# BBW and SSBBW....?



## Tawny Madison (Dec 12, 2005)

At what weight (or weight range) do we go from being a BBW to a SSBBW? I have been called both and I was just wondering which term is right for me?

*hugz n kissez*
Tawny


----------



## GPL (Dec 12, 2005)

I guess being a ssbbw "starts" around 350lbs or 150kg I guess. We talked about it before in the old boards system.
I guess it also depends on a womans build and/or height, too.
Please let me know if you have a different mind...

GPL.


----------



## Tad (Dec 12, 2005)

My understanding was that at one time women's clothing sizes were more neatly deliminated. Sizes up to 13/14 were regular sizes, carried in regular stores. Sizes 15/16 through 26 were plus sizes, carried in plus size stores. Sizes 28 and up were first of all almost non-existent, and were clearly something beyond plus sizes, sometimes called super-sized.

Of course, now Lane Bryant and other plus sizes stores carry at least up to a size 28, many regular stores carry Xl/size 16, if not bigger, and beyond that sizes have tended to inflate by an inch or more.

For a woman of average height, going into a size 28 used to typically happen somewhere in the vicinity of 300 pounds, I believe. Now probably a little heavier with size inflation. 

In other words, the line is not precise, but somewhere around being a size 28 or much over 300 pounds (and average height) is probably how most people see it. Of course, some FA push those numbers higher (I've seen guys say that SSBBW doesn't happen until 400 pounds), because what they consider as fat and really fat is a lot bigger than what most people would think.

-Ed


----------



## ChickletsBBW (Dec 12, 2005)

ok... i'll post on this one..

I consider myself an ssbbw.. however (believe it or not) I have had FA's tell me that I'm not an ssbbw because I wasn't fat enough (haha.. ok) I don't give my weight but I'm 5'1 and I consider myself an ssbbw because of my size. 

I kinda think it all depends on how you see yourself. But this is just my 2 cents. 
Whatever your size.. just be confident in who you are.. makes life much better


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Dec 12, 2005)

Tawny Madison said:


> At what weight (or weight range) do we go from being a BBW to a SSBBW? I have been called both and I was just wondering which term is right for me?
> 
> *hugz n kissez*
> Tawny



The conventionally accepted idea for SSBBWs is for them to be 350 lbs or more. Frankly, I see no need for differentiation because fat is fat. But who is or is not supersized is simply an unnecessary matter of nomenclature. Fat is fat.


----------



## Seth Warren (Dec 12, 2005)

Fat may be fat, but sometimes labels are needed to give order to an inherently chaotic world. That said, I'm sure that one could use the BMI scale to determine the line between BBW and SSBBW and BMW or whatever if one really wanted to.

Does it really matter? Probably not.


----------



## Tawny Madison (Dec 12, 2005)

Thanks everyone who answered. I don't really care if I am a bbw or ssbbw....I am me and that's all that matters. That and I am happy the way I am. 

*hugz n kissez to those who accept them*
Tawny


----------



## Zoom (Dec 12, 2005)

Again must I post my response. For that, we are all punished to give different answers every time.

Until about 2002, I was under the impression that supersize meant a weight of 500+. At that point in time I was corrected and told that "most women" will start calling themselves SSBBWs around 300+.

However, I've seen 150-pound women calling themselves BBW, so it probably won't be long before all women of all sizes, shapes and tonnage will call themselves SSBBW and not know what it means.


----------



## AnnMarie (Dec 12, 2005)

I think the super-sized part is just something tacked on to larger (I generally consider this around 350lbs, but height is obviously a factor) women to differentiate from the now throngs of women online who call themselves BBW and they weigh 180lbs or 200lbs, etc. I am supersized, no doubt, most of my friends are, and Chicklets - I agree, you are in my eyes. Your build "reads" as supersized to me.  

By definition, sure, they're BBW (bigger than the "world" thinks they should be), but I think the SS addition helps interested guys find the "bigguns" from the smaller set, if that's what they're looking for.


----------



## fatlane (Dec 12, 2005)

350 for a woman of normal height. I'd deduct about 10-15 pounds per inch shorter than 5'5". By the same token, I'd add the same for a taller woman, given that the weight is spread around more on them. Sure, they're big, but not proportionally super-sized.


----------



## Aurora (Dec 13, 2005)

I've been told I'm teetering right on the line between bbw and ssbbw. I'm 5'9" and around 360, though my weight is spread out and I have a fair bit of muscle too. However, like most of you, I don't get hung up on lables. 

~Aurora


----------



## BBWDREAMLOVER (Dec 13, 2005)

ChickletsBBW said:


> ok... i'll post on this one..
> 
> I consider myself an ssbbw.. however (believe it or not) I have had FA's tell me that I'm not an ssbbw because I wasn't fat enough (haha.. ok) I don't give my weight but I'm 5'1 and I consider myself an ssbbw because of my size.
> 
> ...



I've had them tell me the same thing! I'm 5"3 & over 350lbs...I guess it just really is whose looking at you


----------



## 31mike (Dec 13, 2005)

Does it really make a difference??? Is a 340 less beautiful than a 350? Its just a label. I almost never refer to SSBBW or BBW. You are all lovely at any size


----------



## Emma (Dec 13, 2005)

I've been called an SSBBW quite a few times. But I don't really consider myself to be (feel a bit of an imposter! LOL)

I find it's the UK FA's that call me SS and the americans that say I'm not LOL


----------



## MissToodles (Dec 13, 2005)

edx said:


> My understanding was that at one time women's clothing sizes were more neatly deliminated. Sizes up to 13/14 were regular sizes, carried in regular stores. Sizes 15/16 through 26 were plus sizes, carried in plus size stores. Sizes 28 and up were first of all almost non-existent, and were clearly something beyond plus sizes, sometimes called super-sized.
> 
> Of course, now Lane Bryant and other plus sizes stores carry at least up to a size 28, many regular stores carry Xl/size 16, if not bigger, and beyond that sizes have tended to inflate by an inch or more.
> 
> ...



Ed (and everyone else) The lane bryant website (lanebryant.com) associated with the store is now carrying extended sizes in certain styles. Like the Avenue, they go up to size 32.


----------



## Aurora (Dec 13, 2005)

MissToodles said:


> Ed (and everyone else) The lane bryant website (lanebryant.com) associated with the store is now carrying extended sizes in certain styles. Like the Avenue, they go up to size 32.



The store does? That's wonderful! I was disappointed because I'm currently at their (what I thought was) highest size, a 28.  *yeys*

~Aurora


----------



## MissToodles (Dec 13, 2005)

only through their website. I believe old navy is carrying extended sizing through their website, too.

edited because I found the link
http://lanebryant.charmingshoppes.com/Shopping/thumbnails.aspx?attr=910

Extended sizing includes a 12! Poor size 12 as if you can't find it anywhere. nope, nosiree


----------



## Isa (Dec 13, 2005)

MissToodles said:


> Ed (and everyone else) The lane bryant website (lanebryant.com) associated with the store is now carrying extended sizes in certain styles. Like the Avenue, they go up to size 32.



Was so excited upon reading this as I love LB's clothing but after visiting the store's website it appears the highest size is still only a 28. The catalog goes higher but IMO the quality isn't quite the same. I'll stick to The Avenue and keep my fingers crossed for the future.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Dec 13, 2005)

Zoom said:


> Again must I post my response. For that, we are all punished to give different answers every time.
> 
> Until about 2002, I was under the impression that supersize meant a weight of 500+. At that point in time I was corrected and told that "most women" will start calling themselves SSBBWs around 300+.
> 
> However, I've seen 150-pound women calling themselves BBW, so it probably won't be long before all women of all sizes, shapes and tonnage will call themselves SSBBW and not know what it means.




Frankly, I think SSBBW should start around 300. 

With our society's needless, senseless obsession with weight loss, I'm not surprised to see 150 lb women labeling themselves BBWs. I'm on BBW Datefinder and I see average size women on there. This does not make sense.


----------



## loves2laugh (Dec 13, 2005)

i read somewhere online that at 240 i am considered a plumper. what the hell that means i have no idea but evidently there is something behind this whole labeling.


----------



## Wayne_Zitkus (Dec 13, 2005)

If a woman considers herself a BBW, she's a BBW. If she considers herself a SSBBW, she's a SSBBW.


----------



## Tina (Dec 14, 2005)

The 'rule of thumb' I've always heard around here is that over 300 and the woman is an SSBBW, under and she's not. Not that it matters, really.


----------



## toffeechick64 (Dec 14, 2005)

im 5ft6 295lbs i wear a size 26-28 i consider myself bbw/ssbbw


----------



## Angela (Dec 14, 2005)

Well, I am 5'5" & 373lbs right now, & I definitely consider myself an SSBBW. Im also a foodee/gainer.
Big Fat Hugs,
Angela
http://fatterdaysahead.blogspot.com


----------



## altered states (Dec 14, 2005)

Back in the early-mid 90s when we were all on 3 bps modems and Dimensions was still an ink-on-paper kind of thing, a dude named ZinkDink had an incredible website that was like the World Almanac of FAdom. He had a name and beautiful description for every possible fat deposit on the BBW body and photo illustrations as well. As I remember, he also had a chart of a dozen or so categories, from plump to "ultrasize" with allowances for height to weight ratio.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Dec 14, 2005)

loves2laugh said:


> i read somewhere online that at 240 i am considered a plumper. what the hell that means i have no idea but evidently there is something behind this whole labeling.



I have no idea where the term comes from. Maybe it could be from the publishers of the magazine Plumpers.


----------



## fatlane (Dec 14, 2005)

tres huevos said:


> Back in the early-mid 90s when we were all on 3 bps modems and Dimensions was still an ink-on-paper kind of thing, a dude named ZinkDink had an incredible website that was like the World Almanac of FAdom. He had a name and beautiful description for every possible fat deposit on the BBW body and photo illustrations as well. As I remember, he also had a chart of a dozen or so categories, from plump to "ultrasize" with allowances for height to weight ratio.



Ah, yes! ZINKDINK!!!

I especially enjoyed his categorizations of belly types. Pity it was lost to overwhelming bandwidth issues... or Tripe-odd deciding no more of that sort of thing, then... or whatever...


----------



## fatcat00f (Jun 8, 2008)

I think, that bbw to 300-350 pounds, and above it already ssbbw!


----------



## brainman (Jun 8, 2008)

I've calculated quite a bit on this. It seems OK to define an SSBBW to be a woman who has a BMI over 50. That makes a woman measuring 5 feet 3 inches and weighing 294 lbs an SSBBW.


----------



## Fairest Epic (Jun 8, 2008)

I was actually just wondering about this whole shizz bang this mornin. 
I'm 6'0" and around 300 i believe. (My bmi is 40 ish i think.)
According to some of your guidlines i'd be an ssbbw, and to some of yours i wouldnt be. 

That being said...I dont consider myself an ssbbw merely because of the FA's i've come into contact with have said that i'm not. Also, i tend to mostly only gain in one area, so all of me isnt SO pleasantly squishy . It's all a matter of perception i suppose, and there is really no defining line of bbw vs. ssbbws because we're all humans and we're all different.


----------



## MoonGoddess (Jun 8, 2008)

_I am 5' 6", 210 pounds with a BMI of about 31. I don't much care how I am labeled, but I've surmised that I am a BBW. That is if one places much stock in such things. _


----------



## CAMellie (Jun 8, 2008)

I'm 5'6" and 384lbs....I call myself....Mellie :blink:


*my random smartass post of the day*


----------



## AnnMarie (Jun 8, 2008)

Ahh, welcome back two year old post and topic beaten to death.


----------



## GoddessNoir (Jun 8, 2008)

I know we've spoken of this many times but, I just feel the need to add my two cents.

I think it depends on the woman and also how others perceive her.

I'm 5'9" at a size 26 and very solid, I weigh a lot more than most women who also wear a 26. 

I consider myself SS, just became comfy with that label about a year ago or so.

My partner, being a lover of fat women says I'm not super sized, not even fat, just big. 

I've dated men who have called my BBW, thick, superthick, big, and one who INSISTED, even though I was a definite size 22 at the time that I was not even a BBW.

So.....?


----------



## Seth Warren (Jun 9, 2008)

AnnMarie said:


> Ahh, welcome back two year old post and topic beaten to death.




I've often wondered why threads here don't get locked after a certain time of inactivity. Then again, thread necromancy is a pet peeve of mine that others may or may not share.


----------



## AnnMarie (Jun 9, 2008)

Seth Warren said:


> I've often wondered why threads here don't get locked after a certain time of inactivity. Then again, thread necromancy is a pet peeve of mine that others may or may not share.



I think there are a lot of useful old threads, and while it's a bit annoying when they pop up after 2 years, I'm glad the search feature is being used. I guess, as a mod, I'd much rather have conversations continue rather than always having not option than starting over and over and over again. 

So yeah, I hear you about it... but the instances are so rare, I think it probably works right for our purposes.


----------



## vermillion (Jun 10, 2008)

i am 5'7ish and currently around 345...
i think i'm ssbbw but get told i'm not all the time...


----------



## furious styles (Jun 10, 2008)

lol i'm tired


----------



## Dravenhawk (Jun 10, 2008)

My take on this issue is something like this...given an average height of 5' 6"

Under 300 lbs that is petite or skinny
Between 300 lbs and 450 lbs is BBW
Between 450 lbs and 650 lbs is SSBBW
Anywhere over 651 lbs is Ultra SSBBW and if you weigh that much or more please don't hesitate to send me a PM.

Scaling down or up by approx. 15 to 20 lbs per inch of height off of the 5' 6" mark would apply.

Dravenhawk


----------



## olwen (Jun 10, 2008)

Oh my these labels baffle me too. There was a time when I wanted them to have hard and fast definitions but now I realize it just doesn't matter because people bring to it what they want. It doesn't matter to me if a person wants to consider me ss or not. I'll wear either label proudly.


----------



## CleverBomb (Jun 11, 2008)

AnnMarie said:


> Ahh, welcome back two year old post and topic beaten to death.


It's always good to look again from time to time at what was in our collective brains a few years ago.

Mmmmm.... brains.....

braAIIINNNnnnnss....

<shambles off in search of supper>

-Rusty


----------



## KHayes666 (Jun 11, 2008)

Dravenhawk said:


> My take on this issue is something like this...given an average height of 5' 6"
> 
> Under 300 lbs that is petite or skinny
> Between 300 lbs and 450 lbs is BBW
> ...



I think 600-695 is still ssbbw

700 - 1000 would be Usbbw (ultra sized)

1000 and up would be aebbw (absolutely enormous)


----------



## Plainguy (Jun 17, 2008)

The whole notion of labels, in reference to size, and weight both amuses, and confuses me. I tend to just accept people and enjoy my interaction with them. Of course being a guy, we men do seem to be the driving force in putting descriptive labeling on people, and such. . must be in the DNA


----------



## Niteprince (Mar 26, 2015)

Long ago I came across this size classification system from a board years ago. I had saved it when I saw it. I thought it was interesting how they did this list. I don't remember who made it, but I thought I would post it.


ANSI (Admirer's National Standards Institute)
Weight Classification System
(Draft Standard)

The system is based on letter codes that change at 100 pound intervals. Intermediate levels (50 pound midpoints) are found by doubling the previous letter code.

Assignment of a BBW to a category is based on percieved weight. That is, if a woman looks like she weighs 300 or so pounds, she's in the Supersize category. It does not really matter if she weighs 270 pounds since she seems to be as fat as women known to weigh 300. This accounts for height differences and so on. To communicate size, perception is the most important factor.

To help remember the codes and weights, remember "Love Huge". The codes start at 100 and the letter codes spell "LVE HUGE".

Range Code Description
------- ------ ------------------------
100-150 (L) Lightweight
150-200 (LL) Larger Lightweight
200-250 (V) Voluptuous
250-300 (VV) Very Voluptuous
300-350 (S) Supersize
350-400 (SS) Super Supersize
400-450 (H) Hypersize
450-500 (HH) Heavy Hypersize
500-550 (U) Ultrasize
550-600 (UU) Uber Ultrasize
600-650 (G) Gaiasize
650-700 (GG) Greater Gaiasize
700-750 (E) Exasize
750-*** (EE) Extra Exasize


Not a BBW (NA)
This is not shown in the scale for simplicity. If you need to refer to a thin woman's size, use "NA".

Lightweight
Most women in this range are thin. It's possible to be chubby if you are in this range, so it is included in the scale.

Larger Lightweight
Women in this range are well-padded. A lot of women in the U.S. fall into this range. They have something to offer to FAs and non-FAs alike.

Voluptuous
Lookin' good with 50 pounds of fat or more. A large percentage of the women in the BBW community fall into this range. Undoubtedly fat, with the major weight distribution patterns becomming visible. If you are going to carry it in the belly at higher weights it should be apparent now.

Very Voluptuous
More of the good stuff. Many ladies in this category are headed for bigger numbers in the future. This is a gateway to higher weights some, and a comfortable, stable spot for others. Features often contrast the most at this weight. To have disproportionate belly, breasts or butt, you need enough fat to show it, but not so much that your features smooth out.

Supersize
One of the most commonly used terms and a subject of discussion and argument. Relax. If you look Supersize to the expert FA, you are Supersize. If you feel Supersize, you might want to get a second opinion, but you probably qualify. A landmark - she is carrying her body weight in fat. Features such as a narrow waist can still exist in this range, but are less common.

Super Supersize
No doubt about it, BBWs in this category are VERY fat! Although they are big, SSBBWs are likely to be encountered in public often. Similar to Very Voluptuous, Super Supersize is a gateway category. Women in this range will often stay in the range for a long time, then shoot into higher categories for a variety of reasons.


Hypersize
Often a "bottom weight preference" for guys that like their women extremly large. At 400 and above the "Oh, my God!" factor starts to kick in. The body is now dominated by fat in a delightful way. Some freedom is gained in this bracket. It is not possible to diet for a few months and get thin, so many Hypersize women are not constantly tormenting themselves to diet.

Heavy Hypersize
Many Heavy Hypersize women are afraid that they will never stop growing and slide into immobility. At triple "normal body weight" the woman's body and habits certainly urge her to be very large. Crash diets and surgery are often tried, but the BBW often returns to Hypersize or larger.

Ultrasize
As evidenced by Dimensions' 500 club and other sources, this range has special status. Even the strongest women at this size are slowed down quite a bit. Many extreme FA's "dream woman" is in this category. These women can look after themselves, but there's no denying that they are considered huge by most standards.

Uber Ultrasize
If a woman crosses into the Ultrasize range, her body has such affinity for fat that just about anything is possible. A woman that manages to put on 50 pounds or more after passing 500 probably has a very high food intake. 500+ pounds of body tissue requires a lot of fuel, even if most of the tissue is fat.

Gaiasize
Earth mother. Activity is probably low, since the body's frame is not meant to carry this much weight on long walks. The body has probably smoothed out quite a bit, turning into a soft spherical shape. Folds and large pockets of fat certainly exist, but the entire body has filled out to contain the weight.

Greater Gaiasize
50 pounds difference is harder to notice when you get to this size, but the keen eye might be able to tell the difference.

Exasize
There are real women this size, but most exist in weightgain fiction and fantasies. You are likely to see an Exasize woman sitting up in bed, with expansive layers of fat spread out before her. For comfort, the BBW usually spreads her legs wide, and lets the belly rest between them. Mobility is a big issue. Most women this size will only make trips to the bathroom with assistance. Meals and entertainment are usually provided in bed.

Extra Exasize
The top of the scale. There are higher weights to be sure, but there few instances of women that size, so it is practical to discuss them individually.


----------



## BBWanastasia (May 7, 2015)

I think BBW is any bigger girl and SSBBW is just for the larger BBW, it really depends if you ask different people also.


----------



## jtgw (May 7, 2015)

IMHO it's silly to define these terms by weight alone, since your height affects how well you carry your weight. BMI is surely a much better way to classify BBWs. The way I see it, you need a BMI of 30 or above to be considered a BBW, and 40 or above to be considered an SSBBW.


----------



## jtgw (May 7, 2015)

And I don't trust concepts like "perceived weight". To me they're about as reliable as perceived penis length.


----------

