# Where do you draw the line?



## RyanFA (May 7, 2007)

Just wondering if there is a certain or average weight range that classifies a BBW or SSBBW. I personally like the terms cute, fat, chubby, big, etc... but since the abreviations bbw/ssbbw are used so often I am just curious if there are some type of limits. I always thought that it was based on appearance, since a girls frame and height can make them look bigger.

What term do you (females) like to be called the most in reference to size?
ex. cute, fat, chubby, etc


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (May 7, 2007)

It's hard for me to pinpoint too, Ryan. I would have said 350 was SS if you asked me a year ago. I honestly think it's more of a shape thing... If someone's naturally muscular, they can rock 420 and pass for under 400 easily.


----------



## FreeThinker (May 7, 2007)

I once came up with my own little rule for the BBW/SSBBW distinction:

If a woman has a measurement greater than her height, she's an SSBBW.



Just me, though...








*Edit:* I'm uncertain now as to whether I should have said "_an_ SSBBW", or "_a_ SSBBW"...depends on whether or not you use the long form or the acronym in your head when you read it, I guess.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (May 7, 2007)

FreeThinker said:


> I once came up with my own little rule for the BBW/SSBBW distinction:
> 
> If a woman has a measurement greater than her height, she's an SSBBW.
> 
> ...



What if she's 2' 10"?


----------



## FreeThinker (May 7, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> What if she's 2' 10"?



Damn rep limits!

Would somebody please get her for that?


----------



## Waxwing (May 7, 2007)

FreeThinker said:


> Damn rep limits!
> 
> Would somebody please get her for that?



Done, good sir.


----------



## Jon Blaze (May 7, 2007)

It's apperance with a dash of subjectivity.


----------



## Ample Pie (May 7, 2007)

anyone who weighs less than I do is "skinny" to me. Anyone the same size or larger is a ssbbw. I know that isn't accurate, but that's how it registers in my mind...weirdly enough.


----------



## SamanthaNY (May 7, 2007)

I think the easiest way to classify it is by clothing size - that's eliminates the fuss over height or weight. Someone over a size 16 is fat (bbw, if you must). Someone over a 26/28 is supersized.


----------



## chickadee (May 7, 2007)

This is where I get confused too.

Clothing size is a good starting point, but there is a lot of variation (as I know looking through all the different sizes in my closet!) In addition, someone could wear a 16/18/20but be well-proportioned and muscular and not look like a "typical" BBW.


----------



## collegeguy2514 (May 7, 2007)

i draw the line at labeling. i like big girls, but i dont call myself an FA. i like seeing women gain weight, but i dont call myself a feeder. i like getting fatter myself, but i dont call myself a feedee. 

the same goes for girls. i dont consider them to be bbw's or ssbbw's. not that there's anything wrong with that, i just dont like the idea of labeling somebody.


----------



## Tooz (May 7, 2007)

If we're gonna draw this line, can we NOT use the term "supersized"? I hate it...a LOT.


----------



## bigplaidpants (May 7, 2007)

It's exactly for responses like Tooz's that I think the whole distinction is rather subjective. And, of course, RyanFA, to be fair, you did ask "Where to *you *draw the line?"

I wish I could find the darn post, but this question has been visited and revisited...and someone came up with a very thorough breakdown that even showed what they viewed as a shifting line even in the FA/SA community over time. It discussed "plus sized," "bbw," "ssbbw," even one more, I think. I'm not suggesting it was correct, or *the standard*, but impressive in detail nonetheless. (Don't you hate it when you can't remember _where that post was and who posted it!_)

Through my FA eyes, each woman and man, for that matter, carries their weight so differently. The body is absolutely amazing, with its variations in contour, composition, presentation, proportion, and distribution. Objective measures, like clothing size and weight, give an indication, which, in a way, beg for categorization. But, in the end, they miss something. Any rigid definition, in this day and age, would simply beg for deconstruction. 

That said, if I had to put my chips somewhere, I'd say as soon as a person at some point develops a measurement "around" (anywhere) that is greater or the same as their height, then they've moved into a different category. For some FA's, that would mean moving from having a big head, to a supersized big head.


----------



## Krissy12 (May 7, 2007)

Tooz said:


> If we're gonna draw this line, can we NOT use the term "supersized"? I hate it...a LOT.



I've heard this a lot from women here on the boards that they don't like the SS part of the BBW. Many don't even like BBW. 

Although, it seems to me that to a lot of FAs, they're more likely to :smitten: when they see the SS. 

I always thought it was the 300 lb. mark that cut the BBW/SSBBW line, but this is info I got from the webs. Not exactly accurate.


----------



## TCUBOB (May 7, 2007)

Krissy12 said:


> I've heard this a lot from women here on the boards that they don't like the SS part of the BBW. Many don't even like BBW.
> 
> Although, it seems to me that to a lot of FAs, they're more likely to :smitten: when they see the SS.
> 
> I always thought it was the 300 lb. mark that cut the BBW/SSBBW line, but this is info I got from the webs. Not exactly accurate.



That could be a cut, but think about it. 300 lbs is going to look a lot different on 5' 4" vs. say 6' 0". So again, comes back to combination of height and weight. Throw in body type (where do they carry it? Is it concentrated in the belly? Or chest? Or thighs?) that can make difference. 

Also, frame. Small? Medium? Large?

Muscle to fat ratio

And cut of clothes. Well fitted clothes can make you look much thinner; poor fit (tight or baggy) can add volume or make you look fatter.

So in the end.....everyone's different. Yeah, real definative answer. Good job, Bob.

And for my two cents, mental far more important that phys. You can be as smokin' as you want to be, but if you are attractive and dumb....I can't be attracted to you. You've got to be smart first.....that's what truly makes a woman hot, at least to me.


----------



## dan (May 7, 2007)

Your right..Going all the way back when the terms started I do believe 300 lbs and higher referred to SSBBW. height was never a variable


----------



## elle camino (May 8, 2007)

this is always an interesting discussion for me to read, since i personally have no idea what the heck i am. 
before i came to dims i considered myself in the ssbbw category, now i'm not so sure. 
not that i ever really give it much thought, just if i were put on the spot that's what i would have said. now i would just...walk off of the spot?


----------



## alienlanes (May 8, 2007)

Krissy12 said:


> Although, it seems to me that to a lot of FAs, they're more likely to :smitten: when they see the SS.



Guilty as charged, I confess :blush:. 

With all due respect to the women who don't like the term, I'll admit that as an FA I find it kinda attractive when a woman is willing to describe herself that way. Maybe it's the "super," which I think of as having positive connotations; who wouldn't want to be super? _I_ think you're super !

But it's a ultimately a subjective thing. Like I said over in the indie rock thread -- I can't define "BBW" or "SSBBW," but I know one when I see one.

Although am I the only guy who, being an FA, totally can't tell the difference between a "skinny" celebrity and a "curvy" celebrity? I'm not talking about beauties like Mo'Nique or Beth Ditto, of course, but about women like Beyonce or J.Lo. When I hear someone talking about how big J.Lo's ass is, I'm like "Huh? That's just a normal, boring, skinny ass! Stop BSing me!"


----------



## Ned Sonntag (May 8, 2007)

320 is the SS threshold for average-height non-athletes. I said this in 2000. But possibly SadeianLinguist has a point as average weight increases. Okay, gang; what delineates the Ultra-size threshold? 550? 600? I say 555; that was Dolly Dimples' peak.:bow:





http://www.wfmu.org/store/crack/crack08.html


----------



## Tooz (May 8, 2007)

SlackerFA said:


> Maybe it's the "super," which I think of as having positive connotations; who wouldn't want to be super? _I_ think you're super !



Well, "supersize" bothers me because everywhere I go, I feel gargantuan most of the time. I HATE it. I don't want that highlighted like that. It's like, "here, I'm gonna paste a label on you to constantly remind you of what makes you self-concious!" This is why you will never see me complain about a guy being too tall: it's nice to feel small once and a while. I cannot stress enough the issue I have with "supersize".

Edit: And, yes, having any kind of flat limit for this is ridiculous, seeing as bodies are so incredibly different.


----------



## elle camino (May 8, 2007)

yeah but see: a lot of us don't weigh ourselves. 
i haven't set foot on a scale since i was 14, outside of a doctors office.
and at the doctor i just don't look.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (May 8, 2007)

Tooz said:


> Well, "supersize" bothers me because everywhere I go, I feel gargantuan most of the time. I HATE it. I don't want that highlighted like that. It's like, "here, I'm gonna paste a label on you to constantly remind you of what makes you self-concious!" This is why you will never see me complain about a guy being too tall: it's nice to feel small once and a while. I cannot stress enough the issue I have with "supersize".



I can get that. Supersized makes me think freaking Macy's T-day Parade, which is why it's hard for me to think of certain people who say they're supersized as being such.


----------



## elle camino (May 8, 2007)

Krissy12 said:


> Although, it seems to me that to a lot of FAs, they're more likely to :smitten: when they see the SS.



 yeah.,...........


----------



## supersoup (May 8, 2007)

i'm sexy-sized, so feel free to call me an ssbbw.

 

and i'm out.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (May 8, 2007)

Tooz said:


> Well, "supersize" bothers me because everywhere I go, I feel gargantuan most of the time. I HATE it. I don't want that highlighted like that. It's like, "here, I'm gonna paste a label on you to constantly remind you of what makes you self-concious!" This is why you will never see me complain about a guy being too tall: it's nice to feel small once and a while. I cannot stress enough the issue I have with "supersize".
> 
> Edit: And, yes, having any kind of flat limit for this is ridiculous, seeing as bodies are so incredibly different.


 Well that is very liberal of Tooz to tolerate tall guys. We know that the vertically-unchallenged are subject to near-universal vilification.


----------



## Tooz (May 8, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> Supersized makes me think freaking Macy's T-day Parade



Exactly. Imagine feeling like that all the time, and then having a person or group of people label you as such. :\


----------



## ClashCityRocker (May 8, 2007)

supersoup said:


> i'm sexy-sized, so feel free to call me an ssbbw.
> 
> 
> 
> and i'm out.



you rock so friggin hard.

honestly, i dont use the terms "bbw" or "ssbbw"...save for a few times on here. ladies is ladies. some's big, some's little.


----------



## supersoup (May 8, 2007)

ClashCityRocker said:


> you rock so friggin hard.
> 
> honestly, i dont use the terms "bbw" or "ssbbw"...save for a few times on here. ladies is ladies. some's big, some's little.



:blush: 

thanks hot stuff. and i totally agree.


----------



## SummerG (May 8, 2007)

I was first exposed to the term SSBBW in 1991 when my sister entered a modeling contest for BBW Magazine. They had a special feature each issue that focused on sizes 26+, they called them Super Sizes. I never thought of it as anything negative, even later when it became common practice to attach the description to the wearer of clothing sizes 26+. So I agree with SamanthaNY as far as clothing sizes to be the easiest way to "draw the line". Even though sizing is a bit varied from manufacturer to manufacturer... it seems the most reasonable and more "accurate" than going by weight. 

On a side note, my sister won that year's cover competition


----------



## ashmamma84 (May 8, 2007)

I'm simply a fat woman; who cares about the bbw or ssbbw part? I understand that because of preferences, a potential mate might find stats attractive/impressive or whatever, but I think it tends to make people too concerned with "how fat" a woman is (and sort of feel like it makes for a seperation of sorts among fat women, but I digress)...why does it matter? If she shops in a fat girl store or is larger than those sizes offered...she's a fat chick.


----------



## ValentineBBW (May 9, 2007)

I have gotten used to SSBBW, but for the longest time I disliked it and for the same reasons Tooz and others have noted. What I really HATE now is the label "ultra-size bbw"  Ultra-size congers up a "freak show' type of feeling.


----------



## ZainTheInsane (May 9, 2007)

A woman is a woman, regardless of size

Why the fuck does there have to be a set definition?

And when I asked the same fucking question, I got reamed for it. So, what the hell does it matter? A woman is a woman, size shouldn't account for anything except in your own mind. Figure it out for yourself, set your own damned standards. This isn't an exact science....no two people are the same. Just cause a girl is 'pear-shaped' doesn't mean another girl who is 'pear-shaped' is going to be the same build, it just means they tend to be heavier on bottom.

So, in reality, what is the purpose of having a standard?


----------



## pickleman357 (May 10, 2007)

ashmamma84 said:


> If she shops in a fat girl store or is larger than those sizes offered...she's a fat chick.


its interesting that Marilyn Manroe would be a 'fat chick' by todays standards. I find that funny yet obscenely horrifying...

Anyways,

This has been dicussed before, a woman's height and weight have only a small say in what she looks like. 

My only limit is if she is so fat that she cannot be self reliant. If she can't get up in the morning, get herself ready and go to work because of just her fat. Then that's too much for me. I don't want to live with the fear of what she'll do if I have to take care of here every day and then something should happen to me, just so I can have a big woman.


----------



## ashmamma84 (May 10, 2007)

pickleman357 said:


> its interesting that Marilyn Manroe would be a 'fat chick' by todays standards. I find that funny yet obscenely horrifying...
> 
> Anyways,
> 
> ...



Actually no, Marilynn wasn't plus size...in fact, by today's standards she would be the norm/average.


----------



## pickleman357 (May 12, 2007)

I thought she was a size 14-16?


----------



## babyjeep21 (May 12, 2007)

ashmamma84 said:


> Actually no, Marilynn wasn't plus size...in fact, by today's standards she would be the norm/average.





pickleman357 said:


> I thought she was a size 14-16?



I think that, like any woman, you have to take into account that her weight went up and down. We bobble. It seems very rare that our bodies hold steady to one size and weight.

But that's just my opinion...

Other than that, this whole discussion about what makes one a bbw or an ssbbw:

I just don't think it's realistic to say that there is a size or a weight that causes one to be one label or another.

Label me if you want, it really doesn't matter. BUT I know what my body is and isn't. Height, skeletal size and musculature change everything. If you were to look at my weight and the size clothes I wear, you may consider me an ssbbw. But if you were to look at me, you probably wouldn't. I'm large framed, tall, and pretty sure that there is some muscle in here somewhere.

I know alot of you men get off on having definitive markers of our size... but sorry, it's just not always that easy.


----------



## MisticalMisty (May 12, 2007)

There is a way to differentiate between bbw/ssbbw

Wow, she's a fat girl.

HOLY FUCK she's a fat girl.


That is all :bow: 


lol


----------



## Waxwing (May 12, 2007)

pickleman357 said:


> I thought she was a size 14-16?



No, I think that she was a 12, but even that was smaller then. It would translate to probably an 8 today. She wasn't thin, exactly, but she wasn't fat. 

Her recorded measurements over the span of her career were as follows:

Height: 5 feet, 5½ inches
Weight: 118-140 pounds
Bust: 35-37 inches
Waist: 22-23 inches
Hips: 35-36 inches
Bra size:	36D

I know this is veering off topic, but this has come up several times lately, so I thought I'd toss in some stats for people to discuss.


----------



## liz (di-va) (May 12, 2007)

Where I think the SSBBW/BBW distinction has momentum--unfortunately--is that if the borderline is drawn somewhere around the size 30-ish category, then that's where clothes get More Difficult. And (potentially) seating in theaters. Etc. At least it did for me. I never know "which" I am these days. It's partly bein different sizes on top/bottom, I suppose (used to be more allover BBW). Part of me fits in the BBW world, part of me doesn't, couldn't find a pair of pants to fit me in Lame Bryant if I tried. 

I don't think it's so weird/unusual to wanna draw some distinctions/create some terminology. But it is all so....fraught. And I guess I never liked 'super-sized' much myself either.

Dunno!


----------



## Fuzzy (May 12, 2007)

I don't think a fixed line exists between big and supersize (and ultrasize..)(and megasize..)(and ginormous-size..). I just love'em all.


----------



## Chimpi (May 13, 2007)

Fuzzy said:


> I don't think a fixed line exists between big and supersize (and ultrasize..)(and megasize..)(and ginormous-size..). I just love'em all.



Wise words said by a wise man with a wise perspective.
Seconded.


----------



## speakeasy (May 13, 2007)

The terms "Super" and "Ultra" make me think of those giant robots from Power Rangers...


----------



## Ample Pie (May 13, 2007)

speakeasy said:


> The terms "Super" and "Ultra" make me think of those giant robots from Power Rangers...


Secretly, that's what all fat girls are aiming for.

okay, not really.


----------



## AtlasD (May 15, 2007)

How about "beautiful" ... my 2 cents


----------



## jimj (May 15, 2007)

I've always liked the term SSBBW.But I've always thought of it as Super Sexy Big Beautiful Woman.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (May 15, 2007)

I look at a big woman as a woman. I don't worry about whether she is supersize, ultra-size, megasize or any other kind of size. What matters to me is 1. whether she is big and sexy 2whether she is mobile and 3. whether she and I are compatible.


----------



## speakeasy (May 15, 2007)

"Mobile" also kind of makes me think of Power Rangers robots.


----------

