Post: #51

Papayatapper : The girl is born in 1997, so she`s 22 now. That version right there is not 7-8 years ago.
I like you as a poster so its nothing personal, but dude you`ve done took this one too far.

Post: #52

PT,

I'm normally with you but can't get behind you on this one. I surely can get behind that delicious, juicy, "fat" girl you posted.

Post: #53

(04-17-2019 11:28 AM)RiskIt4Biscuit Wrote:  Papayatapper : The girl is born in 1997, so she`s 22 now. That version right there is not 7-8 years ago.
I like you as a poster so its nothing personal, but dude you`ve done took this one too far.

Admittedly i was guessing at the timeframe but can you honestly say there’s no significant difference in the girls weight?

(04-17-2019 09:49 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Early 30s. Why, do 40 year olds not get hard-ons?

LOZ would probably agree with me here. This is a perfectly “serviceable fuckpig” as he would put it haha. No great beauty, to be exact. But a nice collection of holes nonetheless.

Would you then agree that a “serviceable fuckpig” is not ideal? “No great beauty” ...your words

You guys that can’t get around the idea that I don’t find her attractive are missing the point I’m trying to make.

I’ll try again

A generation ago chicks with huge asses like this were not considered attractive. ( As evidenced in the video AO from the 90s) Kardashian like asses have only become widely acceptable (pun intended)and even worshipped in the 10-20 years.

And that’s not by accident.

To continue the testing of my theory if you say she’s a WB then please state your age ( range is ok)

Post: #54

I don`t think anyone is disputing that the beauty standards in the 90`s were different. Yes she absolutely would have been kicked off a runway stage back then, the demands for those girls bordered on anorexic. Fashion world had, and in general still has, very high demands for low % body fat.

But even back then i dont see how any normal dude who isnt a 10 himself, or famous with access to 10s, would turn her down. We can disagree on that but how anyone says that girl isnt a solid 8 is beyond me. Servicable fuckpig lol.

Im well into my 30s btw and remember the 90s.
But on the flipside, you could very well argue that social engineering was the reason for super skinny flat ass beauty standards in the 90s/80s.
At least that what some researchers claims:

Research from the University of Texas at Austin found that what men are really drawn to isn’t so much the size of the derriere, but the curve—or, more specifically, a spinal curvature that offers the illusion of a shapely butt.

In the study, approximately 100 men, between the ages of 17 to 34, were asked to rate the attractiveness of images of a woman’s silhouette as she stood sideways. Each image had been altered so the lower spine curved out at different angles—causing the woman’s butt to protrude in varying extremes. What researchers found: Overwhelmingly, men preferred the uber-bendy images that showed the lower spine curved at a 45-degree angle, from back to buttocks.

Pretty interesting, but do things change when butt size comes into play? To find out, the researchers asked 200 men to look at images of women with different butt sizes and spinal curves. Turns out, the men were turned on by women whose spinal curvature was closest to 45 degrees, regardless of the size of their rear. “This enabled us to conclusively show that men prefer women who exhibit specific angles of spinal curvature over buttock mass,” said the study’s co-author Eric Russell.

But before those of you with pancake-flat cabooses get all cocky (or, shall we say, cheeky?), check this out: The reason guys are giving those pushed-out tushes all that love, study authors surmise, has more to do with “prehistoric influences” than standards of beauty. Since pregnancy pitches the center of gravity forward, explains lead author David Lewis, “this spinal structure would have enabled pregnant women to balance their weight over the hips. These women would have been more effective at foraging during pregnancy and less likely to suffer spinal injuries. In turn, men who preferred these women would have had mates who were better able to provide for fetus and offspring, and who would have been able to carry out multiple pregnancies without injury.”

The (bottom) bottom line: The right curve made it easier for women to not only carry babies, but to get off their bottoms and hunt down grub to feed the offspring their men wanted—a desire that apparently has been passed down to big galoots today.

Post: #55

(04-17-2019 11:10 AM)Huey Wrote:  Man, I never thought I'd see the day where this





is considered disgusting on RVF. Astonishing, truly.

I think everyone has made good points.

1. Clearly, beauty is in the mind of the beholder.

2. The view of what is defined by media as sexy has skewed toward chicks with big asses.

3. The fat is beautiful is a disgusting bunch a bullshit being pushed by feminists, not health professionals.

IMO - if you take the same woman, and compare a fat ass to a skinny ass, as is the case with this woman's pics/history, the slim ass and thigh version is hotter and more desirable for fucking and long term prospects.

Comparing apples to apples, the skinny ass version will be rated higher by most men.

Perhaps we should start a poll?

Post: #56

You can see the girls collarbone.

If you can see a collarbone then by definition, in the majority of cases, her body fat isn't high and she isn't fat. If she has hips and carries more weight there then so be it but that doesn't mean a girl is a fat.

Too much porn and dudes fucking only one style of girl. Not sure what planet this girl being debated is fat. If you line her up beside any normal girl most men fuck she can't be considered fat.

Post: #57

Girls in the 80s and 90s didn’t even lift. But they certainly had prettier faces.

Post: #58

(04-17-2019 11:49 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 11:28 AM)RiskIt4Biscuit Wrote:  Papayatapper : The girl is born in 1997, so she`s 22 now. That version right there is not 7-8 years ago.
I like you as a poster so its nothing personal, but dude you`ve done took this one too far.

Admittedly i was guessing at the timeframe but can you honestly say there’s no significant difference in the girls weight?

(04-17-2019 09:49 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Early 30s. Why, do 40 year olds not get hard-ons?

LOZ would probably agree with me here. This is a perfectly “serviceable fuckpig” as he would put it haha. No great beauty, to be exact. But a nice collection of holes nonetheless.

Would you then agree that a “serviceable fuckpig” is not ideal? “No great beauty” ...your words

You guys that can’t get around the idea that I don’t find her attractive are missing the point I’m trying to make.

I’ll try again

A generation ago chicks with huge asses like this were not considered attractive. ( As evidenced in the video AO from the 90s) Kardashian like asses have only become widely acceptable (pun intended)and even worshipped in the 10-20 years.

And that’s not by accident.

To continue the testing of my theory if you say she’s a WB then please state your age ( range is ok)

I'm 42. Would smash. She isn't fat. She is a solid 8 or 8.5/10. You are saying her butt is fat? That isn't fat.

Post: #59

Post: #60

It's funny because I'm not into super skinny chicks like Taylor Swift and Gisele Bundchen... but at the same time absolutely do see their Beauty and WAB( Would Absolutely Bang) Funny how the opposite doesn't seem to apply!

Post: #61

That model girl is nice, great arse. Since when have men not liked women with curves? Most men have never been into skinny runway models, they have boys bodies.

Post: #62

I think the impasse here is trying to compare what earlier media fashion/model trends were compared with what the average dude actually WB. I'm 50 years old, I remember the Florida bikini & wet t-shirt contests, for sure. I also remember the curvy cheerleaders at my high school that were 9's and 10's back then, and definitely wouldn't ever have made it out on a runway. Now a tiny handful of these curvy girls are, apparently, on runways modeling bikinis, etc. WB all of them, as I have for 34 years now

Post: #63

I rarely agree with PattayaTapper and I doubt he wants me to agree with him, but he is absolutely right that what counts as hot has changed drastically. Also, you should stop posting different pictures of that Sofia girl when he was commenting on the video. In which, yes she would be considered fat in Europe and Asia. She gets away with it because her curves are still there and she has a tiny waist, but her ass is fat no doubt. Doesn't mean I wouldn't bang, but I greatly respect PattayaTapper for sticking to his standards, particularly in the face of the predictable onslaught of the thicc brigade.

What you thirsty fukkers contribute to is all the normal girls, who do not have curves like Sofia, just the lard bulk, think they are 'thicc'. I remember one "thicc", scratch it, fat girl, who gave me an instant boner and it was because her natural curvacious nature could not be hidden by the lard. The boner sees through the large mass of sitting-on-my-ass-all-day-long lard and through to the hot girl within. Doesn't mean Sofia Jamora wouldn't be much hotter with 10-15lbs less on her.

As corroborating evidence to AO earlier, I present the original Big Butt lover:





Not a thunder thigh to be seen!

It's hilarious that the girls in that video would be considered too skinny for some of you..

Post: #64

I actually agree with Papaya.

It’s not anything about the body. What stands out to me is that her lips have had so much Collagen injected it looks she’s stuffed balloons in them. THAT is offputting.


And yeah I do have my type. It isn’t the ones with boat-like hips. I like the “jogger girl” physique the best.

Post: #65

Coming from an Australian this will seem like tall poppy syndrome but that's not what's intended.

PPT operates in a world that most of you guys will never actually get a look in to unless you're waiting a bar there. He has the money and the game to pipeline 8's, 9's and the occasional 10. He doesn't have to compromise and in a way that's entirely the point he's trying to make.

Back in the 80's and to a lesser extent the 90's and 00's you didn't have wonder what that "thicc(ccc)" girl would look like with 10 less pounds. She never had them in the first place. Back then the guys lowering themselves to pork "thicc(ccc)" girls were doing just that. Lowering themselves. Is that plus sized model bangable? Sure. But the guys capable of banging her would have passed her over 20 or 30 years ago. There is a vast percentage of women who have dropped an SMV rating to the point where they have literally altered the SMV scale. To get any real idea of how this works you'd have to find someone old enough who could recollect these eras faithfully enough to tell you that a 7 in 2020 was a 6 in 2000 and a 5 in 1980. Maybe not precisely because it's all a bit granular but you get the idea.

Now in PPT's case he doesn't have to compromise. He sees things from the top of the scale, and at the top of the scale a 9 or a 10 is the same as it ever was in recent history, but he sees "thiccc(ccc)" girls like that Sofia Jamora chick being put on a runway where only legitimate 8's+ should be treading and he understands that the entire system of expectations has been reduced.

It might seem lofty to you but he's right. Standards are dropping and if he's the only one that sees it then it's because he's the only one that has access to the 9's, 10's and former 8's who are now somehow 8.5's ONLY because all the other chicks are getting fatter.

The bottom line is this. Guys might prefer curvy girls over skinny ones but the crucial line between overweight and underweight is the thigh gap. In that Sofia Jamora video? Good luck finding it. The pictures where she's 5 to 10 pounds lighter? That's a thigh gap you could ride a horse through. Sign me up. Otherwise PPT is right. It's a butchery of standards for women and she has no rightful place on the runway.

Get real here, guys. This is the difference for a man between having muscle tone and being a softbody. You can be a soft-body and not have a blubberous gut but we all know that if you're a softbody then you've dropped an entire SMV point at least. What's not OK for a man in also not OK for a woman.

Man: Softbody = -1SMV
Woman: No thigh gap = -1SMV

This is how it's viewed accurately from the upper echelons. At ground level it's easy to get sloppy if everyone else is and pretend that it's just the new normal.

Take a look at 100 random pictures of women from the 1950's. Not all of them were pretty but virtually all of them were an appropriate weight (or under). Physical jobs. Natural food. And yes, expectations of not being disgustingly slothful. If the women of the 50's arrived in the West today they would promptly undercut the ones already here in virtually every way (before begging to be taken back when they couldn't find enough worthy men to wed them). Same genetics. Different food. Different lifestyle. Different expectations.

Post: #66

Yeah I'm with PT on this one as well. That chick is fat.

Not saying I wouldn't fuck her. Lord knows I've fucked fatter. But she could definitely afford to lose a few pounds, or 20.

It's funny how society has pushed fat acceptance so much for the last 20 years that our fat-definition goal posts are moving. Most of these fatties think they are 'curvy' when in reality they are fat.

Hey, if girls that look like that get your jimmy rockin', then more power to you. No one is hating on you. You like what you like. But don't kid yourselves: these girls are unhealthy, living an unhealthy lifestyle, and are on the quick road to obesity.

I hate to see what the runway models look like 10-15 years from now. They are going to have to start rolling these pigs out on carts.

Post: #67

Wow never thought my video would derail the thread so much. I respect personal taste and opinions but this girl is NOT fat. Calling girls like her fat is what makes actually fat women think “well if she’s fat then I can compete with her”. The OG girl is fat, The Sophia girl isn’t.

I love PPT content but he keeps comparing these women to Kim K. ITS NOT THE SAME, Kim K is gross, nicki is gross, and you’re right the standards of fat have dropped drastically because many men think It’s weird I don’t like super thick women.

With all that said, I would thrash the chick to the grave but I can see how she’s unattractive. I sorta dislike her face, I can see how her ass could be seen as fat, I can understand how the jiggle could be seen as gross. But i don’t care what generation you’re in, what time, the vast majority of the time this woman would be seen as sexy! Definitely not runway material but sex material

Post: #68

(04-18-2019 08:46 AM)[email protected] Wrote:  Yeah I'm with PT on this one as well. That chick is fat.

Not saying I wouldn't fuck her. Lord knows I've fucked fatter. But she could definitely afford to lose a few pounds, or 20.

It's funny how society has pushed fat acceptance so much for the last 20 years that our fat-definition goal posts are moving. Most of these fatties think they are 'curvy' when in reality they are fat.

Hey, if girls that look like that get your jimmy rockin', then more power to you. No one is hating on you. You like what you like. But don't kid yourselves: these girls are unhealthy, living an unhealthy lifestyle, and are on the quick road to obesity.

I hate to see what the runway models look like 10-15 years from now. They are going to have to start rolling these pigs out on carts.

This was my point.

There's no use arguing subjective tastes.

But its objectively true that 20 years ago you would NEVER have seen as ass that big on a runway during fashion week

Post: #69

(04-18-2019 07:44 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  Coming from an Australian this will seem like tall poppy syndrome but that's not what's intended.

PPT operates in a world that most of you guys will never actually get a look in to unless you're waiting a bar there. He has the money and the game to pipeline 8's, 9's and the occasional 10. He doesn't have to compromise and in a way that's entirely the point he's trying to make.

Back in the 80's and to a lesser extent the 90's and 00's you didn't have wonder what that "thicc(ccc)" girl would look like with 10 less pounds. She never had them in the first place. Back then the guys lowering themselves to pork "thicc(ccc)" girls were doing just that. Lowering themselves. Is that plus sized model bangable? Sure. But the guys capable of banging her would have passed her over 20 or 30 years ago. There is a vast percentage of women who have dropped an SMV rating to the point where they have literally altered the SMV scale. To get any real idea of how this works you'd have to find someone old enough who could recollect these eras faithfully enough to tell you that a 7 in 2020 was a 6 in 2000 and a 5 in 1980. Maybe not precisely because it's all a bit granular but you get the idea.

Now in PPT's case he doesn't have to compromise. He sees things from the top of the scale, and at the top of the scale a 9 or a 10 is the same as it ever was in recent history, but he sees "thiccc(ccc)" girls like that Sofia Jamora chick being put on a runway where only legitimate 8's+ should be treading and he understands that the entire system of expectations has been reduced.

It might seem lofty to you but he's right. Standards are dropping and if he's the only one that sees it then it's because he's the only one that has access to the 9's, 10's and former 8's who are now somehow 8.5's ONLY because all the other chicks are getting fatter.

The bottom line is this. Guys might prefer curvy girls over skinny ones but the crucial line between overweight and underweight is the thigh gap. In that Sofia Jamora video? Good luck finding it. The pictures where she's 5 to 10 pounds lighter? That's a thigh gap you could ride a horse through. Sign me up. Otherwise PPT is right. It's a butchery of standards for women and she has no rightful place on the runway.

Get real here, guys. This is the difference for a man between having muscle tone and being a softbody. You can be a soft-body and not have a blubberous gut but we all know that if you're a softbody then you've dropped an entire SMV point at least. What's not OK for a man in also not OK for a woman.

Man: Softbody = -1SMV
Woman: No thigh gap = -1SMV

This is how it's viewed accurately from the upper echelons. At ground level it's easy to get sloppy if everyone else is and pretend that it's just the new normal.

Take a look at 100 random pictures of women from the 1950's. Not all of them were pretty but virtually all of them were an appropriate weight (or under). Physical jobs. Natural food. And yes, expectations of not being disgustingly slothful. If the women of the 50's arrived in the West today they would promptly undercut the ones already here in virtually every way (before begging to be taken back when they couldn't find enough worthy men to wed them). Same genetics. Different food. Different lifestyle. Different expectations.

LOL, right ...

I bet you two were both in Special Forces, too.

Post: #70

(04-18-2019 09:41 AM)Donfitz007 Wrote:  Wow never thought my video would derail the thread so much. I respect personal taste and opinions but this girl is NOT fat. Calling girls like her fat is what makes actually fat women think “well if she’s fat then I can compete with her”. The OG girl is fat, The Sophia girl isn’t.

I love PPT content but he keeps comparing these women to Kim K. ITS NOT THE SAME, Kim K is gross, nicki is gross, and you’re right the standards of fat have dropped drastically because many men think It’s weird I don’t like super thick women.

With all that said, I would thrash the chick to the grave but I can see how she’s unattractive. I sorta dislike her face, I can see how her ass could be seen as fat, I can understand how the jiggle could be seen as gross. But i don’t care what generation you’re in, what time, the vast majority of the time this woman would be seen as sexy! Definitely not runway material but sex material

Date whoever makes you happy.

If you want a slim chick who counts every calorie, go for it. If you like chicks who pound mocha lattes every morning for breakfast along with an Egg McMuffin, pound away.

I hate to use song lyrics to make a point, but in the end the race is long, and only with yourself.

Post: #71

dang Hank got banned??? HOW? he was legendary

Post: #72

I don't have very high standards , but I have never seen such over-sized ass on a rather hot body. She is not fat so to speak , but her ass is enormous, making her whole body very inharmonious
In addition , while she is obviously more pretty than ugly , she is a slap-face , the type of girl which was praised by daddy and mummy all her life - but in reality she looks like her jaws are made of helium and she isn't that hot.

I understand that guys can find her fat , and I understand that she can be attractive to some men as well, but I do not understand how this girl can be a model .
I have watched the video of her walking a few times and she has got a rather evil vibe. There is definitely something unhealthy about this girl.

And my god , this ass is so big and the way she walks is a mix of being awkward/pretentious . I don't know how you can find her sexy

Post: #73

(04-17-2019 09:42 AM)PapayaTapper Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 04:55 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  ^ Bruhhhh........unless you’re Leo Dicaprio banging 11s every night you’re absolutely out of your mind. That is not “disgusting”. That is perfectly fine ass and pussy.

Let’s test my theory... Are you under or over say 40 yo?

I’m far far under 40 and I completely co-sign.

I like my girls like how they like their lines of coke.....


Rail thin

Time for some appropriately sized women(pic #2 is as "thicc" as they should be):

Post: #74

Thinking some more, I understand where PapayaTapper is coming from (although I would still rawdog this Sofia fuckpig with pleasure). She is NOT beautiful in the traditional sense. Beauty standards have definitely changed.

But we can go back even further than the 90s. To me, the peak of feminine beauty is young Elizabeth Taylor. She was basically like a work of art, body and face. This filthy but very fuckable whore is more of a guilty pleasure.

Post: #75

#Teamlosesomelbsbitch

G