With the whole ssbbw/bbw tournament going on im wondering at what point do we draw the line between the two. For me I'd say it has to do with a specific look and a weight above 350, although for taller women it might have to be higher. What are yalls thoughts?

Yeah, it's impossible to come up with a universally applicable cutoff point because it varies so widely depending on height and build. Even at the exact same height and weight, one woman can be "thicc" and the other can be "fat", or at a higher weight one can be "BBW" and the other "SSBBW", depending on how they carry it.

400 is a good rule of thumb in most cases other than exceptionally tall women, but ultimately I go with the famous Supreme Court line about obscenity, "I know it when I see it."

I remember folks debating this on Dimensions BITD when they were setting up a private SSBBW board for the bigger than bigs. 350 was the number they settled on, based on average height of 5’4” for women in the USA. That’s a BMI of 60, so at 5’9” that’s 410, and at 5’ it’s 310. But that said SCOTUSanon is right, it’s still pretty subjective.

>>27840 (OP)
It's going to vary quite a bit. I still think Asshley is a BBW, but others think she's an SSBBW.

I think the real problem is chubby/thin women who are 1 pound overweight who go "I'm a BBW! ^__^". No ladies, not even close.

>>27849
I'm doing a bracket in another thread and I can tell you that 350 cut off confuses the hell out of a lot of people. Especially with models that aren't gaining consistently - you lose a little and you're back into BBW territory but others insist you're still SSBBW.

I would love for BMI to be the standard since all it measures is how fat you are versus your height. Someone like Dankii has been just over 350 (presumably) but she looks way fatter than someone like Lailani since there's a foot of height difference there.

>>27850
Side note, Dankii looks way over 350 these days, unless she's 4'6"

>>27850
Listen ive jerked it to Lillani countless times but no way that girl is over 600 like wtf is going on there

when the belly covers the panties while standing.

>>27844

See, I could have sworn I read a thread on either Dims or FF like maybe 15 years ago now where people agreed the line was 300lbs. 350 might be some inflation but 400 seems like some porn-addled stuff. Even tall women (thinking 5' 10'' here) are very fat at 300lbs, even if they work out and have a bit of muscle underneath.

If you don't think that, I think you're out of touch with reality. you need to look again at healthy weight, merely overweight, or even thin women IRL, they're tiny.

>>27894
SS is supposed to be biggest of the big, the type of woman who walks into a room and turns heads because she's just. that. fat. Like, Asshley was 375 at her biggest and she's 5'4". I've seen her in person, she's indeed head-turning huge. That's the point.

The way it was (loosely) organized back in Dimsland was midsized, bbw, and ssbbw. Again using my 5'4" mean, mid was 180-250, bbw 250-350, ssbbw 350+. Obviously these were very loose, with variables for body composition, frame size, and so on but they served a purpose.

>>27897
That’s correct. I recall SSBBWs making up the term in the early 2000s to point out how at a certain level of fatness, life just gets different. At around 350 or 400, you can’t really buy any clothing in shops, most seating in public becomes harrowing, people treat you differently, and even men who like big women often clarify they didn’t mean “THAT big.”

>>27901
Ok — yes — that was another definition, that you couldn't shop retail anymore, over size 24 I think. Different now, but back then it was a real dividing line because even Lane Bryant and Avenue didn't carry anything over 24 except mumus and shit.