there. Over 400 lbs. Labels as descriptors mean to compare (as Stan said) lose a lot in translation because I'm not sure the human body can really be compared using just 1 term. I think you'd still end up with: short, 400 lbs, apple/pear/mango/boot. Unless the term SSBBW holds such an erotic charge for you (and I'm sensing it does and hey, I'm not quibbling with that) and in that case, don't limit yourself! Use it any time you see fit and let others do the same.


----------



## tonynyc (Oct 7, 2007)

The whole labeling thing is all relative;but, it does provide a general reference point. At least when it comes to online Dating Ads or in a pre-internet days the BBW magazine classifieds folks know what to expect from such Ads. So it's a necessary evil that has been with us from the pre-internet days to now. 

Labeling happens with both genders- the important thing is that you have to be happy with yourself.


----------



## The Orange Mage (Oct 7, 2007)

So what if there's labels?

So what if it appears most men want 400+ pound pear-shaped women.

We all know for a fact that there are tons of men with wildly different tastes...we just have an overabundance of a certain "taste" here with our FAs.

You're not being told that you have to be a 400+ pear to be accepted/worthwhile/whatever.

We're saying you have to be a 400+ pear to be our (individual) ultimate fantasy sex goddess...now do you really want to be that to some random internet person?


----------



## SoVerySoft (Oct 7, 2007)

fa_man_stan said:


> Dan, I covered you on some reps for SoVerySoft!
> 
> Stan



Awww...thanks, guys!!


----------



## Obesus (Oct 7, 2007)

...valuing diversity and the ability to define oneself as one wishes and having that respected. Imposing labels from outside is the very modus operandi of power and control...the mechanism by which people are made to conform to such constrictive psychological models and role-shaping that they slowly lose any sense of individuality or creativity. Some personality models in the community can be useful and positive, even inspiring, but if they send the message that someone will never fit into the "right" box, that is the way to a damaged person. :bow:


----------



## Suze (Oct 8, 2007)

mossystate said:


> Maybe the OP could just find like minded men and you all can have meetings and discuss this crap, ad naseum. Even if I were of the most desireable class(  ), i would not give you the time of day, as this is not the first time you have put your foot in it..but..I guess other FA's can stroke you if they feel a need. I would hope that every woman in the exalted group...won't.



Good post.
I think I will stay away from the weight board from now on. For the most part it just irritates/disturbs me.
Not really worth my time.



Russ2d said:


> 175-200 is a chubby girl
> 201-274 is fat
> 275-400 is BBW
> 401- on up is SSBBW



It seems like you are talking about weight ranges for pigs/cows or something. 
175-200 is a slightly overweight cow
201-274 is a fat cow
275-400 really fat cow (now we are talking!) 
401- ready for the slaughter house.


Yey!


----------



## 1300 Class (Oct 8, 2007)

Susannah said:


> Hey Jack,
> 
> Shall we make some size classifications for the men here also, or is it just for the women?
> 
> Meanwhile did you check yer My Space page? Joe Dirt has made an appearance on it.



If people end up _having_ to define themselves or others for _some_ reason, then thats the way things are.


----------



## Ample Pie (Oct 8, 2007)

it isn't so much the labels that are the problem as the attendant values attached to the labels. If you want to call someone "fat" go for it. "Skinny" go for it---but when you add the "too" to it, it becomes limiting and demeaning. Same with "anorexic" etc etc etc.


----------



## Observer (Oct 8, 2007)

Actually the whole BBW vs Supersize BBW business got started with the Special Interest Groups in NAAFA back in the nineties. They were based on sizes of garments rather than weight per se. The idea was that mid-size and supersize BBWs might have specialized issues to discuss different from those who were less heavy. 

Others may recall the exact numbers but I believe Mid-size was defined as sizes 24-30 and supersize as 32+. When coding keywords for stories in the Dimensions library we totally arbitrarily use over 240 pounds as midsize, 350 pounds as supersize and 800 pounds as Ultrasize.


----------



## Dravenhawk (Oct 8, 2007)

Observer said:


> Actually the whole BBW vs Supersize BBW business got started with the Special Interest Groups in NAAFA back in the nineties. They were based on sizes of garments rather than weight per se. The idea was that mid-size and supersioze BBWs might have specialized issues to discuss different from those who were less heavy.
> 
> Others may recall theexact numbers but I believe Mid-size was defined as sizes 24-30 and supersize as 32+. When coding keywords for stories in the Dimensions library we totally arbitrarily use over 240 pounds as midsize, 350 pounds as supersize and 800 pounds as Ultrasize.



Thanks for the clarity bro. This was the history and information I was seeking 

Dravenhawk


----------



## 1300 Class (Oct 8, 2007)

Once again, its obviously a conspiricy of people who formally worked for the Reagan administration!


----------



## Jes (Oct 8, 2007)

Observer said:


> 800 pounds as Ultrasize.



Don't squeeze the Charmin!


----------



## Gspoon (Oct 9, 2007)

Lets just say that all big girls are SSBBWs, Sure they are Big and Beautiful, but they are also Super Sized at the same time.


----------



## Prince Dyscord (Oct 9, 2007)

There's nothing wrong with preferences, but being told that you're not good enough in some way (Not big enough, not tall enough, not old enough.) isn't the best idea in the world.

And there are classifications for guys. Those it's mostly for the gay community. You have Twinks, Chasers, Cubs, and Bears. On one of the sites I go to you can search by average, athletic, chubby and super chubby. 

There are people who are attracted to people of a certain size. I don't think there's much wrong with that simply because that's how preferences work. That's a fact of life. However, having said that, it's still rude to tell someone that they're not good enough because of something like that. 

I think THAT'S why everyone's up in arms...but that's just me.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 9, 2007)

Prince Dyscord said:


> There's nothing wrong with preferences, but being told that you're not good enough in some way (Not big enough, not tall enough, not old enough.) isn't the best idea in the world.
> 
> *And there are classifications for guys. Those it's mostly for the gay community. You have Twinks, Chasers, Cubs, and Bears. On one of the sites I go to you can search by average, athletic, chubby and super chubby.
> *
> ...




It's comforting to know that men dice each other into body parts and size, too


----------



## Jes (Oct 9, 2007)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> It's comforting to know that men dice each other into body parts and size, too



I'm an otter. 

A rough-trade otter.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 9, 2007)

Jes said:


> I'm an otter.
> 
> A rough-trade otter.



Don't mind me....I supposed I'm just miffed that they don't mind to splice us all to hell but I can't even get....ONE DAMN COCK PIC


----------



## Dravenhawk (Oct 9, 2007)

Observer said:


> ....over 240 pounds as midsize, 350 pounds as supersize and 800 pounds as Ultrasize.



Agin my sites are set too low :doh: Now on to the REAL question....

Where can I find an ultrasized big beautiful woman ??:smitten: 

Dravenhawk


----------



## Jes (Oct 10, 2007)

Brookhaven?

I...don't know. Seriously. I don't know that any Dimmer here who has disclosed her weight and/or shown a photo is ultrasized, as you define it. I've got to imagine it's pretty hard to find such a woman. Maybe take out personal ads in every single place you can think of and make your desire quite well explicit. And despite any of the terms we've discussed in this thread, I wouldn't use a term like ultrasized. I'd say 'very large (or fat) woman, 800 lbs or more.' Terms are relative; out of context they're nigh meaningless.

good luck finding that woman and i hope she wants to be found and wants you back.


----------



## Zoom (Oct 10, 2007)

Dravenhawk said:


> Where can I find an ultrasized big beautiful woman ??


Just look for any house where they can't close the door.


----------



## chickadee (Oct 13, 2007)

I am "me-sized." 

Telling me that I'm "too skinny" is just as hurtful- and damaging- as telling me that I'm "too fat." Why do we have to have so many labels? Why can't I just be me?


----------

