Yeah- I think the point of mentioning that his son was happily married was because he wasn’t even looking for a relationship, while the other band members were single at the point that they started playing the fat chick clubs, and their conception of attractiveness changed due to exposure at the venues they play at. I never read it as meaning that his son had a successful relationship with the big women and the other guys didn’t.
As for the OP, sure I’d date a big girl. Married one, in fact. But there’s a lot of latitude in the term “BBW”. It could mean anything from morbidly obese and having to ride a scooter, to being just a hair past “overweight” on the BMI charts and looking like Adele or Delta Burke in her Designing Women days. I tend toward the thinner end of that spectrum, but to be honest, I prefer that to say… Cameron Diaz’s super-toned and thin look. I just get the impression she’d be all elbows and knees in the sack.
What does BBW mean exactly? Like what sizes weight,height are we talking about? I guess this sounds harsh but I guess for me it has something to do with the way they carry it. Anyway, I’m taken so all I can do is try to think back to when I was dating many years ago.
.
.
.
.
Nigella Lawson is not even close to being a BBW. That’s just ridiculous. What next, is someone gonna come in and say “Yeah that Marilyn Monroe, she was a pretty good looking BBW”?
That was kind of my point; there’s a lot of latitude between say… overweight, but not abnormally so, and Gabourey Sidibe style obesity. (not to pick on her specifically, but she’s the only actress I can think of in that category).
Some people put the “BBW” label on anyone who’s somewhere on the fatter side of overweight, and others don’t start using that label until the woman’s clearly obese.
And FTR, Nigella’s on the chubby side of overweight. I’ve actually met her, and while she’s not very tall, she’s far from waifish either. Just as sexy in person as on TV though!
I have, and would again, should the situation present itself. Not my first choice, but then again, neither is the closet sociopath type I tend to end up dating, either, so I’ll take my chances with the more generously-proportioned.
Uh, no, it’s the current politically correct term we’ve been told to use. I think it’s a wee bit nauseating, since I’m certainly less than beautiful at any number of times.
I enjoy asking salespeople where the Fat Girls department is, just to see the look on their face. I’m a little sick.
So guys claim. But, I don’t have any trouble dating men, and I’m both fatter and taller than average (I’m 5’9" and a size 18). Maybe it’s because I’m not lazy and I don’t go around eating Twinkies or crap and complaining about my weight; also, I do work out so things aren’t…jello-ish.
You also probably don’t go around calling yourself a BBW, which is the main trait I find inherently offputting. It comes with a huge chip on your shoulder.
I date people I have good chemistry with on one level or another, and roundishness is not a dealbreaker except at extreme conditions. (I do think one should be taller than one is wide).
But size 18 @ 5’9 is just “curvy” to me, so maybe it depends on the guys definition.
I cant blame anyone for not choosing a 400# potential partner. But I am surprised that the 49% who said “NO”. Are you saying “no” to 400# or saying NO to size 16?
I went with No, but it’s all relative. If there’s some extra heft, no big deal. However, after a certain height to weight ratio, we stop being compatible because of differing priorities. I will never be unhealthy big. I expect my partner to have similar standards.
Is actually my body type preference. However, as with everything, not all big girls are beuatiful and not all beautiful girls are big. It’s a body type preference not a hard and fast rule.
Depends on what you define as “Big”. 200lb+ woman under 6’ tall? Probably not. Anything over like 160-170 is probably getting above my zone of interest. I weigh 165 and would have a hard time with a girl who was heavier than me, unless she was significantly taller which wouldn’t be an issue for me. My wife is a few inches shorter though.
Like a lot of others have said, it depends on what “big” or “BBW” or whatever means to you. My wife is a very petite person, and I generally find myself more attracted to slim/toned women. But the first woman I ever fell in love with was a little heavy, and Jesus was she sexy.
Anyway, the inimitable cockeyed.com has a photographic height weight chart here, that might be useful. My first love was about the size of the last woman pictured on this page, who says she is 5’6" and 190lbs (direct links: 1, 2). That’s a BMI of 30.7, obese by NIH standards. But if I were in the market, I wouldn’t avert my eyes from her or anything.
