I have seen that description over and over...and when I look at so many hookers profiles...shit, they are just obese.

Come on boys...stop with the falsifications here.

It's a fairly athletic body lined with fat. It makes the girl's silhouette & face look soft.

-- Modified on 1/14/2013 9:01:10 PM

a little extra around the tummy as in she recently had a baby and hasn't shed all the belly weight. Not any more...

look even she is surprised that the bed is holding her up

in say ONE area...not their whole body. If you have a gut that hangs over your panties, cankles, or that gawd awful knee fat that laps over almost to your calves, belly all in your back, then...that's not baby fat. I am not putting anyone down, because hey...I am no size 2, but my profile is accurately labeled as "Athletic" because I have a back like a damn football player.

If I weighed 140 at my height, that would have to change to "chubby," "fluffy" or "BBW" I would think? Someone at only 4 ft. 11 or 5 ft tall, can't weigh all that much and still "look" thin...trust me on that one. At 5 ft. 3, I would have to lose 10 lbs to look like I weigh my current weight of 120. It sucks!

Check out some of the TER pages and you'll see most look like the gal in my post.

Yea...depressing isn't it  

No way...just how she is posed. That girl is HAWT!!!

And she doesn't.

She isn't a hooker!

But those old fat and ugly "baby fat" hookers send TER pics from 10 years and 100 pounds ago.

And those same johnnie boys gave that hooker a 9 and a "baby fat" classification.  I get it...they were scared of that hooker and her WK contingent.

But filing a problem report...what could possibly go wrong there...and stick to your guns johnnie boys!

My pic has a gal with essentially NO tits.

At least you can't tell where the tits are in between fat folds.

She's a nice gal too...she used to be only 103 pounds...but met up with Serpius too many times and Wendy's is not complimentary for a gals figure.

Would that not depend on what TER thinks about the person though? I mean if Admin says a chick at 5 ft tall weighing more than 140, should be classified as "baby fat" it's going to stick. There are accurate photos on ads and websites that still don't line up with the ratings, but ready for it....beauty is in the eye of the beholder lol.

In Los Angeles, I am considered all out fat...not athletic, not chubby, but FAT! What most guys have bitched about is when they see certain women getting 9s for looks, and could not even be "model material" for a dog food commercial.

Hey, I get it, but why do you think so many are so into that gfe shit? Because if you can make a guy feel like HE is all that, your 6 status goes up to an 8 or 9 because of personality alone...has NOTHING to do with looks lol. Most guys can't review objectively and allow pure emotion, or mangina acts to take over.

The problem with the way guys review is that some are comparing us to Hollywood actresses, whilst others are rating us compared to other women in our area who might have higher scores. I mean if you see a woman with no teeth and tits that sag to her knees with all 8s, what are you going to give the girl with a perfect smile and perky boobs if not a 10?



-- Modified on 1/14/2013 9:51:15 PM

the room, bed, and her clothes are actually very small

But when I see on regional ad boards the overweight fat broads (who populate the daily "look at me" photo of the day bullshit) that more than one guy claims in a review is "baby fat"...and she's posting that she's got "curves"...No different than the hookers who advertise as "mature" and are indeed old enough to be most guys grandma.

And still these pathetic asswipes don't have the fucking balls to call it like it really is.

But kudo's to the hookers who advertise themselves as what they really are.  Plenty of johns like the fat and old...even ugly chicks.

Something for everyone...just prefer "truth in advertising".  And when it's NOT...call that shit out!

does it not?

For me it is that category between "fit" and "chubby".  Now my definition of any of those terms is based my preferences and no one elses.  I personally don't mind a little baby fat in the right areas..

I want her

BTW, I wouldn't really call her baby fat. Her stomach is fairly flat but her tits are to die for.

120 lbs at 5'3" is fine! Some of you ladies are so off the deep end weight conscious, probably because some of us guys are jerks about wanting model thin types. I'd never criticize a woman who's at your weight/height.

you would see on a kid just hitting puberty or some shit. Maybe, chubby cheeks, soft thighs, or the Apple Shapes, but this chick looks hot. If she is even 5 ft. 4, I bet when she stands up, that all goes away. She is not scrawny, but nowhere near what I would consider chubby.



-- Modified on 1/14/2013 10:32:41 PM

Then what would "Average" be? Most of the population is in the category you described lol, which is why we call that average.

Thin at your height would probably be 100, athletic would be up to 115 maybe, and average would be up to 125 IMO.

And there's this...  muscle is 3 times denser than fat so if you're a work-out aholic, you could be 120 and VERY fit which I'd definitely call athletic. If you sit around eating bon-bons and you're 120, you're headed toward baby fat land. It all depends on how much of the "excess" weight is fat as opposed to muscle.

LA is nuts - those girls have 10 lbs of boobage added, LOL.

vs. pounds then I guess, because when I was 110, I thought I was the perfect size for my height, but my BMI was higher then.  I was 97 in high school for 2 years, and looked HORRIBLE. I would never want to be that thin again.

-- Modified on 1/14/2013 10:43:15 PM

You have a point London. It sucks though.
That girl has her ass on backwards. Nasty.
There is a big difference between big, and unhealthy.
Baby fat, my ass. I call it Lovin!
Say what you want skinny chicks! I like me some meat!

of the word "recently."   Because there are many women who will say they have been struggling to lose their pregnancy weight.  And then you ask how old the baby is and the response will be "10yrs."  Ummm...  that's no longer baby weight, it's fat.

As you said average is the category in which most people fall.  One of the issues with defining categories such as "baby-fat" is they are subjective to the opinions of the person answering.  I still default to that mythical chart at the doctors office that says I should be a certain weight according to my height.  For some reason I think of that as average even though I know better.  I have not been at my "ideal" weight in some time.  I am getting closer though.  

I personally like a little meet on the bones of my females.  That super-skinny model look does not do anything for me.   Some of the models I see on TV seem inspire me to send money to that infomercial and adopt them so they can eat.

When placing a review, there are choices like "thin", "average", and athletic".

Then there is "baby fat".

Then there is "flabby" and then "very fat".

So are you telling me that any woman who is larger than the girl pictured above is "flabby"?

Bull fucking shit. Take your scrawny anorexic two tic-tac eatin' hide out for a walk across America, and then tell me what "average" is.

I've been bitching on this site for ten years that all the descriptive words for larger women are insulting, and THEREFORE no man who sees a heavier woman and likes her is going to choose any of those words. EVERYONE is going to be called "baby fat", thus rendering the category meaningless.

So I make a date with a woman who is just a little older than "Hayley" here. Breasts are a little bit softer and lower due to gravity, and waist is a little bit thicker due to cheeseburgers and maybe kids. Say ten pounds heavier. Personally, I find her very attractive.

She is smart and funny and great in bed. I give her an 8 or 9 for performance, and I really like her. Shall I describe her in my review as "flabby"? That's the next choice down from baby fat.

Yeah, I'm asking a question that isn't really a question. It isn't going to happen, ever. If the choices ran something like: skinny, thin, slim, average, athletic, curvy, voluptuous, chubby, heavy, very fat. Something like that, along those lines. Now I have two or three descriptive choices that clearly indicate a woman is not "thin", while not outright insulting her.

As long as I have to go from "athletic" to "baby fat" to "flabby", you are not going to get an accurate description from me, or from any guy who likes "curvy" women.

Yea, that does make sense Clarence. You can't just jump from "baby fat" to flabby. Curvy, heavy, and really heavy would be better. Flabby, is not even used to describe someone with extra weight, but a person of any size with loose skin. You can be 110 lbs. and still be flabby. Have you seen meth addicts who used to be fat, after a few months on that stuff? Flabby and only 100 lbs.

-- Modified on 1/14/2013 11:32:08 PM

the online BMI calculators considering only weight and height are BS. What weight, fat weight or muscle weight? BMI needs to be measured using water displacement or skin pinching techniques and/or light shining through the skin. The ratio of muscle to fat has to be determined by measurement, not by some online calculator. If you exercise regularly, you're gonna gain muscle weight and the more muscle you have, the faster you convert fat to muscle. So 120 is not an unreasonable number for 5'3" as long as you're working out regularly. If you don't work out regularly, I'd say 110 would be your target weight.

Everyone has a diff opinion of what EVERYTHING IS. Depends on who you are and what you want. If a guy likes rail thin women it doesnt matter what baby fat is, he isnt going to like it. I had this discussion earlier about weight and proportion. This isnt dependant on your weight, rather the proportions of you body.

-- Modified on 1/14/2013 8:56:16 PM

Yeah - I definitely think more categories would help. With a few accompanying stock-photos...

There are a shit load of inaccurate profiles, because most women on TER who are rated "average" are a size 4-6. I wonder if it means the average size of providers lol.

Check this shit out...even I thought Marilyn was a size 10 at least, or maybe a 12..turns out, her waist was only 22 inches.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/04/marilyn-monroe-was-not-even-close-to-a-size-12-16/





-- Modified on 1/15/2013 1:18:42 AM

For me, that term is something like this picture of Khloe Kardashian:

http://www.posh24.com/photo/1377765/khloe_kardashian_neon_pink_and

I'm gonna steal your idea and go post it on the suggestion board!!!

I agree.  She's bent over....everyone is going to have a little something showing posed that way.  She is smoking, but probably not the type for those who like spinners.  I like a little something to hold on to.

....it honestly depends on whose looking at me.  To some I fit in baby fat to some I don't (where I can be too big for that in their eyes and to some i'm not big enough for it).

Someone goes back and forth changing my body type from baby fat to heavy lol.

I'm rated "baby fat".  Most men like my body type, I carry most of my weight in my chest, thighs and hips.  However there are men that would still consider me to be fat I suppose.  My conundrum is that though I've lost weight my breast size has also decreased so essentially I have to pick between having a few extra pounds with large breasts or being skinny with small breasts.  I guess you can't satisfy everyone.

Baby fat is Any excess fat around the female body which is a NO for me and my penis.  My penis will not get excited if I see baby fat.  If I'm paying for sex it's going to be with a Hot, lean, thin women

I have tiny legs, so my weight is carried more in my chest, back, and shoulder area. When I lose weight my DD drops to a C, and I just hate how they look. Maybe I should just get liposuction so I won't have to get a boob job lol.

London, you're great where you're at! Remember evey man doesnt want to have sex with a woman that is flat like a little boy.

I'm starting to think the only way to make the majority of men happy is to either win the genetic lottery or resort to plastic surgery in one way or the other.  Men want thin women but they also want women with large breasts.  I can imagine the reviews if I ever got down to pre baby weight, "she's thin but her breasts are flabby and small."

Very rare to have a natural D cup and be model thin unless you're 6 ft. tall. They also mostly want "petite" lol.

Remember honey, "You could be the juiciest ripest peach in the world, but there is still gonna be somebody who hates peaches.”-Dita.  I let the haters watch my show,because they wont ever be in it just on the sideline.

What essentially makes anyone attractive all boils down to reproduction.  Men are programmed to be attracted to women that are healthy, fertile and can handle a child birth.  This means having good hair, good skin, wide hips and large breasts.  Through out history this has been the standard of beauty, and this is evident by the naked women painted by artists over time.  It really has only been since the 60s that thin figures have been considered to be attractive.  Then we have the unrealistic baywatch babes with thin bodies, narrow hips and huge breasts.  It makes me wonder if the typical media and porn portrayal of women has affected men beyond what they are instinctively suppose to be attracted to.  After all thin women only became popular after the use of thin women for models as it was easier to alter clothing for them.