Why are so many reviewers reluctant to describe providers as heavy?  It seems like some providers with baby fat are heavier than a few babies.

I believe that reviewers do describe some as heavy, for those who are, and some who have baby fat, for those who are..not sure what your point is here?

Mel

I totally agree with you.  I've seen profiles of women who must weigh at least 220 being described merely as having "baby fat."  Isn't the whole point of this site for each one of us to give to each other as much honest information as possible in order to minimize the uncertainty of this hobby?  When coming across one of these profiles, I usually think to myself that in order to have go with someone who looks as heavy as she does in her pictures, the reviewer must have a higher threshold of "heavy" that the average reasonable person (that would be me-at least in my own mind).

I generally try to be honest in my descriptions of these more voluptuous women.  A BBW is, after all, a BBW.  Be that as it may I can recall some instances where the provider has asked me not to use the term "BBW" or even "Heavy" but rather "voluptuous", because the other terms hurt them from a marketing perspective.

I too have encountered this several times.  

I recently saw a provider (great service) that had 4 pages of reviews, not one of made reference to her being heavier, and the profile shows her as being average.  But she is easily 80-100 lbs overweight.  Not one mention.

I think it's that guys want to be nice about a delicate situation, or are afraid that she'll find out their handle, etc.  Especially when there are a lot of reviews, nobody wants to be the first to say anything negative.  Often, the heavier provider wisely tells the guy that she's very sensitive about it, which of course deters him from mentioning it in a review.

When I see the term "baby fat" on a profile, I have found that to be pretty accurate.  Ironically, "average" seems to be used on many providers that are even heavier than the ones that list "baby fat".

I have seen several providers listed as "Athletic", and that is clearly a PC way of saying "very heavy".  It appears that "Muscular" also takes on the same meaning.

My question to you gentlemen is: Were you seeking someone who was a big girl from the beginning? If you are looking at her website, and notice that she wasn't thin, does that make her your type of girl or not? Lets face it, everyone has a preference. Some men like em thin, some like em big, some don't care If a gentleman had it in his mind that he likes em big, then I am not sure what the issue is, for he is going to see a big girl (like myself). Also, I looked at alot of the websites, of the voluptuous/bbw's and their pics, and they don't seem to misrepresent themselves at all (at least the ones that I took a look at). Infact, like myself, I am very open about how I look, and what you see, is what ya get I never had a mistake by a client who came to see me, thinking I was a size 2 lol  Also, I read somewhere that the average size is like what, a size 14 (please correct me, if I am wrong) and up. So, when someone asks me what I look like, I could say average, for there is more of me and bigger walking around. I am not saying it's wrong or right. It is just how it is..

Love, Hugs, and Kisses,

Mel

-- Modified on 3/8/2003 4:52:29 AM

-- Modified on 3/8/2003 4:54:09 AM

-- Modified on 3/8/2003 5:24:41 AM

But this is really dishonest too.  Check out the definition of "voluptuous" and you'll find that it has no relation to being a BBW - Sophia Loren was voluptuous (large chest, broad but not fat/flabby hips/butt and an exceptionally small waist for the rest of her figure.)

But this mis-use of the term is certainly not limited to the hobby; so many overweight women us this adjective for themselves in the media, personal ads, etc. that it has almost lost its meaning.

There is a difference between being average and being obese...therefore, I'd recommend you don't list yourself as "average" because that is very misleading.  If a guy is into BBW, then you could make his life easier by indicating that on your profile.  If a guy is not into BBW, you could also make his life easier by not wasting his time, making him go into your website to see your pictures before he figures out that you're not his type.

Your basic premise is correct.  Some of us, myself included, may be looking for things that transcend weight or height issues, and something on a web site for ANY provider might turn my head and help me to decide to see that provider.  There are those amongst us that don't care to date a "heavier" woman, and that's OK.  If they claim to have been deceived by the photos on the web site, they need, IMHO, to look a little more carefully, or get a new opthamologist.  Larger providers probably constitute the most honest and up front population, certainly here on TER.  Now before the flames begin to rise I'm not pointing fingers at any particular dishonesty or group that is dishonest.  But when you look at a BBW site, it for the most part plainly tells you that it's a BBW site, or the girl says something like: "...if you are looking for a Barbie-type then look elsewhere..." or some such wording.  What could be more honest?

Size and age are secondary considerations in my selection process.  I have been with 20 year olds that act 40 and a 51 year old that acted 18 and was awesome.  I have dated BBWs, and spinners, and even a waif for that matter!  My 3 ATFs are 1 BBW, 1 almost BBW and 1 aforementioned 51 year old grandmother.   I will relate 2 quick stories:  

Last week I saw a provider whose TER profile lists her build as "athletic".  I take "athletic" to mean some muscle tone, like a runner, or someone who goes to a gym 2 or 3 times a week.  Her pix showed her, IMO, to be heavier than "athletic" and perhaps I would have said "baby fat" based on those photos.  In person, she was "heavy".  What's the difference between "baby fat" and "heavy"?  I don't know what the TER definition is, so here's the Fortitude definition:  Baby fat is like love handles that have not yet been affected by gravity.  "Heavy" means that there is a more considerable amount of this baby fat that has been affected by gravity and sags as a result.  That's what I will put on my review of her (that may not get to the profile, but that's a TER issue), because that's what she is, not quite what I would call BBW, but getting close.   BTW, it won't be a bad review because I didn't have a bad time.

Story #2:  Last November I saw a provider whose pix were dead accurate in showing off an almost perfect aerobic body, great muscle tone, very tall with legs that go on forever, etc.  Her face was blurred, which I can respect, and her reviewers all rated her looks as "very hot" or "model material".  She put her age at 36 and the TER profile had her at 36-40.  She opened the door, and she was in fact gorgeous.  Body awesome, etc.  But if she was 36, I'm 40 (I am 56).  After some friendly time I asked her age.  She told me her "real" age was 44, but putting that onto the web site was, in her words, "marketing suicide", and that as soon as she changed it, her appointment rates more than doubled.  I'd be guessing, but I would put her closer to 50.

Melinda, your original thoughts are correct.  for some of us, it doesn't matter and there are other things that are more important.  And for the most part my experience has been that sites attributed to larger sized providers are much more up front and "What you see is what you get".

For those of you that don't like to read I apologize for the length of this post.  Sometimes I get carried away.

F.

Maybe it just has to do with perspective.  You see it as a negative aspect you want to be forewarned about, but the men who enjoy women that size wouldn't want to, or perhaps don't think of, describing them in that way.  They're complimentary because that IS what they like.  Maybe?

-Anya

I will say that for those of us who are "heavy," I think we hate seeing the dishonesty you speak of more than you do... it certainly doesn't do anything positive for ANY of us ladies if a gent shows up to find a lady has lied and her reviewers have lied as well.  I do think that for the most part, us curvy girls tend to be way more honest than we even need to be!!!! But there are exceptions to every rule.

I don't think athletic is a PC term for "very heavy" though... I've seen many ladies described as athletic who are, at least judging from their pics. I think more than the label of words chosen by a reviewer, gents would do better to read the reviews, make note of any descriptions (I've seen LOTS of reviews that say "She's gained some weight" or whatever), and check out the pics on the ladies website.  I think with the pics I have up, if a gent were to show up and say he didn't realize just how curvy I was, he'd simply have to be delusional or on something... not all of us try to hide what we are.

Hugs*
Nicole

That the woman is big and is up front about it.  I think that those terms accurately portray what to expect. Being no waif myself, I am always up-front with whomever I intend to see so they are aware.

Heavy, overweight, obese, etc. are also accurate terms, however take into consideration that the providers read their reveiws as well, and be aware that the terms may be hurtful to them.

Just my $0.02 worth

HPG

Judging by your pics, you are damn near perfect for those of us who prefer a more athletic tone to the body rather than a bunch of bones covered by a thin layer of skin.  Stay just the way you are!

Seeing that I am a size 16/18- that does put me within the statistic range of being average. AGAIN- I am NOT saying it's wrong, or right..it just is..btw- no where on my site, is it saying that I am thin, when men see my site, they either want a girl with meat on her bones, or they don't. They don't say: "Geesh, I know she doesn't look like a size 2, let me meet her, and maybe she dropped some weight to that size" lol  Like I said, what ya see, is what ya get (love that song lol)..



meow

Mel

-- Modified on 3/8/2003 4:24:45 PM

that some days it's longer than others.  And here I am ragging on about consistency.  I love you too Robyn!

F.

Reude, BBW, Reubenesque, Full Bodied, Big-Bold and Beautiful all let you know

The reason for my question was only to get as accurate description as possible of a provider.  I don't consider BBW as derogatory, but, in my perception, there's a long way between baby fat and BBW.  Thanks for your input.

Reude, BBW, Reubenesque, Full Bodied, Big-Bold and Beautiful all let you know

Well said!

I don't think of a 16/18 as being average. Even if you're 6 ft tall. If you bop into any clothing store and buy off the rack, you will see the women's sizes generally run from 2-14 (2,4,6,8,10,12,14) and based on what's missing the most popular sizes seem to be 6, 8 & 10. Generally to find larger than a 14 you have to shop at a specialty store or one that offers larger sizes.

Hey, nitpick (NOT calling u a nitpick) ...it's your right

That is what is so good about society. We can nitpick, discuss, agree to disagree..Just to let you know, I use to work at a clothing store (in my early 20's), and the sizes that were mostly out of stock were the sizes 14 and up (not to mention that there are studies done in Fashion on the clothes sizes that mostly sell- 14 and up) just a hint for you Also, yes...I DO consider myself average size. Statiscally. Again (omigosh NOT Again-hey, stop throwing popcorn at me! bahhhhh  lol), it just is...lol Anyways, lets all agree to disagree, and still remain friendly to one another, regardless of who looks like what?

Mel..


Addemdum: To ALL the beautiful ladies of every stature:  No woman should  be made to feel like she is worthless, if she was thin, medium, big. It's about loving yourself, who you are as a person, your accomplishments. If someone judges you, because to him/her, you don't fit their "norm", then that person was not worthy of you, from the beginning. Smile


-- Modified on 3/9/2003 8:20:16 PM

-- Modified on 3/9/2003 8:30:30 PM

-- Modified on 3/9/2003 8:39:18 PM

I think it is clearly important for the descriptions in a review to be as honest as possible.  Of course, this is based on subjective reasoning, so that makes it difficult.  As Fortitude said, it is not about size, but whatever floats your boat at the time.

In my mind, I think there is a distinction between baby fat and BBW.  From what I have read, size 14ish is average.  I would absolutely agree with that assessment.

I personally, take the time to go into every person's web site that I am interested in dating to check out likes/dislikes, hair color, size etc.  If I am looking to spend time with someone larger than a size 2, the photos on the web site will show it.