Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I can't see the second one, because there's only the back view. The first one looks like she has fake boobs. Most women with low body fat won't have much boobage. And in terms of practicality for dating, how many women like this are out there, anyway? This looks hot, but it's not real. If you say this is your physical ideal, you wont be dating very often. Either that, or you'll have to adjust your standards. I like women who are more real--attractive in a natural way, not with so little body fat they have to buy boobs.
The second one, IMO, has legs that are way too muscular. It isn't attractive to me. The first likely does as well, but the photo doesn't really show much of her body.
I'd probably prefer 5'7" 124 w/lower body fat....I'm not too into muscular chicks.
Big girls buy boobs all of the time too. It is 100% real, besides whatever little editing they did just like every other picture nowadays. It can be your physical ideal, but it doesn't mean you wouldn't be happy with less. You seem kind of judgmental or standoffish and I don't understand why. She worked harder than 99% of people are willing to do in order to become that good looking.
This is a thread about assessing attractiveness, which is inherently a judgment. It makes no sense to call someone judgmental in this context.
You ain't lying! Those are the type of women that get paid to look good. Won't have to work a day in their life with the amount of sugar daddies wanting to be with them lol. Hard work pays off
..but they'll marry other athletes. (Or so I've seen with the few fitness competitors I know personally.) Most women who work that hard don't have any desire to be a sugar baby. And they'll continue to work hard as personal trainers, gym owners, etc. as they get older.
The second one, IMO, has legs that are way too muscular. It isn't attractive to me. The first likely does as well, but the photo doesn't really show much of her body.
I'd probably prefer 5'7" 124 w/lower body fat....I'm not too into muscular chicks.
There are no weaknesses in either of those two gals' appearances. They are just perfect.
Skinny and fit does nothing for me as from a sexual standpoint. There's just something about a confident bigger woman that appeals to me.
Thats totally cool. I like a bigger fit woman as well, or a curvy woman who is all about that bass like Kim Kardashian. Big as in high body fat % is not good, big as in curvy sexiness like Kim K is outstanding.
I feel the term "obese" should be redefined. This women is shapely; certainly. However obese doesn't come to mind as I view the photo. Also, I wouldn't say this woman appears Grossly overweight as per the definition of obese.
Clearly beauty is subjective. There are men twice her size and healthier than most of you posting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
