OMG, how did I miss this classic Voluptuous form?
I never even heard of her before and, by chance, just saw her in an old BBW thread post (she is so not a BBW, just a very nicely FFW).
That form, OMG, my ideal of "Voluptuous" in the classic sense, really set well in this set:
http://www.lesgalls.com/pics/scoreland/228/
If you're going to piece me a woman who looks enticing from all angles, Alix Lakehurst is such a desire.
First off -- and let's get this out of the way -- from the neck up, she's my type of looker -- in full smile, pouty stare or demanding lover (oh God she does).
I'm really sick'n tired of some people who reference such women as "butterfaces" when they make Brittany Spears just look dog plain in my opinion.
For those that recently discovered Karina Hart as well, I think you're getting my idea of a supermodel brunette just from the neck-up.
Secondly -- that ultra-voluptuous body -- Pics 05-08 show you why from the full side and ample rear, with that opposing, hanging breast silhouette peaking out.
Pics 09-12 show you that frontal profile, from wide hips, full, hanging and oh-so-perfect bust, but not without that slight, inside, small "bulge" of a stomach.
If she dropped 20-30lbs., the "media" might like her for the absolute perfect figure she is -- but I wouldn't, I love that perfect, "I added a little, but I'm not a BBW" right there.
From personal experience (my wife), I can say there's nothing like taking such a woman from behind, thrusting your pelvis into her extremely wide, but proportional, cushioning rear,
while you not both cup a bust with an arm and you kiss her neck or meet the lips of her turned profile, but you reach the other arm around, down that soft, but not "fat" inner stomach, to the clitoris for added stimulation with each, slow thrust.
That's not to say she's "only built for comfort," but one has to savior every fluid motion when one with her body, or you will be spent before you can say "speed" if you do not.
Third, I want re-emphasize she's not a BBW, but a super-wide, but shorter figure -- what I define a hourglass woman as being in excess of 40-30-40 on 5'3" or smaller.
She's just a tad opposite of my wife there, my wife having a slight apple tendency -- a couple more inches on the chest than hips -- whereas she is a spoon tendency -- a couple more inches on the hips than chest.
But she's still well within the super-wide, hourglass figure at 42-30-44 (the middle number being 75% or less than the other two).
Her weight distribution, because of her far rarer (8% among Anglo-Americans) hourglass form, let alone the spread width, is why she doesn't "uber-plump" into a BBW (at least not without gaining another 20-30lbs., at least).
Lastly, and it cannot be stated enough, that's what I call the absolute "perfect, classic Voluptuous figure."
And when I say "classic," I don't mean more Greek-Roman, but early industrial to mid Anglo-American "Voluptuous" -- the "corset figure" without the corset, in wide, full, more sleek (for the weight) proportion for maximum, male pleasure overload.
At least it's been fairly perpetual "Voluptuous" among Africans, and "accepted" among/for African-Americans (I always said if Halle Berry was white, she'd be considered "borderline fat" by the way-outta-touch-with-most-guys US media).
So she' not merely just built for that male "child bearing" call (if put directly, with vulgarity: "I wanna grab her hips as I thrust") -- with the fanging, male semen siphoning lower figure (Greek-Roman) -- but the additional, male "child conception" lust (if put directly, with vulgarity: "I wanna grab her hips, tits, ass, sides ... oh man I need 12+ arms, oh shit, I just came inside of her as I didn't even know I was thrusting like a mad-man from the Voluptuous overload") -- with the "her body is one stretch of womanhood from toe to head (early industrial to mid-American "ideal corset figure").
Maybe she'd be more "media acceptable" if she shed 20-30lbs. and dropped to more of 38-28-40 figure (ala Anna Nicole Smith at her smallest), but I don't see her dropping much below that (or into a single digit dress size) with that wide figure.
Frankly, this is what makes her so perfect to me, because she's beautiful at any weight -- although I'd say she's most, again, "Voluptuous" at that proportion-size there.
It's why "real, wide, Voluptuous women" are at least 150lbs, but it's spread over their width so their stomach actually protrudes
less (universally more healthy) than many petite models that weight 20-30lbs. less (and why these "weight limits" guys state they have are not very universally applicable).
Again, not anywhere near a BBW yet, don't let the width fool you, that's just sleek lover, with a tad of softness that spans "beauty" among at least half men
of any time period.
God this is the woman I live for to experience, even if just visually on my own.
I honestly believe it is the form that God Herself likes to take, and has been written out continuously since recorded human history began (if not in other ways before).
Oh, BTW, two (2) further comments/questions ...
1. Is she really born in '71-'73 and mid-to-latter 30s? She looks much, much younger than someone like myself (and I'm fairly young looking for my age). Another site said age 26, so more like around '82 instead of '72. If she really is older, damn, she's a MILF without looking like a MILF! Wow!
2. A noted a couple of sites said Bang Bros noted she has "hips and thighs" but not what the like in an "ass" -- WTF? Did they see pics 05-08 above? Geez! That's perfect, proportional "extreme" (to my liking at least) for her shape, period! I guess maybe she's not "super bubble on a petite frame," so maybe that's what their problem was? WTF?
