Sex with a curvaceous or slim girl. Which is better for you?

[naughty]

Definitely curves... booty and boobs with a waist are preferable! :tongue:

I like a pretty face, too! There are many very beautiful full-figured women who carry themselves nicely. I think that has a lot to do with the attraction as well. As long as the woman is confident, secure with herself and maintains her appearance, then I personal think that adds to the level of attractiveness.

YAYYYY to the curvvy ladies!

Mr .B,

No wonder Mrs. L loves you so much.....

 

[YourAvgGuy]

Mr .B,

No wonder Mrs. L loves you so much.....

As I do her, Naughty! I am indeed a blessed man - with a beautiful and curvvy wife!:biggrin1:

 

[naughty]

As I do her, Naughty! I am indeed a blessed man - with a beautiful and curvvy wife!:biggrin1:

Well then, I would say you are a blessed and happy pair. Ask her am I going to have to come down there to the ancestral land to hear from her again? I dont think you all are too far from my grandfather's (now partially mine) farm... Oh, did you all see the segment on the Lumbees in History channel's special about the Civil War?

 

[YourAvgGuy]

I will let her know that you send hellos!

I did not watch the special on TV, but was aware about it and even talked with the programmers for the production. I hope it was favorable, as I am sure it was.

 

[ruffboy]

I know I'm straight.... but in my opinion, the 1st girl is sexier. She's still very shapely. The 2nd girl has gaps in her shorts where they meet her thighs because there's no meat there! That looks gross to me... you can totally see her thigh bone meeting her hip area. And the whole fact that you can see her ribs is unattractive, too. I also just think the 1st girl has a prettier face.

that's where a lot of this still comes down to personal preference, i don't like the 1st girl's face (except the eyes), and i don't go for blondes. the 2nd girl yes is showing some bones, but she's also stretched out like on a midevil torture device while the 1st girl is copping the sultry soft look on the bed so its hard to know, just like Snoozan said, what they both would look like apples to apples. thigh bone to hip area for me can be super sexy, as is that gap between the hip bone and the belly. at the same time, the 'more curvey' women have this spot on their waists, on the side just above the hip bones, that is SO freaking edible..... and their thighs are absolutely magical when wrapped around my head as i do what i'm meant to do for them, i actually love it when my wife cums so hard her legs and thighs almost crush me her muscles are contracting so hard, what a way to go!

 

[Aplus]

I prefer the body of #2, but #1 is blonde and looks a bit like an ex of mine. I bet #1 is dirty in bed! I'd do them both.

In most cases I prefer curves, but in that comparison, I'd pick #2. Probably because I have a serious thing for brunettes, think the brunette is actually the more curvier of the two, and just seems less aloof in the pictures to me. Just something very sexy about that 2nd picture that the other one lacks. If they were to walk into a room together though, my eyes would most certainly go the blonde based on general body type.

 

[lightninggirl]

men - i like them to be bigger-boned than me and taller. i'm very tall (5' 9", usually at least 6' in heels) and i'm also VERY curvy (36D, 175#, dress size 10), so i have always preferred guys who at LEAST weighed the same and were as tall.

and the ht/wt thing for me doesn't matter for women. i prefer women to be thin with nice, natural breasts. when i was a pants size 3/4 and 5' 9" tall, i never got below 140-145lbs. EVER. i personally think that i weigh a lot my body looks exactly like nigella lawson's, whom i don't consider 'fat.'

it's all very subjective.

 

[snoozan]

men - i like them to be bigger-boned than me and taller. i'm very tall (5' 9", usually at least 6' in heels) and i'm also VERY curvy (36D, 175#, dress size 10), so i have always preferred guys who at LEAST weighed the same and were as tall.

and the ht/wt thing for me doesn't matter for women. i prefer women to be thin with nice, natural breasts. when i was a pants size 3/4 and 5' 9" tall, i never got below 140-145lbs. EVER. i personally think that i weigh a lot my body looks exactly like nigella lawson's, whom i don't consider 'fat.'

it's all very subjective.

I'm about your size, and I am the same, 140-145 is very thin for me, and I don't go much below it.

However, how in the world are you fitting in a size 10 at 175#? I'm more a 14 at 175#. You have to be extremely muscular-- I'd kill to have size 10 measurements (37-29-39) at 175# because that's a much easier weight to maintain, especially if a lot of that bulk is muscle.

sigh.

 

[YASHOE1]

girl has to have curves huge tits

 

[D_Joseba_Guntertwat]

men - i like them to be bigger-boned than me and taller. i'm very tall (5' 9", usually at least 6' in heels) and i'm also VERY curvy (36D, 175#, dress size 10), so i have always preferred guys who at LEAST weighed the same and were as tall.

and the ht/wt thing for me doesn't matter for women. i prefer women to be thin with nice, natural breasts. when i was a pants size 3/4 and 5' 9" tall, i never got below 140-145lbs. EVER. i personally think that i weigh a lot my body looks exactly like nigella lawson's, whom i don't consider 'fat.'

it's all very subjective.

LightningGirl, you sound like a very hot woman!

 

[snoozan]

girl has to have curves huge tits

Realistic, too!

 

[Channelwood]

Oh, what a dilemma! Both are extremely attractive. Can I choose both? At the same time?

My slight preference is for #1, because I'm not a fan of "skinny to the point of protruding ribs". Which brings up a point that I have not heard expressed about very slim women.

If a woman with a medium or small frame (bone structure, hip width, ribcage width) attempts to be very slim in the waist, she doubtless has to starve herself to the point of medical concern and winds up achieving the "heroin chic" Kate Moss look. But if the woman starts out with an ultraslim frame, she can be very slim, yet look healthy. I saw a pair of women like this the other day ... I'm guessing they were sisters. Both were very short, very slim in the hips and ribcage, and while I wasn't able to see them in the state of undress I would have liked, it seemed from the tight-fitting clothes they were wearing that they were not sporting the hollowed-out anoretic supermodel look. They were simply genetically very slim.

In a case like that, where the slimness of the body matches the slimness and petiteness of the bone structure, I find that very attractive, especially when considering the erotic ramifications of sex with a small, slim woman.

 

[lightninggirl]

I'm about your size, and I am the same, 140-145 is very thin for me, and I don't go much below it.

However, how in the world are you fitting in a size 10 at 175#? I'm more a 14 at 175#. You have to be extremely muscular-- I'd kill to have size 10 measurements (37-29-39) at 175# because that's a much easier weight to maintain, especially if a lot of that bulk is muscle.

sigh.

i don't know ... i'm a standard DRESS size 10. my ass is bigger, so i'll wear a size 12/14 jeans because i don't like the fat roll coming over the top of the pants! LOL! keep in mind that at 140-145 lbs., i was wearing a size THREE/FOUR pant (which i just can't believe - but i still have the cotton pants from the Express as a reminder!). my measurements are 42-33-41, but i have difficulty getting the boobs into many dresses. sometimes i have to go up to a dress size 12 because of my boobs. i'm definitely NOT muscular by any stretch of the imagination, but i've always weighed a lot but been a smaller clothing size (size 3 pants at 145lbs!). i've usually attributed it to my height and the fact that i've got a good waist and a really flat, white-girl booty.

you can see from my avatar that my boobs are big, but my arms and waist are not big at all. i'm trying to drop back into a dress size 8, but i haven't seen that in about 6-7 years. i was a size 8 and 120# before i had my first child, and then a size 3/4 or 5/6 and 140-145# afterwards! then i had my second child, and have never been under a size 10-12. i blame my second daughter for putting the "chunk" on!

 

[LeeEJ]

you can see from my avatar that my boobs are big, but my arms and waist are not big at all.

I forgot that I had avatars turned off.. lol

Kewl! :wink:

 

[cantona666]

I absolute prefer curves! For me it's more feminine. But I probably do both types. The eyes of a lady usually tell you what you get ;-)