• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

Full / Wide Hips (and tummy)

The reason I started this thread ...

Game over... :surprise: Perfection!!! :clap:
Michelle Monaghan
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lkng7aEehY1qb9auio1_1280.jpg
Scroll back to page one and she's the first one posted for this thread. But hey, I guess she is the first and last word in full fucking hips. :)
Oh that's not even the half of it! OP here (albeit my name has changed since then).

The first half is ... yes ... this thread exists precisely because of Michelle Bond.

It started with this post in another thread just over 7 years ago (very late 2005) on "SLIM Naturally BUSTY Young Women" ...
The question becomes whether you like thin as in width or you don't mind wider women as long as they are slender, or possibly prefer the latter?
Personally, I'm far more in the latter -- and to be more specific, I like hourglass figures.
Two major reasons.
One is that I really get off on seeing a woman with as wide of hips as her bust, while her stomach is inward -- the more her hips fang, the more I love her.
Two is because the wider the bust, the wider the breasts, and typically the more round and well hanging/formed.
...
But if I have to go extra slender, give me busty brunette honeys with cock engulfing hips like Michelle Bond:
http://www.freeones.com/html/m_links/Michelle_Bond/
Especially these two sets that just beg for her atop, doggie from behind and plain'ole missionary:
...

So 3 months later (early 2006), it finally drove me to start the thread, Michelle first'n foremost.
There has been a number of threads on having sex with pornstars, women with large breasts and countless other commentary. But other than maybe the Sarah Jay thread, I haven't seen many people talking about full, fucking hips. To me, the sexiest women have very wide hips, fanging out from their stomach, regardless of breast size -- although I prefer hourglass figures, and NOT wide/full figured bell/pear shapes. And she doesn't need to be slender -- in fact -- I like a tad of slender, but signficant tummy in an almost cartoonish fantasy that she can take it deep and long.
Some of my favorite examples include Michelle Bond:
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=562455
...

But second half, which is far more important ...

...
Matured to perfection Kelly Madison (although she could use a little more of a bubble butt, damn if she's not already "too perfect"):
http://www.2busty.net/gallery/kelly/KellyMadison/index.htm
...
And many are perfectly aged (30-something), such as the ever popular Kelly Madison and lesser know, early '90s playmate (now in her '30s and very wide and busty) Angela Melini.
God I love it when Kelly Madison's man grabs her hips and just rams her from every angle.
Of course, a large, wide and hanging pair makes tit fucking just another option.

I hinted in the same posts, among my other commentary about women 30-plus in other threads, that the best of Michelle was yet to come (and even said so in other threads on this board and elsewhere). So many women mature, loosen and, even more so, widen with age. I have several friends who became disinterested with their wives, even divorcing over it, as they couldn't maintain that 24-36" mid-waist figure into their 30s. If I wasn't married to the most wonderful woman on the planet, I would so have a go with every one of them.

Michelle started to ramp up to absolute perfection around age 29 (2009), today could be considered the ultimate goddess in my view at age 32, and I really cannot even fantasize how she's going to be going into 40 (and I will love seeing it happen, should she choose to continue modelling). The funny thing about Michelle Bond is that her breasts are so large, they almost work against her in visual. I've noticed select, newer models like Siri Suxxx have a very similar hourglass to Michelle, but are a tad more spoonish in shape, with slightly smaller breasts. Why do I mention this? Because Michelle's breasts have almost always covered her tight, perfect inflection point at her mid-section since she started modeling. You have to view her from behind to always see it, or she has to hold her breasts up. Now that she's aged, it's only worse, wider, thicker, still slender (loosening in the "inner stomach," very womanly, ultra-sexy to me), but the bust is totally covering it. So looking at her straight-on, you don't see how abso-fucking-lutely perfect Michelle is! It was always hard to see it, but it's almost impossible now.

But here comes the best part ...

The visuals are nothing compared to the fantasy of making love to Michelle is unreal. Because if I was her lover who had the honor of becoming one with her, I'm going to to be nuts holding those "high hip joints" way up, under where her breasts hang. With most women, especially perfect hourglass women, a man is typically torn between cupping the busts or running his hands up and down her sides, often clasping at her hips or mid-section. With Michelle, you get both. You hold her at her mid-section, and those perfect, succulent, hanging breasts flop over your hands, at least as they run against gravity. They are so full that even if you were taking her from behind spoon, they'd drape all over your arms. But if she rode cowgirl or reverse cowgirl, she would be the ultimate, fleshy delight. Even slow, sweet love making with her atop would be the ultimate. Those breasts would flow over your hands, all while you could not stop driving them up and down her sides, no "flopping" or "hard fucking" required.

She is also a sophisticated looking British lass who I feel has the most unique, enticing and enchanting topping. Everything with Michelle starts at that perfect hourglass, one I identified as perfection back in her very early days of modelling 2004-2005, and had a feeling would mature into the most voluptuous -- and I mean absolutely classic, traditional, male animalistic, breeding type of lust -- beauty on the planet. And she has now bested any fantasy I could have had of her back then. This is a woman you want to meet at age 18-20, with the perfect curves that are just in their infancy and have yet to expose their potential. This is a woman you want to enjoy for her entire lifetime, into her late 20s, into those 30s and that sexual prime, and well into her 40s and beyond because she just keeps getting better and better and better. I pegged her original, perfect voluptuous beauty and what the future would hold for her, and damn if she didn't prove I was both right, and expose the fact that I obscenely under-estimated the full, matured woman she would become (and is likely still becoming through her 30s).

She is the true example of voluptuous form, and I'm hard pressed to find another, anywhere, period, forever. There are beautiful women who have perfect hourglass shapes, and then there is the testament to the life cycle of Michelle Bond. Guys who even enjoy thinner women are often dumbfounded why their desire for her is so strong, not just when she was younger, but even now fuller, thicker, the ultimate evolution of woman. I see so many guys, especially young guys, and what they love, and then they are disenfranchised when they get older. And there's something to be said about why "dirty old men" are those who crave curves, and wish they would have experienced not just more curvy woman, but one for their entire lifetime through all those cycles, beauty and everything else that results when you choose such an unique form. There may be a woman in the future that invokes what Michelle does in me, and even models like Siri Suxxx are gentle reminders that hips are well formed on many women. But no one comes together like Michelle, at least not for me. And I've explored so many models and have had so many favorites that I cannot stop appreciating everything that Michelle represents without question or hesitation.

I won't even try to pick a favorite set of hers here, but I will point out one of her ultimate "glamour" sets in my view is DDF Busty 50425, in the bath and shower with a purple bra and panty set (one of my favorites on her).
- http://www.bigttt.com/ddfbusty/50425/

Yes, it's airbrushed, and that's why I prefaced it with "glamour." But Michelle has done a number of amateur type shots, and you can see her natural beauty and glow. I may be biased because I was an American who grew up in the '80s on curvy women in British magazines, but her raw, natural beauty without makeup, right down to how she would look when she first woke up in bed next to her, is the ultimate presentation when we're not talking glamour. And you cannot airbrush curves, warp yes, fisheyes possibly for breasts, but usually not without distortions, and Michelle is just Michelle, known for her real, actual curves and fair loveliness. Those curves are eternal, through widening, weight gain or loss and everything else, she was designed perfect by God. Everything else is just a bonus, the beauty atop, the fullness of her bust (although aided by the width of her form). She is not just the reason for this thread, but the queen of perfection who keeps rewriting what I think I knew of potential beauty with each passing year.

So as the OP, I agree, "Game Over. Perfection!!!"

Thanks guys. Probably one of the best threads ...
Thanks ...
No, thank you and to all the others who have kept this thread going, and identified those ultimate curves that many other threads have ignored. Gina G in the recent posts is yet another great example.
 
Last edited:
The "problem" with Maggie Green ;)

Here's some more of my curviness : )
The "problem" with you Maggie is that every time I look up from your hips and bust, you put Dutch supermodel Frederique van der Wal (Boobpedia) to shame. That's one hell of a distraction. ;)

Adding to the problem is that you take a slightly more top-heavy apple shape (although your dimensions are still hourglass), which means your chest juts out just a little bit more to present your breasts more profoundly than other models. That is also a major distraction for me because I'm extremely happy and contently married to a top-heavy apple myself. ;)

Blondes like you make me question why I prefer brunettes. I overwhelmingly prefer brunettes, but there are a few sandy blondes that destroy such preference. I'll always and plausibly favor a top favorite looker who is a blonde such as yourself.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Re: Full fucking hips (and tummy) ...

Hey, Professor V is back. How are ya, Prof? :wave:

And yes, I agree with you about Maggie. In addition to being very pleasant to interact with on here, she's also very easy on the eyes. At 36F-29-39 (according to her FreeOnes bio), how could she not be? 38-42 inch hips (on a girl her size) pretty much represent perfection, IMO. Maggie FTW! :clap:
 
Re: Full fucking hips (and tummy) ...

Hey, Professor V is back. How are ya, Prof? :wave:

And yes, I agree with you about Maggie. In addition to being very pleasant to interact with on here, she's also very easy on the eyes. At 36F-29-39 (according to her FreeOnes bio), how could she not be? 38-42 inch hips (on a girl her size) pretty much represent perfection, IMO. Maggie FTW! :clap:

Maggie FTW!
 
Re: Full fucking hips (and tummy) ...

her hips don't lie. though they might kill you.
http://www.********************/pattybbw/photos.htm

wow
 
Re: The reason I started this thread ...

I hope not game over. Just we've got, say... a very strong point of reference.
Indeed.

Michelle has become such a full woman that her breasts hide that small mid-section and she has to lift her breasts up to show how perfect her hourglass is and how high those full, fucking hips start on her frame. God she is a dream, would love to put my hands at that small mid-section while she rode me, and feel her breasts flop over my hands, while being tempted to just grab those fanning hips directly.

http://gallys.scoreland.com/flvs/MichelleBond_26957/
http://gallys.scoreland.com/images/MichelleBond_26957/

Michelle Bond may very well be the most beautiful and perfect set of curves on the planet.


Re-posting from the MILF thread ...
And there are usually a number of MILF spoon shaped women that would fit well here. Although she's not really my type (I'm not into spoon shapes, and I like a bust to match hips), I do have to say ... if this 43 year-old, 36-31-42" was riding me cowgirl, I might not hold back and spunk a load of baby batter deep into her.
 

Maggie Green

Official Checked Star Member
Re: Full fucking hips (and tummy) ...

Thanks for all of the love in here! Makes me proud to be a curvy woman! ;) :clap: :D

glam_temple_47.jpg
 
Re: Full fucking hips (and tummy) ...

... Eshe... Eshe, Eshe. I can't quite imagine what to say. :bowdown:
http://www.bigboobsalert.com/eshe-naked-nature.php ...
LOVE that woman... and that natural style..!:lovecoupl
Geez! How did I miss this mention of Eshe (Boobpedia) years ago in this thread? She's like a perfect middle ground between London Andrews and Sophie Mei (two absolute, curvy stunners in their own right).



Wow! I mean, wow! This is how a real woman should look, well proportioned, not fat, just very, classic voluptuous in form. I only noted her today because "Eshe Fan" gave me some rep, and I had to look her up. Wow! Speechless. Cannot put into words how I feel.
 
Noelle Easton

Normally I'm not much for women under 25, but every now and then a 18 year-old will hit me with a womanly form I cannot deny. For her age, Noelle Easton (Boobpedia FOthread) from Tennessee has a picture-perfect 38-26-38" form at 5'4".

Around 135lbs., she is a perfect example of a womanly form on such a young body. With her dimensions, her shorter stature is flirting with being a top-heavy apple, while her overall form is still a great hourglass with a perfect inflection at her midsection. Her smile has a sensual glow, with sweet dimples and slightly indented tooth just left of her front two. Whether she is glamorous or sporting four eyes, she is one woman I hope we enjoy throughout her years as she only becomes more stunning with time.

Limited samples of her so far. Still trying to find a shot of her in a pink bra that is of decent size.

 
Defining my "ideal" figure into two forms ...

I've long lauded Michelle Bond (Boobpedia) as the ultimate example of a woman with a wider hourglass, but small midsection for her size, which I've been more recently calling "Ultraglass." She had a tiny midsection when she was younger, but a wide chest and pair of hips. She's thickened over time and turned into a beautiful woman in her sexual prime. But more recently I've started to realize it's difficult to pick a single woman.

A main driver is height. The very concept of a "hourglass" is really defined on a woman who has a height around 5'6" (1.68m). As a woman heads towards and beyond 5'3" (1.6m), she has a statistical tendency to go more towards being a top heavy apple with a less jutting rear (even if she still has hips). And as she heads towards and beyond 5'9" (1.75m), she has a tendency to add more hips as her structure supports more height, usually with a fuller rear.

Michelle is 5'4" (1.63m), and heading towards the top-heavy apple form, while still being an Ultraglass. So she fits the shorter definition.

Since 2012 I've been struggling with Siri Suxxx (Boobpedia) at 5'9" (1.75m), who has Michelle's type of Ultraglass at that midsection down through hips and out not just the ass, but as she tapers off into her powerful thighs. She's the first woman to ever remind me of Michelle's shape, while driving me nuts in another direction, totally of her own, unique form. It was only today that I finally realized this difference, and why I should use Siri as an example of the taller definition.

^ I consider myself a normal size 8 woman, not a BBW nor chubby. average size in us = 12. average size in porn = 4 or 6. 8 = not chubby. size 8 is healthy and normal, not a fetish or a niche.
:brick:
Years ago I forked some responses in the thread Full figured women (FFW), but slender, voluptuous NOT chubby to differentiate from the typical BBW posts here. But even "FFW" is a poor "label," because everyone differs on meaning, just like BBW as well.

Dress sizes, like BMI, are designed for straight-shaped women. Even the Wikipedia article Female Body Shape was a mess before I got a hold of it. But even shapes like "hourglass" are based on a woman being 5'6" (1.68m). As a woman heads towards and beyond 5'3" (1.6m), she has a statistical tendency to go more towards being a top heavy apple with a less jutting rear (even if she still has hips). And as she heads towards and beyond 5'9" (1.75m), she has a tendency to add more hips as her structure supports more height, usually with a fuller rear.

Not-so-coincidentally, the real test of "overweight" is the simple, "overhang" test of the stomach. Women who have under 3cm (around 1" or less) of overhang when they are standing up are very healthy. Women differ in not just proportion, but body sizes. Some are wider, and their weight distributes out. Others are thinner, and any weight immediately goes to their stomach.

Supermodel Kate Dillon is the classic example. In her teens, she was a size 6, and considered "the next Cindy Crawford" by mainstream media. By the time she was 19 at 5'11" (1.8m), she was medically anorexic just trying to maintain her size 6. She is not remotely healthy as a woman under size 10. She could be a size 10, but she chooses to be a size 12 and even 14 at times. At 5'11" she's not really "full figured," she's tall, and has some killer hourglass curves. Those are unchanged from when she was a teenager.

I've found myself lusting for women as thin as Shay Laren and as thick as Maria Moore because of their base, hourglass form. Some people think that means I "like anything," bit it's quite the opposite. I'm picky as hell, and such women are 1 out of 10,000 (if not more). Both are "extremes" because I usually never go for women who are as thin as Shay or a clear BBW like Maria Moore, but they are exceptions. I look for a base hourglass, and then I could care less what her weight is, she will be striking in form to me through her life and her cycles. The more extreme the hourglass, the deeper my lust is.

Less than 8% of women of European decent have a hourglass figure. Far less of those have extremely wide hourglasses, meaning they can take on so much weight into their bust and hips before it starts showing in their stomach. Sometimes they have such extremely wide hips and busts, but then tiny mid-sections for their frame. They could literally fit in a size 2 dress at their mid-section, but their bust and/or hips put them in a size 8 or 10. I refer to such women as "Ultraglasses." An added bonus for an Ultraglass is typically not just wider and more hanging breasts, not to get too erotic, but a male can clasp and hold such a lover at her small midsection, and her breasts will "hang over" (and even swing and collapse against) the more sensitive back of his hands.

There's also something to be said about a woman with a little "inner stomach," which I find very sexy. It doesn't really overhang, but "smooths" from her sides into her body, as well as up from her pelvis. It's that little "bump" in form. She doesn't really have "handles," and she doesn't really much "hanging" over her waist, but it's nicely packed into a run from her waist before it folds under her chest. And it's slender, flattened, but not hard. Women who have children often gain these, if not 4" (10cm) in overall dimension at their waist, if not mid-section and bust too.

Director Joss Wheadon, of both Buffy and Firefly fame, was infamous for making his female actresses put on +15-20lbs. (+7-9kg) to make their curves more womanly, their dresses hug a little more, their faces round just slightly and so forth. I always point to actress Jewel Staite as a great "litmus test" of example of what men prefer. In the series Firefly, she was +15lbs. and adorable in my view. In the movie Serenity, she was back to her thinner form. Times have changed in French-influenced US media, and Americans have long forgotten the 26-38" midsection and hips of "voluptuous" Merilyn Monroe. Younger men are looking more for the 22-34" midsection-hips figures of their favorite, thin pornstar. And even ones going for a "bubble butt" aren't concerned about symmetric from hips to chest, so they will be spoon shaped and not remotely the classic "voluptuous" form.

More in the adult modelling world, Michelle Bond is my favorite example of "perfect in base form." In her early-to-mid 20s, she was a 40-25-37" (100-63.5-94cm) at 5'4" (1.63m), around 110lbs. (50kg), but she had the smallest midsection I've ever seen on such a wide form. I refer to such models as "Ultraglasses." Michelle also had pendulous breasts that almost covered her mid-section, so she was best viewed from behind. Over time Michelle thickened into her 30s, and now she's a very "juicy" 43-29-39" (109-74-99cm) and 154lbs. (70kg). She's still really a FFW, not quite a BBW, despite her bursting. And her hourglass is still there, but even more hidden because her breasts have become wider and even more pendulous, so her mid-section is totally covered. She'd probably be quite healthy at -15lbs. (-7kg), around 140lbs. (63kg), but for some men, that wouldn't be enough. Their loss in my view.

So I often mind my ideal woman is 5'3'-5'5" (1.6-1.65m), a wide 37" pair of hips, a mid-section that is still a hourglass, although smaller is more extreme and unique, and probably 130-150lbs. (59-68kg). But in reality, women are in so many ideal shapes and forms it's really hard to limit oneself to fixed dimensions and proportions. I really just want a woman with extreme curvature, up those hips and through that smaller midsection, with a slight softening to her form. Which brings me to you.

You are 5'9" (1.75m) and around 150lbs. (58kb), what someone might hastily put forth as a "mammazon." I think that's not tell your full story. Your hanging, more pendulous breasts also hide your thinner form much like Michelle. Your midsection is the only one I've ever noted to be on-par with my "ideal" view in Michelle, and your curvature from your midsection down through your lower form is unreal. But because of your increased height, versus Michelle's shorter form, you structure is a well defined pair of hips, curving out into a beautiful, jutting rear, and tapering off into a powerful set of thighs. Without getting too erotic, let's just say the physical prowess such a form endows and allows for a male lover you are atop of is an experience everyone should enjoy in their lifetime.

So I understand your point of "normal, and will agree you are "healthy." But I will disagree with "average." You are also definitely a "niche" and the very concept of a "fetish" I've tried to establish before in the thread Full fucking hips (and tummy) (which some people "get," but others still get confused on). You are a tall ultraglass, very under-appreciated, even more statistically rare, and the poster of the true, voluptuous form. I've been saying such ever since I was introduced to your work in 2012. I keep comparing your form to my established "poster girl" of Michelle Bond, even if she is on the opposite height spectrum from yourself. So I guess I should have two posters, one shorter (Michelle), and one taller (yourself), to perfect the "poster" example of what the "ideal form" is.
 
Re: Full fucking hips (and tummy) ...

A picture is still worth a thousand words, and maybe ten thousand in my case. As I said, it's best to view Siri's extreme, tall hourglass from behind, so you're not distracted by her breasts and other, womanly attributes. So this picture probably comes closer to doing her justice than any of my words may.

 
Top