That is the not the average height/weight of the american woman. It's more weight than that as the average size is a size 14. I can assure you that a woman who is 5'3, 135 is not a size 14. Not even close. 5'3, 150 is about average. Yes there are exceptions but that is the going size that is considered average. Besides that, if the pics are accurate of what she really looks like, her stats shouldn't matter as long as she is being honest picture wise.

The foot fetishists are ALREADY MAD! They keep calling me and complaining about the lack of a...

... "foot size and shape" catagory!  They keep losing their erections while sucking and licking providers feet because they were PROMISED a "HIGH ARCH" and a "GLOSSEY RED POLISH" in the "Juicey Details" section and the lying, thieving escort shows up and DAMNIT!! -she has FLAT feet, PINK polish, and bunions and CORNS on her toes...!!!  I keep telling them that lots of guys EXAGERATE how pretty a girl's feet are in their reviews (you know- the whole "reviews are a FICTIONAL FANTASY deal...)

If you want to know if a girl REALLY has luscious, SUCKABLE toes you have to PM her reviewers, I say!  BACK CHANNEL is the ONLY way to TRUELY know if a girl really gets a pedicure EVERY week, like she claims! But they NEVER listen!

Re: Get ready - we're tackling hair length next

A friend of mine had a guy complain because she had wavy hair in the photo and straight hair that day. Seriously.....wow......

No worries GaGambler. Although I am not offended by him.

I am annoyed at his stupidity.  This subject has been beaten to death.  I do not agree with him mainly because everyone's opinion will be different.  You and Johnny may see eye to eye.  However, there many gents right behind you who disagree.

I am a larger lady.  Go on my website and read it.  I post new pics every 2-3 months.  I am honest about my size and happen to love how I look.  Guess What?  So do most of my clients.  I lost 80 pounds over 12 years ago and am loving life.  If you take the time to read my reviews many state that I am a larger lady, but no BBW.  I am also 43 years old so Baby Fat just sounds stupid.  So, I must say no to your accusation GaGambler.  I am not offended.  I am what I am and I love me!

It is near impossible to describe most people using just one word.  That's where reading the reviews comes into play.

I also agree with you.  Ally and I are not even close to being the same size.  Average is a very broad term.  I would consider Ally to be Athletic/Thin.  IMHO.  Once again, these are our OPINIONS.  Not everyone is going to agree on this subject.  Obviously not, because whomever decided to "LABEL" me and Ally decided on the "Average" for body type.  So it seems you're barking up the wrong tree.  Talk to the gents who write the reviews.

Don't worry about picking on me...as you can see by my pictures, I have thick skin.  Hhhmmmm?  Thick Skin!  Maybe that should be a new description!  LOL  

The thing is, if you don't like what you see, don't see the lady.  The reviews are a "package" of information.  If the only thing you are going by is the "body type" area, you are not utilizing this site for all it has to offer.

Hugs, Betty xoxo

Because I do have a problem with the term BBW cropping up in my reviews lmfao.

I am nearly 5'6 and a size 10; and though my photographs show me in my best light I do not hide anything.  I'm not a BBW, a "mini-BBW" or any of that bullshit.

I advertise accurately, nearly all of my reviews feature my stature - and I still get those who decide that my charming online personality may overrule their most base instinct and attraction to petite/slender women.  It doesn't and I get back-ended with "BBW" because I'm not their usual size 2 fare.  Not my problem.

Baby fat?  When I think of baby fat, I think of skinny fat girls - you know slender-ish women who are like size 4-8 with pouches or who are soft.

Baby fat is probably an inappropriate designation on my profile and I realize that-
But seeing as though there are at least three different definitions of "average" going on in this thread alone that probably wouldn't be fitting either (despite the fact that when I'm walking around in the mall or on the street in my ripped jeans and a tee...I am quite "average" compared to other women that I see).
I'm not modifying shit on that profile because you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Read the reviews- are the pictures accurate?  Then you've got your answer.
Does she routinely hide her ass or her stomach?  
Then you've got your answer.

I keep it real - and no, I don't want to be labeled "BBW" and I am not the poster child of "large women who are self-deprecating."

Moderator- excuse me cropping up again in this thread.  I did appear as "SissyAssNoize" but I did have to address Gambler's post.

We are all sick of this bullying by a no name about our age and weight!

If men don't like curves....date a stick.

-- Modified on 8/23/2009 3:34:30 PM

Accurate pictures are the only necessity and then read the juicy details as was added.  Maybe the larger women are the ones to speak up but they aren't the only ones annoyed with or find some of the profile ridiculous.  E

You cannot judge what you haven't exerienced.  You are however entitled to your opinion.  

Have a great day!  Betty xoxo

Didn't I White Knight on this a couple of months ago?

I do reviews.  There is not a good body description for ladies such as Betty.  This is associated with earlier threads of how words meanings become twisted over time so as to mean something different from what the words orignally, and still technically, mean.

Specifically, BBW.  It's current "meaning" makes it something I could not use in a review of Betty, for as it is used, it would be misleading.  HOWEVER - Is Betty a woman?  ABSOLUTELY.  Is she big?  She is 5-8 and no thin pencil.  Is she "fat" compared to ladies in her age range in the general poplulace, not really.  Average? No, she is a bigger (taller and curvier) than average, so OK, Big.  Beautiful?  ABSOLUTELY.  So technically BBW - as the english language would intend it, could apply.  But there we go again, as the term is unfortunately used as a "nice way" to refer to "fat women", I do not find it an honest description of this particular provider (or a couple of others I have seen).  So again our habit or putting subjective meaning to "objective' words works against us again.

In point of fact, she is curvy in that she is proportional.  Point blank, her big tits make her proportional.  I know guys definitely look at her and it is NOT because they are offended by the view.  It is the opposite.

So I would say, as I often do, that TER has many shortcomings.  One is, and I have felt for some time, is the body description.  So if the intent of the OP or GaG is to improve the system, I am behind you.  As far as who should update some data, I am mixed.  I USED to believe the ladies should be in charge of certain elements.  I am not sure now and frankly the age thing is a perfect example.  Look at the ages used at date-check rather than here.  The ages here seem closer as it is hobbyists that impact that.  So rest assured if I do a review on Betty, it will be in the 40-45 range.  Body type...I am a bit stuck with the options currently there.

BUT GUYS...while I can be as anal retnetive as the next analyst in this situation we have something better than a one word data element.  We have a link ot her site.  She makes clear that she is of larger nature.  She posts current pics.  It is the part of the tool that is more important.

So JN, GaG, etc. I will totally White Knight at this point -- and frankly you guys COMPLETELY prove my point.  You should apologize to Betty in this one regard.  The "inference" is that she is complicit in deception because of a data element reviewers either don't update or are like me, confused how to use it.  Betty has control of one thing and that is her webs site.  She is honest about herself there.  She continually posts recent pics (wont go there LOL).  She is doing all the things at her site to be honest and upfront.  Seriously guys, shouldn't you at least praise her for being honest?  Don't we all wish all providers were so honest with their web pages and pics?  You have used her honestly there as a weapon against her here.  So don't you think you should praise her for having an honest web site rather than whine about a data element us reviewers are supposed to keep current?  Are there REALLY hobbyists the DON'T check the ladies web sites and instead go purely on a data element on the profile?  I mean REALLY?  

Shouldn't she be thanked for having an honest web site?  What is her motivation to keep current pics there if then slammed for dishonesty?  It would be easier for her to just let it sit with old or touched-up pics.  Oh, the answer happens to be her integrity by the way.