# Thickspo



## koalaroo

Eska said:


> It could be on scale of attraction, where the level of body fat is considered low/medium/high, relatively speaking to what's considered attractive.


That's not what I'm talking about; I'm talking about healthful body fat percentages. The majority of the women in the galleries I linked are likely below the 30-32% body fat of obesity despite being 190 pounds. There are, at any rate, varying degrees of what different men (and women) find attractive in body fat percentage. There is no universal "attractive" body fat percentage, despite the fact that according to evolutionary biology, this should be in big-butted, thick-thighed, hourglass-shaped or pear-shaped women who are between 22-26% body fat. If you're familiar with the literature, this is where a confluence of two things occurs: the optimal body fat percentage for fertility, and the optimal body fat distribution for more intelligent offspring.


----------



## Eska

koalaroo said:


> That's not what I'm talking about; I'm talking about healthful body fat percentages. The majority of the women in the galleries I linked are likely below the 30-32% body fat of obesity despite being 190 pounds. There are, at any rate, varying degrees of what different men (and women) find attractive in body fat percentage. There is no universal "attractive" body fat percentage, despite the fact that according to evolutionary biology, this should be in big-butted, thick-thighed, hourglass-shaped or pear-shaped women who are between 22-26% body fat. If you're familiar with the literature, this is where a confluence of two things occurs: the optimal body fat percentage for fertility, and the optimal body fat distribution for more intelligent offspring.


I did not imply that there was a "universal attractive body fat percentage" , I asked you on what standard/scale you were stating your claim.


----------



## koalaroo

Eska said:


> I did not imply that there was a "universal attractive body fat percentage" , I asked you on what standard/scale you were stating your claim.


Based, again, as I've said multiple times now, that an unhealthy body fat percentage for women is 30-32% or above. Few of the women in the galleries I linked are likely to have a body fat percentage over 30-32%. So, Dragunov stating that the majority of the women in those two galleries are "overweight" is sensible for BMI which is a terrible measure of health, but not overweight/obese in terms of body fat percentage.


----------



## Eska

koalaroo said:


> Based, again, as I've said multiple times now, that an unhealthy body fat percentage for women is 30-32% or above. Few of the women in the galleries I linked are likely to have a body fat percentage over 30-32%. So, Dragunov stating that the majority of the women in those two galleries are "overweight" is sensible for BMI which is a terrible measure of health, but not overweight/obese in terms of body fat percentage.


Perhaps he was referring to looking "overweight", which would be translated into looking relatively fat.

Also, you're making an assumption that they aren't over 30-32% body fat, half/most of them could very well be in that range.

On what visual scale are you evaluating 30-32% body fat?


----------



## koalaroo

Eska said:


> Perhaps he was referring to looking "overweight", which would be translated into looking relatively fat.
> 
> Also, you're making an assumption that they aren't over 30-32% body fat, half/most of them could very well be in that range.
> 
> On what visual scale are you evaluating 30-32% body fat?


Have you looked at the galleries I linked? Some of the women probably are over 32% body fat; however, the majority of them likely are not.


----------



## Eska

koalaroo said:


> Have you looked at the galleries I linked? Some of the women probably are over 32% body fat; however, the majority of them likely are not.


It depends on how one measures body fat (Clippers/DEXA scan/Hydrostatic weighing/etc.), they give different measurements due to a difference in accuracy. (Ex: counting visceral body-fat or not)

It also depends on muscle mass, organs, bone structure, etc.

It's relative to an individual's body composition and way of body-fat measurement(regarding your 'objective' assessment).

Thus, I'm assuming you're basing your measurements on a visual scale. 

Do you have an example of the visual scale you're using? (If you're using one in particular)


----------



## koalaroo

Eska said:


> It depends on how one measures body fat (Clippers/DEXA scan/Hydrostatic weighing/etc.), they give different measurements due to a difference in accuracy. (Ex: counting visceral body-fat or not)
> 
> It also depends on muscle mass, organs, bone structure, etc.
> 
> It's relative to an individual's body composition and way of body-fat measurement(regarding your 'objective' assessment).
> 
> Thus, I'm assuming you're basing your measurements on a visual scale.
> 
> Do you have an example of the visual scale you're using? (If you're using one in particular)


Basically, some of the women had a gut (a few of them), the majority of them did not.


----------



## Eska

koalaroo said:


> Basically, some of the women had a gut (a few of them), the majority of them did not.


Angles, clothing and vacuuming the stomach, are all variables that distort that aspect.


----------



## koalaroo

Eska said:


> Angles, clothing and vacuuming the stomach, are all variables that distort that aspect.


Can't do that in bikini tops or tight tops.


----------



## Eska

koalaroo said:


> Can't do that in bikini tops or tight tops.


Yes you can.

A bikini or a tight top, does not render you unable to vacuum your stomach, nor does it dismiss the influence of angles.

Also, based on the links you've provided, most were fully clothed.


----------



## klhood16

It seems like what you're going for is more body-positivity than thickspo. For instance, many thick girls could use the pictures you posted as thinspo. I know I can. I can say I'm thick and don't mind my body but many would classify me as morbidly obese with an (over)eating disorder. I would never classify someone with your height and weight as thick, but that's just me. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Golden Rose

As someone with the opposite problem (severely underweight and lost her body due to years of eating disorders), threads like this are a blessing and a huge motivation to get my groove back on. Those women are healthy *and* thick and as long as you reach your own level of health, who cares? Any excess or self-sabotaging habit is obviously wrong but there's plenty of different body types with different skeletal structures and levels of fat distribution and you don't get to pick what's "healthy".

What you like? Sure.
But health is not measured by your own taste.


----------



## Thalassa

It's funny because about 80 years ago it was the opposite. In the early 20th century people were tiny, at least people who had European ancestry, if you watch silent films or the like, the female actresses practically looked like girls in junior high, or perhaps people from third world countries in our time. Not to due to anorexia, but due to actually being like 4'11, tiny frame, flat chest...a lot of this was due to things like poor nutrition in children, and there were probably genetic factors as well, as men were also shorter and smaller. People aren't just "fatter" now they're actually taller and bigger boned. I still am short with small hands, but still have bigger wrist bones than my mother, in the South I think a lot of people still have the smallness, one of my sisters is as tiny as Mary Pickford. 

It actually became a THING then, to be big or curvy. It was considered a sign of health, wealth, being an extraordinary beauty by about 1940. This preference for curvy or thick women in the mid 20th century was so pronounced that there were ads insulting women who were thin, telling them to gain weight and fatten up, because men hate the sight of skinny women! 

It swung back to very slim, but now with height, in the late 60s, and continued well into the 70s, now with the added bonus of anorexia to achieve an unnatural thinness.

So then in the 80s, women got curvy again. Then in the 90s, back to Kate Moss. The smallness from the 70s-90s was largely drug chic, cocaine/heroin related, because b the 1980s, people were already getting bigger, from better nutrition and different genetic combinations. 

It's interesting to me, sorry if this seems off topic, but less than a century ago you could be mocked for being one of those inferior tiny people.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca

Earliest humans had diverse range of body types, just as we do today | University of Cambridge


----------



## Tezcatlipoca




----------



## Cthulhu And Coffee

Two favorite things in one: Adventure Time, and le thicknezz.

Also, I GUESS I'm sorry but I'm really not paying much attention to the debating and whatever else going on here. I haven't even read a lot of those posts.

People are gonna debate and want to offer their opinion and whatever else. I recognize that that's what they do. But I started this because I know it's helped me (and hope, therefore, it may help others,) and that is my only reason for continuing to post pictures and pay any attention to this thread in general. If you know those posts are going to be ignored and continue to write them, at least you know where I stand/that you're talking to yourself. It's none of my business unless the thread gets locked or something.

To everyone else, I hope you enjoy what you see.


----------



## Laughmore

* *






Tezcatlipoca said:


>















About body aesthetics - I've been a rail sized ectomorph my whole life and part of my motivation to bulk up is so I don't feel small around "thickspo" women, whom usually I find more physically attractive than other types. The hottest girlfriend I've had and I were the practically opposite body types, and it caused a great deal of insecurity for _both of us_... it broke my heart every time she would compare us because I loved her and would picture her naked just the way she was when she was away...

I have some transformation goals I'm making progress towards essentially to deal with my own insecurities, and partially because a part of me believes if I'm thicker, my future partner will be happier. It sounds pretty wrong when I put into words.

*Thickspo love* I don't mean to derail.


----------



## Tezcatlipoca

Laughmore said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About body aesthetics - I've been a rail sized ectomorph my whole life and part of my motivation to bulk up is so I don't feel small around "thickspo" women, whom usually I find more physically attractive than other types. The hottest girlfriend I've had and I were the practically opposite body types, and it caused a great deal of insecurity for _both of us_... it broke my heart every time she would compare us because I loved her and would picture her naked just the way she was when she was away...
> 
> I have some transformation goals I'm making progress towards essentially to deal with my own insecurities, and partially because a part of me believes if I'm thicker, my future partner will be happier. It sounds pretty wrong when I put into words.
> 
> *Thickspo love* I don't mean to derail.


To be honest dude, just accept it and walk with your heads held high. You like her and she likes you, so what's the problem? I think so often we place a judgement on arbitrary things like this. There have always been people of different body types attracted to each other. In brazil it's the butt, ancient india the bust, the renaissance, a more small bust larger hips frame. Should you really be prejudiced based on what the modern ideal that has changed 6 times in the last 40 years is? It's kind of ridiculous.


----------



## Word Dispenser

What _is _thickspo? Thick and sporty? And Thinspo is thin and sporty? 

I'm confused.


----------

