Bigger Girls: Are They More Popular than We Think?

Wibbs · 29-05-2013 1:04pm

Actually he's right enough on the hip waist ratio. It's one of the few constants of female attractiveness across cultures and time. Rubens women have the same as the Venus de Milo who in turn has the same as Kate moss who has the same as Marilyn Monroe.

Interestingly women close to or at this ideal are on average more fertile, with fewer hormonal issues and metabolic issues like glucose intolerance etc than women who aren't. Where fat is laid down seems to make the difference. Women generally are less prone to classic heart attacks and one reason seems to be they tend to lay down more fat below the waist. Belly fat is bad news in men and women.

I read an interesting bit of research(which I'll try and dig up) that analysed the clothes fitting stats for Harrods of London(IIRC) over the last 100 years. Both men and women have gotten taller and broader on average. Body shape has also changed. Waist size has gotten larger over time and it grew more than the other stats. The classic hourglass figure in women was much more common in the past. It's apparently one of the rarer shapes now. Women are more straight up and down or carrying more fat around the belly compared to yesteryear.

Wooden Balloon Game · 29-05-2013 1:04pm

The Cool wrote: »

To be fair, the attractiveness of the thigh gap is completely relative to your personal tastes. It is not a universal. But then is anything??

Reading through this thread I'm struck by how important women's appearances seem to be to us. Don't get me wrong, I'm not the most body confident myself either, but surely there is more to us than having space between our thighs or a bit extra wobble on our belly? I don't judge men's attractiveness based on their muscles or height, I look for someone who is compassionate, easy to talk to, makes me laugh... Why don't we rate our own attractiveness in the same way?
Let's face it, physically attractive traits like toned legs or perky boobs aren't going to be sticking with us for very long anyway, in 20 years it'll be their personality that makes you love them, not how they look.

No one said looks or the gap is all that matters, simply that it is attractive to most men.

The Cool · 29-05-2013 1:11pm

Wooden Balloon Game wrote: »

No one said looks or the gap is all that matters, simply that it is attractive to most men.

I didn't say it's all that matters, my issue is the importance you're placing on it, and your generalization that "it is attractive to most men". How would you know? Have you seen any surveys or psychological analyses that say so?
You can't say that anything is attractive to "most" anything. Big boobs, flat chests, chunky legs, slim legs. It's all subjective. The thigh gap though I would particularly say is NOT something that most men find attractive.

Wibbs · 29-05-2013 1:12pm

The Cool wrote: »

Let's face it, physically attractive traits like toned legs or perky boobs aren't going to be sticking with us for very long anyway, in 20 years it'll be their personality that makes you love them, not how they look.

I know this is mentioned quite a lot, but I don't buy it myself. It depends how you look after yourself and that goes for men and women. If you have a good physique at 20, there's few enough reasons that you can't have pretty much that same physique at 40 or even 50 for that matter(one of the best looking figures I ever got up close and personal with

was a woman of 42). Hell I'm the same clothes size now in my late 40's I was at 18 and it was hardly much effort on my part, other than if I noticed my jeans were tightening up I'd dial back on the sweets.

The reasons that are there? IMHO for men they have few to none other than eating too much, not moving enough. Men should with little enough effort keep the bod they had at 20 all the way to 50, if not 60. Women have more physical and hormonal challenges like menopause and pregnancy. Some women's appetites and bodies never go back to pre pregnancy levels. I've read somewhere it's a genetic thing. You see similar with some women on hormonal contraception. Some have no changes in body shape/size, while others can balloon. If it's down to the pill, it's hardly a willpower issue anyway.

Femme_Fatale · 29-05-2013 1:18pm

I don't doubt people find that gap attractive but the way it's being put out there on this thread as a really obvious thing that most men always look for, like boobs/pert ass/small waist/long legs etc... is obviously just disingenuousness. Most guys wouldn't even have heard of it. I wasn't aware of one as gaping and weird-looking as the one in the pic Whoopsadaisydoodles linked too. I do realise most people wouldn't find thighs rubbing together attractive, but that gap which is apparently so popular and well known is way "wider" than the one between a healthy woman's upper thighs that aren't rubbing together.

But yeh, it's important to reduce a human being to the level of a ****ing "gap"...

I think what people mean by "bigger" is chubbier than slim.

johnny_knoxvile · 29-05-2013 1:20pm

Pug160 wrote: »

I've come to the conclusion that there are a lot of guys who like bigger girls but don't let on. On more than one occasion I've heard of a man cheating on his thin partner with a bigger girl. I think this is the perfect example of how people sometimes choose social status and social acceptance over what they actually want.

Anyway, that's my profound thought for today.

is that "man" you heard about the owner of Hollister?

Weathering · 29-05-2013 1:34pm

If you want something to hold on to..fill your boots

Shenshen · 29-05-2013 1:42pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually he's right enough on the hip waist ratio. It's one of the few constants of female attractiveness across cultures and time. Rubens women have the same as the Venus de Milo who in turn has the same as Kate moss who has the same as Marilyn Monroe.

Interestingly women close to or at this ideal are on average more fertile, with fewer hormonal issues and metabolic issues like glucose intolerance etc than women who aren't. Where fat is laid down seems to make the difference. Women generally are less prone to classic heart attacks and one reason seems to be they tend to lay down more fat below the waist. Belly fat is bad news in men and women.

I read an interesting bit of research(which I'll try and dig up) that analysed the clothes fitting stats for Harrods of London(IIRC) over the last 100 years. Both men and women have gotten taller and broader on average. Body shape has also changed. Waist size has gotten larger over time and it grew more than the other stats. The classic hourglass figure in women was much more common in the past. It's apparently one of the rarer shapes now. Women are more straight up and down or carrying more fat around the belly compared to yesteryear.

I'd be interested in that study, if you could find it.
I've no doubt that waist sizes have grown, but I have to wonder about what impact fashion physically had on this.
100 years ago, women would have been regularly wearing corsets, as would a good few men. And even in the 1950s, girdles and the like would have forced an hourglass figure on women - we are a little bit like trees in that sense, I suspect. If you put pressure on one area, the fat deposits more easily in another.

But I'm sure that this probably isn't the only factor. Maybe physical excercise plays a role as well? 100 years ago there would have been very few women who would excercise on a regular basis, so their muscles may have developed differently?

Wooden Balloon Game · 29-05-2013 1:44pm

The Cool wrote: »

I didn't say it's all that matters, my issue is the importance you're placing on it, and your generalization that "it is attractive to most men". How would you know? Have you seen any surveys or psychological analyses that say so?
You can't say that anything is attractive to "most" anything. Big boobs, flat chests, chunky legs, slim legs. It's all subjective. The thigh gap though I would particularly say is NOT something that most men find attractive.

I specifically would say a triangular thigh gap is attractive to most men. In basing this on my experiences to date. Consistently men find the women with the gap sexy. I have never stated how "important" it is, simply that men on the whole find it attractive.

Wooden Balloon Game · 29-05-2013 1:47pm

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I don't doubt people find that gap attractive but the way it's being put out there on this thread as a really obvious thing that most men always look for, like boobs/pert ass/small waist/long legs etc... is obviously just disingenuousness. Most guys wouldn't even have heard of it. I wasn't aware of one as gaping and weird-looking as the one in the pic Whoopsadaisydoodles linked too. I do realise most people wouldn't find thighs rubbing together attractive, but that gap which is apparently so popular and well known is way "wider" than the one between a healthy woman's upper thighs that aren't rubbing together.

But yeh, it's important to reduce a human being to the level of a ****ing "gap"...

I think what people mean by "bigger" is chubbier than slim.

You're projecting your own insecurities here, no one is reducing a woman to "a gap". It's simply a feature men tend to be attracted to like smooth skin or healthy long hair. Likewise there are physical signals women respond to such as broad shoulders and height.

29-05-2013 1:51pm

Ok Wooden Balloon Game, you like "the gap", in your experience most men that you have had interaction with are extremely attracted to women with "the gap" . In my experience (this thread), some men like the gap, some men like big bums, some men like small waists. In other words, everyone has their own personal taste.

I think we should leave the whole gap argument there tbh, it's getting a little tiresome.

29-05-2013 1:58pm

Wooden Balloon Game wrote: »

You're projecting your own insecurities here, no one is reducing a woman to "a gap". It's simply a feature men tend to be attracted to like smooth skin or healthy long hair. Likewise there are physical signals women respond to such as broad shoulders and height.

She's projecting nothing ffs.

I just tried an experiment....feet together and standing straight, you could drive a suv between the gap between my thighs, all the way down to the knee.

To get a triangular gap I need to stick my butt out a good bit. This alters the shape of the gap to a more pronounced triangle.

So, maybe it's not the gap but the sticky-out butt that's attractive to men, or both.

Never gave so much consideration to something so trivial before.

blatantrereg · 29-05-2013 2:04pm

The hip to waist ratio is the primary thing that makes a woman sexy, at the basic instinctive level. Overall size is not directly relevant to that, but a good ratio usually corresponds with being inside a healthy weight range anyway.

For appealing to primal instincts everything else is window dressing in comparison to the hips. A woman can have a butt-ugly face, but still have similar effects. Take Kelly Brook for example. It's not her big boobs that fire a response, it's her hips. That's what makes her more attractive than Lucy Pinder, for example, who is similar physically apart from flatter hips.

There is no doubt that the thigh gap is a manufactured concept. Most women will look worse not better if they "achieve" one.

Wooden Balloon Game · 29-05-2013 2:07pm

Candie wrote: »

She's projecting nothing ffs.

I just tried an experiment....feet together and standing straight, you could drive a suv between the gap between my thighs, all the way down to the knee.

To get a triangular gap I need to stick my butt out a good bit. This alters the shape of the gap to a more pronounced triangle.

So, maybe it's not the gap but the sticky-out butt that's attractive to men, or both.

Never gave so much consideration to something so trivial before.

if you're not interested don't discuss it.

I've made my point, I'm confident I'm right, it's been done to death, lets move on.

--Kaiser-- · 29-05-2013 2:08pm

The Cool wrote: »

To be fair, the attractiveness of the thigh gap is completely relative to your personal tastes. It is not a universal. But then is anything??

Hip/waist ratio as an indicator of both female fertility and attractiveness is a scientifically proven one

--Kaiser-- · 29-05-2013 2:15pm

Wibbs wrote: »

I read an interesting bit of research(which I'll try and dig up) that analysed the clothes fitting stats for Harrods of London(IIRC) over the last 100 years. Both men and women have gotten taller and broader on average. Body shape has also changed. Waist size has gotten larger over time and it grew more than the other stats. The classic hourglass figure in women was much more common in the past. It's apparently one of the rarer shapes now. Women are more straight up and down or carrying more fat around the belly compared to yesteryear.

I would say this is due to differences in exercise and diet rather than genetic factors (a few generations isn't enough to make that much of a difference)

Wibbs wrote: »

. Hell I'm the same clothes size now in my late 40's I was at 18

You're how old? No wonder you know everything

awec · 29-05-2013 2:17pm

Thread means nothing without a definition of what "bigger" means.

"Curvy" seems to be an overused/misused word, used a lot to refer to people who are just overweight.

Nigella Lawson is the definition of curvy. Is she the sort of "bigger" girl referred to here?

Czarcasm · 29-05-2013 2:19pm

Candie wrote: »

She's projecting nothing ffs.

I just tried an experiment....feet together and standing straight, you could drive a suv between the gap between my thighs, all the way down to the knee.

To get a triangular gap I need to stick my butt out a good bit. This alters the shape of the gap to a more pronounced triangle.

So, maybe it's not the gap but the sticky-out butt that's attractive to men, or both.

Never gave so much consideration to something so trivial before.

Poor Wooden probably just tipp-ex'd his screen reading that, lol, near made me spill my coffee anyway as I'm sitting here outside a cafe watching girls walking up and down the street...

Purely in the name of science of course!

blatantrereg wrote: »

The hip to waist ratio is the primary thing that makes a woman sexy, at the basic instinctive level. Overall size is not directly relevant to that, but a good ratio usually corresponds with being inside a healthy weight range anyway.

For appealing to primal instincts everything else is window dressing in comparison to the hips. A woman can have a butt-ugly face, but still have similar effects. Take Kelly Brook for example. It's not her big boobs that fire a response, it's her hips. That's what makes her more attractive than Lucy Pinder, for example, who is similar physically apart from flatter hips.

There is no doubt that the thigh gap is a manufactured concept. Most women will look worse not better if they "achieve" one.

Ahh now, that's a bit of a toss off up in fairness, again- purely subjective opinion.

29-05-2013 2:21pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

Poor Wooden probably just tipp-ex'd his screen reading that, lol, near made me spill my coffee anyway as I'm sitting here outside a cafe watching girls walking up and down the street...

I'm wearing something, it's not an x-rated event!

bb1234567 · 29-05-2013 2:40pm

I think skinny/bony girls can be less attractive in some cases. Girls seem to think that starving themselves so their ribs become visible and they look emaciated will make boys like them. Only exercise and good diet will result in an attractive physique.

D-FENS · 29-05-2013 3:11pm

I’ve always loved the triangular gap. I was expelled from school for riding my set square.

blacklilly · 29-05-2013 3:17pm

I would agree that curvy is a misused word. I see it used all the time to describe women who are obviously overweight and in some cases very overweight.
Most sizes can be curvy depending on height, body shape etc.
This whole gap thing is intruiging, I've hips and a small waste but I not a hint of a gap, I must be destined to be an old lonely cat lover!!

bodice ripper · 29-05-2013 3:27pm

Bodice loves the big ladies. Also, not mad about seeing daylight between the top of the thighs.

Wibbs · 29-05-2013 4:04pm

Shenshen wrote: »

I'd be interested in that study, if you could find it.

I'll try and dig it up for you. I have the links somewhere.

I've no doubt that waist sizes have grown, but I have to wonder about what impact fashion physically had on this.
100 years ago, women would have been regularly wearing corsets, as would a good few men. And even in the 1950s, girdles and the like would have forced an hourglass figure on women - we are a little bit like trees in that sense, I suspect. If you put pressure on one area, the fat deposits more easily in another.

Certainly the era of corsets would have to be excluded, but by the flapper 20's corsets were out, they made a bit of a comeback later on, but the trend towards fatter bellies(and larger breasts) was pretty clear.

But I'm sure that this probably isn't the only factor. Maybe physical excercise plays a role as well? 100 years ago there would have been very few women who would excercise on a regular basis, so their muscles may have developed differently?

Oh I'm sure activity patterns would be in play. Plus with a shop like Harrods class distinctions would be in play too. IIRC a number of other studies backed up the Harrods one, namely that people are taller and carrying more weight amidships.

On the activity front, while there are many women going to gyms etc today, women, people have more sedentary lives in general outside such activities. I would say if you looked at the stats of those who take regular exercise and eat small portions compared to the overall population, they're quite the small enough percentage. Go back 60 years and nigh on everyone was walking more, had few of the labour saving devices as we have and were eating far less sugar and starches and more of a meat and two veg diet. Hell I didn't really see pasta in any amount on people's plates until the 80's. Chinese food ditto and any sort of takeaway food was a treat rather than approaching a staple. Tobacco use in the past in men anyway(women tended to smoke less) might be also a factor as it's both an appetite suppressant and increases metabolism.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I would say this is due to differences in exercise and diet rather than genetic factors (a few generations isn't enough to make that much of a difference)

Oh sure K. It's down to environment rather than DNA(though I suspect crappy diets, especially hi sugar diets may switch off/on genes in the body making the problem worse). Indeed when people say they're fat because of their genetics I ask them to dig out old photos of their grandparents or better yet their great grandparents and get back to me. In most cases, but not all of course, their ancestors were thinner, if not much thinner. We've evolved to be lean. The body doesn't like much extra fat on the bones at all. Doubly so for blokes. We evolved to add fat quite easily to cover our arses in lean times*, but I suspect being overweight makes the body feel it's in danger mode and responds accordingly with health issues. In modern society you can be approaching gigantic and still survive even thrive, while back in the day something hairy and toothy would have seen you of if you couldn't run away fast enough, so the obese were rare, or a damn fine meal, depending on which side of the teeth you were.

You're how old? No wonder you know everything

I'm old enough to know that I know fcuk all and have forgotten most of it.

*I've always suspected one of modern humans killer app was the ability to grow a bit of a belly and that was a big advantage compared to some of our cousins. Apparently Neandertals just got bigger muscles if they ate more, which in turn meant they had to eat more to sustain them as muscles chomp through calories like a hungry shark even when at rest. They reckon an adult male Neandertal required at least 3500 calories per day to get by, the higher in protein and fat the better. You wanna lose weight? Lift weights. Big ones. Dieting reduces lean mass so in the long term you're getting rid of one of the biggest calorie consumers in the body and getting fatter.

Dr.MickKiller · 29-05-2013 4:23pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh sure K. It's down to environment rather than DNA(though I suspect crappy diets, especially hi sugar diets may switch off/on genes in the body making the problem worse). Indeed when people say they're fat because of their genetics I ask them to dig out old photos of their grandparents or better yet their great grandparents and get back to me. In most cases, but not all of course, their ancestors were thinner, if not much thinner. We've evolved to be lean. The body doesn't like much extra fat on the bones at all. Doubly so for blokes. We evolved to add fat quite easily to cover our arses in lean times*, but I suspect being overweight makes the body feel it's in danger mode and responds accordingly with health issues. In modern society you can be approaching gigantic and still survive even thrive, while back in the day something hairy and toothy would have seen you of if you couldn't run away fast enough, so the obese were rare, or a damn fine meal, depending on which side of the teeth you were.

I wonder what effect, if any, a famine might have on a population?

Mr Benevolent · 29-05-2013 4:27pm

Dr.MickKiller wrote: »

I wonder what effect, if any, a famine might have on a population?

I suspect the body might not like that either.

Dr.MickKiller · 29-05-2013 4:29pm

Mr Benevolent wrote: »

I suspect the body might not like that either.

But would it have put a selective pressure on a certain body type or trait?

The Cool · 29-05-2013 4:38pm

I suggest we start a new thread on a slightly different topic:

[Shorter/Skinnier/Chubbier] Boys: Are They More Popular Than We Think?

See if anyone gives a flying feck!

--Kaiser-- · 29-05-2013 4:45pm

Dr.MickKiller wrote: »

But would it have put a selective pressure on a certain body type or trait?

Likely it would. For example, Pacific islanders tend to pack on a bit of weight because their ancestors would have migrated over on boats. People who naturally held more weight were more likely to survive to trip over the sea

gobnaitolunacy · 29-05-2013 4:58pm

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Likely it would. For example, Pacific islanders tend to pack on a bit of weight because their ancestors would have migrated over on boats. People who naturally held more weight were more likely to survive to trip over the sea

Some cultures look favourably on the well upholstered lady, as a sign of weath.

Black Leather · 29-05-2013 5:06pm

I just love big girls as I feel that they are a lot sexier than skinny ones. I like a girl who is well endowed in all the right places - a magnificent pair of breasts, nice broad curvy hips, big thighs and a good bottom - a feast of soft sexy flesh!

Czarcasm · 29-05-2013 5:20pm

The Cool wrote: »

I suggest we start a new thread on a slightly different topic:

[Shorter/Skinnier/Chubbier] Boys: Are They More Popular Than We Think?

See if anyone gives a flying feck!

When I hear grown women referring to grown men as boys... *twitchy eyeball*

But I'm guessing you probably don't give a flying feck about my twitchy eyeball either

Daveysil15 · 29-05-2013 5:26pm

Pug160 wrote: »

I've come to the conclusion that there are a lot of guys who like bigger girls but don't let on. On more than one occasion I've heard of a man cheating on his thin partner with a bigger girl. I think this is the perfect example of how people sometimes choose social status and social acceptance over what they actually want.

Anyway, that's my profound thought for today.

And vice versa. As the old saying goes, "The neighbor's wife always looks better." If you were dating a super model, you might fantasize about the chubby girl working in Tescos.

Pug160 · 29-05-2013 5:46pm

I agree with the comments about waist to hip ratios - that's probably the female equivalent of a man with broad shoulders and a narrow waist. It's just one of those things that will be attractive to the opposite sex because it's basically a sign of good health and fertility.

I personally find some ''bigger girls'' quite attractive if their weight is located in the right areas. I think instead of pounding treadmills and doing lots of cardio in general, most bigger women and women in general should try some weight training to tone themselves up a bit.

As I said before, I admit the term ''bigger girl'' is very ambiguous. I'm not even going to try to define it as everybody's idea of big is different.

StinkyMunkey · 29-05-2013 5:52pm

Nothing like a a bit of cushion for the pushin. Don't find a skinny woman attractive at all, what's attractive about a woman with the figure of a 12 yr old boy? I like a bit of meat on my woman.

29-05-2013 5:55pm

Dress size is not a good indicator of healthy weight, I was considerably overweight at a size 10, and a healthy size between a 6 and an 8. Because I'm just made tiny. Saying a size 14 is attractive/unattractive is very subjective, if I was a size 14 I'd be obese, whereas many of my friends at size 14 are a perfect weight. Just picking size 14 for the sake of picking a size.

Czarcasm · 29-05-2013 6:08pm

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Nothing like a a bit of cushion for the pushin. Don't find a skinny woman attractive at all, what's attractive about a woman with the figure of a 12 yr old boy? I like a bit of meat on my woman.

If you can't tell the difference between a woman and a 12 yr old boy, I'd suggest going to specsavers asap!

Femme_Fatale · 29-05-2013 6:40pm

Candie wrote: »

She's projecting nothing ffs.

Exactly. Stupid thing for them to say. I don't see any issue with a guy saying he likes e.g. big boobs/pert bum/long legs - at least these are tangible physical traits rather than a fecking gap that most people don't know anything about, even if a guy liked the look of it if it were pointed out to him (which is his prerogative). Can you imagine the reaction if a guy said "I like a girl with a triangular gap between her legs". Weird, to be honest.

29-05-2013 6:51pm

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Exactly. Stupid thing for them to say. I don't see any issue with a guy saying he likes e.g. big boobs/pert bum/long legs - at least these are tangible physical traits rather than a fecking gap that most people don't know anything about, even if a guy liked the look of it if it were pointed out to him (which is his prerogative). Can you imagine the reaction if a guy said "I like a girl with a triangular gap between her legs". Weird, to be honest.

The poster was a re reg troll who has since been banned. He was on a wind up

IM0 · 29-05-2013 7:16pm

when he says most men find the gap thing attractive he is talking about instinctivly, not consciously.

but in saying that he is wrong. what he really means or rather should say is the most successfull males of our ancestors which were the ones which prolonged the species realised that this was the best chance for him to pass on the genes and more importantly for her to give birth AND survive child birth, are the ones who have extra fat around the hips and bum to survive and rear the child too to say 10/11 when his hormones kicked in and he tried to fuk mommy, but daddy in no uncertain terms chased him off to find his own mate and spread the genes wider [theres a reason incest is bad mkay!] think froyd was right about the whole wanting to fuck mommy thing tbh the more I think about it

in essence all other things being equal, a woman with the 'gap' [this is made by having wider sit bones btw among other things] ..........

a hip waist ratio of .8 in other words proportion, in simple terms, wider hips than waist [bigger the difference the better]

........is the best chance you are going to have of having kids in life that is a fact, and is the reason why we are all here today and everyone who has had kids especially since time began

me personally, I dont have kids yet, but Im both physically and instinctively attracted to those who fit the above.[ I use to wonder why I found different women attractive, so read up on it and figured it out too. it makes a lot of sense if you think about it.]

in ways Im looking to settle and have kids, but only with an open minded girl who will have an open relationship. I just love the variety of women too much to just settle for one

but women like this are hard to find :rolleyes: feckin catholic brainwashing..

but the search will continue, and in the mean time Ill have my fun :pac:

Wooden Balloon Game wrote: »

I'm not talking crap, it is widely regarded as attractive amongst men. It's a signal of good health and fertility.

Just like tall men are widely preferred to short men by women, gaps are preferred to no gaps by the majority of men.

Czarcasm wrote: »

So... I don't even know how to put this one-

You're putting forward your opinion then as a statement of fact, based on what has to be said is obviously only your own limited life experience, and you can't see an issue with that?

How do you account for the attractiveness of a woman who wears a skirt then or a minidress? The thigh triangle is nothing more than a feature that some men find attractive the same way as ass dimples, eyes, lips, they're all features, the same way as there are hot gingers, and not so hot gingers, not so hot brunettes, and smoking brunettes, blondes who have more fun, and blondes who are boring as fcuk.

You're simply generalising when something fits with your theory. An unbiased and objective opinion doesn't work like that, but you are entitled to your own individual opinion regardless; I'm just saying you'd be wrong to try and pass it off as anything representative of the majority of anything.

Larianne wrote: »

What the fuk is this gap yokey that I'm meant to have to make me attractive to men? So my thighs aren't rubbing against each other? Is this a requirement in standing or when lying down? Or both?

They can't see it when I'm wearing a dress so what do they go by then?!

What a load of nonsense!

The Cool wrote: »

Is the thigh-gap only sexy because you look at it and see "easy access"??

I think that's kind of bollocks but whatever floats your boat. But it is no indicator of thinness or fatness. I'm a size 16 with chunky thighs and no thigh gap. My sister is size 10 with toned, muscular thighs from cycling and she has no thigh gap. That's genetics and if I were to lose weight I'd probably be as likely to end up with a thigh gap as I would different coloured eyes.

Also worth mentioning - lots of people here seem to equate "big" with "curvy". You can be a size 8 and be curvy. Curvy is about your shape, the silhouette of your body, not your size. If you're talking about bigger girls, that means wobbly tummies, etc.

chakotha wrote: »

Check out Indian actress Namitha.

A big girl who oozes appeal and has a massive following in India. Yes pur-lease.

Candie wrote: »

I'm going to only wear skirts from now on.

Keep 'em guessing like.

Shenshen wrote: »

I'd never heard of it until today, and on checking neither had my husband.
I had to describe it in some detail and his reaction was "Women have a gap there? What on earth for?"

I've no doubt that some women have always had it, but I somehow doubt many men are even aware of its existence.

Czarcasm wrote: »

In your opinion.

To me the girl in the pic whoops posted earlier, while she'd a great set of hips, the thigh gap looks like just that- a weird gap, the poor girl looks bandy legged IMO, I mean, again- it's purely subjective, it just doesn't do it for me, but it does for you, but to try and say your opinion is in the majority based on your own experience, well, that's just wrong.

Exactly. Of course it's always existed, but it's only in recent years more people have become aware of it as an internet phenomenon moreso than anything actually realistically encountered on a daily basis, the very same as the ass dimples or camel toe phenomenon- it's an internet fad.

EDIT: After looking at that pic again, it looks like they photoshopped the hell out of it too!

whatdoicare wrote: »

I just Googled "The history of the thigh gap" and all that comes up is "new craze" "new obsession" "new dangerous obsession amongst teens" so I have to call bull**** on this being an always thing.
Whereas googling "hour glass figure in women in history" comes up with pages and pages of documentation in history.
It's not a fertility thing, it's a symbol of starvation and control in the fashion industry. How could it possibly be a symbol of fertility, women wore skirts and covered this area for centuries!

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I don't doubt people find that gap attractive but the way it's being put out there on this thread as a really obvious thing that most men always look for, like boobs/pert ass/small waist/long legs etc... is obviously just disingenuousness. Most guys wouldn't even have heard of it. I wasn't aware of one as gaping and weird-looking as the one in the pic Whoopsadaisydoodles linked too. I do realise most people wouldn't find thighs rubbing together attractive, but that gap which is apparently so popular and well known is way "wider" than the one between a healthy woman's upper thighs that aren't rubbing together.

But yeh, it's important to reduce a human being to the level of a ****ing "gap"...

I think what people mean by "bigger" is chubbier than slim.

Czarcasm · 29-05-2013 7:50pm

IM0 wrote: »

think froyd was right about the whole wanting to fuck mommy thing tbh the more I think about it

I use to wonder why I found different women attractive, so read up on it and figured it out too. it makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

IMO if you're going to throw about Freud's Oedipus theory, the least you could do is indeed read up on it.

in ways Im looking to settle and have kids, but only with an open minded girl who will have an open relationship. I just love the variety of women too much to just settle for one

but women like this are hard to find :rolleyes: feckin catholic brainwashing.

Less to do with religion and more to do with structure of a society, but hey, it works for Mormons, something for you to consider, because Mormons ain't religious at all at all...

but the search will continue

Good luck with that, might want to broaden your horizons though, and your mind.

StinkyMunkey · 29-05-2013 8:09pm

Czarcasm wrote: »

If you can't tell the difference between a woman and a 12 yr old boy, I'd suggest going to specsavers asap!

It was a comparison, as in a woman who is that thin, she has no junk in her trunk, no chest and has arms/legs like chicken legs

Czarcasm · 29-05-2013 8:20pm

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

It was a comparison, as in a woman who is that thin, she has no junk in her trunk, no chest and has arms/legs like chicken legs

Ahh right, wouldn't be my taste either tbh, but there's plenty of people do fancy a slender woman, but to compare a slender woman to a 12 year old boy? Nope, still sounds weird :pac:

_Kaiser_ · 29-05-2013 8:58pm

I'm either too old or too young but I've never heard of this "gap" till reading this!

I work in a large company with a lot of different nationalities and there are many women who look like their legs would snap in a stiff breeze with a figure like a 15 year old boy. I mean seriously thin.

No thanks.. curves FTW

Ihatecuddles-old · 29-05-2013 9:05pm

Id be overweight by about 2 stone now. I carry it well though, Ive a tiny waist and huge hips, fairly flat stomach. Im also tall so that helps. Ive no problem finding guys, Id say if I was 5 inches shorter it would a bigger problem for me though!

IM0 · 29-05-2013 9:14pm

Ihatecuddles wrote: »

Id be overweight by about 2 stone now. I carry it well though, Ive a tiny waist and huge hips, fairly flat stomach. Im also tall so that helps. Ive no problem finding guys, Id say if I was 5 inches shorter it would a bigger problem for me though!

you were doing so well till I saw your username

Sittingpretty · 29-05-2013 9:25pm

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

I'm either too old or too young but I've never heard of this "gap" till reading this!

I work in a large company with a lot of different nationalities and there are many women who look like their legs would snap in a stiff breeze with a figure like a 15 year old boy. I mean seriously thin.

No thanks.. curves FTW

Me neither, never heard of it, didn't know it was a "thing".

I am a DINOSAUR!

Dizzicizzi · 29-05-2013 9:35pm

It is for sure true. I am a bigger girl and I have had some crazy experiences in my time. Like the time I dated this guy for a while. Every time we were out together and someone he knew came along, he'd stop holding my hand and step faaaaar away from me... Obviously didn't date him for long after that lol. Though I've never had a problem getting guys if I am honest, they can be a bit weird around other men when with their chubby women!

There is no body type that is better than the others, we all have our preferences and that's fine. I don't like how a guy feels being with a "big girl" will have him looked down on by his mates, but maybe its the same for a guy who like chicks with small boobs, or girls with big teeth, or girls who wear glasses or whatever... Different strokes for different folks! My BF loves me and that is all I give a damn about lol.

TerrorFirmer · 29-05-2013 9:59pm

Women carry weight so differently, trying to explain this to my friends though is entirely pointless as they just believe in the infallible truth of women either being slim or fat with nothing in-between. I wouldn't be overly attracted to women that carry excessive weight all over - not to say that it would stop me if I met a girl I liked - but women that carry weight on their hips definitely appeals to me alot. Yes please!

twinytwo · 29-05-2013 10:09pm

Festy wrote: »

Big Boobs >>> Big Butts

:pac:

While some could agree with that statement.... im of the opinion that you can manage with small boobs.... cant do anything with a bad bum.

Bigger Girls: Are They More Popular than We Think?

Comments