Motivation:
1. So there are some well-known terms for describing the bodies of BBWs (pear, apple, etc.) but these aren't super specific. People often like specific body parts, combinations, or shapes that are more specific than this but lack terminology. A more detailed system would be useful for the purposes of discussing and grading BBWs.
2. With the popularity of AI, having more precise descriptions could be used for generating more specific body shapes.
3. We are all autistic porn addicts so why not.

Proposal:
My initial idea is to break down the body into a number of sections
>Face
>Neck
>Upper/lower arms
>Chest
>Belly area
>Fupa area
>Right/left buttocks
>Upper/lower legs
Totaling 11 different body parts. There would be a list of possible categorical values for each body part based on its shape. Each body part on a BBW would be assigned one of these categorical values and a second ordinal number describing its size. For example, we could say that Boberry has a type-A, size-5 belly. Once a dataset is compiled for a large number of BBWs, we could identify common combinations to create detailed labels for various body types.

What are your thoughts on this? How could this be improved? Would a system based on continuous values be more useful?

>>40932 (OP)
The good thing is all looks as a fat girl will be based on fat distribution, so it's simple to assign a numerical value to each. My advice?
The values need to be on a 1-4 scale. This has been shown to maximize objectivity and avoids bickering and subjectivety that would inevitably come as a result of a 1-10 or even 1-5 system.
Other than that I simply suggest merging the buttocks category as there are very few examples where the two are different enough to not fall into the same category.

>>40934
I think it would important to leave the numeric upper limit unbounded in order to account for the crazy outliers at the USSBBW weight range. I agree with you on the buttocks thing, I actually meant to take the right/left thing out but I forgot. On that note, I think face and neck should be combined into a single head value. Here are my initial thoughts on some possible categories.
Head:
>Type A: Chin tends to get fatter than the cheeks (what you see in most models)
>Type B: Round face, the cheeks and chin both get fat
>Type C: When the forehead also accumulates fat
Upper arms:
>Type A: Taut skin that looks like a sausage casing
>Type B: Soft pillowy fat that hangs and jiggles
Lower arms:
>Type A: Taut skin that looks like a sausage casing (I don't think I've seen any other fat distributions but correct me if I'm wrong)
Chest:
>Type A: Basically no chest, looks almost like moobs
>Type B: Boobs look proportional to the rest of the upper torso and arms
>Type C: Boobs are disproportionately larger than the rest of the upper torso and arms
Belly area:
>Type A: Round, tight spherical belly
>Type B: Single slab of flab that hangs over the crotch
>Type C: Has a crease near the belly button that clearly divides the belly into two rolls (If there are two creases on either side of the belly that aren't close to connecting, then it's type B)
Fupa area (this one is hard because not many models show this)
>Type A: Mound like
>Type B: Curtain like
Buttocks:
>Type A: Flat butt
>Type B: Round butt
>Type C: Shelf butt

Describing the legs will be pretty difficult since there's so much variance with the fat distribution, especially at the USSBBW sizes.

>>40932 (OP)
If we're gonna get autistic, let's go full-helmet.

You need to add:

-Back (back fat is a delicacy for me)
-Shoulders (width and depth — linebacker apple or ballerina pear?)
-Hips/Love Handles (side and back bulges above the buttocks/thighs, below the waist — if she has one)

I'd separate upper/lower arms and thighs/calves as well. For instance some women very large upper arms and fairly thin forearms, while other fatties have huge sausages all the way down. Or huge thunder thighs with slim calves, as compared to tree trunks where the thighs barely taper. These indicate very different body types rather than just "big/small arms/legs."

And I'm with 40935 that shape and density need to be considered, not just size. Though rather than trying to be specific with ABC, maybe a spectrum?

Like for face, 1-10: 1 being a skinny woman's face with hard jawline, visible cheekbones, etc; and 10 is a total moon face with the features almost totally buried. Maybe density is an ABC thing, where A is firm and full and E is liquid jiggliness.

Then maybe some outlier designations for interesting/exotic parts — saddle bags, cankles, arm folds, B belly/beachball, etc. I realize I'm running out of ASCII characters here but maybe we use digits preceded by various symbols — @ for ass, # for weird bulges, and so on.

I've really gotta get to work but maybe I'll come up with some sample equations based on popular models later today.

>>40935
This post makes no sense because AI art is for orbtacular babes only.

Kisalami here:
The standard classification system should apply as always:

1. >Light-duty BBWs:
- BMI: Typically up to 29.9.
- Payload Capacity: Generally up to 2,500 calories.
- Horsepower: Efficiently manages personal belongings and moderate loads.
- GCWR (Gross Combined Weight Rating): Moderate, usually under 300 pounds.

2. >Medium-duty BBWs:
- BMI: Varies, commonly between 30 to 50.
- Payload Capacity: Can handle 2,500 to 5,000 calories.
- Horsepower: Capable in bearing larger loads, well-suited for strenuous tasks. May experience challenges with capacity and range if not adequately maintained.
- GCWR (Gross Combined Weight Rating): Substantial, often up to 500 pounds.

3. >Heavy-duty BBWs/SSBBWs:
- BMI: Above 50.
- Payload Capacity: Typically more than 6,000 calories.
- Horsepower: Self-sufficient, exhibiting a spectrum from low-capacity/low-range to fairly high-capacity/medium-range. May require additional energy for heavy duty tasks.
- GCWR: Considerable, exceeding 500 pounds.

4. >Super Duty and Commercial BBWs/SSBBWs:**
- BMI: Extremely high, tailored for specific capacities.
- Payload Capacity: Customized for extreme requirements: 5,000-15,000 calories
- Horsepower: Ranges from slightly limited to facing serious challenges in mobility without assistance.
- GCWR (Weight Capacity): Varied, adapted to specific needs and environment

>>40974
I think you might have autism if you are larping as Kisame17

How would you cross over this system with how plus size women tend to classify themselves? Even though the terms are dumb that might be worth looking at:
>smallfat, midsize, superfat, and infinifat.

>>40974
Great classification system. My wife’s a grade 7 medium-duty bbw.
She usually tops out at a 2k payload but she really is surprisingly quick and powerful in bursts.
I’m all about a heavy-duty ssbbw but we live in a major city, by sticking to medium-duty her tighter turning radius, plus enhanced visibility more than make up for the lower food economy and less robust frame/bodywork.

>>40974
What if a woman has a bmi of >50 yet has <500lbs?

>>41391
A 6'11" woman weighing 499lbs will have a BMI of 50.9. There's a weigh threshold that any woman is just going to be an SSBBW and 500 is def past that.

>>41391
>What if a woman has a bmi of >50 yet has <500lbs?
500 pounds empty or Gross Combined Weight Rating?
Payload? If can handle a 42 inch meatball sandwiches no problem she’s probably more of a Heavy Duty BBW. Otherwise we’re talking about a fully decked out Medium Duty SSBBW.

Things like food efficiency, towing capabilities, emissions and curb weight will all help determine classification in these cases.

>>41391
>What if a woman has a bmi of >50 yet has <500lbs?
For example: a 5’2” woman weighing 350 pounds is a BMI 65.
That’s a Heavy Duty BBW all day and arguably SSBBW in most of Europe

>>41392
>A 6'11" woman weighing 499lbs will have a BMI of 50.9. There's a weigh threshold that any woman is just going to be an SSBBW and 500 is def past that.
See above for example maths using a human female.
>>40974
>Payload Capacity: Typically more than 6,000 calories.
>Horsepower: Self-sufficient, exhibiting a spectrum from low-capacity/low-range to fairly high-capacity/medium-range. May require additional energy for heavy duty tasks.

This guy fucks.

>>40974
are we talking curb weight? i gotta tell ya, my super duty is getting costly to fill up, and to insure

>>41488
Gross Combined Weight Rating is the best metric for evaluating classifications.

What if a woman has disproportionate lipedema and is skinny, except for her left leg, that weighs in the hundreds of pounds. Does she count as an ssbbw? Or is she just a deformed freak of nature, that of which there is no good catagory for?

>>41503
Light Duty BBW this is why you can’t just go off curb weight and call it a day.
Unless she’s got an insane appetite and can house 2 pizzas in a sitting or can bloat like a balloon.

None of this is "quantitative" you ingrate. I would recommend starting with mass quantification methods and then rotate the woman while pointing a full spectrum light source at her. Have spectrometers ready to capture the backscattered fields. Doing this should give you a quantitative profile of the woman's shape and fat distribution. Then you have numerical values. Duh.

>>41558
You method sound good, doesn’t work.
Firstly, we don’t need lasers and all that technology to measure overall volume— a simple carnival dunk tank will allow for measuring water displacement.
Firstly, height scales linearly, bmi expands on a square exponent and overall fatness is a cube law.
We need a single metric to compare a 5’3” 300 pounder to a 5’11” 400 pound blubberball and your elementary suggestion of “just measure them brutal would fail spectacularly.

>>41561
Your rudimentary method doesn't reconstruct any of the local fat distribution: how do you measure the degree of fat vs muscle content in the upper quadrant of a woman's upper arm with your philistinic method of dunk tanks? If you want to truly understand and classify the local level of fatness in a woman's body the easiest way to do this at every point in her body is to measure the optical reflection pattern at every point and reconstruct and compare it to an image of her body.

>>41565
Payload Capacity, Food Efficiency, Horsepower.
How much food can she eat, how does her body use that food, can her body do?
These are the true variables that optimally describe the latent classification structure of bbws.

>>41503
Ideally the method should work even with perfectly skinny girls.

>>41557
We need this method to work with 2D images. Perhaps some sort of corner or edge detection algorithm could get an approximation. You would only need two images, one of her front profile and another of her side profile.

>>41573
I agree with your perspective, what else would you suggest?
I’ve mostly dated a few so called “Light Duty BBWs” and I’m ready to get more into the feeding lifestyle and want to upgrade to something with a little more in the tank when it comes to all day feedings. Medium duty SSBBWs are too big for me however.

>>41561
>>40974
This is the type of work we could be doing if only our best and brightest were dedicated to solving such subjects full time.

i've been lurking this board for years in an attempt to glean a better understanding of the people who find me attractive. this thread made me laugh. men are insane, and i love you.

>>44905
>i've been lurking this board for years in an attempt to glean a better understanding of the people who find me attractive.

I'm so, so sorry.

>>44911
nah, it’s all good. i knew what i was getting into. i find the brutal honesty and blatant objectification of this place combined with places like feabie or certain subreddits that are full of simps and social policing together form a more complete picture of the feedism/FA community (and mindset) together than either separately.
and sometimes you get threads like this one, which is absurd but also kind of adorable. fun to watch y’all spec out. fwiw, i’d personally be interested in a chart/system like the original one suggested at the top of the thread. the truck thing is amusing but doesn’t help me classify my own body lol

>>44930
Would you submit to a full body MRI

>>40932 (OP)
Would've been funnier if you used a black science man

>>40932 (OP)
Small fat. Big fat. You only need two boards to unify BBwchan and a couple more like furry and slob to keep the undesirables out.

>>40932 (OP)
Small fat. Big fat. Anything more is taste.