Page 1 of 3
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:45 pm
Can't figure out that bootylicious crap.
Here is a topic that tim suggested gets moved to the lounge.
My personal view on the subject is that it's pretty gross to think about to a degree. There is fetishes for everything out there (furry costumes, guys in diapers, etc), I firmly believe that there are people out there who find huge fat @$$es to be turn on, they would love to bath in all the cattage cheese on their legs (eww!). Someone out there would call that bootylicious while others would refer to some chick who has a larger @$$ but its on the body of someone who weighs 120 instead of 320 and has just the right shape to it as bootylicious.
I'm not into all of that, some substance but not so much that things can get lost in there...
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:00 pm
Can't figure out that bootylicious crap.
while others would refer to some chick who has a larger @$$ but its on the body of someone who weighs 120 instead of 320 and has just the right shape to it as bootylicious.
That’s me… And I'm definitely not a boob guy as you can see below.
It's all about ratio & shape. Oh and "junk in trunk" needs to be firm.
A woman can be 5'4" and 110 lbs, and as long as she is all @$$ from the back of her knees to the middle of her back, it's booty-ful. If she is 175, she better have curves other places and be around 5'8". But on a "pure booty" rating system, I've seen plenty of bootys that get a 10, but are attached to woman I don't find attractive in whole.
A woman's @$$ can be as wide as she is tall, as long as it's firm, the only part of her that is that wide, and doesn't crinkle in the middle but rather the bottom while she walks, that is a fine @$$. It has to be ROUND, like a circle, oval or heart shaped, square or super sagging heart shaped (think over-ripened summer squash) is just unacceptable.
I have seen 2 @$$es in my life that went from an 8 in jeans to a 2 out… UGH. And have seen many more that go from a 6 in jeans to a 10 out.
General rule of thumb about the cottage cheese factor, if she is a mom, or over say 30, you have to give her a lot of leeway. But the right pants or "boy shorts" underwear makes all the difference in the world.
And if they tan, they need to try and avoid the tan lines that form under the crease of the @$$ where it meets the thigh. Not very attractive.
I know this is shallow, but hey I am who I am.
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:28 pm
I always figured "bootylicious" just meant that the girl has some bodacious curves, not that she was necessarily fat. You know, like a distinction between pencil-thin models and women who may have a little more weight (could be fat, could be muscle) but they carry it well. Think Kate Moss vs Beyonce. No one would ever call Beyonce fat, but it's obvious she and Kate have different body types.
At least that's how I've always interpreted it.
Personally I prefer a girl with strong, muscular legs.
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:01 am
I never use the term bootylicious, so it could mean fat for all I know.
I'm not into fat and cellulite. I do like some thick @$$ though. But I am in the minority. Most guys apparently like the little ones where if she bends over there is no cheek left to spread. They like more narrow hips too. That would be my guess anyway since that is what you usually see.
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:28 am
Ironman I think it's actually women's magazines that are into that look and therefor women are into that look! The majority of men I know hate too skinny chicks like Victoria 'Posh' Beckham, Nicole Richie pre-baby and The skinny Olsen twin. Give me a Beyonce, Pink, J'Lo or Kelly Clarkson sized chick any day! Though for my ultimate in bodies look no further than Jessica Alba in Sin City, that's 100% perfection right there, tight body with a hint of booty for the perfect ratio! The perfect example of a chick who has 'fit' body but looks totally gross: MADONNA! She was attractive in the mid 90's, but know she's just gone too far for my liking man! Not to mention she's trying too hard to not get old!
That being said I think any sized woman can look good/be sexy as long as she knows how to dress, what to flaunt and how to act! I think a good example would be Monica Belluci, she is constantly up and down in size but always extremely sexy!
My 2 cents anyway!
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:08 am
She may not look good on the whole, but that's not bad for 53.
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:38 am
53??? Are you sure you're thinking of the same person? Monica Belluci "The Passion" and one the second Matrix movie.
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:22 am
I think he means Tyrannosaurus Madge there MattZ! I serioulsy can't stand Madonna's physique, 53 or not! Drew Barrymore, that's who I left off my list of hot chicks! She's a perfect example of what a real woman should be like!
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:23 am
To be honest I'm more of a face guy. As much as I apreciate a shapely female form, I'm generally a lot more attracted to a woman with a pretty face and an okay body than one with a great body and an okay face.
Also, I'm not overly picky about body types. To me anything from thin to curvy is ideal, and it's really only when a woman is super-skinny or severely over weight that she loses all apeal.
Likewise, I could care less about breast size. Shape and symetry are much more important. It's also important that they're real. Fake breasts are very unattractive (to me at least).
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:25 am
Agreed! Madonna looks horrible.
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:40 am
By the way, I'm speaking strictly of physical appearance. Overall attractiveness is a little more complicated. For example, an okay looking woman with a great personality may not seem like much on first meeting, but the more you get to know her the better she starts to look. Meanwhile, a hot woman with a lousy personality will never look better than she does the first time you see her. Once you get to know her, she'll lose much if not all of her appeal.
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:01 pm
OK, I can see there are different takes on the term bootylicious. What I can't stand is the chick that wears skin tight jeans, with a big FAT @$$, with an exposed navel, who's belly rolls over and down past the jeans, and walks around thinking she's hot and calling herself "bootlicious". I call it being a fat @$$ slob. Trust me, down here in the South East part of Virginia, it's all over the place.
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:15 pm
I think some women are under that misconception that they're hot, just because they can find men who are willing to have sex with them.
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:48 pm
Likewise, some women just like attention, and don't seem to care what kind. Perhaps they don't distinguish between men who are actually interested in dating them and guys who just think they're easy.
Of course, it's also possible that the woman in question is only interested in sex, and that she dresses and acts accordingly. In that case, she might actually prefer to sleep with a guy once and never hear from him again.
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:19 pm
TimD wrote:OK, I can see there are different takes on the term bootylicious. What I can't stand is the chick that wears skin tight jeans, with a big FAT @$$, with an exposed navel, who's belly rolls over and down past the jeans, and walks around thinking she's hot and calling herself "bootlicious". I call it being a fat @$$ slob. Trust me, down here in the South East part of Virginia, it's all over the place.
It's called Muffin Top i believe
Matt Z wrote:I think some women are under that misconception that they're hot, just because they can find men who are willing to have sex with them.
Such a bad rating system... I know a lot of men that will sleep with pretty much anything breathing. I know guys that cheat with women much less attractive than their spouse. I think your right, but it's sad sometimes.