Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No spinners. Anyone below 5'4" not attracted to them. To childlike.

There are many women who are under 5'4" who are curvy with big chests. They in no way look chidlike.

Curvy=fat.

Short, fat and dumpy--no thanks. And when they hit 50, the short size makes it near impossible for them to keep weight off when metabolism comes to a screeching halt with menopause.

My wife is 5’4” size 2 waist, 32 H boobs and a nice firm curvy yoga but. Nothing fat about her.

My FWB is 5’1” size 6, natural 34 I breasts. She carries a little extra weight but I find her sexy. That’s what makes the world go round...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a breast man. Large breasts are my kryptonite.

Yes, when they are young, but age/gravity turns the tide.

Not all... Been with quite a few older woman with large, natural breasts and sit up as high as a young woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No spinners. Anyone below 5'4" not attracted to them. To childlike.

There are many women who are under 5'4" who are curvy with big chests. They in no way look chidlike.

Curvy=fat.

Short, fat and dumpy--no thanks. And when they hit 50, the short size makes it near impossible for them to keep weight off when metabolism comes to a screeching halt with menopause.

My wife is 5’4” size 2 waist, 32 H boobs and a nice firm curvy yoga but. Nothing fat about her.

32H is repulsive, especially on that frame. A 2 inch waist

to the comment just above.

People in general are so confused and misinformed about breast size/bra size. Band size, cup size, frame size, body proportions, height, boob shape, etc all make boobs look different, project differently, and sit on the chest differently.

I'm 5'4", all over thin frame, size 0, and a size 32D in bras (natural boobs, professionally fitted). They are definitely not huge knockers, but not small either. Just a nice, normal boobs that aren't too small.

Fitness and hip to waist ratio are what I notice first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No spinners. Anyone below 5'4" not attracted to them. To childlike.

There are many women who are under 5'4" who are curvy with big chests. They in no way look chidlike.

Curvy=fat.

Short, fat and dumpy--no thanks. And when they hit 50, the short size makes it near impossible for them to keep weight off when metabolism comes to a screeching halt with menopause.

Tall women turn into men after menopause. No thanks.

Lol. True!

DCUM killing me with this one! True though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No spinners. Anyone below 5'4" not attracted to them. To childlike.

Really, I like the short ones. I’ve only ever dated one girl under 5’7” but I would definitely be into it.

Women that are short don't age well. They look weird old in a child like body. By short, I mean under 5'3". Plus, everyone shrinks an inch or two with age...so if you are with someone 5'1" or 5'2", they will be getting close to under 5 feet older.

I knew a woman who was 4’11 who was seriously hot. No way I would have passed her up based on height.

+1 I've known plenty of hot, older, well fit short women. It's how you treat your body. Tall women are likely to be fat as well.

My fiance says Boobs they're feminine to him.
Mine are ridiculous( natural) I hate them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No spinners. Anyone below 5'4" not attracted to them. To childlike.

There are many women who are under 5'4" who are curvy with big chests. They in no way look chidlike.

Curvy=fat.

Short, fat and dumpy--no thanks. And when they hit 50, the short size makes it near impossible for them to keep weight off when metabolism comes to a screeching halt with menopause.

salma hayek is under 5'4 and in no way is she fat. I only mention her because many Americans know who she is. I do realize that most 50 yr olds don't look like Salma Hayek, but she is just an example of a woman under 5'4 and curvy, but not fat.

Salma Hayak is 5'0"

Tig ole bitties, probably.

If wearing leggings, then serious thigh gap. From there my eyes widen. If no thigh gap she shouldn’t be wearing leggings and I visually move on.

(.)(.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No spinners. Anyone below 5'4" not attracted to them. To childlike.

Really, I like the short ones. I’ve only ever dated one girl under 5’7” but I would definitely be into it.

Women that are short don't age well. They look weird old in a child like body. By short, I mean under 5'3". Plus, everyone shrinks an inch or two with age...so if you are with someone 5'1" or 5'2", they will be getting close to under 5 feet older.

My mother is 87 and petite I also have three aunts all under 5'3" in their eighties and they are all mentally sharp women who also have actually aged very well. Their being petite in no way makes them look weird, this is your own strange hangup actually. If anything, they are beloved, at all sizes.

Anonymous wrote:No spinners. Anyone below 5'4" not attracted to them. To childlike.

Men who don't know how to spell or use appropriate grammar are also childlike...

Anonymous wrote:Eyes, SMILE, lips, face
Discreetly check out breasts, tiny waist, long legs...
(Then keep looking at her face but thinking about her breast and her legs...)

She has to be attractive and approachable. I expect her to be well dressed, groomed etc. Don't care about long hair, short hair etc.

I am old fashioned. I like a normal booty. I don't care for the ginormous hippopotamus booty of Kim Kardashian. A person should look like a normal human being and not a circus freak.

Clearly one of the few men left on this thread originally asking for men’s opinions.

Classic DCUM!

😂🤣😂

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a breast man. Large breasts are my kryptonite.

Yes, when they are young, but age/gravity turns the tide.

it's also an indicator of being overweight