Ok, after the rant on the LV board, I got to thinking about how super models really have it easy. Most of them really don't have to try all that hard, because their looks have been the primary focus most of their lives.

I did a little check on Looks vs. Performance scores, and you know what...not even ONE BBW has a damn 9 overall average in performance, or not that I saw. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I must call bullshit!

It is a known fact that bigger women, ugly chicks, and crazy chicks are usually better in bed. No absolutes of course, but you're telling me that no girl who rates less than an 8 on the looks scale, out performs some hottie? Bullshit!

So guys, the next time you review a lady, give her credit for her performance and don't just lower that score because she is no Halle Berry. Same with the reverse...don't just give a hottie a 10 in performance because she bullshitted you and batted her fkin eyes, making you stupid. Try and be more objective in your reviews, and really think back on all the performances. Were they really that great, or did you just grant a higher score because the chick was hot?

It would seem their credit comes in their cocksucking skills usually. Not in looks for sure.

oh no! you off your diet again? lol. Ducking now!

Tubby Tubby 2 by 4.......

Looks have an effect on desire which can blur objectivity. Me personally, I just wont get that sexually aroused or excited with a BBW as I would with a model type and therefore that would def effect my view of her performance, be it fair or not.

in looks, should not equate to a lower performance score, but that is the common trend. I am calling bullshit that BBWs, are all less than stellar performance wise...total bullshit! It is impossible that these women are all rated less than a 9 in performance, and that just about every hottie rates higher in performance.

I know that, but if you are not attracted to a BBW, you would not hire one to begin with, thus not affecting her scores. I realize you are more turned on by certain body types, but for fks sake, a turn on does not equate to a skill set. If a guy's eyes were closed and he could not see who was sucking him, I bet those scores would change.

-- Modified on 3/20/2013 11:42:23 AM

Why are Big women always described as Big Beautiful women?  And not just on here, but dating sites etc.   It's as if there are no BUW(Big Ugly Women) anywhere....just saying

I agree with BPman. we pay to fuck out of our league. if the lady is flabby i'm not going to be that into it. in fact I had one experiece where the lady had great reviews for looks and performance. she was at least 40 lbs overweight. She saw the look on my face and said "this isnt going to happen is it". i paid small cancel fee and was gone.

She won't be getting any score from me...unless the BBW posted fake pics and had her WK contingent post fake reviews.

And even then...I'm out the door and back channeling my buds within the hour.

Yep...happened a couple of times a few years ago.  She's "retired" now  LOL

Plus, we all know there are some guys out there that seek out and are attracted to women with a little more "junk in the trunk" or what have you. Apparently they just don't review. I think sometimes that happens because of fear of stigma from others because what they like doesn't exactly fit the "norm", which is sad. Like what you like, enjoy it, no one should judge your preferences.

I will say though, that I have seen plenty of ladies rated much higher than I would think they would be in looks, I think it just depends on the guys frame of reference. Sure, he might think some chick is super hot that everyone else thinks is plain, but in his area, she's the hottest there is available. Perhaps these ladies receive lower scores because they are in areas with an influx of hotties? Maybe? lol

I don't know, I know women think a BBW is usually is quite different from what the men define it as. For example, I always thought baby fat meant that the girl still has kind of a "pudginess" to her that you have when you're young and haven't become defined yet. Like around the face, less defined cheeckbones, rounder overall jawline, what I still looked like until I was like 22, lol.  Hence, she's still a baby kind of, not she's had one, lol. Apparently it's referring to someone having had kids. Whoops, my bad.

Then their largesse might pay off.

I too, thought it meant you looked like a girl who just hit puberty and was not defined, not Baby Fat as in she just had a baby, and not lost the weight lol.

I am talking about the guys who see them and claim to be attracted to them, and the ones using accurate pics. It just seems that no woman over 150 lbs is better than an 8 in performance? BS!

"baby fat" to mean just had a baby. Based on other discussions I've read on the "baby fat" descriptor no others do either. This is the first I've heard of that. There was as a discussion on the S & P board a while back about that descriptor and this wasn't mentioned then.

Lots of heavier girls get props and recognized in reviews.  I don't understand the question.

Now if we are talking about straight 10 performances, well looks are apart of performance because if a girl doesn't do it for a guy physically she can't override his base instincts with amenities and an enthusiastic performance.

I can think of a handful of girls a who like me are full figured or BBW by most popular reviewer standards and also happen to have excellent reviews.

-- Modified on 3/20/2013 1:46:05 PM

Now were not talking 20 or 30 pounds, were talking Big women. All i can say is, when your in mish and your knees don't touch the bed, which in turn you get cramps in your cav's, I can say the performance level is not that good. Just from my experience

When I said "handful'- I meant of girls I can immediately think of off the top of my head.
If I really sat here and gave it thought I could produce dozens, *dozens* of 175 lb+ women with excellent reviews.

But if we're speaking in generalities consider this-

Performance includes not just a willingness to provide and good cocksucking.  It includes athleticism, flexibility and body confidence.

I've worked with a lot of women, some thin some heavy.
I can tell you right now nine times out of ten the thinner provider is more body confident.  Some heavier girls are bangers and know it and parade around and don't give a fuck.
Me, I'll drop trough at a moment's notice, plant my feet on either side of a man and ride out Asian cowgirl for twenty minutes.

A lot of larger girls aren't like that- they keep at least one article of clothing on at all times (can't tell you how much I've seen that) or they fidget to cover things etc.

Body confidence is SEXY and it lends itself to performance.

Men visit providers to do things that can't be or aren't done with non-pro women.
Athleticism and flexibility count.  Can a true BBW girl do various positions or interesting things for sustained periods of time?

Again, I think the answer to your question is that looks are tied into performance because if a man thinks a provider is hot he is more aroused and that arousal demands a more commanding performance from a good provider.  Yes, women of ALL sizes can be attractive but this is a business of beauty and beauty standards still apply as evidenced by the common trends of looks & rates and demand.

But if we want to be really real about it self-confidence is key and if you put a girl who feels good about her body next to a woman who may feel a little self conscious about her body....well the subtle difference is going to be reflected in how men perceive each woman's sexuality and that will express itself in reviews.


-- Modified on 3/20/2013 2:20:49 PM

You as well as your "handful" of examples, are the exceptions not the rule. I was not putting anyone down, but actually taking up for them, because it is a trend overall. I also said "correct me if I am wrong" which you clearly showed an example of, but that does not make the overall theme any less true. Heavier women are rarely given credit for their performance as easily as the model types are.

I am going by the Top 100 in most major cities, and if only 5 BBWs out of 100 are over an 8, my observation is correct, with only a few exceptions...you being one of them.

-- Modified on 3/20/2013 2:02:27 PM

LOL

When my category switched from "Average" to "Baby Fat" I was like WTF is that?

It just means in between but its still not a good descriptor because I see some young girls who are small (size 4-8) but untoned with pudge i.e. skinny fat listed as baby fat (they are truly baby fat IMO) and girls who are size 20 listed as baby fat well.

Its a goofy category.

-- Modified on 3/20/2013 2:32:02 PM

Actually, most do consider it just that. We (Estella and I) were the ones who thought it meant adolescent type of fat, but most guys have said they thought it equated to a woman who had 10-15 extra lbs.

Jiggling and wiggling rolls of fat detract from the performance because they act as baffles and buffers to smooth action.

It is true the two scores influence each other.  They shouldn't but they do.  It is my opinion that a great performance will inflate the looks score.  I have seen some beautiful voluptuous women who knocked my socks off performance wise and I scored them 9/10.  It also influenced me to score them high in looks.  

I believe that the men who are attracted to BBW will score them high because that is what they find attractive.  That is why you don't see a big spread between the two scores.  i.e. a 6 in looks but 9 in performance.  If it was truly a 9 performance, I would be surprised to see lower than an 8 in looks.  

As long as a provider markets herself truthfully, you usually see high scores for both looks and performance.  It is when things are not what they seem that trouble arises and lower scores are the result.

When you put it like that, yes...I can certainly see that as a factor. Most women on TER can fk circles around me, and I am only 120 lbs ha ha. I could never do ACG for even 5 min. with anyone above 5 inches, much less 20 min. If it were not for my personality and oral skills, I would never get above a damn 7!

-- Modified on 3/20/2013 2:27:41 PM

Objective reviewing is not rampant though, and you prove my point. Why are there NOT more 4/10 and 5/9 scores? You can be ugly as hell, and still be the fk of the century but guys are so blinded by the physical, they can't even score accurately giving credit, where credit is due. Her being HOT does not make her good in bed...sorry, but it does not. Again, hotter chicks have it easier!

Its nothing to cry about though really...because everyone's body can be changed with different habits and everyone's appearance can be altered or upped.

Please, don't cry for us fat girls lol.  We know where the produce aisle is.

Being hot does not make you good in bed, which is why you would see 8/9 for looks and 5/6 for performance.  The women who are truly 4/5 in looks probably don't get many dates (and this has nothing to do with their size or weight) so they don't many chances to prove they are great in bed.  The ones that get that score usually don't have accurate pics, so the guy is pissed when he shows up and does not see what he was hoping for and scores accordingly.

I got pissed because you want me to KEEP DRINKING AND BE SKINNY...not gonna happen. Take your pick.

if one doesn't dress slutty... guys give lower looks scores. If you show intelligence, sometimes you will be labeled a "geek". Women are not the only picky bitches lol. Perhaps we should be rated on "looks", "experience", and "intelligence/conversation". (oh the uproar of it all ha ha)

LR is right, there are VERY few 5/9 scores out there. Yes I still feel what a guy rates as low in looks does affect experience ratings. I have seen some reviews where it was very clear the "5 looks" gal deserved a 10 experience, but yet didn't get it. Of course I have read a few reviews of the Model gals where I scratched my head wondering why they got a 10 experience. Something to be said in reading the reviews!!!

Some guys are fair in reviews, others are fucking ass hats. A gal should ALWAYS get credit when credit is due. The whole point of reviews is HONESTY. Oh, and while I am at it... just because her bazillion reviews before yours said she was "once in a lifetime", if your experience was a crash and burn, then rate correctly.

Just like the poster below, saying the girl is incredibly beautiful but didn't click so she's only "attractive" in looks now for the review. poor performance affected the looks category. Seems like the same issue w/ bbw. They aren't scored as high on the looks, so the guy scores them less on performance. their looks affected the performance category. interesting.......

men should just score looks for looks and performance for performance. easy

-- Modified on 3/20/2013 3:13:27 PM

It appeared to me that Estella was saying guys thought it (baby fat) meant ladies that had had a child and still had the extra fat that goes with that.

I stated that the rolls of fat get in the way.  How can you possibly tie color into that?

Also, race isn't a choice for women, FAT is, and can be fixed with SALAD.

OMG, that was fked up. Funny as all get out, but fked up bwahahhaa. It can also be fixed with Meth...lots and lots of meth, but how come meth addicts still get 10s in performance because they are skinny?

I put an eom in the title, what you doing here? Looking for Cheetos?

as opposed to an assessment of skill, drive and effort the provider puts forth. If that's how reviewers in general are interpreting the category that may be why looks drive the performance score up and down accordingly. And the reverse may be true also. A lady who satisfies well may be given a bump up in appearance.

I agree, it make no sense that there are not more providers that are 6/9 or 10/6

How can BBW's get the credit?   There is NO way they can make me hard......  You have to be drunk to get one.  Oh well, different people have different taste.

Baby you ARE one of the HOT GIRLS!