Bedford Blonde
Official Checked Star Member
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
big is beautiful - bbw - voluptuous chubby luscious
- Thread starter mcduff
- Start date
piletinica
Banned
ElSexyMatador
Approved Content Owner
Full figured beauty Angelina Castro pleasures her pussy in bed
http://www.angelinacastrolive.com/promo/mgp/hotelsolo1/
http://www.angelinacastrolive.com/promo/mgp/hotelsolo1/
Big tits Ashley Sage Ellison - Showering scene (movie)
http://www.xlgirls.com/bbw/video/39025/ashley_gets_wet/?nats=MTIzMDQzMi4yLjcuNy4xLjAuMC4wLjA
http://www.xlgirls.com/bbw/video/39025/ashley_gets_wet/?nats=MTIzMDQzMi4yLjcuNy4xLjAuMC4wLjA
mentator75
Please Jerk Responsibly
Supa Dupa
http://search.aebn.net/dispatcher/starDetail?locale=en&starId=52198&theaterId=65922&genreId=101
http://www.iafd.com/title.rme/title=Voluptuous+Cum+Suckers/year=2008/Voluptuous_Cum_Suckers.htm scene 7 < she's the cover girl and IAFD can't ID her ?! >
http://www.iafd.com/title.rme/title=Heavyweight+Honeys+2/year=2008/Heavyweight_Honeys_2.htm scene 4
Cheri Swellz
http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=cswellz/gender=f/cheri-swellz.htm
http://search.aebn.net/dispatcher/starDetail?locale=en&starId=11008&theaterId=65922&genreId=101
http://search.aebn.net/dispatcher/starDetail?locale=en&starId=52198&theaterId=65922&genreId=101
http://www.iafd.com/title.rme/title=Voluptuous+Cum+Suckers/year=2008/Voluptuous_Cum_Suckers.htm scene 7 < she's the cover girl and IAFD can't ID her ?! >
http://www.iafd.com/title.rme/title=Heavyweight+Honeys+2/year=2008/Heavyweight_Honeys_2.htm scene 4
Cheri Swellz
http://www.iafd.com/person.rme/perfid=cswellz/gender=f/cheri-swellz.htm
http://search.aebn.net/dispatcher/starDetail?locale=en&starId=11008&theaterId=65922&genreId=101
ElSexyMatador
Approved Content Owner
Angelina Castro and Selah double team some cock
http://www.angelinacastrolive.com/promo/mgp/acselahkylebgg1/
http://www.angelinacastrolive.com/promo/mgp/acselahkylebgg1/
Anyone id the girl in the first photo?
The first photo is of the very famous, German Nadine Jansen (Boobpedia), closer to the beginning of her career, probably 2005 or 2006, before pregnancy and softening.
The second shot is of British (with clear Greek raven heritage) Kerry Marie (Boobpedia), around 2002 or 2003 and her Model of the Year title from Voluptuous magazine, before she went fully BBW. I would argue that her beauty, form and charisma around that age, with the content she published, she is probably the most beautiful woman I've ever seen overall.
To get to know more of these "classic" (in the late '90s and '00s sense) "All Natural" beauties, see my older thread Twelve Years of Voluptuous Model of the Year.
The slender Ultraglass - extremely rare, horrendously under-appreciated
Dress sizes, like BMI, are designed for straight-shaped women. Even the Wikipedia article Female Body Shape was a mess before I got a hold of it. But even shapes like "hourglass" are based on a woman being 5'6" (1.68m). As a woman heads towards and beyond 5'3" (1.6m), she has a statistical tendency to go more towards being a top heavy apple with a less jutting rear (even if she still has hips). And as she heads towards and beyond 5'9" (1.75m), she has a tendency to add more hips as her structure supports more height, usually with a fuller rear.
Not-so-coincidentally, the real test of "overweight" is the simple, "overhang" test of the stomach. Women who have under 3cm (around 1" or less) of overhang when they are standing up are very healthy. Women differ in not just proportion, but body sizes. Some are wider, and their weight distributes out. Others are thinner, and any weight immediately goes to their stomach.
Supermodel Kate Dillon is the classic example. In her teens, she was a size 6, and considered "the next Cindy Crawford" by mainstream media. By the time she was 19 at 5'11" (1.8m), she was medically anorexic just trying to maintain her size 6. She is not remotely healthy as a woman under size 10. She could be a size 10, but she chooses to be a size 12 and even 14 at times. At 5'11" she's not really "full figured," she's tall, and has some killer hourglass curves. Those are unchanged from when she was a teenager.
I've found myself lusting for women as thin as Shay Laren and as thick as Maria Moore because of their base, hourglass form. Some people think that means I "like anything," bit it's quite the opposite. I'm picky as hell, and such women are 1 out of 10,000 (if not more). Both are "extremes" because I usually never go for women who are as thin as Shay or a clear BBW like Maria Moore, but they are exceptions. I look for a base hourglass, and then I could care less what her weight is, she will be striking in form to me through her life and her cycles. The more extreme the hourglass, the deeper my lust is.
Less than 8% of women of European decent have a hourglass figure. Far less of those have extremely wide hourglasses, meaning they can take on so much weight into their bust and hips before it starts showing in their stomach. Sometimes they have such extremely wide hips and busts, but then tiny mid-sections for their frame. They could literally fit in a size 2 dress at their mid-section, but their bust and/or hips put them in a size 8 or 10. I refer to such women as "Ultraglasses." An added bonus for an Ultraglass is typically not just wider and more hanging breasts, not to get too erotic, but a male can clasp and hold such a lover at her small midsection, and her breasts will "hang over" (and even swing and collapse against) the more sensitive back of his hands.
There's also something to be said about a woman with a little "inner stomach," which I find very sexy. It doesn't really overhang, but "smooths" from her sides into her body, as well as up from her pelvis. It's that little "bump" in form. She doesn't really have "handles," and she doesn't really much "hanging" over her waist, but it's nicely packed into a run from her waist before it folds under her chest. And it's slender, flattened, but not hard. Women who have children often gain these, if not 4" (10cm) in overall dimension at their waist, if not mid-section and bust too.
Director Joss Wheadon, of both Buffy and Firefly fame, was infamous for making his female actresses put on +15-20lbs. (+7-9kg) to make their curves more womanly, their dresses hug a little more, their faces round just slightly and so forth. I always point to actress Jewel Staite as a great "litmus test" of example of what men prefer. In the series Firefly, she was +15lbs. and adorable in my view. In the movie Serenity, she was back to her thinner form. Times have changed in French-influenced US media, and Americans have long forgotten the 26-38" midsection and hips of "voluptuous" Merilyn Monroe. Younger men are looking more for the 22-34" midsection-hips figures of their favorite, thin pornstar. And even ones going for a "bubble butt" aren't concerned about symmetric from hips to chest, so they will be spoon shaped and not remotely the classic "voluptuous" form.
More in the adult modelling world, Michelle Bond is my favorite example of "perfect in base form." In her early-to-mid 20s, she was a 40-25-37" (100-63.5-94cm) at 5'4" (1.63m), around 110lbs. (50kg), but she had the smallest midsection I've ever seen on such a wide form. I refer to such models as "Ultraglasses." Michelle also had pendulous breasts that almost covered her mid-section, so she was best viewed from behind. Over time Michelle thickened into her 30s, and now she's a very "juicy" 43-29-39" (109-74-99cm) and 154lbs. (70kg). She's still really a FFW, not quite a BBW, despite her bursting. And her hourglass is still there, but even more hidden because her breasts have become wider and even more pendulous, so her mid-section is totally covered. She'd probably be quite healthy at -15lbs. (-7kg), around 140lbs. (63kg), but for some men, that wouldn't be enough. Their loss in my view.
So I often mind my ideal woman is 5'3'-5'5" (1.6-1.65m), a wide 37" pair of hips, a mid-section that is still a hourglass, although smaller is more extreme and unique, and probably 130-150lbs. (59-68kg). But in reality, women are in so many ideal shapes and forms it's really hard to limit oneself to fixed dimensions and proportions. I really just want a woman with extreme curvature, up those hips and through that smaller midsection, with a slight softening to her form. Which brings me to you.
You are 5'9" (1.75m) and around 150lbs. (58kb), what someone might hastily put forth as a "mammazon." I think that's not tell your full story. Your hanging, more pendulous breasts also hide your thinner form much like Michelle. Your midsection is the only one I've ever noted to be on-par with my "ideal" view in Michelle, and your curvature from your midsection down through your lower form is unreal. But because of your increased height, versus Michelle's shorter form, you structure is a well defined pair of hips, curving out into a beautiful, jutting rear, and tapering off into a powerful set of thighs. Without getting too erotic, let's just say the physical prowess such a form endows and allows for a male lover you are atop of is an experience everyone should enjoy in their lifetime.
So I understand your point of "normal, and will agree you are "healthy." But I will disagree with "average." You are also definitely a "niche" and the very concept of a "fetish" I've tried to establish before in the thread Full fucking hips (and tummy) (which some people "get," but others still get confused on). You are a tall ultraglass, very under-appreciated, even more statistically rare, and the poster of the true, voluptuous form. I've been saying such ever since I was introduced to your work in 2012. I keep comparing your form to my established "poster girl" of Michelle Bond, even if she is on the opposite height spectrum from yourself. So I guess I should have two posters, one shorter (Michelle), and one taller (yourself), to perfect the "poster" example of what the "ideal form" is.
Years ago I forked some responses in the thread Full figured women (FFW), but slender, voluptuous NOT chubby to differentiate from the typical BBW posts here. But even "FFW" is a poor "label," because everyone differs on meaning, just like BBW as well.^ I consider myself a normal size 8 woman, not a BBW nor chubby. average size in us = 12. average size in porn = 4 or 6. 8 = not chubby. size 8 is healthy and normal, not a fetish or a niche.
Dress sizes, like BMI, are designed for straight-shaped women. Even the Wikipedia article Female Body Shape was a mess before I got a hold of it. But even shapes like "hourglass" are based on a woman being 5'6" (1.68m). As a woman heads towards and beyond 5'3" (1.6m), she has a statistical tendency to go more towards being a top heavy apple with a less jutting rear (even if she still has hips). And as she heads towards and beyond 5'9" (1.75m), she has a tendency to add more hips as her structure supports more height, usually with a fuller rear.
Not-so-coincidentally, the real test of "overweight" is the simple, "overhang" test of the stomach. Women who have under 3cm (around 1" or less) of overhang when they are standing up are very healthy. Women differ in not just proportion, but body sizes. Some are wider, and their weight distributes out. Others are thinner, and any weight immediately goes to their stomach.
Supermodel Kate Dillon is the classic example. In her teens, she was a size 6, and considered "the next Cindy Crawford" by mainstream media. By the time she was 19 at 5'11" (1.8m), she was medically anorexic just trying to maintain her size 6. She is not remotely healthy as a woman under size 10. She could be a size 10, but she chooses to be a size 12 and even 14 at times. At 5'11" she's not really "full figured," she's tall, and has some killer hourglass curves. Those are unchanged from when she was a teenager.
I've found myself lusting for women as thin as Shay Laren and as thick as Maria Moore because of their base, hourglass form. Some people think that means I "like anything," bit it's quite the opposite. I'm picky as hell, and such women are 1 out of 10,000 (if not more). Both are "extremes" because I usually never go for women who are as thin as Shay or a clear BBW like Maria Moore, but they are exceptions. I look for a base hourglass, and then I could care less what her weight is, she will be striking in form to me through her life and her cycles. The more extreme the hourglass, the deeper my lust is.
Less than 8% of women of European decent have a hourglass figure. Far less of those have extremely wide hourglasses, meaning they can take on so much weight into their bust and hips before it starts showing in their stomach. Sometimes they have such extremely wide hips and busts, but then tiny mid-sections for their frame. They could literally fit in a size 2 dress at their mid-section, but their bust and/or hips put them in a size 8 or 10. I refer to such women as "Ultraglasses." An added bonus for an Ultraglass is typically not just wider and more hanging breasts, not to get too erotic, but a male can clasp and hold such a lover at her small midsection, and her breasts will "hang over" (and even swing and collapse against) the more sensitive back of his hands.
There's also something to be said about a woman with a little "inner stomach," which I find very sexy. It doesn't really overhang, but "smooths" from her sides into her body, as well as up from her pelvis. It's that little "bump" in form. She doesn't really have "handles," and she doesn't really much "hanging" over her waist, but it's nicely packed into a run from her waist before it folds under her chest. And it's slender, flattened, but not hard. Women who have children often gain these, if not 4" (10cm) in overall dimension at their waist, if not mid-section and bust too.
Director Joss Wheadon, of both Buffy and Firefly fame, was infamous for making his female actresses put on +15-20lbs. (+7-9kg) to make their curves more womanly, their dresses hug a little more, their faces round just slightly and so forth. I always point to actress Jewel Staite as a great "litmus test" of example of what men prefer. In the series Firefly, she was +15lbs. and adorable in my view. In the movie Serenity, she was back to her thinner form. Times have changed in French-influenced US media, and Americans have long forgotten the 26-38" midsection and hips of "voluptuous" Merilyn Monroe. Younger men are looking more for the 22-34" midsection-hips figures of their favorite, thin pornstar. And even ones going for a "bubble butt" aren't concerned about symmetric from hips to chest, so they will be spoon shaped and not remotely the classic "voluptuous" form.
More in the adult modelling world, Michelle Bond is my favorite example of "perfect in base form." In her early-to-mid 20s, she was a 40-25-37" (100-63.5-94cm) at 5'4" (1.63m), around 110lbs. (50kg), but she had the smallest midsection I've ever seen on such a wide form. I refer to such models as "Ultraglasses." Michelle also had pendulous breasts that almost covered her mid-section, so she was best viewed from behind. Over time Michelle thickened into her 30s, and now she's a very "juicy" 43-29-39" (109-74-99cm) and 154lbs. (70kg). She's still really a FFW, not quite a BBW, despite her bursting. And her hourglass is still there, but even more hidden because her breasts have become wider and even more pendulous, so her mid-section is totally covered. She'd probably be quite healthy at -15lbs. (-7kg), around 140lbs. (63kg), but for some men, that wouldn't be enough. Their loss in my view.
So I often mind my ideal woman is 5'3'-5'5" (1.6-1.65m), a wide 37" pair of hips, a mid-section that is still a hourglass, although smaller is more extreme and unique, and probably 130-150lbs. (59-68kg). But in reality, women are in so many ideal shapes and forms it's really hard to limit oneself to fixed dimensions and proportions. I really just want a woman with extreme curvature, up those hips and through that smaller midsection, with a slight softening to her form. Which brings me to you.
You are 5'9" (1.75m) and around 150lbs. (58kb), what someone might hastily put forth as a "mammazon." I think that's not tell your full story. Your hanging, more pendulous breasts also hide your thinner form much like Michelle. Your midsection is the only one I've ever noted to be on-par with my "ideal" view in Michelle, and your curvature from your midsection down through your lower form is unreal. But because of your increased height, versus Michelle's shorter form, you structure is a well defined pair of hips, curving out into a beautiful, jutting rear, and tapering off into a powerful set of thighs. Without getting too erotic, let's just say the physical prowess such a form endows and allows for a male lover you are atop of is an experience everyone should enjoy in their lifetime.
So I understand your point of "normal, and will agree you are "healthy." But I will disagree with "average." You are also definitely a "niche" and the very concept of a "fetish" I've tried to establish before in the thread Full fucking hips (and tummy) (which some people "get," but others still get confused on). You are a tall ultraglass, very under-appreciated, even more statistically rare, and the poster of the true, voluptuous form. I've been saying such ever since I was introduced to your work in 2012. I keep comparing your form to my established "poster girl" of Michelle Bond, even if she is on the opposite height spectrum from yourself. So I guess I should have two posters, one shorter (Michelle), and one taller (yourself), to perfect the "poster" example of what the "ideal form" is.
Re: The slender Ultraglass - extremely rare, horrendously under-appreciated
Member2019..... that was one of the best posts I've read. Wow, bravo!
Member2019..... that was one of the best posts I've read. Wow, bravo!
Some video of Fiona O'conner enjoying some black cock - http://www.busty-amateurs.com/fiona-o-conner/movies1/index.html
