# Face or figure?



## kioewen (Nov 6, 2009)

I've always wondered how much importance other people who admire fuller female figures assign to a beautiful face? In being attracted to a woman, is the fact that she has a sufficiently curvy figure essential? Would you -- undoubtedly with regret -- be able to overcome your lack of enthusiasm for a thin figure if her face were sufficiently beautiful?

I suppose the easiest way to measure this is with two options: Would you be more attracted to someone with a gorgeous face, but an insufficiently full figure? Or someone with an ideally full figure, but a face that you don't find attractive?

(Obviously this question doesn't factor in other aspects of attraction, such as character, compatibility, etc. Therefore, let's stipulate, _"All other things being equal..."_)

EDIT: Whoops. Can't edit poll questions, it seems, but that first line should read, "Someone with a beautiful face, but (in your opinion) an insufficiently full figure?"


----------



## James (Nov 6, 2009)

not enough variables in your survey dude... Face and figure are not the only... and not even always the most important factors in attraction.


----------



## kioewen (Nov 6, 2009)

James said:


> not enough variables in your survey dude... Face and figure are not the only... and not even always the most important factors in attraction.



Yes, I realize this. That's why I added the following in my post:

_"(Obviously this question doesn't factor in other aspects of attraction, such as character, compatibility, etc. Therefore, let's stipulate, "All other things being equal...")"_

I would bold it for emphasis, but 30 min. have passed, so I can't alter the message anymore.

I was just interested in this particular item, in terms of aesthetic preference.


----------



## Verdant (Nov 6, 2009)

The two are connected. If a woman has a really attractive body, her face just tends to fit in almost no matter what. Similarly, if a woman has a really pretty face it tends to make her whole body look cute. That's why some women just look attractive for no reason in particular.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Nov 6, 2009)

I don't agree with that Verdant. Are you saying that if you see a very pretty thin woman its the same as seeing a very pretty fat woman then?


----------



## nikola090 (Nov 6, 2009)

The face before all


----------



## Verdant (Nov 6, 2009)

I should have been more specific. What I meant was that if a woman is heavier, her face tends to look more attractive, especially if you get to know her. If a woman has a pretty face but is thin, she might look pretty, but she's not someone I'd be looking to date. So they're different.


----------



## zanza (Nov 6, 2009)

of the 2 options given 

i would say face comes first, (although in reality i suppose face & persoanlity/interest comes before a body when it comes to what is attractive to me)


----------



## joh (Nov 6, 2009)

I voted for the face option, but my attraction to a person's face is different than my attraction for somebody's body. I don't "get off" to a person's face, you know what I mean? It's hard to compare the two.


----------



## bbwbelover (Nov 6, 2009)

I voted face, When talking to someone you're looking at their face, their eyes. I mentioned recently that I find Keira Knightly really attractive, ok she's a stock and she'd snap if you hugged her too hard, but her face is really nice. Another fuller example is Ashley Sage Ellison, aka Dream of ashley. I know she has the most fantastic breasts, but I don't think she'd be nearly as attractive without a cute face to match.


----------



## Captain Save (Nov 6, 2009)

I wish I could vote in this poll. I've always though they go hand in hand, the face and body. 

I agree with the poster who said they are different in their appeal; I find faces desirable for different reasons than bodies. Faces are the identity of the person; faces are what you see when you have a conversation with someone special during dinner, coffee, or dessert. Faces are the primary means of communicating and bonding with someone. 

Bodies, on the other hand, are the things that stir those visceral feelings of desire and lust. They are the things that make slow dancing, hugging, and cuddling so good. Bodies emit those scents we can't even detect, but tell us we need them naked. When we see them naked and ready with gentle soft curves, we can't resist the allure of bodies for anything.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Nov 6, 2009)

Which one I find more attractive depends, to a great deal, on which one I happen to be with.


----------



## kioewen (Nov 6, 2009)

Captain Save said:


> I wish I could vote in this poll. I've always though they go hand in hand, the face and body.
> 
> I agree with the poster who said they are different in their appeal; I find faces desirable for different reasons than bodies. Faces are the identity of the person; faces are what you see when you have a conversation with someone special during dinner, coffee, or dessert. Faces are the primary means of communicating and bonding with someone.
> 
> Bodies, on the other hand, are the things that stir those visceral feelings of desire and lust. They are the things that make slow dancing, hugging, and cuddling so good. Bodies emit those scents we can't even detect, but tell us we need them naked. When we see them naked and ready with gentle soft curves, we can't resist the allure of bodies for anything.



That's all fair. But what if you were given a choice between one or the other: a person whose facial "identity" was attractive, but whose body, on the other hand, did NOT stir "visceral feelings of desire or lust"; OR someone whose body DID stir "visceral feelings of desire or lust," but whose face was not attractive.

Undoubtedly it is true, for many people, that the two do not necessarily attract in the same way. But one could still be presented with a situation where one or the other characteristic was appealing in someone, but not both. Which is more important?

It's not actually like comparing apples and oranges; simply asking, if you could _only_ have an apple or an orange, which would you choose?


----------



## Captain Save (Nov 6, 2009)

kioewen said:


> That's all fair. But what if you were given a choice between one or the other: a person whose facial "identity" was attractive, but whose body, on the other hand, did NOT stir "visceral feelings of desire or lust"; OR someone whose body DID stir "visceral feelings of desire or lust," but whose face was not attractive.
> 
> Undoubtedly it is true, for many people, that the two do not necessarily attract in the same way. But one could still be presented with a situation where one or the other characteristic was appealing in someone, but not both. Which is more important?
> 
> It's not actually like comparing apples and oranges; simply asking, if you could _only_ have an apple or an orange, which would you choose?



I would have to be honest. If I didn't find both face and body sufficiently desirable I wouldn't waste her time or mine. Sure, we could be the best of friends, but if either her face or body prevents my ejaculation or softens my resolve, she deserves better than I.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Nov 7, 2009)

Taking thinness out of the equation for myself (I don't have to explain why): I would generally say face. It's subjective though. Some with pretty faces I still may not find attractive, and vice versa, but it varies.


----------



## Forgotten_Futures (Nov 7, 2009)

Body most often *gets* my attention, face/personality/etc. determine whether or not it is kept. So both play important roles.


----------



## UMBROBOYUM (Nov 7, 2009)

Face for me. Means more to me somehow.


----------



## bbwsrule (Nov 7, 2009)

Face. Like everyone both together is ideal, but pretty faces make many thinner women attractive, even if I have a strong preference for a fuller figure. It isn't necessary to elaborate further as the question was specifically targeted.


----------



## chicken legs (Nov 8, 2009)

I have always been a fan of having your cake and eating it to...


----------



## wrench13 (Nov 8, 2009)

I find a wide range of facial types attractive, as my friends point out to me. Not really into classic 'pretty' types, more the interesting face type - I forget who said it or the specific quote but something to the effect " Beauty hath its charms in excess". 

But the body - must be a banging hot BBW or SSBBW for me to look twice. Superficial? Maybe, but thats who I am. Again " Beauty hath it's charms in excess". A lot of excess!


----------



## swamptoad (Nov 8, 2009)

I'd be more attracted to a pretty face. I'm not so critical over one or the other. Body or face. 

I don't really see how weighing one attraction over the other accomplishes anything though. I could just as easily say body. I feel that the two just go hand and hand - with their sufficiencies or insufficiencies. I am attracted to flaws and imperfections, as weird as that sounds. Maybe because I just feel that we are apt have those no matter what your very own eyes tell you.

Eyes, are one of my biggest attractions, though. Not my fetish. 

And I also find a wide range of facial types attractive.

Body types, still gotta have some curves. 

I guess I'd like to know what attraction you mean. Sexual attraction is what I think you mean from the poll. Because attraction, I just see it on some many different levels.

I find attraction to good music discussion. I'm attracted to interesting accents. I'm attracted to the thin librarian with such a gorgeous face who makes good conversation and has such a pleasant smile. 

I'm also attracted to my wife as she nakedly gets herself out of bed and heads to take a shower and smiles at me with her crooked teeth (as I've always known her to have), meanwhile picking pimples on her face. :wubu: :doh: See what I mean, flaws. It doesn't bother me or make me cringe. Its just the way it is. And I don't really see less beauty since I've known her for so long.

We aren't so gosh durn attractive either, her or I ... neither are our bodies. But we are attracted to each other in how we are alike and yet unalike in so many ways.

I guess I see that some attractions grow and prosper while others tend to fade away.

And maybe we were both attracted to each other's face to begin with when we met. I know I was attracted to her face. I think she later told me that she wasn't so very attracted to mine. Not that this really hurts me so much. And maybe I really hated her crooked teeth. OMG!    Hmmmm.. still don't see how super awesome my body is. And she never tried to measure one over the other when I once "shyly" asked her what it was about me that started her attraction. We were delighted in each others company. And attracted to long phone conversations and chats as we had met online. 

Sorry for the rambling.


----------



## swamptoad (Nov 8, 2009)

Reread my post and wanted to add:


"I'm attracted to the thin librarian with such a gorgeous face who makes good conversation and has such a pleasant smile" -- not a sexual attraction. But just wanted to mention that her face was not ugly. :doh: And I was attracted to her music selection suggestions and how she was quite an easy-going person to have a conversation with. :happy:


----------



## kioewen (Nov 10, 2009)

swamptoad said:


> I don't really see how weighing one attraction over the other accomplishes anything though.


Well, there are many reasons why I find this question interesting, especially given the resoundingly conclusive numbers so far. I too chose "face," although I honestly wasn't sure how everyone else would vote.

On a personal level, I think it provides an answer to the question of why quite a few FAs end up, despite themselves, with thin partners. No matter how gorgeous the figure, a lovely face will trump it. (As always, we're stipulating _"All other factors being equal"_ in this question.)

On an activist level, I think that one could make the argument that while there are more than a few full-figured celebrities in the media, not that many have astoundingly pretty faces. And that's a stumbling block.

If the public has a belief that, say, skinny Victoria's Secret/Sports Illustrated models are prettier than plus-size models, it may have less to do with their figures, and more to do with their _faces._ If you had more plus-size models whose faces are as beautiful as those of the skinny models, then the public would sooner associate beauty with curves than with thinness.

To put it in a nutshell, when people buy into the myth that skinny is prettier than curvy, they might not be actually reacting so much to figures as to faces (although they don't realize this). Because I'd wager that the results here, of all places, where people do have a strong attraction toward a specific body type (and yet acknowledge that a pretty face trumps it) mirror the probable reactions of the public in general.


----------



## Make_Lunch_Not_War (Nov 10, 2009)

Perhaps you should have phrased the question as either...

"Are you more attracted to a potential partner's face or shape?"

or

"Wouldt you rather be with the partner whose face you found attractive but was substantially thinner than you'd like or would you rather be with a partner whose body was ideal but whose face was unattractive?"

I'm just saying.


----------



## kioewen (Nov 10, 2009)

Make_Lunch_Not_War said:


> Perhaps you should have phrased the question as either...
> 
> "Are you more attracted to a potential partner's face or shape?"
> 
> ...



You're right. Those are good ways to phrase it. But I wasn't just interested in people's feelings about this question with someone whom they had a realistic shot at, but also aesthetic interest from afar; say, in someone whom they knew was out of their league, or a celebrity, or whatever. More like, "Your ideal -- whether you could have them or not."


----------



## exile in thighville (Nov 10, 2009)

if i'm jerking off, the right body part is all i need to zero in on. if i'm kissing it it has to be pretty. i'd take a cute thin over an ugly fat if we're talking in sheer gun-to-my-head hypotheticals.


----------



## Teecher (Nov 10, 2009)

If you feel that she needs a 'paper bag' over her head, in order for you to be with her, well...

At the same time, if you always need the lights out when you're intimate, and that's not to hide your own shortcomings, well...


Teecher

Pears Rule.


----------



## mithrandirjn (Nov 11, 2009)

Definitely face. I'm not particularly drawn to any woman who's face doesn't appeal to me in some way, but a good looking face on most body types has plenty of appeal to me.


----------



## nykspree8 (Nov 13, 2009)

joh said:


> I voted for the face option, but my attraction to a person's face is different than my attraction for somebody's body. I don't "get off" to a person's face, you know what I mean? It's hard to compare the two.



QFT. I will vote for the face, but the body is just as important. That being said, I have a wide range of what I find to be cute or attractive face wise. Just can't be a double bagger mutant from the hills have eyes, that's a no go...


----------



## Dusselchen (Nov 13, 2009)

I'll go for the face because it's the face I see first when I wake up in the morning and it's the face I'll kiss.

..._Bodys can change over the time^^_


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Nov 13, 2009)

All other things being equal* I'd choose the smile I can't wait to see again. :wubu: After that, the eyes that sparkle with aliveness. :batting: If she's happy with her size I can learn to be content with it too. 

*Like that ever really happens. Minds and personalities differ far more than faces and bodies.


----------



## collared Princess (Nov 13, 2009)

uggg just my luck..everyone is looking at my face...uggg Im to old to have a pretty face look at my body please...lol


----------



## Ho Ho Tai (Nov 13, 2009)

A face is just like a congressional vote. Sometimes the eyes have it, sometimes the nose.


----------



## jakub (Nov 14, 2009)

No compromise - both.


----------



## ZainTheInsane (Nov 14, 2009)

Face is always more important in my book. I've seen plenty of girls of all sizes and shapes, who have a beautiful face. And in the end, when making love, that's what you're looking at...well, unless you're doing it doggy style, or maybe 69ing...


----------



## Gentleman (Nov 21, 2009)

I think that they are inversely proportional - the fatter a woman is, the plainer she can look and still be attractive. Which means that a thin gal must be drop dead gorgeous for me to even notice her, while I drool over huge girls who are rather homely looking. Of course, when a massive girl has a beautiful face...jackpot!


----------



## flashfeeder (Nov 22, 2009)

I voted face simply because a killer smile always seems to make a person stand out more for me.


----------



## KittyKitten (Nov 22, 2009)

kioewen said:


> I've always wondered how much importance other people who admire fuller female figures assign to a beautiful face? In being attracted to a woman, is the fact that she has a sufficiently curvy figure essential? Would you -- undoubtedly with regret -- be able to overcome your lack of enthusiasm for a thin figure if her face were sufficiently beautiful?
> 
> I suppose the easiest way to measure this is with two options: Would you be more attracted to someone with a gorgeous face, but an insufficiently full figure? Or someone with an ideally full figure, but a face that you don't find attractive?
> 
> ...


*

The face is the most important aspect of beauty--the smile, the sparkle of the eyes, the cheekbones, the lips--the symmetry. Someone with a magnificent face stops the world and you always remember that face. That's the first thing you see when you talk to someone--their face. 

I heard a lot of guys say a girl most have a hot face to go with that banging body, else she is just a jumpoff--fyck her and forget about her (butterface). Facial beauty is essential.*


----------



## orin (Nov 22, 2009)

I think i am more critical over a messed up body shape ... 

but i would love to have both ....

but a really nice big booty curvy body with an average face i can live with

a beautiful face but a body that is not all that ... will not do it for me


----------



## KittyKitten (Nov 22, 2009)

_*I noticed people with beautiful faces no matter how the body looks are treated better in society. The face mesmerizes people. When I see someone with an awesome face, I admit, I am struck. God, the smile is a powerful thing. Look at the president, his smile is amazing. 

Of course, ideally you want to have both a banging body and an awesome face. *_


----------



## KittyKitten (Nov 22, 2009)

_*double post*_


----------



## Fascinita (Nov 23, 2009)

There is no choice for "someone who is an easy mark."


----------



## kioewen (Nov 23, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> There is no choice for "someone who is an easy mark."



......Huh?


----------



## mergirl (Nov 25, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> if i'm jerking off, the right body part is all i need to zero in on. if i'm kissing it it has to be pretty. i'd take a cute thin over an ugly fat if we're talking in sheer gun-to-my-head hypotheticals.


See, i really think there would actually have to be a gun pointed towards my head to actually answer this.. 
I am having images of people fucking a floating pretty head (like in return to oz -The rare adult version) or a headless body. 
Oh actually.. its kinna like re-animator!! haha..Thats the best scene ever!


----------



## nykspree8 (Nov 25, 2009)

mergirl said:


> .
> Oh actually.. its kinna like re-animator!! haha..Thats the best scene ever!



ZOMG...i totally remember that movie from when I was little  I think it's still in my parents VHS collection somewhere...wow...that movie was a true "classic" rofl...


----------



## Les Toil (Nov 25, 2009)

Verdant said:


> The two are connected. If a woman has a really attractive body, her face just tends to fit in almost no matter what. Similarly, if a woman has a really pretty face it tends to make her whole body look cute.



WHAT??????? Boy, are you smokin' that whacky weed?????


----------



## Les Toil (Nov 25, 2009)

And for the record, a great body outweighs a great face for me ANY time. If a woman has a face like Janet Jackson but she looks like Pee-Wee Herman in an evening gown--*it ain't gonna work for me.* But I'd probably be more attracted to her if she had an imperfect nose, a missing tooth and a bad eye if she had a phenomenal body. That's just me, y'all.

LOL...I'm surprise the PC brigade hasn't stormed in this thread to read us the riot act!


----------



## MrRabbit (Nov 25, 2009)

kioewen said:


> ...
> If the public has a belief that, say, skinny Victoria's Secret/Sports Illustrated models are prettier than plus-size models, it may have less to do with their figures, and more to do with their _faces._ If you had more plus-size models whose faces are as beautiful as those of the skinny models, then the public would sooner associate beauty with curves than with thinness.
> ...


Do I understand this right? Are you saying that big girls have uglier faces than skinny models? And that that is even a hurdle for people liking curves?

I absolutely love round faces! (Even if the woman is not big.) But the choice between the face and the figure is a difficult one. Both are important, but on a different level. A woman may have the most beautiful face I could imagine, but if she does not have the figure to match it, there will be no sexual attraction. Conversely, there needs to be some facial attraction as well.


----------



## musicman (Nov 25, 2009)

Les Toil said:


> LOL...I'm surprise the PC brigade hasn't stormed in this thread to read us the riot act!



That's what's so strangely unique about this poll. There is no Politically Correct answer. Are we more superficial if we judge a woman by her face, or by her figure? We're damned either way!


----------



## kioewen (Nov 26, 2009)

musicman said:


> That's what's so strangely unique about this poll. There is no Politically Correct answer. Are we more superficial if we judge a woman by her face, or by her figure? We're damned either way!



As the poll creator, I'll take that as a compliment. And aesthetics are not necessarily superficial. That's a modern prejudice. The Neoplatonists, just to use one example, would have strongly disagred.

Anyway, I have said this before, and I'll say this again -- I do NOT think that there is any moral superiority to liking a woman better for her personality than her appearance. To those who say, "So what if she won the looks lottery?" I say, "So what if she won the personality lottery?" or "So what if she won the intelligence lottery?" A person isn't responsible for their own good genes in brains or beauty. Both are just the luck of the draw. 

Discriminating against someone who got screwed in the personality luck-of-the-draw doesn't make you a better person than discriminating against someone who got screwed in the beauty luck-of-the-draw. It's just the case that those who won the brains lottery, but not looks, have (naturally) been able to do better P.R. for themselves than those who won the beauty lottery, but not brains. But strip away the social conditioning, and you're just left with one type of favoratism vs. another.

Let's hear it for politically incorrect threads. I'd like to see more. And have you noticed something? This thread has (so far) been a model of civility and reasonable discussion.


----------



## nykspree8 (Nov 26, 2009)

Les Toil said:


> And for the record, a great body outweighs a great face for me ANY time. If a woman has a face like Janet Jackson but she looks like Pee-Wee Herman in an evening gown--*it ain't gonna work for me.* But I'd probably be more attracted to her if she had an imperfect nose, a missing tooth and a bad eye if she had a phenomenal body. That's just me, y'all.




I almost totally agree, but there are some rare instances where the face is so bad that it just ruins the whole package. I'm sure women can say the same thing about men. Like I said before, I have a wide range of what I find cute face-wise...as long as it's round and chubby, I'm usually good. I definitely don't like skinny faces...just doesn't go with a fat body lol.


----------



## kioewen (Nov 26, 2009)

MrRabbit said:


> Are you saying that big girls have uglier faces than skinny models? And that that is even a hurdle for people liking curves?
> 
> I absolutely love round faces! (Even if the woman is not big.)



I prefer round faces too. By far.

And of course I am NOT saying that big girls have uglier faces than skinny models. Some do, some don't. The problem is that many skinny models do still have pretty faces (round faces in fact), while many plus-size models do not -- which tricks the public into associating beauty with thinness, when often, it has nothing to do with size, only with facial beauty.

What I AM saying is that in selecting plus-size models, the fashion industry should really pay attention to facial beauty and make sure to choose full-figured models with the prettiest faces possible. That will go far in convincing the public that being beautiful and being big can go hand in hand. Generally (not always, but often) it is my impression that plus-size models are chosen simply because they have the right kind of figure, not so much because they have an astoundingly beautiful face. (There are major exceptions of course -- I'm talking generally.)

Or to put it another way, let's say you do a survey to find out what kind of models customers want to see. Let's say that for the skinny model, you use Doutzen Kroes, and for the big model, you use Camryn Manheim. Customers vote; the majority picks Doutzen; the clients think, "Well, that proves it. Customers want to see skinny models."

But that conclusion would be wrong. As the poll in this post shows, many would pick Doutzen just because she has the prettier face.

And if you turned it around, and had a size-16 Doutzen Kroes and a size-2 Camryn Manheim, this poll suggests that the majority would still choose Doutzen. They'd be picking the bigger girl, because she has the prettier face.

_(BTW, I know that some people may think Camryn has a pretty face. I'm just using an example.)
_
So two points: 1. If you want to see what size models customers actually respond to, a comparison with unequal facial beauty is invalid because it has a skewed result that has nothing to do with size.

2. If you want the public to start believing in full-figured beauty, pretty faces are key.

(Sounds obvious? You'd be amazed at how often this seems to be ignored completely.)


----------



## Webmaster (Nov 29, 2009)

When he was younger, my son often asked questions like, "What do you like better, cookies or peaches?", "Would you rather go on vacation or get presents?", What do you hate more, spiders or stubbing your toe?" I explained to him that some things are not directly comparable, that one could really like chocolate chip cookies, but that didn't mean peaches weren't important, too, and that while I hated hurting my toes, I really didn't like spiders either.

It's the same with face or figure. Both are important and contribute to the overall impression and reaction I have to a person. A person's eyes, nose, hair, eye brows, lips, cheeks, everything that makes a face causes a reaction in others. Sometimes we even think we can make assumptions about someone's personality just by looking at their face. Same for size and shape.

What it boils down to, I think, is that our reactions to another person includes a very complex mixture of variables that includes numerous aspects of face, figure, personality, voice, mannerisms, and lots more. 

In statistics there is a technique called multiple regression analysis where a researcher first compiles a list of all the variables that might affect a certain reaction or phenomenon. Multiple regression analysis then mathematically and statistically shows the relative importance of each variable, and also how close the assumed value of all those variables comes to explaining the actual outcome.

What all this means is that the face or figure question makes no more sense than the old outer or inner beauty question. How we react to a person is far more complex.


----------



## lovessbbw (Nov 29, 2009)

I think it's all about confidence. A confident woman is always going be more attractive. It show in her smile, her face and the way she carries herself.


----------



## mergirl (Nov 30, 2009)

A hot body would be better, cause you could always put a bag over someones head and think of someone else. In the past when i have asked thin pretty faced women to wear a fat suit for me, it has not gone over well AT ALL!


----------



## berlin-girl (Nov 30, 2009)

can i cry a definitive BOTH!!!?

with a #little# favour of face...

i like the eyes most, and what i can see in them.
and some sensous lips that kiss well... *hmmmmmm*.
maybe somehow i believe in "they eyes are the mirror of the soul"? cheeezy alarm! but nevertheless.... :smitten:

IF they´re accompanied by a big body, it just makes my day. :wubu:

if not, i might like it (oh, sorry, HIM! ), but there´s always something missing. tried, but even with biggest personality - no real chance without bigger gut...

but belly alone isn´t enough too, have to like the face first (NOT to speak of the "inner values"...).

even if it´s just about 'gettin off' on a hot heavy bod - i´d then prefer a "no-head" pic to one with a face i don´t like.

by the way: BIG thanxxxx for all yer nice pictures here, lads & ladies, with & without faces!!!!!! :kiss2:


----------



## kioewen (Nov 30, 2009)

Webmaster said:


> What all this means is that the face or figure question makes no more sense than the old outer or inner beauty question. How we react to a person is far more complex.



Actually, I think that even the outer or inner beauty question makes perfect sense, and if one is being honest with oneself, one could fairly accurately judge which of the two matters more in attraction. But that's a separate issue.

In this case, we're dealing with strict aesthetics, and I think a comparison can be made. Is "What do you like better, cookies or peaches?" not comparable, but "What do you like better, chocolate-chip cookies or or peanut-butter cookies?" comparable? One could make the argument that everything is essentially dissimilar, that all sensations are ineffably unique, but I don't think that prevents rank-order comparisons from being made. Many of the contributors to this thread have reached pretty firm conclusions about which of the two factors is more significant.



Webmaster said:


> What it boils down to, I think, is that our reactions to another person includes a very complex mixture of variables that includes numerous aspects of face, figure, personality, voice, mannerisms, and lots more.


That was the point that James originally made, which is why I stipulated this in my initial post:

_(Obviously this question doesn't factor in other aspects of attraction, such as character, compatibility, etc. Therefore, let's stipulate, "All other things being equal...")_

In many cases, especially before one knows anything at all about a person other than their appearance, it is definitely possible to have a purely aesthetic reaction. In fact, if cases when one never knows anything at all about another person, a purely aesthetic reaction is the only reaction that someone will ever have to them. Hence my point about how this issue relations to fashion/media and the advancement of the rather basic but crucial idea that full-figured women can be beautiful (an idea that is often flatly rejected in our society).


----------



## mediaboy (Dec 1, 2009)

Honestly, I don't usually notice body parts unless its dat ass and even then I an subtle and discreet in my reverence.

When I enter into a relationship with some one I fall in love with the whole person, not an ass, not a belly, not a perfect smile, or a great rack.

Sure all those things and more are great but the bottom line is that if a girl and I can't get a long then I am just not interested.

That is unless I am drunk as hell and hard up then I usually result to hitting on skinny girls


----------



## Verdant (Dec 2, 2009)

If someone were looking at a thin woman in an attempt to determine her natural beauty, he might as well try looking at an x-ray of her instead. Without fat, it's impossible to tell how good-looking someone is because fat is what physically conveys information about people's personalities and genes. In other words, skin and bones look the same pretty much no matter what. 

Admittedly, some thin women do have pretty faces. The thing to remember is that that only proves that these women would be attractive if they became fat (i.e. shared information about themselves). 

An implication of this theorem is that society acts perniciously toward fat people because it discourages personal expression. Perhaps it presumes that generally people are bad?


----------



## bigsexy920 (Dec 2, 2009)

This pole and the comments are interesting to me because in my history with dealing with men. They always seem to go for body first and everything else is secondary. Which is the total oppisite of that this pole is saying. Maybe its just the men that talk to me but there is always a strong interest in certian body parts and if you are lacking in that area they become disinterested. Im pretty sure Im not the only woman that has had that experiance here with men at Dimensions.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 2, 2009)

I have to agree with Conrad. 

Sexuality is just not that static where you can easily indentify what's going to be a turnon. I've personally been attracted to a few skinny men, but it wasn't because their faces were so incredible that it "made up for" being smaller, it was more a chemistry/total package thing. Like any FA, I also obviously am not going to get turned on just because somebody has a particular body type. I have found over the years that I tend to run-to-type very much as far as height, build, and coloring but once again it doesn't meant that any and every 5'9 stocky broad shouldered male is going to be a turnon.


----------



## mergirl (Dec 2, 2009)

I wonder how many people (not just fas) wank off to headless people?? Not a decapitation fetish..but images of bodies. I doubt this is uncommon. I think less people will wank off to a face.. Just talking wankery here.. not real life.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 2, 2009)

mergirl said:


> I wonder how many people (not just fas) wank off to headless people?? Not a decapitation fetish..but images of bodies. I doubt this is uncommon. I think less people will wank off to a face.. Just talking wankery here.. not real life.



It's probably not uncommon. There are plenty of pictures on here where people post just bodies. I'd imagine if you had a fetish for feet or super large breasts you might get off looking at pictures of just feet or of a woman's breast either naked or stuffed into a tight tank top.

It probably also has to do with what sort of mental wank fodder you use. A friend and i were talking yesterday about how people have groups of favorite fantasies that they use when masturbating and we were talking about how when you need to get off, you may "dial up" one and if it doesn't work, kind of switch to another and another until you can orgasm. Maybe somebody with a foot fetish can look at a picture of a foot and that enables them to imagine touching it or they mentally add a woman's face and body to it and then they get off.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Dec 2, 2009)

mergirl said:


> I wonder how many people (not just fas) wank off to headless people?? Not a decapitation fetish..but images of bodies. I doubt this is uncommon. I think less people will wank off to a face.. Just talking wankery here.. not real life.




I wank to pictures of huge peens......


----------



## missy_blue_eyez (Dec 2, 2009)

Verdant said:


> The two are connected. If a woman has a really attractive body, her face just tends to fit in almost no matter what. Similarly, if a woman has a really pretty face it tends to make her whole body look cute. That's why some women just look attractive for no reason in particular.




Actually, sorry if I shouldnt be here, but I kinda get this...think it makes sense. Im sure I have probably dated some FA's whom have liked me purely for my figure...and probably havent been that attracted to me facially but it just tended to 'fit in' with the general consensus of the curves, where on the other hand I am DEFINATELY sure I have been out with non FA's whom have been attracted to me facially and have gone with it as it probably took the 'not so attracted to' edge off my body? Kinda all blends in? Now Im not being harsh on myself, I just know its true, some non fa's have probably just not paid as much attention to the figure because Ive had a pretty smile or something....where as some FA's probably didnt even notice my face and went straight for the love handles......but the bit at the end about some women look attractive for no reason in particular I disagree with....that dosent fit. Some of you are probably thinking.....:huh: but it made sense to me!


----------



## James (Dec 2, 2009)

missy_blue_eyez said:


> Actually, sorry if I shouldnt be here, but I kinda get this...think it makes sense. Im sure I have probably dated some FA's whom have liked me purely for my figure...and probably havent been that attracted to me facially but it just tended to 'fit in' with the general consensus of the curves, where on the other hand I am DEFINATELY sure I have been out with non FA's whom have been attracted to me facially and have gone with it as it probably took the 'not so attracted to' edge off my body? Kinda all blends in? Now Im not being harsh on myself, I just know its true, some non fa's have probably just not paid as much attention to the figure because Ive had a pretty smile or something....where as some FA's probably didnt even notice my face and went straight for the love handles......but the bit at the end about some women look attractive for no reason in particular I disagree with....that dosent fit. Some of you are probably thinking.....:huh: but it made sense to me!



Naomi, you are very welcome here  Your post made a lot of sense and actually helped me see that there's a little more merit to this topic than I originally thought.


----------



## Teleute (Dec 2, 2009)

Verdant said:


> Without fat, it's impossible to tell how good-looking someone is because fat is what physically conveys information about people's personalities and genes. In other words, skin and bones look the same pretty much no matter what.



lolwut?



No, seriously, I have no goddamned idea what you're talking about here. I don't think there's any less visual expression of thin people's personalities or genes. I mean, "skin and bones" might look the same to YOU no matter what, but they sure as hell don't look the same to most people... and I REALLY don't see where you're getting the personality thing from. Like, I could see "musculature conveys information about someone's personality" because muscle actually changes with use, so you could argue that if, say, someone smiled a lot they'd have a noticeable difference in their facial muscles (although I think that's a hell of a stretch too). But fat? It just goes where it goes. It's all genetic. Unless you're trying to tell me I could move the fat on my calves up to my butt by being generally bitchier or something... shit, I'll have to get on that, I need my boots to start fitting again!


----------



## Nicholas Ray (Dec 3, 2009)

If by "figure", we mean "body", then figure is 1000 times more important for me.

I still remember a friend of mine in high school saying something about one of my dates having a nose which was "too big" and I just laughed--I literally couldn't believe anyone would care about such nonsense.

She had the BODY to totally overwhelm me--and she certainly did that night. That's what was important.

Beyond that, I didn't care if she had the Duke of Urbino's nose.


----------



## mergirl (Dec 3, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I wank to pictures of huge peens......


I wank off to pics of little peens.. well if i'm honest no peens at all!


----------



## LordSheogorath (Dec 3, 2009)

I'm very picky with women. I'm not going to lie I have slept with girls who have done modeling for dresses, wedding dresses, facial products, etc. I've slept with strippers too! LOL. To be flat out if a girl doesn't look good to me she's not worth the time or effort. I know thats a rather cold way of looking at women but if it was a woman she'd be thinking the same thing, she wants the best. Period. And my honest opinion is that almost everyone can look attractive! Everyone has their own shapes and it's just a matter of them realizing it and learning how to use it. A better survey would be something like; "What sort of women would you rather be in bed with?" A) A short plump Asian pear shaped Japanese woman, B) A very busty and very fat Swedish girl that is just as tall as you are and likely weights twice as much!, or C) A Cherokee and French hourglass figured young lady with a temper and sexual appetite of a Tyrannosaurus Rex?


----------



## Cors (Dec 3, 2009)

Never mind. :doh:


----------



## LordSheogorath (Dec 3, 2009)

Because the Gods of Comedy have willed it so? :bow:


----------



## mergirl (Dec 3, 2009)

Cors said:


> Never mind. :doh:


right!  
.......


----------



## James (Dec 3, 2009)

bigsexy920 said:


> This pole and the comments are interesting to me because in my history with dealing with men. They always seem to go for body first and everything else is secondary. Which is the total oppisite of that this pole is saying. Maybe its just the men that talk to me but there is always a strong interest in certian body parts and if you are lacking in that area they become disinterested. Im pretty sure Im not the only woman that has had that experiance here with *men at Dimensions*.



This isn't a men-only poll. Its for FAs and FFAs. That might explain some of the discrepancy... ?


----------



## kioewen (Dec 3, 2009)

James said:


> This isn't a men-only poll. Its for FAs and FFAs. That might explain some of the discrepancy... ?



I wouldn't think so. Lots of guys would choose the face option above the figure option. But everyone will have their own experiences.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Dec 3, 2009)

FWIW I find BBW usually have faces and bodies that are more expressive and forthright. I'm not good at reading people but I don't feel I have to work nearly as hard to do so with most BBW. It's like their faces and bodies are communicating at a clear and comfortable volume. I'm not trying to disparage thin chicks at all. Subtlety can be very lovely; it's just wasted on me. BBW can be coy, for sure, but they don't often do it with the facial or bodily equivalent of whispers or restraint. 

Can't remember where I first heard this expression re a BBW but it has always resonated with me "I like to watch her laugh. So much of her her has a good time!" 

I really don't think I tend to separate women into parts. Proportions don't determine personalities any more than hair dictates intelligence. Face and body are both just incidental pieces of outward evidence of her relationship with herself and the world. If she can relate to me as who I really am and let me do the same with her I have a LOT of wiggle room in the aesthetics department. Arrived at that awareness a bit late, unfortunately. :doh:


----------



## bigsexy920 (Dec 4, 2009)

No i dont think so .


James said:


> This isn't a men-only poll. Its for FAs and FFAs. That might explain some of the discrepancy... ?


----------



## LordSheogorath (Dec 4, 2009)

I enjoy my women with extremely feminine and sexually alluring figures! I ALSO enjoy them with intelligence and personality. I do not believe it is difficult to find a women who has all the above. I have turned down people based off of their looks and I've been turned down because of my own even. Nothing wrong with that. I don't take it personal. Everyone's searching for something...


----------



## mergirl (Dec 4, 2009)

Wow.. this thread is still going strong is it? I just feel sorry for the women with the 'insufficiant' bodies you are all hypothetically making do with cause they have a pretty face!
Remember two shallows dont make a deep!


----------



## Webmaster (Dec 4, 2009)

And all that snide remarks from folks who love to constantly lecture everyone else notwithstanding. Go figure.


----------



## mergirl (Dec 4, 2009)

Webmaster said:


> And all that snide remarks from folks who love to constantly lecture everyone else notwithstanding. Go figure.


I have read this a few times and it still doesnt make any sense. 
I guess its just different lectures. Some on how expression of all things sexual is fine and its just prudes and people with narrow minds who object...(this lecture is becoming sort of like a mantra now.. hom.) The other lecture is from the people who don't want to be the object of some of the sexualization that is deemed as appropriate. The age old argument.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 4, 2009)

This thread topic didn't really bother me. Didn't make me feel particularly cheery, either ... but, it's reality. Even if I can't whip up much enthusiasm for the topic itself, I do understand that it is discussed, and it doesn't actually *need* my approval :happy:

But ... come on. This is locker room talk. Classic. Let's not pretend that it isn't.

A thread on the BBW was closed for the very same reason. I'm not arguing the why's and the what-for's at closing it (in fact, I do understand the reason given) but ... if talking about peen vs. wallet size is an example of objectifying men ... wouldn't 'face vs. figure' fall under the ... exact same category?


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Dec 4, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> This thread topic didn't really bother me. Didn't make me feel particularly cheery, either ... but, it's reality. Even if I can't whip up much enthusiasm for the topic itself, I do understand that it is discussed, and it doesn't actually *need* my approval :happy:
> 
> But ... come on. This is locker room talk. Classic. Let's not pretend that it isn't.
> 
> A thread on the BBW was closed for the very same reason. I'm not arguing the why's and the what-for's at closing it (in fact, I do understand the reason given) but ... if talking about peen vs. wallet size is an example of objectifying men ... wouldn't 'face vs. figure' fall under the ... exact same category?



Indeed......exactly how I see it.


----------



## cinnamitch (Dec 4, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> This thread topic didn't really bother me. Didn't make me feel particularly cheery, either ... but, it's reality. Even if I can't whip up much enthusiasm for the topic itself, I do understand that it is discussed, and it doesn't actually *need* my approval :happy:
> 
> But ... come on. This is locker room talk. Classic. Let's not pretend that it isn't.
> 
> A thread on the BBW was closed for the very same reason. I'm not arguing the why's and the what-for's at closing it (in fact, I do understand the reason given) but ... if talking about peen vs. wallet size is an example of objectifying men ... wouldn't 'face vs. figure' fall under the ... exact same category?



Oh you KNOW someone is going to come by and pat you on the head and give you a donut now don't you?


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 4, 2009)

cinnamitch said:


> Oh you KNOW someone is going to come by and pat you on the head and give you a donut now don't you?



I'll take the donut. And the bag it comes in, too.


----------



## tonynyc (Dec 4, 2009)

cinnamitch said:


> Oh you KNOW someone is going to come by and pat you on the head and give you a donut now don't you?





TraciJo67 said:


> I'll take the donut. And the bag it comes in, too.



*D*onuts  .. No love for Footlongs


----------



## butch (Dec 4, 2009)

I can only speak about the penis vs. wallet thread, and the reason why some of us on the mod team see a difference. What I haven't seen on this thread, and what I did see on the P v W thread, is discussions about how certain male organs measure up, and which ones are good, and which ones aren't, and about whether size makes a difference in pleasure (or pain), and that to me sounds like locker room talk. I don't see this thread including discussions about whether pears or apples are better in terms of bringing sexual pleasure, and whether pretty faces are generally better lovers than folks with pretty curvaceous bodies, and going into detail about why this is so. However, I haven't read this thread too closely, so I could be wrong.

As Tina mentioned in her post closing that thread, those of us modding the BBW Forum believe we need to abide by a standard that doesn't leave the men feeling objectified and aggressively sexualized, if for no other reason than we try to adhere to the same standard ourselves that we ask the men to uphold when they interact on the BBW Forum. We've felt that talking about general aesthetic preferences in this FA/FFA thread have not strayed into 'locker room talk,' but that talking about the sexual prowess of different types of penises seems to be a clear instance of 'locker room talk.' 

I may not be available over the next few days to respond to inquires about this post, but I hope it clarifies a bit of what has gone on with these two threads.

Thanks,
Butch
GLBTQ and BBW Forum Mod


----------



## kioewen (Dec 4, 2009)

butch said:


> I don't see this thread including discussions about whether pears or apples are better in terms of bringing sexual pleasure, and whether pretty faces are generally better lovers than folks with pretty curvaceous bodies, and going into detail about why this is so. However, I haven't read this thread too closely, so I could be wrong.



Well, I certainly didn't want any of that kind of discussion when I started this thread. I tried to make the question quite strictly aesthetic. But, yes, I realize that threads have a life of their own. Fortunately, it hasn't gone in that direction. I can't see why it would.


----------



## cinnamitch (Dec 4, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> *D*onuts  .. No love for Footlongs



Oh I love a good footlong.


----------



## tonynyc (Dec 4, 2009)

cinnamitch said:


> Oh I love a good footlong.



*T*his is always good to hear... Now you can ditch that donut :happy:



kioewen said:


> Well, I certainly didn't want any of that kind of discussion when I started this thread. I tried to make the question quite strictly aesthetic. But, yes, I realize that threads have a life of their own. Fortunately, it hasn't gone in that direction. I can't see why it would.



*K*iowen: I think the only way you may have gotten the desired responses you were looking for is if the introductory question to your survery stated ... *"From a strictly aesthetic point of view only...." *
Then your survey choices....


----------



## mossystate (Dec 4, 2009)

Teecher said:


> If you feel that she needs a 'paper bag' over her head, in order for you to be with her, well...
> Teecher





Les Toil said:


> LOL...I'm surprise the PC brigade hasn't stormed in this thread to read us the riot act!




While I do believe the thread on the bbw forum ' turned ', I am really wondering how mentioning bags over womens' heads.....and baiting people with chuckles over the " PC Brigade ", is really all that positive and wonderful. Oh, and also the posts about " messed up body shapes "..." face so bad it ruins the whole package "...etc...etc.. The going on about face or figure IS locker room talk/better for the weight board. The very basic nature of the question is whether or not a man would want to fuck a woman whose physical attributes are gross...or...hot. 

A woman won't fuck a man with a small penis...a man won't fuck a woman/won't be able to get it up, if her face/body are not up to par. Seems there are plenty of short hairs being split.

Again, I get why the bbw forum thread was closed ( not that the basic idea was a bad one ), but, once again, women are being told to tiptoe around anything that might make some men uncomfortable....yet many of us are the ones slapped with the PC label..etc.. Pretend this is not being said by a member of the PC Brigade...a harpie...etc.. Imagine it is really just about being fair.


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 4, 2009)

I do think there has been a lot of locker-room talk in this thread. 

Some examples:

"I know she has the most _fantastic breasts_, but I don't think she'd be nearly as attractive without a cute face to match."

"...must be a _banging hot_ BBW or SSBBW for me to look twice."

"If you feel that she needs a _'paper bag' over her head_, in order for you to be with her, well..."

"Just can't be a _double bagger mutant_ from the hills have eyes, that's a no go..."

"I've seen plenty of girls of all sizes and shapes, who have a beautiful face. And in the end, when making love, that's what you're looking at...well, unless you're _doing it doggy style, or maybe 69ing_..."

I would hope that, when mods make a decision to keep a thread going after a thread has been reported as containing inappropriate talk, that the mods would take the complaint seriously enough to read through the thread before categorically dismissing the complaint.


----------



## katherine22 (Dec 4, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> I do think there has been a lot of locker-room talk in this thread.
> 
> Some examples:
> 
> ...




They seem to be a little stricter over there in the BBW Form about upholding standards.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Dec 4, 2009)

This is off topic..but I really wish neither board were around.

It seems that it's just back and forth on the guys get to talk about this..or the girls get to talk about that....why can't we.

These types of threads have been around forever...mostly on the weightboard. 

I don't see why a similar thread on the bbw board would be an issue. A thread about face/body preference. 

That's something completely different than the nature of the penis/wallet size thread. 

I just wish that I could read a thread and not see all the bickering back and forth.

BLAH


----------



## cinnamitch (Dec 4, 2009)

katherine22 said:


> They seem to be a little stricter over there in the BBW Form about upholding standards.



Naa some men like to hear about big appetites, UNLESS the talk veers to how big of a hot dog a woman likes


----------



## tonynyc (Dec 4, 2009)

MisticalMisty said:


> This is off topic..but I really wish neither board were around.
> 
> It seems that it's just back and forth on the guys get to talk about this..or the girls get to talk about that....why can't we.
> 
> ...



*T*rue and either topic can easily be resurrected on the Weight Board if parties choose to discuss it there ... Locker Room chat happens regardless of gender....


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 4, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> I do think there has been a lot of locker-room talk in this thread.
> 
> Some examples:
> 
> ...



yeah why would anyone treat this board like it's about _physical preference
_
i'd like to extend my apologies on behalf of all the double bagger mutants

but seriously you are so _so_ whiny - "inappropriate talk"













GET A LIFE PEOPLE HAVE CRITERIA FOR A MATE


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 4, 2009)

butch said:


> I can only speak about the penis vs. wallet thread, and the reason why some of us on the mod team see a difference. What I haven't seen on this thread, and what I did see on the P v W thread, is discussions about how certain male organs measure up, and which ones are good, and which ones aren't, and about whether size makes a difference in pleasure (or pain), and that to me sounds like locker room talk. I don't see this thread including discussions about whether pears or apples are better in terms of bringing sexual pleasure, and whether pretty faces are generally better lovers than folks with pretty curvaceous bodies, and going into detail about why this is so. However, I haven't read this thread too closely, so I could be wrong.
> 
> As Tina mentioned in her post closing that thread, those of us modding the BBW Forum believe we need to abide by a standard that doesn't leave the men feeling objectified and aggressively sexualized, if for no other reason than we try to adhere to the same standard ourselves that we ask the men to uphold when they interact on the BBW Forum. We've felt that talking about general aesthetic preferences in this FA/FFA thread have not strayed into 'locker room talk,' but that talking about the sexual prowess of different types of penises seems to be a clear instance of 'locker room talk.'
> 
> ...



Butch, I did understand why Tina closed the thread. I hope I made that clear. It probably wasn't a good idea to allow 'shop talk' on a protected forum, and it was definitely veering into that territory. I just wish that the moderator(s) here would extend the same courtesy. Otherwise, it feel a bit lopsided. 

We can ALL start threads about wallet vs. peen, boobs vs. brains, etc in unprotected areas. Right?

Though ... sigh. Protected/unprotected. Another can o' worms.


----------



## Isa (Dec 4, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> GET A LIFE PEOPLE HAVE CRITERIA FOR A MATE



Understood and agreed, well not the get a life part.  

The issue now is that men are allowed to discuss said preferences on their protected board while the women are not.

Separate but not equal it seems.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Dec 5, 2009)

Isa said:


> Understood and agreed, well not the get a life part.
> 
> The issue now is that men are allowed to discuss said preferences on their protected board while the women are not.
> 
> Separate but not equal it seems.



Bingo....and I'm not sure why a big wallet is "more shallow" than a guy liking women strictly based upon body parts.

Same fucking criteria.....we all want something without noble intentions behind it.

Oh and.....some men want women with big wallets....or a tight hymen.....or a huge ass......


Once again........it's about preferences....who is to judge what those preferences are when you get down to the brass tacks of the matter?


If my dick vs wallet thread belongs on the weight board, then why not this one?


----------



## Forgotten_Futures (Dec 5, 2009)

Technically, "figure" should include face, as "figure" refers to structure - the supporting superstructure of the human body. Precise differences in bone shape, size, exacting position, how it all correlates...

That all makes a woman attractive. Well, and then there's the skin, and its tone, and is it unblemished or dotted with more spots than a playground in the first two seconds of a rain shower... eye color, hair color, cartilaginous bits (ears, nose), where's fat, what's fat, how it's fat/not fat. Gods, individual things as minor as... as.....

You see where I'm going, right?

The sum of a woman's parts is a brief moment in time where a man's mind STOPS. If they're all just right.

Side note: A pretty face without a mind behind it isn't one I'm paying much attention to.


----------



## kioewen (Dec 5, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> Kioewen: I think the only way you may have gotten the desired responses you were looking for is if the introductory question to your survery stated ... *"From a strictly aesthetic point of view only...." *
> Then your survey choices....



That's a fair point. I thought that was implied when I made this stipulation:

_(Obviously this question doesn't factor in other aspects of attraction, such as character, compatibility, etc. Therefore, let's stipulate, "All other things being equal...")_

But you're right, it could have been a helpful extra line.

All in all, I'm very happy with the way this thread has gone, as it has helped to confirm a theory I've had. (Granted, Web polls are hardly scientific.) I think the commentators have been well-mannered, yet honest, and there hasn't been anything overtly sexual here -- and I'd wager I'm more prudish than anyone.


----------



## James (Dec 5, 2009)

A note for all those who have inputted on this thread, reported individual posts and brought their general concerns to me;

This thread is being discussed at length amongst mods. Please know that your opinions and comments are being considered carefully and respectfully. Thanks for your patience.


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 5, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> yeah why would anyone treat this board like it's about _physical preference
> _
> i'd like to extend my apologies on behalf of all the double bagger mutants
> 
> ...




You seem really angry (and you missed the point about double standards.) Aim somewhere else, please.

----

@James, Thanks for your post.


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

LordSheogorath said:


> I enjoy my women with extremely feminine and sexually alluring figures! I ALSO enjoy them with intelligence and personality. I do not believe it is difficult to find a women who has all the above. I have turned down people based off of their looks and I've been turned down because of my own even. Nothing wrong with that. I don't take it personal. Everyone's searching for something...



it bugs the shit out of me when people say "my women"/"my men" 

it's so creepy like you're not running a harem

but yeah we get it already you don't fuck wit de uglies


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> You seem really angry (and you missed the point about double standards.) Aim somewhere else, please.
> 
> ----
> 
> @James, Thanks for your post.



double standards suck but you know what sucks more? trying to level the quota by complaining and reporting.

do you know what fighting the good fight is? because it's not among your own fucking ranks.

i don't read the bbw board so i know nothing of what's going on Over There and don't care, but complaining about the discussion we're having Over Here is spite for spite's sake. no one's attacking any board members personally about their looks because that's tacky. it's pretty much a normal "locker room" conversation about men's priorities. feel free to have one of your own but don't try and shut down ours.


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

James said:


> A note for all those who have inputted on this thread, reported individual posts and brought their general concerns to me;
> 
> This thread is being discussed at length amongst mods. Please know that your opinions and comments are being considered carefully and respectfully. Thanks for your patience.



i just feel so bad for the amount of time you have to spend "discussing" these items "at length" when it's a conversation on a message board that's not published anywhere, you don't get paid, and people can't just walk away from things they don't want to hear or take that vitriol and build something for themselves out of it.

like over what? over whether the people who wasted time and typing on this conversation should have those all wasted and erased? more and more words spent over soon-to-be wasted ones?

i know stormfront.org exists and hates other races and jews and stuff. yet i don't go to it and start lecturing them on why they're wrong and trying to get them shut down. see? look how easy that is.


----------



## Santaclear (Dec 5, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> yeah why would anyone treat this board like it's about _physical preference_
> i'd like to extend my apologies on behalf of all the double bagger mutants
> but seriously you are so _so_ whiny - "inappropriate talk"
> GET A LIFE PEOPLE HAVE CRITERIA FOR A MATE





exile in thighville said:


> i don't read the bbw board so i know nothing of what's going on Over There and don't care, but complaining about the discussion we're having Over Here is spite for spite's sake. no one's attacking any board members personally about their looks because that's tacky. it's pretty much a normal "locker room" conversation about men's priorities. feel free to have one of your own but don't try and shut down ours.



I haven't been reading either thread very closely, but GreenEyedFairy already started a thread like that there, somewhat in response to this thread but it was shut down for that reason (being women's "locker room" conversation.) So that's the point.

Several mods said that this thread ain't "locker room" (see Butch's post above, for instance) so Fasc pointed out some of the posts that are. Nothing sneaky or spiteful or "so _so_ whiny" (LOL)* but rather a matter of respectfully calling bullshit when it's there.

*(um, do you think your own posts on this subject might be just a tiny bit um, whiny?)


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 5, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> double standards suck but you know what sucks more? trying to level the quota by complaining and reporting.
> 
> do you know what fighting the good fight is? because it's not among your own fucking ranks.
> 
> i don't read the bbw board so i know nothing of what's going on Over There and don't care, but complaining about the discussion we're having Over Here is spite for spite's sake. no one's attacking any board members personally about their looks because that's tacky. it's pretty much a normal "locker room" conversation about men's priorities. feel free to have one of your own but don't try and shut down ours.



You'd really like it if the people who didn't meet your personal seal of approval would just go away, huh? And you waste a lot of words on trying to define "your" space, "defending" it from meanies and big babies who just want to make others miserable. The many ironies of your positions always seem to go right over your head.

Bottom line: How about you mind your business and let me handle mine?


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Dec 5, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> double standards suck but you know what sucks more? trying to level the quota by complaining and reporting.
> 
> do you know what fighting the good fight is? because it's not among your own fucking ranks.
> 
> i don't read the bbw board so i know nothing of what's going on Over There and don't care, but complaining about the discussion we're having Over Here is spite for spite's sake. no one's attacking any board members personally about their looks because that's tacky. it's pretty much a normal "locker room" conversation about men's priorities.* feel free to have one of your own but don't try and shut down ours.*



It's obvious you are speaking of things which you don't fully comprehend.....hopefully SantaClear's post cleared it all up for you. 

I didn't report any posts here btw......



exile in thighville said:


> i just feel so bad for the amount of time you have to spend "discussing" these items "at length" when it's a conversation on a message board that's not published anywhere, you don't get paid, and *people can't just walk away from things they don't want to hear or take that vitriol and build something for themselves out of it.
> *
> like over what? *over whether the people who wasted time and typing on this conversation should have those all wasted and erased? more and more words spent over soon-to-be wasted ones?*
> 
> i know stormfront.org exists and hates other races and jews and stuff. yet i don't go to it and start lecturing them on why they're wrong and trying to get them shut down. see? look how easy that is.



All your constant criticisms of other people here.....

YOU seem to spend a lot of time here "wasting time" and seeking to control others yourself. _You_ also seem to have not done much with your very own vitriol- perhaps lead by example or something? 

_You_ seem to enjoy fighting and stirring the pot while attempting to come off as some type of victim after _you_ purposely ran like hell to jump head first into the shit pile. 

_You_ seem to spend a lot of time angry about what's happening on the internet while telling others they shouldn't care what happens on the net. 

It's really hard to take you serious when things such as these are obvious to some people.


----------



## cinnamitch (Dec 5, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> It's obvious you are speaking of things which you don't fully comprehend.....hopefully SantaClear's post cleared it all up for you.
> 
> I didn't report any posts here btw......
> 
> ...



Aww that was such a big hammer you used to hit that nail on the head.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Dec 5, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> It's obvious you are speaking of things which you don't fully comprehend.....hopefully SantaClear's post cleared it all up for you.
> 
> I didn't report any posts here btw......
> 
> ...



Technically Dan is a critic (music). It's a valid life choice/perspective, even if not one you or I would aspire to (well, _long_ ago I was a food and wine critic but that was more about the freebies :blush Players take the field and listen to their teammates and coaches; sometimes even their opponents. Everything else is just noise to be screened out. I'll defer to the "Big Stick" here in this larval but still brilliant version of his 1910 speech at the Sorbonne. :bow:

"Criticism is necessary and useful; it is often indispensable; but it can never take the place of action, or be even a poor substitute for it. The function of the mere critic is of very subordinate usefulness. It is the doer of deeds who actually counts in the battle for life, and not the man who looks on and says how the fight ought to be fought, without himself sharing the stress and the danger." ~ Theodore Roosevelt (1894)


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> You'd really like it if the people who didn't meet your personal seal of approval would just go away, huh? And you waste a lot of words on trying to define "your" space, "defending" it from meanies and big babies who just want to make others miserable. The many ironies of your positions always seem to go right over your head.
> 
> Bottom line: How about you mind your business and let me handle mine?



it's more like what kind of plan is "if i can't have it no one can?"


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Technically Dan is a critic (music). It's a valid life choice/perspective, even if not one you or I would aspire to (well, _long_ ago I was a food and wine critic but that was more about the freebies :blush Players take the field and listen to their teammates and coaches; sometimes even their opponents. Everything else is just noise to be screened out. I'll defer to the "Big Stick" here in this larval but still brilliant version of his 1910 speech at the Sorbonne. :bow:



i also do movies and ignorami


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> who just want to make others miserable



this is key because you don't make others miserable, you just waste your time


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

Santaclear said:


> somewhat in response to this thread but it was shut down for that reason (being women's "locker room" conversation.)



if that's why it was shut down that was really stupid and it shouldn't have been. but i could imagine other scenarios.


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

i can't find the thread in question. removed? but this is kind of what i was saying. i shouldn't have to travel elsewhere to evaluate comments_ in this thread_. take it up with the mods privately, it does you no good


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 5, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> You'd really like it if the people who didn't meet your personal seal of approval would just go away, huh? And you waste a lot of words on trying to define "your" space, "defending" it from meanies and big babies who just want to make others miserable. The many ironies of your positions always seem to go right over your head.
> 
> Bottom line: How about you mind your business and let me handle mine?



I can't speak for anyone else, but this is the FA/FFA forum, it's got its own mods and its own set of rules. Comparing what happens on here with another forum is the proverbial apples and oranges. This thread has got nothing to do with any other on any other forum. It's like the notion that it's ok to make fun of fetishists because you can't talk about weight loss. One thing has nothing to do with the other. If you're mad about another thread on another forum being locked, why not take it up with the mods over there? Why come here to a place where many of the posters don't even know what your'e talking about?

From what I've observed of your behaviour on Dims, you seem to take some special pleasure in not minding your own business. You come onto a board for FA/FFA and complain and criticize our discussion. You go onto the health board and talk about buying cigarettes, and you start threads on the Weight Board whose only point is making fun of another thread that was started a protected area of that board. When you want to make a massive joke out of things that matter to other people, it tends to piss them off.

Bottom line is you don't mind your own business, you try to mind everyone else's and when somebody calls you out on it, you throw a fit and do a 180 into playing victim.


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

yeah, that's basically it.

fascinita is not truly one of the dregs of this board and i'm sure she thinks my habits are worse, but her arguments are most engaging when they're not begrudged ME TOOs.

i mean i don't like to mind my own business either. i really don't want her to think i'm not up for critical debates - believe me, no victim here.


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

and fyi, a penis vs. wallet thread sounds funny. i wouldn't erase it. but it's also not a good look for women to play into one of the dumber stereotypes some men actually believe. hi kieowen!


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Dec 5, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> i also do movies and ignorami



Interesting. Together or separately? Or do you just review Tom Green movies?

1. ignorami def. What ignoramuses think is the plural of ignoramus because it sounds better. Should they not be so ignorant to look it up in a common dictionary, they will see just how wrong they are. Term used by ignoramuses.

S'OK though. I knew what you meant.


----------



## Santaclear (Dec 5, 2009)

Loves, no one's taking your damn fetish board away. You don't get to define who can post on what forum and for what reasons. 

You guys seem to think the forums are only for you. Can the hysteria.

James already said the matter is being discussed at present so wait and see what is decided.


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

Santaclear said:


> \You guys seem to think the forums are only for you. Can the hysteria.



this is a fair criticism


----------



## Santaclear (Dec 5, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> this is a fair criticism



Fascinita's my girlfriend. I want her to be happy here so I can continue coming to Dimensions to oppress women.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 5, 2009)

Santaclear said:


> Loves, no one's taking your damn fetish board away. You don't get to define who can post on what forum and for what reasons.
> 
> You guys seem to think the forums are only for you. Can the hysteria.
> 
> James already said the matter is being discussed at present so wait and see what is decided.



Lol...you guys would be the first to get up in arms if somebody used the term "hysteria" about you.

Nobody thinks the forums are "only for" themselves. However it's pretty reasonable to expect that they're used for their intended purpose and for their stated audience. When she makes a joke out of everything and ridicules posts on protected forums, she deserves to be called out on it. It's funny how you're the first to harass people about their inability to withstand criticism and bullying and when you or your GF get criticised, you launch into your own hysterics.


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

Santaclear said:


> Fascinita's my girlfriend. I want her to be happy here so I can continue coming to Dimensions to oppress women.



you know, i agreed harder with this seemingly objective post when you didn't as fish would say, show your cards


----------



## Santaclear (Dec 5, 2009)

Bottom line is Fasc is allowed to post on this thread and call bullshit where there is bullshit.


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

does she want to call bullshit on this thread though or does she want to have her own thread?


----------



## Santaclear (Dec 5, 2009)

Geez. Read my first post again and your two posts I was responding to. You were screaming she shouldn't post.


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

i just mean that yeah, in context i now see What That Was About

but i still don't see if she wants to keep the bbw forum thread or to remove this one, which is why it comes off as agitation for agitation's sake

(something i'd know about)


----------



## mossystate (Dec 5, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> double standards suck but you know what sucks more? trying to level the quota by complaining and reporting.



I had reported a couple of posts on this thread. However, I did not mention I had done it. I don't see where anybody else ( could be wrong...have not read every post ) mentioned they had reported anything. How is it you know? Are you just assuming? Hmmmmmm...very interesting. 

---

As for the " this is our forum, we have our own mods..so..there! ". The reason that I personally said something about it, out in the open, is that I was under the impression that the basics of moderating on Dimensions was not up to individual mods. If it is not the case, then how can people possibly understand the rules, if they can move one forum up or down...and it is a completely different landscape/set of rules. Seems that so much of the messes created comes from nobody being on the same page. Sometimes, when you see how different people are being treated, you want to come out in the light of day...and say something.


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 5, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> double standards suck but you know what sucks more? trying to level the quota by complaining and reporting.





exile in thighville said:


> take it up with the mods privately



With all due respect, Dan...

Which one is it? Should I report/complain or _not_ report/complain?

And how do you know what I've taken up with the mods or not? And what do you know about my motives? And why do I need to render accounts to you personally about it?

You're like the guy that pours a cup of coffee over the head of the guy who's picketing the sidewalk for fair wages.

Now it turns out you just want to "see" whether I want a "Wallet vs. Penis" thread? If you'd asked nicely, I would've been glad to explain myself.

Please, stop. You'll give me agita.



exile in thighville said:


> i just mean that yeah, in context i now see What That Was About
> 
> but i still don't see if she wants to keep the bbw forum thread or to remove this one, which is why it comes off as agitation for agitation's sake
> 
> (something i'd know about)


----------



## Forgotten_Futures (Dec 5, 2009)

*sighs* Would it be at all possible to return to the OT of this thread and take the politically correct/incorrect argument somewhere else? (Perhaps the Hyde Park board?)


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> With all due respect, Dan...
> 
> Which one is it? Should I report/complain or _not_ report/complain?



take it up with the mods and not the participants in a comparable thread?

i'd say never report. reporting is the most pathetic thing someone on a "discussion" board could possibly do. i feel bad for any adult who feels the need to tattle on people they could just as well ignore. especially when conrad's made clear he only deletes a tiny percent of people who aren't spam. this means if anyone's getting banned, the mods are well aware of that person already and they've taken it under careful consideration. you're only giving unpaid mods more of a hassle by not just exercising your right to not participate in an argument you can't handle with your wits alone.

but do what you will.


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> You're like the guy that pours a cup of coffee over the head of the guy who's picketing the sidewalk for fair wages.



unfair wages is a universal cause of alarm. so's anti-fat rhetoric. a tiny cabal complaining about a fat admirer's privately-run message board is less noble.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 5, 2009)

Santaclear said:


> Bottom line is Fasc is allowed to post on this thread and call bullshit where there is bullshit.



This whole notion of "I can post wherever I want" is the new Dims black.

If she can't see that posting about buying cigarettes on the health board is offensive, or she can't see that ridiculing a thread on the Erotic Weight Gain forum is going to be offensive, she needs to. When she ridicules everything and everyone on this board and them comes here and whineasses about respect, she is fair game.

This forum is for FA and FFA. If she doesn't fall into either category, and only comes here to complain, whine, bitch, and moan, she's going to have to learn to deal with opposition.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 5, 2009)

lol @ your "concern" for the mods, Dan. 

If you were truly concerned, perhaps you'd make more of an effort to be a bit less of an unpleasantly, hysterically shrieking banshee yourself, eh? Quite literally: I don't understand why *you* haven't been banned. You've broken just about every rule established here.

Oh, and btw: No need to feel bad. I love reporting your posts (the ones that clearly, obviously break the rules, that is). I'll continue loving it as I continue doing so. Don't cry for me, Argentina.


----------



## katorade (Dec 5, 2009)

The fact that this place is run like a series of shopping centers in close proximity and bothers to call itself a mall is far more ridiculous than any complaints people have because of the resulting clusterfuck.


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 5, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> This whole notion of "I can post wherever I want" is the new Dims black.



i'm ok with people posting whatever/wherever they want - this is what i want fascinita to realize. but if you say something stupid, you will get called on it and told how stupid you are. i expect the same in return. and then we go round until we tire and retire. but this goes double if you're on the fa forum, for fas, where the point is for us to have a place to congregate and not feel as threatened by outside factors. 

but instead of just telling someone how stupid they are, sometimes i tell them how futile they are instead, like that they're handling their problem wrong by trying to spite a thread or mods when they really just want to punish certain people. 

like, you can keep trying to catch me in something that will get me (or anyone) banned (and hey it may pay off eventually right? that's what your fingers are crossed for isn't it?) but in the interim you're only giving mods a fuckload of extra thankless work about the same people over and over. and dims mods who i've met have concurred to me before that frivolous reporting does not curry favor.


----------



## Leonard (Dec 6, 2009)

Forgotten_Futures said:


> *sighs* Would it be at all possible to return to the OT of this thread and take the politically correct/incorrect argument somewhere else? (Perhaps the Hyde Park board?)



Sounds good to me.

I initially voted for face over figure, but something just didn't feel right after I did. I mean, I wouldn't want to date someone I thought had an ugly face, but a sexy bod's essential too! Such confusion...

After reading Les Toil's post about "Pee-Wee Herman in an evening gown" though, I'd definitely have to say, if it really came down to it, and I can't imagine any reality in which it actually would, I would choose figure over face. I guess, thinking back, I have dated girls whose faces weren't a perfect ten but whose bodies were gorgeous, and that suited me just fine. I have never, however, dated a thin girl without any curves with a pretty face. It's just never happened. So, that must say something about where I stand on this topic. 

As for the other stuff going on in this thread, let's cut it out. If certain responses have been offensive to some, fine, but the topic itself is hypothetical, harmless fun. If you don't like the topic or the thread's content, no one is required to participate.


----------



## Blockierer (Dec 6, 2009)

The answer of that questions is at least 24.000 yo. 
I voted for this. Shame on me. :doh:


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 6, 2009)

i don't see why anyone would get mad at answering "figure" when it's pretty well known there are far more people who get laid because of their body (hence the stigma) and despite their looks than the other way around.

there's not someone for everyone but that's mostly based on personality - there's always going to be "ugly" and "desperate" people and people who just want someone to settle with regardless of looks. there's (hopefully) not always going to be people who will settle for a jerk.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Dec 6, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> i don't see why anyone would get mad at answering "figure" when it's pretty well known there are far more people who get laid because of their body (hence the stigma) and despite their looks than the other way around.
> 
> there's not someone for everyone but that's mostly based on personality - there's always going to be "ugly" and "desperate" people and people who just want someone to settle with regardless of looks. *there's (hopefully) not always going to be people who will settle for a jerk.*



That'd kinda damage your chance of polluting the future gene pool though, wouldn't it Dan?  I keed, of course!


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 6, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> but instead of just telling someone how stupid they are, sometimes i tell them how futile they are instead, like that they're handling their problem wrong by trying to spite a thread or mods when they really just want to punish certain people.



And then you go, like, _POW_! And then you go, like, _ZOWIE_!


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 6, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> And then you go, like, _POW_! And then you go, like, _ZOWIE_!




*eyeroll*

Do you seriously think it's ok for you to go anywhere you like and launch criticsim and ridicule and start crying when somebody calls you out for it?

Yeah you can post where you want, but when you violate the spirit of the boards by posting things that ridicule posts on protected forums, you need to be prepared for the backlash.

When you go to forums that are not geared towards you, if you choose to post, TRY and stay respectful. When you don't...once again...prepare for backlash.


----------



## mergirl (Dec 6, 2009)

See though, i thought the F/Fa board would be different. I thought the "what would you rather fuck.. a face or a body?" type threads would be more in line on the weight board. 
If the two boards become so simmilar then both boards become diluted. I origionally though the Fa board would be about issues that Fas face and talk about our experiences without resulting to objectifying the people we love. There is the weightboard for that.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Dec 6, 2009)

mergirl said:


> See though, i thought the F/Fa board would be different. I thought the "what would you rather fuck.. a face or a body?" type threads would be more in line on the weight board.
> If the two boards become so simmilar then both boards become diluted. I origionally though the Fa board would be about issues that Fas face and talk about our experiences without resulting to objectifying the people we love. There is the weightboard for that.



Exactly.....


----------



## Fascinita (Dec 6, 2009)

mergirl said:


> See though, i thought the F/Fa board would be different. I thought the "what would you rather fuck.. a face or a body?" type threads would be more in line on the weight board.
> If the two boards become so simmilar then both boards become diluted. I origionally though the Fa board would be about issues that Fas face and talk about our experiences without resulting to objectifying the people we love. There is the weightboard for that.



Thankfully, it looks like the mods *are* going to look into it. All anyone can do is respectfully point out problems to the mods and hope for the best. 

Sure, not everyone wants to let that happen, but I think at this point there's a good chance the mods will, once they've reviewed the thread and talked it over, take some action.

Even if nothing happens, how cool is it that even the worst naysayers won't stop the respectful use of reason?


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 6, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> That'd kinda damage your chance of polluting the future gene pool though, wouldn't it Dan?  I keed, of course!



i will never ever ever have a disgusting revolting fucking kid


----------



## Santaclear (Dec 6, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> *eyeroll*
> Do you seriously think it's ok for you to go anywhere you like and launch criticsim and ridicule and start crying when somebody calls you out for it?
> Yeah you can post where you want, but when you violate the spirit of the boards by posting things that ridicule posts on protected forums, you need to be prepared for the backlash.
> When you go to forums that are not geared towards you, if you choose to post, TRY and stay respectful. When you don't...once again...prepare for backlash.



Very refreshing lecture!


----------



## Santaclear (Dec 6, 2009)

oops......


----------



## Santaclear (Dec 6, 2009)

..........


----------



## tonynyc (Dec 6, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Exactly.....





Santaclear said:


> ..........



*H*ell: enough of this bickering ... answers are needed

Loss for words Santa ... out with it _"Face or Figure_". 

Greenie: _"Big Wallet or Big Peen". _


----------



## TraciJo67 (Dec 6, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> And then you go, like, _POW_! And then you go, like, _ZOWIE_!



Golly Gee Willikers, Fascinita. Thighs kinda sorta respects you, more than the rest of the ignorant ancient crones who make no sense and don't do a thing for his libido. Can't you be a little nicer? You think you'd be ... grateful, 'n shit.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Dec 6, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> i will never ever ever have a disgusting revolting fucking kid



And the whole world rests a little easier tonight!  THANkS, Dan!! SRSLY!


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 6, 2009)

having kids is the most unbelievably selfish revolting thing

world's overpopulated and underfunded as it is, at least adopt if you don't believe in euthanasia and don't even start me on the educational system


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 7, 2009)

mergirl said:


> See though, i thought the F/Fa board would be different. I thought the "what would you rather fuck.. a face or a body?" type threads would be more in line on the weight board.
> If the two boards become so simmilar then both boards become diluted. I origionally though the Fa board would be about issues that Fas face and talk about our experiences without resulting to objectifying the people we love. There is the weightboard for that.



this is an issue for FA, because it's a discussion (or it was a discussion before the usual suspects invaded it and derailed it) about the importance of a particular body type to ones sexuality, and in part a discussion about an FA's potential willingness or even ability to be turned on without that particular body type if the woman's face was extremely pretty. I don't see what is wrong with FA's hashing that out. Maybe some of these men have gone to bashes or BBW clubs and been hit on by women who were pretty but they found themselves conflicted because the knew they were only turned on by women above a certain size. 

There have been many discussions on Dims revolving in one manner or another about the importance of fat, ranging from worry over what would happen to attraction if somebody lost weight, being frustrated over a lack of attraction post weight loss, even FA coming to terms with having to discontinue a relationship because the woman was not fat enough, and discussions over whether or not one is "bisizual" and able to be turned on by somebody with a smaller body if there were other factors involved. I don't think this is any different.


----------



## mergirl (Dec 7, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Thankfully, it looks like the mods *are* going to look into it. All anyone can do is respectfully point out problems to the mods and hope for the best.
> 
> Sure, not everyone wants to let that happen, but I think at this point there's a good chance the mods will, once they've reviewed the thread and talked it over, take some action.
> 
> Even if nothing happens, how cool is it that even the worst naysayers won't stop the respectful use of reason?


In my experience, threads that have caused upset and complaint are closed 'while' the mods discuss it...why has that not happened in this case? I posted an invite to a queer party on the main board that was closed almost instantly.. why could that not have stayed until the mods decided what to do with it?... Its a funny old world... queer parties=instantly closed thread and intense discussion. Objectification of people that causes upset=The thread stays open while mods take a few days to mull it over. 
Whatever goes on behind that magic curtain?


----------



## mergirl (Dec 7, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> this is an issue for FA, because it's a discussion (or it was a discussion before the usual suspects invaded it and derailed it) about the importance of a particular body type to ones sexuality, and in part a discussion about an FA's potential willingness or even ability to be turned on without that particular body type if the woman's face was extremely pretty. I don't see what is wrong with FA's hashing that out. Maybe some of these men have gone to bashes or BBW clubs and been hit on by women who were pretty but they found themselves conflicted because the knew they were only turned on by women above a certain size.
> 
> There have been many discussions on Dims revolving in one manner or another about the importance of fat, ranging from worry over what would happen to attraction if somebody lost weight, being frustrated over a lack of attraction post weight loss, even FA coming to terms with having to discontinue a relationship because the woman was not fat enough, and discussions over whether or not one is "bisizual" and able to be turned on by somebody with a smaller body if there were other factors involved. I don't think this is any different.


Its different because its not talking about a preference or sexuality but is talking about objectifying people. I can see how this would upset fat people. I think i would be upset if someone was discussing the fact that although my face looked like a bulldog chewing a wasp someone would fuck me because my body was ok.. or if i had a nice face they could 'overlook' the fact my body disgusted them. Both options are just nasty and horrible and really don't install me with self worth here.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Dec 7, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Its different because its not talking about a preference or sexuality but is talking about objectifying people. I can see how this would upset fat people. I think i would be upset if someone was discussing the fact that although my face looked like a bulldog chewing a wasp someone would fuck me because my body was ok.. or if i had a nice face they could 'overlook' the fact my body disgusted them. Both options are just nasty and horrible and really don't install me with self worth here.



Discussions about sexuality are not de facto discussions about objectification, and absolutely not about anyone's worth or value. Sexuality is innate, it's either there or it's not. Nobody would ever say "A thin person is awful" or "Thin people are by nature less valuable human beings than fat people", it's just a matter of what an FA is or is not _attracted to._ 

And I disagree it's nasty or horrible to break down something as basic as sexuality and sexual attraction. It's entirely possible that somebody would think about a particular person in such a way as to think about positives and negatives or to think about whether or not less desirable things could be overlooked. As has been discussed in threads about polyamory, many people think it's not possible for any one partner to be a total package. What is wrong with finding somebody's body appealing but not their face or the other way around and thinking about if the attraction to either could overcome the lack of attraction to the other?

It's also possible that sexual attraction may be at odds with practicality. One man on here posted about only being truly aroused by SSBBW but also said he was interested in having a girlfriend and liked to do a lot of active things like hiking that a very large woman might not be able to keep up. So what is wrong with him hashing out the notion that he might go on a date with a woman who would make a good activity companion but who might not fulfill him sexually? I've dated a couple of men who were MILF Hunters (men with a fetish for older women) but obviously there would be a problem if they wanted kids ten years down the road. The sexual component would be there but not the practical component. I see that as no different from a straight female considering compromising on having a "sexual spark" because a guy was rich or conversely overlooking a man's social status or income because the sex was so mindblowing.

So if FAs are talking about the importance of fat to overall attraction, that is not objectifying, it's just talking amongst themselves about their sexuality. Also keep in mind one commonly expressed FA fear is being considered shallow or narrow minded for insisting on a fat partner or being unwilling to "overlook" it if somebody is smaller than they like. Look at how many men get beaten up if they come on here and get upset over a woman's desire to lose weight. It's clearly a valid concern, so I think allowing people to hash that out with like minded individuals is a positive and helpful thing.


----------



## Marietta (Dec 7, 2009)

I'm a newbie here and am going to tiptoe past obvious personal feuds at a safe distance.  But I'm both a woman and an FA, and I'm inclined to think that either both of the threads in question qualify as "locker-room talk" or neither does. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with being attracted or not attracted to certain things, but a lot of people (predominantly but not all men) act like anyone they personally don't want to fuck is a repulsive creature and make comments about paper bags or being nauseated or the hilarity of someone thinking their genitals could possibly satisfy somebody. I don't think things like that have shit to do with admiration, and if I felt obligated to stick a tarp over part of my partner before I could get off, the least asshatted course of action would seem to be breaking up/deciding to stay friends and going off to masturbate. I don't think either question is automatically irrelevant/inappropriate, but it doesn't seem conducive to anything good to use a protected forum to insult swathes of people like some respondents have. (And there's the whole issue of the noisy minority of guys who honestly seem to think women they aren't sexually interested in aren't worth shit, which seemed to seep into this.)

I'm somewhat "bisizual" and while I'm a great fan of fabulous bodies, a lovely face can grab attention like nothing else, and there are a lot of things to like about most women's bodies. ^_^ But I've fallen for more than one person who didn't resemble my physical ideal at all. I find that once you do fall for someone, their previously-ordinary nose or butt can be the sexiest-looking thing on Earth.


----------



## James (Dec 7, 2009)

This thread is being temporarily closed because it has descended into fighting. 

I am not closing the thread due to its original topic. 

The underlying issues that have been brought to my attention by several posters via PM (and reported posts) are being discussed amongst mods and we haven't collectively reached any concrete conclusions thus far. There are many facets to this discussion and it will probably take a while longer yet.

Thanks for your patience and understanding that it will take time to resolve.


----------



## James (Dec 11, 2009)

(_The following has been posted to all current threads for informational purposes only. Please refrain from replying to this post in this thread. If you have questions please PM me. These rule changes have been brought about following significant deliberation between Dimensions moderators and are effective immediately in relation to all future posts._)




> The rules of this forum have been updated. I would encourage forum users to read the full text but in short, the main changes are the following
> 
> Threads or posts considered to be outside of the FA/FFA forum remit will be edited or deleted. Threads will not be moved to other forums. Please consider this before posting. Contact me via PM if you are unsure before posting.
> Discussion of sexual topics must not contain identities other than your own. Excessive objectification or crudeness will also be edited or removed. Keep things respectful.
> ...


----------



## James (Dec 11, 2009)

I'm re-opening this thread. 

I would strongly urge everyone to acquaint themselves with the updated rules for the forum before continuing discussion on the subject. Posts that cross the line regarding respect for those we admire as FA/FFAs, or whose content belittles FA/FFA discussion of their aesthetics will be moderated in line with these updated rules.


----------



## mergirl (Dec 11, 2009)

So.. would you rather fuck a face or a body?
The question remains.


----------



## comaseason (Dec 11, 2009)

mergirl said:


> So.. would you rather fuck a face or a body?
> The question remains.



I'd rather fuck a whole person.

You need to stop reading American Psycho.


----------



## kioewen (Dec 11, 2009)

mergirl said:


> So.. would you rather fuck a face or a body?
> The question remains.



Well, that wasn't _my_ question.


----------



## exile in thighville (Dec 12, 2009)

mergirl said:


> So.. would you rather fuck a face or a body?
> The question remains.



give me disembodied both and ten minutes if you really wanna know


----------



## mergirl (Dec 12, 2009)

comaseason said:


> I'd rather fuck a whole person.
> 
> You need to stop reading American Psycho.


indeed. I would rather just have a wank while wearing a spine stole.



kioewen said:


> Well, that wasn't _my_ question.


No it was just a joke.



exile in thighville said:


> give me disembodied both and ten minutes if you really wanna know


Yes. thats what i thought.


----------



## nykspree8 (Dec 12, 2009)

mergirl said:


> So.. would you rather fuck a face or a body?
> The question remains.



Can i pick the head and body of my choosing and fuse them together  ??


----------



## mergirl (Dec 12, 2009)

nykspree8 said:


> Can i pick the head and body of my choosing and fuse them together  ??


oh. I never thought aboout that..Like a mythological human. I don't see why not!!


----------



## Wagimawr (Dec 12, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Like a mythological human.


lol centaur porn


----------



## Jon Blaze (Dec 12, 2009)

Don't be hatin' on Centaurs!







Motaro will beat 'cha ass!


----------



## Wagimawr (Dec 12, 2009)

MOTARO



WINS

Flawless victory!

...yikes, images...


----------



## rollhandler (Dec 13, 2009)

Verdant said:


> The two are connected. If a woman has a really attractive body, her face just tends to fit in almost no matter what. Similarly, if a woman has a really pretty face it tends to make her whole body look cute. That's why some women just look attractive for no reason in particular.





thatgirl08 said:


> I don't agree with that Verdant. Are you saying that if you see a very pretty thin woman its the same as seeing a very pretty fat woman then?



My taste runs toward SSBBW fat women. So for the sake of the question and my response I am saying that I could accept a smaller bbw with a pretty face that compliments her figure over an SSBBW that is more my preference if her face did not complete the picture of her figure in terms of beauty. This by no means implies that even though I can find a thin woman attractive that I would date her if I found her to be more facially attractive than her BBW counterpart, because her face does not compliment or complete her figure in the way that gets my motor humming. In my mind a thin attractive woman is just a pretty face, but not aesthetically pleasing in terms of figure. At the very minimum she must be fat to be considered relationship material or at least a smaller version of my preferred visual aesthetic.


----------



## disconnectedsmile (Dec 15, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> I don't agree with that Verdant. Are you saying that if you see a very pretty thin woman its the same as seeing a very pretty fat woman then?



i can't speak for Verdant, but i can speak for myself (and hope it's not too late to address this portion of the discussion.

when i see a skinny woman with a pretty face, i can admit she's pretty... from an objective standpoint. there will be no sexual attraction to her (read: skinny girls don't give me boners), but i'd understand that she was pretty.


----------



## mergirl (Dec 15, 2009)

disconnectedsmile said:


> i can't speak for Verdant, but i can speak for myself (and hope it's not too late to address this portion of the discussion.
> 
> when i see a skinny woman with a pretty face, i can admit she's pretty... from an objective standpoint. there will be no sexual attraction to her (read: skinny girls don't give me boners), but i'd understand that she was pretty.


What about if you saw a handsom fat or thin guy? could you find them pretty or handsome even?


----------



## disconnectedsmile (Dec 15, 2009)

mergirl said:


> What about if you saw a handsom fat or thin guy? could you find them pretty or handsome even?



oh, most definitely.
for example, George Clooney is a dreamboat.
and that Jack Black is fucking adorable.


----------



## mergirl (Dec 15, 2009)

disconnectedsmile said:


> oh, most definitely.
> for example, George Clooney is a dreamboat.
> and that Jack Black is fucking adorable.


I agree. :wubu:


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Dec 15, 2009)

stop fancying men!!!



mergirl said:


> I agree. :wubu:


----------



## mergirl (Dec 16, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> stop fancying men!!!


tee hee..now you have made it all taboo and sexy!! Anyway, you are the more the man fancier than i, what with your russel brand and john travolta obsession.. (btw, they are both men that lezzers fancy!)


----------



## PYT_bigandbeautiful (Dec 17, 2009)

Face would be over body for me. If I'm going to be waking up to someone....I don't want to be scared of them at first sight. lol...Plus....I have a thing for beautiful eyes,lips,jawline...etc etc So, it works for me.


----------



## PYT_bigandbeautiful (Dec 17, 2009)

mergirl said:


> tee hee..now you have made it all taboo and sexy!! Anyway, you are the more the man fancier than i, what with your russel brand and john travolta obsession.. (btw, they are both men that lezzers fancy!)



So, Russel Brand is ....godddddd....soooo sexy! Man.....why did you bring up dessert? lol mwahaha Russel brand and whip cream....and hand cu---nvm

continue your conversation as normal


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Dec 18, 2009)

Some interesting research re faces: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/weird/Hot-or-Not--79546727.html


----------



## mergirl (Dec 18, 2009)

I read that we rate the attractiveness of a face from the first few weeks of life. We have a preference for symmetrical faces because we form prototypes for what a face should look like and so adhere to this preference for symmetry as we get older.


----------



## kioewen (Dec 18, 2009)

I think the research in that article is pretty persuasive. There are other qualities that it doesn't address, such as whether fat in the female face helps beautify it. I think it definitely does, and I'd say most people instinctively do too (think of dolls' faces), if they're attracted to women. On the other hand, people who are attracted to men (whether they're men or women) seem to like the chiselled look instead, which is probably why the fashion world loves female models with androgynous-looking hard faces.

But for symmetry and all, I'd wager that research is correct.


----------



## butch (Dec 28, 2009)

kioewen said:


> I think the research in that article is pretty persuasive. There are other qualities that it doesn't address, such as whether fat in the female face helps beautify it. I think it definitely does, and I'd say most people instinctively do too (think of dolls' faces), if they're attracted to women. On the other hand, people who are attracted to men (whether they're men or women) seem to like the chiselled look instead, which is probably why the fashion world loves female models with androgynous-looking hard faces.
> 
> But for symmetry and all, I'd wager that research is correct.



I disagree with your premise about fat faces and gender (I'd bet every FFA at Dims would, too), but what are you trying to claim about the fashion industry? If it is another tired variation on the idea that gay men run the fashion world and they make all the women conform to their beliefs about attractiveness, and if it weren't for those pesky gay men, all women in media would be plump luscious BBWs, then knock it off. Its a terrible, erroneous stereotype, and it also ignores the fact that 'the gays' have a thriving bear/fat subculture themselves.

FWIW, fat in faces, to me at least, equals youth, regardless of the gender of the person with the fat face. Youth, to me, is not a gendered commodity, so I appreciate fat masculine faces and fat feminine faces the same.


----------



## Cors (Dec 28, 2009)

butch said:


> I disagree with your premise about fat faces and gender (I'd bet every FFA at Dims would, too), but what are you trying to claim about the fashion industry? If it is another tired variation on the idea that gay men run the fashion world and they make all the women conform to their beliefs about attractiveness, and if it weren't for those pesky gay men, all women in media would be plump luscious BBWs, then knock it off. Its a terrible, erroneous stereotype, and it also ignores the fact that 'the gays' have a thriving bear/fat subculture themselves.



This! 

Also, Kioewen, if you are at all familiar with catwalk models, you will know that models with round-ish faces and traditionally feminine, doll-like features (eg. Lily Cole, Gemma Ward) have been extremely popular for quite a while now, more so than the ones with chiselled, traditionally masculine features like Gisele.






This is Lily Cole. Does she look the slightest bit manly to you? 

I am attracted to women only and I love androgynous faces. Doll faces don't do much for me. I know straight FFAs and even non-FFAs who tell me they prefer a guy who looks soft and even "pretty".


----------



## exile in thighville (Jan 4, 2010)

just wondering, does anyone here own up to intentionally hooking up w girls for their bangin body and overlooking a face that - for the sake of no negativity let's not say ugly - isn't their ideal?

i've been with a few. who cares? you find something you like about someone and bang it. i never really saw the point of caring how _exact_ someone looks when the end goal is a romp or two. if you're marrying them that's a different story. it's not about standards though, it's about meeting your personal demands and making yourself happy.


----------



## xysoseriousx (Jul 2, 2010)

This is tough, because my ideal BBW would have to be 400 pounds with a double stomach, huge thighs and arms and a pretty face, I will have to think about it.


----------

