| jimbrowski |
10-19-2012 08:55 AM |
5 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThickNiggaDick
(Post 44340)
And, I respect your position with regard to fat women, as well as that of YoungBlkMan18. But in making your points, you have also supported mine, which is that "phat" (or "thick") and "fat" are not one and the same. To each his own, but I'm just not into fat women, sometimes also called BBWs (Big Beautiful Women).
Note: I responded to Alley's question about what kind of ass she has, but I got a system prompt that my message would have to be reviewed by a moderator first before it could be posted . . . what :confused:???
|
I think the difference is you think "fat" girls with fat asses are fat, and I think "fat" girls with flat asses are fat, but if you look at it scientifically, and technically, all of them would be considered fat. If a female was of average weight with no ass or thighs, according to society, which is usually from a white mans perspective, she would be considered petite. If a women has ass and thighs, then she's considered to be fat, or bbw, or voluptuous. I know females that weigh 10-20-30-40 pounds more than me (190lbs), but they have flat stomachs; the weight is on their thighs, and ass, but it just so happens that's exactly what I like.
It's just a subjective matter of how much is considered "thick".
I remember back in the day "thick" meant having tits, ass, and thighs, and along the years it just came down to thighs and ass.
I prefer my ladies to have meat on their body and to be soft so I have something to squeeze and hold on to. If I have to hug a female with a hard body it just wouldn't feel right.
The females attached are examples of "fat" girls with fat asses (depth). |
