Once again, not full figured ...
Memphis Monroe is 5'6", 36"-25"-36". She originally had a smaller bust, but enhanced her breasts to make more of a perfectly symmetric and voluptuous form to match her hips (and boy do they!). When it comes to models, she represents the most broad form of male lust, hitting a great number of desires of men of differing, yet converging, tastes. More selfishly, at first she reminded me of Kira Kener (who I always felt was my unexplained, "sexual kryponite"), but has even more curves and features that drive me insane (yes, I get too analytical, I'll full admit).
So, once again, not full figured, but a woman of universally perfect dimensions -- 36"-24"-36" at heights of 5'5"-5'7" -- in the eyes of mainstream desire. This used to be the staple of models, although many have gone to more straight forms (instead of hourglass) with the bust and hips smaller (even if the mid-section is not). They also used to have smaller busts, but the average bust size has come up over a full cup size in just two generations.
As I mentioned before, with the type of posts we're seeing, we should change the title of this thread to something like ...
-
Thin but curvy, not straight shaped, women
Or ...
-
Classic curves (36-24-36 and the like)
Or similar.
Also understand I started several threads on women of curves, although focusing more on their mid-section to hips ratios -- a "cheat" being how "horizontal" your hands are if you put them just above her hips:
- Full:
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=68420
- Thin:
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=164618
- Silicone:
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=223875
I also started a related thread about stock-apple forms, women who may have a large chest (although varying bust volume), but less ratio from hip to tail (although varying butt volume), because they are short and more compact:
-
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=162149
The term "full figured" really means larger dimensions than 36-24-36, especially at similar or smaller heights. Statistically 80% of Anglo-American women are either straight-shaped or pear/spoon-shaped, so full figured tends to be women of 30+ mid-sections in general, and some are
not fat as well, they are just wider figures (especially as they are no longer young ladies and gain width). Hence why I always state "hourglass FFW" or "stocky apple FFW" as my preference.
Yes, there is just that much variety in women. For example, my wife is a stock-apple that has both large chest dimension and DDs atop of that, so her top really sticks out. Like many apples, she has lower rear dimensions, although in her case, she has some really wide fucking hips (my hands almost totally horizontal when she's riding me cowgirl), but a much flatter ass (I prefer full tushies, although there is less "padding" so I do admit can "go deeper" when in her doggie
). So much variety to love out there.
So no argument on Memphis Monroe being insanely beautiful, with voluptuous curves that are -- statistically -- 1 in tens or hundreds of thousands. But she's a traditional, voluptuous model beauty, not full figured, not even a hourglass FFW. She's just a perfect hourglass in the range of a broad lust of men.
