# Define "well-proportioned" fat



## kayrae (May 28, 2009)

This topic came up during one of the SF meet-ups but we didn't really come up with the same conclusions. When you describe a fat person as well-proportioned... what are you actually saying? 

- A fat person who's fat all over? Fat face, fat arms, fat thighs, fat belly, fat fat fat fat fat...
- Are you remarking on shape? Fat tits, fat ass, narrow waist

You tell me. Or better yet, draw me a picture.


----------



## mithrandirjn (May 28, 2009)

Like you said, there's obviously no one answer, since everyone has their own tastes.

For me, it's some of the typical hourglass dimensions in the chest and butt, but I appreciate it when there's a nice soft belly to go along with it, and thick thighs. Probably why I always thought Syrianna was one of the hottest models online.


----------



## tonynyc (May 28, 2009)

kayrae said:


> This topic came up during one of the SF meet-ups but we didn't really come up with the same conclusions. When you describe a fat person as well-proportioned... what are you actually saying?
> 
> - A fat person who's fat all over? Fat face, fat arms, fat thighs, fat belly, fat fat fat fat fat...
> - Are you remarking on shape? Fat tits, fat ass, narrow waist
> ...



*
If I had to draw a conclusion on "well defined" it depends on the gender and what distinguishing features you want to describe. Most folks would think of "well defined" in describing the vascular cut-up look of bodybuilders;but, if we apply the term to the size acceptance community ... I would break down for each gender as follows 

1. For Women [Shapely curvy figure (hourglass, pear, busty,hippy)]

2. For Men [Burly, Lumberjack Type of Build- Weightlifter -Wrestler- Track & Field (ShotPut, HammerThrower, Discus) - Football Player- Powerlifter type of physique]

Just my humble opinion;but, would like to see what the other thoughts are....
*


----------



## AC4400CW (May 29, 2009)

I think it's a lot like whether something is truly art - you know it when you see it. There are many varying overall shapes and forms that are aesthetically pleasing to me, but the next FA may see it differently. One person's well-proportioned may be another's total turn-off, so it's no surprise to me your discussion didn't reach a consensus.


----------



## nykspree8 (May 29, 2009)

Heh, I was trying to explain to a friend who doesn't understand why I'm only attracted to bbws/ssbbws what "proportioned" for me means, which was an impossibility @[email protected] So he was like, "do you mean fat all over???" . And I guess to an extent, yeah that is what it means to me. I just like a bbw/ssbbw to be nice n' plump everywhere, that's just my preference. First and foremost I always look for a girl to be cute face-wise, but then it comes down to proportionality


----------



## Tooz (May 29, 2009)

From what I understand, with women, it's that no one feature is MUCH smaller or larger than the rest. Stomach balances boobs and butt, which are balanced by legs and arms, etc.


----------



## mergirl (May 29, 2009)

I would say that it would be in the wording. 'Well proportioned' would mean that some sort of personal preference would have to come in to play. 'proportioned' would probably mean fat all over as opposed to being fat in one place. Thats my 1p anyway (kinna like two cents but taking into consideration the ecconomy n all etc. )


----------



## KHayes666 (May 29, 2009)

kayrae said:


> This topic came up during one of the SF meet-ups but we didn't really come up with the same conclusions. When you describe a fat person as well-proportioned... what are you actually saying?
> 
> - A fat person who's fat all over? Fat face, fat arms, fat thighs, fat belly, fat fat fat fat fat...
> - Are you remarking on shape? Fat tits, fat ass, narrow waist
> ...



you really, REALLY don't want me to draw lol


----------



## exile in thighville (May 29, 2009)

my girlfriend.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (May 29, 2009)

Definition of well-proportioned - Anyone who makes me want to say "Well, hello there!" :happy:

Anyway SS/BBW shapes change so much from one position to another. Vertical proportions tend to shift dramatically in the horizontal. S'all good! :eat2:

At least it used to be.


----------



## BarbBBW (May 29, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Definition of well-proportioned - Anyone who makes me want to say "Well, hello there!" :happy:
> 
> Anyway SS/BBW shapes change so much from one position to another. Vertical proportions tend to shift dramatically in the horizontal. S'all good! :eat2:
> 
> At least it used to be.



Such a PERFECT Answer!!! You have been Repped!!:bow:


----------



## thatgirl08 (May 29, 2009)

Well proportioned = fat all over.. nothing that is way smaller or way bigger than anything else.


----------



## Chef (May 29, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> Definition of well-proportioned - Anyone who makes me want to say "Well, hello there!" :happy:
> 
> Anyway SS/BBW shapes change so much from one position to another. Vertical proportions tend to shift dramatically in the horizontal. S'all good! :eat2:
> 
> At least it used to be.



You stole my answer  and have therefore been repped.


----------



## Russ2d (May 29, 2009)

> Well proportioned = fat all over.. nothing that is way smaller or way bigger than anything else.



Yup

Some guys love these women (fat all over) but there are a lot of guys who adore out of proportion women; butt guys love girls with an exceptionally large tush. Belly guys want a girl with a huge belly etc. There's someone out there for everyone...


----------



## MisterGuy (May 29, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> my girlfriend.



OH ARE YOU DATING SOMEONE


----------



## KHayes666 (May 29, 2009)

MisterGuy said:


> OH ARE YOU DATING SOMEONE



FORGIVE ME FOR SHOUTING BUT FAILURE TO USE EAR PROTECTION HAS CAUSED SEVERE HEARING IMPAIRMENT!!!!


----------



## MisterGuy (May 29, 2009)

wat

also, primeval


----------



## kayrae (May 29, 2009)

I'm not asking this question to specifically validate my own size or shape. My question is to those of you who seek "well-proportioned" partners, to those of you who specifically use that description... what exactly is well-proportioned? Because in the thincentric world, well-proportioned means hourglass.


----------



## BarbBBW (May 29, 2009)

To Me, a well proportioned bbw is the "typical" hourglass BBW. big boobs, big ass, a nice tummy, thick leg and legs. Where the fat distribution just flows. Thats MO


----------



## ToniTails (May 29, 2009)

i think this means that no one asset supersedes the other, maybe?


----------



## Ernest Nagel (May 29, 2009)

kayrae said:


> I'm not asking this question to specifically validate my own size or shape. My question is to those of you who seek "well-proportioned" partners, to those of you who specifically use that description... what exactly is well-proportioned? Because in the thincentric world, well-proportioned means hourglass.



Kayrae, the thincentric world is far too obsessed with ideals and "models", imo. "Traditional" beauty is for those who lack the confidence to trust their own judgment. Why carry that narrow-minded habit into the FA/BBW world?

Individual tastes are wildly subjective. I've never felt the need to modify my tastes according to either the mythical "mainstream" or even my own previous preferences. Part of being an FA means I don't defer to others definitions of beauty. Height, weight, proportion, complexion, any and all other aesthetic aspects can be appreciated on a case by case basis. There's no "Barbie benchmark" for me to measure against. Perfect beauty doesn't have a specific shape any more than a perfect sunset is defined by a single color. I don't know if this will make sense to anyone but I'd say when a woman's soul fills her body all the way up, she's beautiful. Size and shape are incidental. (NOTE: I did NOT say irrelevant. )

If I had to choose one word to describe my taste in proportions it would be "biblical". Something about her should make me say "Oh, my G-d!". That absolutely includes her mind and other non-physical attributes. Get that out of the way and the rest is (was) details.


----------



## stan_der_man (May 29, 2009)

kayrae said:


> ...
> My question is to those of you who seek "well-proportioned" partners, to those of you who specifically use that description... what exactly is well-proportioned? Because in the thincentric world, well-proportioned means hourglass.



In my opinion and from what I've seen the term "well-proportioned" is for all practical purposes meaningless. It basically is whatever preference (body shape) the person prefers that is using the term. I've heard women with large breasts and thin shapely legs being referred to as "well-proportioned" from one guy, and then women with large legs, big butts and small breasts being referred to as "well-proportioned" from another guy.

In general terms, I think you are correct Kayrae. The thincentric world considers "well-proportioned" figures to be hourglass or pear shaped, I would also go so far as to say that along these lines (in general terms) the "well-proportioned" large sized figure is also considered hourglass or pear shaped.

The whole irony of this, IMO is that if you really look at a large sized woman's figure (or a thin woman for that matter...) there truly is no such thing as a "perfect" hourglass or pear shape. All women have slightly varying shapes one way or another, especially as a woman gains weight, one part of their body or another grows differently on each woman. I don't think you will be able to get a concrete definition of "well-proportioned", it's a crude descriptor at best, subject to a person's opinion.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (May 29, 2009)

My husband because he's well h............. oh wait we're talking about fat chicks? Never mind. :blush:


----------



## lovesgaininggirls (May 29, 2009)

I can't define well-proportioned, I just know what I like


----------



## ashmamma84 (May 29, 2009)

Hourglass, defined waist. Classic silhouette.


----------



## olwen (May 29, 2009)

Kayrae, To me it's subjective, which makes any definition kind of meaningless. It doesn't even make sense as a term for thin women in my opinion. I wouldn't worry over it too much.


----------



## bdog (May 30, 2009)

I think at the end of the day people just want to be overwhelmed by beauty.

It's like we all have this lost hazy memory of perfection and when we experience beauty the fog thins for the briefest of moments. And so the universe lures us on... and on... towards whatever was implanted in our souls (or genes) at the time of birth. And this message board has proven countless times that it's a very individual matter.

On a personal level I find that sometimes the girls I lust after aren't the ones I find the most beautiful. So not only do I think that an individual answer to this question is irrelevant, I can't even properly come up with one.

For good scientific investigation of the idea of "well proportioned" I suggest this article: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/biology/b103/f01/web1/ekanayake.html

It concludes:

"Biological evaluation of women based on the contours of their body for instance has been used to contend male preferences for certain categories of women like young (a.k.a. 'fertile' and 'healthy' women) that exclude a diverse segment of women out of the beauty paradigm. Thus, it could be argued that by biological categorization/separation of women as superior/inferior based on attractiveness, science becomes another tool to justify patriarchal practices that discriminate and subordinate women. This time on the grounds of biological quality."

Not sure if I'd go quite that far, but it's certainly worthy food for thought.


----------



## stan_der_man (May 30, 2009)

If a man expects a woman to be "well proportioned" than it's only fair that the man himself be "well portioned".


----------



## mergirl (May 30, 2009)

fa_man_stan said:


> If a man expects a woman to be "well proportioned" than it's only fair that the man himself be "well portioned".


oh i love you. Would you like to be an honourary lesbian? You are so one of those guys we 'let in'!!


----------



## William (May 30, 2009)

Hi Stan

What is creepy and nature is that people's left and right sides are not in exact proportion.

William




fa_man_stan said:


> In my opinion and from what I've seen the term "well-proportioned" is for all practical purposes meaningless. It basically is whatever preference (body shape) the person prefers that is using the term. I've heard women with large breasts and thin shapely legs being referred to as "well-proportioned" from one guy, and then women with large legs, big butts and small breasts being referred to as "well-proportioned" from another guy.
> 
> In general terms, I think you are correct Kayrae. The thincentric world considers "well-proportioned" figures to be hourglass or pear shaped, I would also go so far as to say that along these lines (in general terms) the "well-proportioned" large sized figure is also considered hourglass or pear shaped.
> 
> The whole irony of this, IMO is that if you really look at a large sized woman's figure (or a thin woman for that matter...) there truly is no such thing as a "perfect" hourglass or pear shape. All women have slightly varying shapes one way or another, especially as a woman gains weight, one part of their body or another grows differently on each woman. I don't think you will be able to get a concrete definition of "well-proportioned", it's a crude descriptor at best, subject to a person's opinion.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (May 30, 2009)

fa_man_stan said:


> If a man expects a woman to be "well proportioned" than it's only fair that the man himself be "well portioned".




STAN THE MAN!!:wubu::kiss2:


----------



## stan_der_man (May 30, 2009)

mergirl said:


> oh i love you. Would you like to be an honourary lesbian? You are so one of those guys we 'let in'!!



Why thank you Mergirl, my love right back at'cha... you know... in a feminine sort of way... :wubu: and GoldenDelicious also... ooh a threesome... wow... :wubu: ehem... anyhoo... I would be honoured to accept the title of honourary lesbian... Actually I'm already part of the 'in crowd' with the lesbians where I work. I'm not afraid to show my feminine side... and I know how to fix computers...



William said:


> Hi Stan
> 
> What is creepy and nature is that people's left and right sides are not in exact proportion.
> 
> William



That's a whole different subject William... that's mental contortion... 



Sandie_Zitkus said:


> STAN THE MAN!!:wubu::kiss2:



Thank you Sandie... You are way too kind, my love right back at'cha too... :wubu: but without Wayne... :blush: he's a good guy...but you know... nothin' personal...  One of these days I'll write a book of all the sayings I come up after drinking a few beers... I'll call it... "Stan's Book of Wise-Dumbs..." or something like that...




fa_man_stan said:


> ...
> 
> The whole irony of this, IMO is that if you really look at a large sized woman's figure (or a thin woman for that matter...) there truly is no such thing as a "perfect" hourglass or pear shape.
> 
> ...



BTW... Being the old married man I am, I don't "_really look at large sized women's figures_" other than my wife's of course... I'm just talkin' hypothetically here... ;-)


----------



## nykspree8 (May 30, 2009)

lovesgaininggirls said:


> I can't define well-proportioned, I just know what I like



This. It's hard to define one's personal description of what well-proportioned is - be it for a skinny chick or a fat chick. Like I said I like a girl to be fat all over. I love thick arms, legs, and nice big booty. If you happen to have an F cup and nice belly to go along with all that, then even better


----------



## liz (di-va) (May 30, 2009)

Ernest Nagel said:


> SS/BBW shapes change so much from one position to another. Vertical proportions tend to shift dramatically in the horizontal.


That is true. Mutability is the fat girl's watchword.


----------



## liz (di-va) (May 30, 2009)

kayrae said:


> I'm not asking this question to specifically validate my own size or shape. My question is to those of you who seek "well-proportioned" partners, to those of you who specifically use that description... what exactly is well-proportioned?



I never know what it means, either! Immediately becomes more confusing in fattyland...


----------



## Waxwing (May 30, 2009)

liz (di-va) said:


> I never know what it means, either! Immediately becomes more confusing in fattyland...



It doesn't really mean anything because it is completely adaptable to your personal preference in body type.

If I really really dig a 30-35-48 body, then to me that is "well-proportioned". I think that in general usage it's sort of synonymous with "evenly-distributed", but that's not as sexy a combination of words.


----------



## kayrae (May 31, 2009)

*ahem*

This "narrow-minded" idea was an actual discussion in an FA/BBW meet-up; furthermore, I didn't say anything about traditional beauty or perfect beauty. I opened up the topic to DIMs to compare answers. Please believe that my self-worth won't be completely crushed if a couple of FAs don't find my physique appealing. I most certainly know that other men find me attractive. I raised the topic here because the responses have been interesting.



Ernest Nagel said:


> Kayrae, the thincentric world is far too obsessed with ideals and "models", imo. "Traditional" beauty is for those who lack the confidence to trust their own judgment. *Why carry that narrow-minded habit into the FA/BBW world?*
> 
> Individual tastes are wildly subjective. I've never felt the need to modify my tastes according to either the mythical "mainstream" or even my own previous preferences. Part of being an FA means I don't defer to others definitions of beauty. Height, weight, proportion, complexion, any and all other aesthetic aspects can be appreciated on a case by case basis. There's no "Barbie benchmark" for me to measure against. Perfect beauty doesn't have a specific shape any more than a perfect sunset is defined by a single color.


----------



## The Orange Mage (May 31, 2009)

I think this is very similar to the phrase "fat but not sloppy" that some use to describe themselves. It's a loaded term and sadly...I think "well-proportioned" is just another "anything but an apple with toothpick legs" euphemism.


----------



## mergirl (May 31, 2009)

fa_man_stan said:


> Why thank you Mergirl, my love right back at'cha... you know... in a feminine sort of way... :wubu: and GoldenDelicious also... ooh a threesome... wow... :wubu: ehem... anyhoo... I would be honoured to accept the title of honourary lesbian... Actually I'm already part of the 'in crowd' with the lesbians where I work. I'm not afraid to show my feminine side... and I know how to fix computers...



Now, we defo need honourary lesbians who are good at computers. As for the threesome, i report bashfully yet arogantly (i AM only human) me n GD now have a threesome waiting list. Maby we should get a bash together?.. free love and bunting! You bring the moustache and we shall bring the 'hair the musical album' and the lesbianism.


----------



## lipmixgirl (Jun 3, 2009)

The Orange Mage said:


> I think this is very similar to the phrase "fat but not sloppy" that some use to describe themselves. It's a loaded term and sadly...I think "well-proportioned" is just another "anything but an apple with toothpick legs" euphemism.



from a completely academic standpoint, across human kind "well proportioned" correlates directly to the waist/hip ratio... which from the most primal innate human programming is indicative of fertility and fecundity...

the orange mage is definitely right on the money... from the standpoint of visual desirability in the fat world, pears and proportionals (full body even distribution of fat) are the most sought after as they have defined hip to waist ratios...

let it be known that even most "belly lovers" prefer their big bellies when they are accompanied by big hips, waists, thighs, and rears...

the term "sloppy" generally refers to "non-proportionally" fat... more often than not the classic apple body shape...

the big apple has spoken...
::exeunt:: :bow:


----------



## William (Jun 3, 2009)

HI LG

I think that many of the Guy Apples could be best described as a Apples with toothpick legs, many also have no butt which helps their pants in falling down more often 

Most Female Apples have some butt and proportionate legs 

I think that just in society at large that Fat Admiration can be just as distorted in its judgment of beauty. BBWs are require to have certain attribute and all BHMs are expected to be Burly.

William




lipmixgirl said:


> from a completely academic standpoint, across human kind "well proportioned" correlates directly to the waist/hip ratio... which from the most primal innate human programming is indicative of fertility and fecundity...
> 
> the orange mage is definitely right on the money... from the standpoint of visual desirability in the fat world, pears and proportionals (full body even distribution of fat) are the most sought after as they have defined hip to waist ratios...
> 
> ...


----------



## tonynyc (Jun 3, 2009)

William said:


> HI LG:
> BBWs are require to have certain attribute and all BHMs are expected to be Burly.
> William



*
or "Hulking" we can't forget our favorite "H" word for BHM.
Another word is "Beefy" 
*


----------



## kayrae (Jun 4, 2009)

I don't want to turn this into an insecurity thread. I firmly believe there's someone for everyone.


----------



## bdog (Jun 7, 2009)

i don't think my answer was bullshit kresta but here you go:

face is thin, or plump. both have their different appeals. i don't notice the neck much. then: big boobs, smaller waist, very big butt, large (but shapely) thighs, tapering down to small ankles again.
soft upper arms, tapering to thinner forearms.

i can be really particular... and women at different sizes are going to have different types of beauty to appreciate. a shapely thigh will lose some of it's shape as it gets bigger... and i can appreciate both for different reasons.

happy now?


----------



## lipmixgirl (Jun 7, 2009)

William said:


> HI LG
> 
> I think that many of the Guy Apples could be best described as a Apples with toothpick legs...
> 
> William




When looking at weight distribution from the generalized perspective, it is the exception that you will have a female apple or a male pear - NOT the NORM....

 a true apple shaped woman is built like a man.

a true pear shaped man is built like a woman.

thus, just by the genetic card - from innate hardwiring, the female apple and the male pear are the least visually desirable... Hence, "ill-proportioned".​
​ 


bdog said:


> face is thin, or plump. both have their different appeals. i don't notice the neck much. then: big boobs, smaller waist, very big butt, large (but shapely) thighs, tapering down to small ankles again.
> soft upper arms, tapering to thinner forearms.
> 
> i can be really particular... and women at different sizes are going to have different types of beauty to appreciate. a shapely thigh will lose some of it's shape as it gets bigger... and i can appreciate both for different reasons.




i think that bdog's commentary here is interesting and raises a point that i completely forgot to discuss...

the science of the beauty of the face... 

just as proportional body symmetry is indicative of how universally attractive an individual is, the same goes for the face.

the more symmetrical a face, the more beautiful.... 

fat distribution in the face and neck (a fat face and/or a fat neck) contributes to a distortion of features... Thus, detracting from the symmetry of the face. 

universally, amongst FAs, a thin face is most desirable, as the face maintains an uncorrupted symmetry....

The fatter the face and neck - especially amongst women - the less attractive and/or desirable the face is...


the big apple has spoken...
::exeunt:: :bow:


----------



## Tracii (Jun 7, 2009)

Fa Stan you get a :kiss2:from me on that eloquent answer.
"Low rider" would best decribe my shape.Big ass, big legs and small on top.


----------



## BarbBBW (Jun 7, 2009)

I think I am pretty "well proportioned" when I am standing,... when I am sitting,..hmmmm different story all together hahahahha


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jun 7, 2009)

lipmixgirl said:


> i think that bdog's commentary here is interesting and raises a point that i completely forgot to discuss...
> 
> the science of the beauty of the face...
> 
> ...



Um, since you said "universally" regarding FA's and I am both a lifelong FA and a card-carrying resident of this universe I want to take gross and pointed exception to your excerpted statements above. Srsly, WTF?? Are you basing your generalizations solely on KelliGirl or what?!? MANY FA's, myself included, find a cherubic face quite attractive! Double chins can be an equally appealing feature. :wubu: I'm not even gonna get into the "uncorrupted symmetry" BS because it's just nonsense. LMG I'm generally a fan of your posts but where did you come up with this utter crap? Then to compound the offense by referring to it as "science"? :doh:

While I'm at it just wondering what would have happened to a guy making such preposterous and hurtful assertions? How about a little gender parity in snarking here, ladies?


----------



## William (Jun 7, 2009)

Hi LP

I do not think that anything is exact, I am a guy-apple, but my legs are not thin and your legs in your profile are nice and plump and squeezable.

William 




lipmixgirl said:


> When looking at weight distribution from the generalized perspective, it is the exception that you will have a female apple or a male pear - NOT the NORM....
> 
> a true apple shaped woman is built like a man.
> 
> ...


​


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jun 7, 2009)

I don't think dissecting what that term means is valid. It is exactly what it implies.

However, what that means to people, and how strict some expect/want their partners to be within their personal view of the term is a very subjective thing. I don't think very many people pinpoint it down to mere inches though.

I personally think one can still be "Well-proportioned" while having a body part that is more prevelant than others, but it depends on the person and to what degree.

That being said, whether or not I interpret the trait as a perk on xyz person or a flaw on someone that doesn't have it is subjective.


----------



## bdog (Jun 7, 2009)

lipmixgirl said:


> i think that bdog's commentary here is interesting and raises a point that i completely forgot to discuss...
> 
> the science of the beauty of the face...
> 
> ...



1. beautiful faces are often symmetrical, but that doesn't mean that symmetry makes a beautiful face. and vice versa.

2. symmetry refers to the alignment of features on the left and the right side. you can be fat and symmetrical... or thin and asymmetrical. 

3. it's not universal at all. i remember some FAs saying Kelligirl's face looked weird... and others going crazy for it. personally, i see the appeal of both plump faces and thin faces.  one of the few cases where i'm bisizual.


----------



## Santaclear (Jun 7, 2009)

lipmixgirl said:


> thus, just by the genetic card - from innate hardwiring, the female apple and the male pear are the least visually desirable... Hence, "ill-proportioned".
> 
> i think that bdog's commentary here is interesting and raises a point that i completely forgot to discuss...
> the science of the beauty of the face...
> ...





Ernest Nagel said:


> Um, since you said "universally" regarding FA's and I am both a lifelong FA and a card-carrying resident of this universe I want to take gross and pointed exception to your excerpted statements above. Srsly, WTF?? Are you basing your generalizations solely on KelliGirl or what?!? MANY FA's, myself included, find a cherubic face quite attractive! Double chins can be an equally appealing feature. :wubu: I'm not even gonna get into the "uncorrupted symmetry" BS because it's just nonsense. LMG I'm generally a fan of your posts but where did you come up with this utter crap? Then to compound the offense by referring to it as "science"? :doh:



Lots of FAs can find fat faces uber attractive and do. Apple shapes too! Fat necks, fat anything. There aren't any hard scientific rules about this. Fat pretty people are pretty, first and foremost. :wubu:


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Jun 7, 2009)

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1195545#post1195545


----------



## tonynyc (Jun 8, 2009)

Santaclear said:


> Lots of FAs can find fat faces uber attractive and do. Apple shapes too! Fat necks, fat anything. There aren't any hard scientific rules about this. Fat pretty people are pretty, first and foremost. :wubu:



*It's not that there aren't any rules - it's that Scientific studies with respect to "Fat Admirers & Body size Preference" has been sparse. I only saw one study online by  Swami & Furnham  Journal of Sex Research.

" In brief, the study used line drawings of the female figure, & reported that a sample of British male FAs showed a preference for heavy-weight over normal- and light-weight figures when making judgments of physical attractiveness. The same sample also rated normal-weight figures as the healthiest, suggesting that FAs are making informed judgments about attractiveness ideals, independent of health perceptions. An important limitation of the study, however, was its use of line drawings that lacked ecological validity--that is, the stimuli used were deficient in depicting a range of body weights, and really only depicted body weights within a relatively narrow (normal-weight) range.

To overcome this limitation, this study examined the body size preferences of a community of FAs using photographic stimuli depicting women ranging in BMI from emaciated to obese, which allowed for a more precise evaluation of the preferences of FAs. Moreover, by comparing the preferences of FAs with an age- and BMI-matched control group, it was possible to examine whether there are differences in the range of figures considered attractive by FAs and non-FAs. Although this is in a sense tautological (i.e., FAs would be expected to idealize heavier individuals than non-FAs because the former are, by definition, more accepting of overweight), there are several reasons why this is important. Primarily, documenting the body size preferences of FAs will serve to highlight the variability of such preferences within contemporary societies, given that the bulk of psychological research has focused on cross-cultural differences (see Swami, 2007; Swami & Furnham, 2008).

Certainly, there is evidence to suggest that some groups within contemporary, Western society have ideals of body size that diverge from mainstream norms. For instance, Swami and Tovee (2006b, 2008) previously showed that lesbians and gay men idealize heavier and thinner bodies, respectively, compared with heterosexual women and men. Similarly, there is a raft of studies showing that ethnic minority groups define a range of body sizes as attractive, in stark contrast to the emphasis on thinness among (typically, Caucasian) majority groups (e.g., Allan, Mayo, & Michel, 1993; Flynn & Fitzgibbon, 1998; Kumanyika, Wilson, & Guilford-Davenport, 1993; Rubin, Fitts, & Becker, 2003). FAs, however, appear to idealize a significantly heavier body weight than any previously-studied group, although the range of body sizes that they consider attractive has not been examined before.

In short, then, we report the first systematic examination of the body size preferences of male FAs based on their ratings of ecologically valid photographic stimuli. Based on the previous review of the literature, we predicted that, in comparison with the control sample, FAs in this study would show a preference for a significantly higher ideal BMI, and that they would consider a wider range of body sizes to be physically attractive"..

See also

Swami, V. & Furnham, A. (in press). Big and beautiful: The body weight and shape preferences of "fat admirers." Archives of Sexual Behavior.

Other Links

Dr. Viren Swami*


----------



## bbwsrule (Jul 10, 2009)

x
I'llx
do thex
best I canx
to makex
it cl-x
ear whatx
one well prox
portioned figurex
might look like tox
me but others mix
ght well look goodx
also especially ax
double bellyx
but I likx
onex
that is shaped like this. Since I can't draw this will have to do for now.

My preference is clearly apple over pear. From the backside, I like a wide back with lots of love handles. That is too hard to try to illustrate but I'm sure you get the idea.

Face can be thin or fat; double chins fine. Proportional in this area would mean not a lot fatter than the rest of the body.


----------



## kayrae (Jul 10, 2009)

This seriously made me laugh. When I made this post, I was hoping that someone would bust out with their artistic skills. Thanks :bow:


----------

