the "build" description on our profiles.  We ladies all come in different shapes and sizes.  Some additional descriptive words might be a good idea.  Here are a few I thought of:

Curvy - (A larger lady with nice curves)
Above Average - (This lady is better than average, but not slender)
Average - (can anyone think of a better term?)
Voluptuous - (Larger curvier lady, not BBW)
Slender - (Sounds better than thin)
Skinny - (This one works)
Petite - (Perfect for the smaller ladies)
Fit - (Not all ladies who are fit are athletic looking)
Rubenesque - (Much nicer than saying heavy)
BBW - (For the beautiful larger ladies)
BBW+ - (For the Beautiful larger ladies with a bit more. Nicer than saying very fat)
Muscular - (This one works)

Can anyone help me think of a few more?  Myself included, many of us feel the terms Average, Baby Fat, Flabby, Heavy, Very Fat, Muscular, Skinny, Thin, Athletic are not enough.  Help me out and please offer any suggestions you feel would improve your ability to find the type of lady you desire.

These are only suggestions I came up with after a discussion on our GD Board.  What do you think?  Any ideas of your own?  Personally, I am listed as average now.  I would love to be listed as curvy or voluptuous.  Either one would better descibe my body type.

I look forward to your responses and I hope TER will take some of them into consideration.

Hugs, Betty xoxo

Excellent idea, honey.  Personally, I don't care for "flabby", I think it's rather insulting.  I'm a big girl, yes, but I'm clean and well-groomed... flabby implies I don't care for my body which is untrue.

TER, take these suggestions to heart.  It'll save a LOT of these posts if ya'll can classify us in a way the ladies don't take such offense to.

I know some very thin ladies who don't like being called thin either.  It works both ways.  Why not use wording that is less insulting?  

Hopefully, this post will get the attention it deserves.

We shall see.  Betty xoxo

the options definitley miss the target on some ladies I have seen.  Now I do use the option of "Other - described in Comments" which works for the review.  But it does not help update the data element on the profile.

I like most of these but there are a couple of things I would prefer different.  I don't like BBW.  It really is not a current option and it will just continue to propogate the "nice way of saying fat" use of it.

Also, like it or not, there does have to be some negative sounding options.  Some ladies simply are heavy in an unattractive way.  Most guys won't use a harxh description, but something needs to be an option to tell us "wooh, dude, DO expect her to be overweight".  I support the nice and fair treatment of you ladies, but the system still needs to serve the hobbyist's needs first.  

That said, I think this is a very positive response to a negative thread and salute you!  And support your effort to improve the system.

...subjective.

Further, by continuing to put ladies in one category only, some profiles will continue to be inaccurate.

For instance, there are some average size ladies who are fit and muscular. I have seen some larger ladies outrun skinning ones. Of course, as it stands, if we are only allowed to be in one category, those large ladies who are fit will have inaccurate profiles (same for other categories of women).

Of course using weight as the descriptor would not work since it would not account for whether it is muscle or fat. For example, I weigh about just as much as some of the BBWs I know, yet it is more muscle/big bones (some fat of course) and not just fat that causes me to weigh as much as them.

Despite the flaws of having a physical descriptor, the gentlemen will need something to go off of. It will be interesting to see if a solution will be found.

Thank you for starting the discussion.

Xoxo,
Gia

The women of TER are real women and should be rated that way. As it stands, we are compared to magazine models instead of real women (average size 14). For instance, I am a size 10 (smaller than average American woman - 14), yet I am described as average on TER.

I think we should be judged based on the women hobbyists see in the real world, not magazine models. Then if there is someone who really is average (size 14), call them average.

I think it is time for the hobby to embrace the various body shapes of American women and stop comparing us to Vogue models.

Thank you for listening.

... something like- "A very pleasant, nicely dressed, and accomidating lady- HOWEVER- she was a bit curvier than her pictures imply and I wish that she had included some more recent ones on her website..."  

How's that??  That serves the hobbyist because all viewers- even the non-vip- can take note.  But say that that reviewer goes and changes her profile and then she stops the late night snacking that she had been over-indulging in that month... eats really lightly for a few weeks... but doesn't get any new reviews for a few MONTHS... or even when she DOES get new reviews, they don't bother to put in "problem reports" to alter the descripter of "FLABBY" that the ONE disgruntled reviewers gave her!!! That ONE curmugeony guy could alter her whole profile for the better part of a year if he was so inclined, no...??

My point is that a lady gaining 10 or 12 pounds for a month, but then LOSING it and getting back on track... could still result in her being described as "baby fat" or "heavy" for the better part of a year if the ONE *annoyed* reviewer kept putting in problem reports!

Even providers/escorts/term du jour ARE, after all, human!  We are not STATIC entities! It is not beyond the realm of possiblity that we would say- weigh 10 pounds more in the winter than in the summer or something.. What if say a lady goes on a crazy work out/calorie restriction plan for a month or two- can SHE post new pictures and then put in a problem report and change her OWN descrption...??

I just personally see this as a bit of a glitch in the system of an otherwise fairly well oiled machine...

Just my .2 cents.

Thank you for your comments and support Gia.  I'm hoping this thread gets more attention today.  This was a hot topic on the GD Board yesterday.

I would love to see some positive changes made.  I think we need more support to make it happen though.

Hugs, Betty xoxo

I like several of your suggestions. Slender is so much better than thin. Curvy is also much better than any of the current adjectives available currently.

I hate to be an ass, but flabby, heavy and very fat while certainly not flattering, are accurate descriptions for some ladies. The profile section is not a place to make providers feel good about themselves, it is just one of the tools to allow hobbyists to make an informed deciesion on who to see.

I hope TER takes your suggestions under advisement, I think there is a lot of room for improvement and many of your suggestions are quite valid IMO.

Like I said, I'll take "heavy" and "very fat" I don't have an issue with that.  What I have an issue with is those one or two words in the "big girl" vernacular that are insulting or misleading based on their very definition.  

droppeed completely.  Because something could change either way.  OK, I can live with that also.

I, as most thinking men, go by the pictures more than some description.  I frankly assume every field was filed by her first TER client regardles of how old it is.  I have NEVER seen ANYTHING changed based on my being the newest review.  Yet I know ladies have been able to update the profile (not meaning to get back into the JN debate).  Except for the first review, I just have not seen it do anything.  Frankly it and other fields just waste my time and are a demotivator to doing a review.  I am not alone in that belief.

So if you are saying it should go away because things change.  OK.  But if it remains, it does not serve my needs well as it currently is and should be revised.  Betty's suggestions I see as better then the current ones.  

I don't think this is a well oiled machine, but that is my nature.  In general, I rarely seek revolution, but rather evolution.  Just because the status quo is good enough should not mean we stop striving for better.

But as much as I get acussed of being a White Knight, this site must support the men first.  So the options can't all be what makes the ladies happy.  What I would do if my body description was something I felt was out of date, is take that picture, put in on the local board, and prove it is recent, and that will draw reviewers.  Just a thought.

What I find the most ironic thing about all this is this.  The GD post comes across as guys bitching about weight.  Most seem to agree that current pics trump that data field.  I hear FAR more complaints about provider photos being outdated, doctored, misleading, etc. - FROM OTHER PROVIDERS!  Let's be honest about that.  For the most part this is more of an issue on your side of it.  It really is.  You know why most guys never bother to update a field?  Because the fact they got a great blow job makes them not give a hoot when it is time to review.  

I am not meaning to flame at you personally or you ladies in general.  Just saying that if the data element stays, it needs to be designed to best suit a reviewer.  It is only of concern to me in that the current choices don't work very well for me.

In fact GaG stated my point about it not all being roses better than I did.  But he usually speaks more clearly anayway.

Betty is definitely on the right path and a perfect example of how better descripters are needed.  But there still needs to be the choices that let us guys "tell it like it is".

This is my point of view on the current state of this issue:

{Disclaimer: Please keep in mind, I tend to like petite, slim, or athletically trim women}

Whenever I look at the 'Build' field, I always figure the reality is one category larger than what is shown.  It just seems to me, that in many of my appointments, especially the early ones that I never reviewed, the women were larger than I was expecting.  And, before you ask, yes I did look at the photos.  But, as has been stated many times before, the provider ad photos and even those on personal web sites are often misleading, or old, or photoshopped, or ...

Some people seem to be in favor of doing away with the 'Build' field altogether.  I think this would be a HORRIBLE idea.  The reason that it is used as a Search feature is so that clients can properly screen for the type of woman that they personally find attractive.  Many guys don't like the thin women that I like, but then again, I am not necessarily looking for the bodaciously curvy women that they drool over - so to speak.

The usefulness of the filter is that it greatly reduces the number of profiles a client would have to sift through in order to narrow it down to providers that might appeal to him.  Even though it is not perfect the way it is, it is still better than nothing.

Personally, if the 'Build' field were modified or expanded to include more gradations of size and physique, I would think it might help.  As I have stated before; take the example of the 'Athletic' descriptor.  To some guys, this means a broad-shouldered, more muscular build.  Think a women's crew mate.  To me, it means more of a slimmer, more streamlined look.  Think of a runner or springboard diver.  Big difference, same descriptor and both are validly categorized that way.

Maybe TER should have a page of varying silhouettes with numbers and/or letters designating each different body profile.  Then we could use those identifiers in the Build descriptor field.

Thank you for participating in this thread.  I love your idea regarding using silhouettes.  What a great idea!  

Let's hope the powers that be (TER) are watching this thread.  

Hugs, Betty

What if we added a bunch of the type of descriptives Betty's suggested and ladies could pick the one that they thought BEST described their CURRENT *body type* to list in their profile... (They would be expected to change it if their body changed as well.. And if the lady isn't a member of TER then her first reviewer would just select it until someone made a "problem report" saying otherwise, same as now..) Then we could start a suggestion thread on the main board for any further ideas of "body type descriptives" and maybe vote on what people thought would make the top 5 or 10 (or whatever) most helpful new additions....

NOW, to please people like dblhappy there would still be a SEARCH OPTION, but instead of a "range" (ie "from this build, to that build..") there would be BOXES to check with the HEADING "Check ALL the body types that appeal to you." (Body type is amount more than just a spectrum of weight, after all...)  Dblhappy could, for example, check "petite," "slender," and "athletic" etc but StanVA might choose to broaden his search by checking the boxes for "volumptous," "average," "curvy" etc...

NOW, to assure that providers were accurately representing themselves with "body type" labels and pictures, we could do the following... Take away the "Are her pictures real?" and  "Are her pictures accurate?" section from the MAIN profile and INSTEAD have them in the  HEADER OF EACH REVIEW..! I would also like to see the option "Is her listed body type accurate?"

This is TER's CURRENT intro for each review-

Appearance:
Attitude:
Date visited:
Performance:
Atmosphere:

This is my proposed intro for each review hence forth-

Her pictures are: (check- real/not real)
Her picture quality is: (check- "clear and accurate," "heavily retouched," "in need of updating" "not doing her justice")
Her listed body type is: (check- accurate/not accurate)
Attitude: (short answer- ie the current system)
Date visited: (this would stay the same)
Performance: (same)
Atmosphere: (same)

THEN maybe, if more than 1 or 2 consecutive REVIEWERS who had MET said lady (NOT random blow hards on the boards..) listed a lady's "body type" as "inaccurate" TER could opt to change her descriptive "body type" listing...??

Sorry that was sooo long winded...

Cindy

Youre hired!! Great ideas...hope someone is listening!! XO, Belle.

I've been through that quandary a lot when writing reviews.  The current build descriptors can't always convey an accurate description, or if they do, they come across as demeaning.

Maybe a suggestion is clients being able to mark several boxes that apply for the lady.  Allowing more of a descriptive profile...

Some ladies may be "bigger" however they also may be firm and fit therefore not in the same category as ladies who are not... Just the same for someone like myself who is slender (the other word is insulting to me) but yet has curves... Not many slender women have curves seriously.  

Another big thing that should be expanded upon is how accurate the photos are... Are they a few years old?  Kind of looks like her?  Or rather, not within 50 lbs... Or perhaps photo is not as good as she looks in person...

I liked all of the comments upon this matter.  I know I am late but maybe just one more will decide if it changes...  I am all about making a difference