Lately, there has been debate about how to handle the model’s weight in model profiles when it has changed substantially over time. A good example here is Jennifer Love Hewitt. She weighed roughly 54kg (119 pounds) in the 90’s and 00’s. These days, she is still active, 47 years old, and a mother of 3 kids. She now weighs around 68kg (150 pounds).
Below are the options that are on the table. Important to note: We are not trying to find consensus on what to do with Jennifer Love Hewitt’s profile specifically. Rather, it is about establishing a general rule of thumb. This is a discussion that pops up from time to time, and often, people disagree, leading to editing wars.
Option A — Current weight
Use the most recent publicly known or officially listed weight.
Pros: Currently, only one active value.
Cons: Can feel misleading if it no longer reflects the period during which the person was famous.
Option B — Peak-career weight
Use the weight from the period when the model was most active/popular.
Pros: Better reflects the image/career people recognize.
Cons: A model may have had multiple weights over their career, and there may still be disagreement.
Option C — No weight listed
If a model’s weight has changed substantially over time, don’t display the weight at all.
Pros: Avoids misleading or controversial classifications, especially for long careers or major body changes.
Cons: Less complete data for users who want detailed profile stats. The model won’t be found when using weight-focused queries on the advanced search page.
If you have an opinion about this, please share it in the comments section and cast your vote in the poll below.
Update: Poll closed. We will discuss this internally and take action.
I don’t pay attention to such details.
No difference to me.
No comment.
If she’s not Carmela Bing heavy at this point on her life, it shouldn’t be an issue here. My opinion.
I think it should reflect the range, 119 to 150.
If they are still active then allow a peak and current. Best of both worlds for everyone.
Also how do we know anyway, I’m sure most women don’t talk about weight they have gained.
Weight should be current, though I think there should also be an “extra info” field for weight like there is for cup size. That way, if people want to list a model’s “peak-career weight” they have that option while still being able to preserve the most current info.
I think having an extra info box for both weight and hair color would be a good idea
I think it should be current, like how the tattoos/piercings and breast size/type are current. If it’s radically different to when she was in her prime put her prime weight in brackets or something
It really makes no difference to me personally. That said, I do know that it can be difficult to find accurate info regarding the babe’s weight (current or otherwise) if its not officially mentioned (on their IMDB page/Modeling websites/Pornhub page/studio websites/etc.), and potentially, that may ultimately lead to arguments between those who believe one source listing the babe’s weight against another source with her weight listed differently (and possibly neither are verifiable or accurate). So I just picked Option C.
I think you should show both. Have 2 separate weight listings, one current, one prime.
Why not just have both listed?
I have no real preference myself, but I think it should be either “Peak” if the person is no longer active or “Current” if the person is still active. Essentially, toggle it based on “Years active”.
It’d still be subject to debate, if only because people will disagree on when someone was at their peak.
Why not use both A and B?
It should be the weight that lines up with most of her pictures.
Probably add the 2 and divide by 2?
Why does their weight matter at all? If they look good they look good.
Where do you even get reliable information about their weight anyway?
A strong option B
It’s redundant to do anything but go by the woman’s peak/prime weight. Otherwise, more than half of these women will become “chubby” when they inevitably age, and that would defeat the point of having categories. I understand that these are non-affiliated websites, but this is how Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica do it, so it’s clearly an online encyclopedic standard. I believe Boobpedia does it this way as well.
I’d also like to add that there’s more to this issue at hand. What’s being presented as a now versus then argument was actually brought to the administration’s attention to address unsourced edits. For those of you who had it, you know there’s a field at the bottom where you’re supposed to provide extra information if you make any changes. The only official weights out there are her older, slimmer measurements. Marking her up to 150 lb is only speculation that have no paper trail, rather than stated facts. So really, what you’re voting for with option B is to help enforce edits, with option A being speculative in this case. Keep that in mind when you vote, as it wasn’t really presented this way.
I think for legal safety…nothing should be added unless it’s verifiable. These bored busybodies can get the site in deep shit. There are women that have the $ to grind axes pretty sharp.
This is important for a lot of factors besides weight. For instance, many women have natural breasts for a portion of their career, but get “enhanced” later on. Same with the decisions to shave or grow out pubic hair, or to get a tattoo or piercing. These criteria should be handled the same way as the weight (I personally would like if it just said “variable” with additional information elsewhere on the profile, but I’m only one vote).
Let’s drop a somewhat likely scenario, a “babe” comes and sees her weight is wrong, she gets mad and sees it as damaging. What would just be the easier thing to do for everyone involved? To avoid a possible dust up, just don’t have it. It sucks to have incompleteness but what sucks more is legal woes.
i don’t pay attention to that detail
If I have to choose 1 answer I would choose peak career weight. However; what I would choose personally would be A and B, with peak career weight being listed first, then current weight.
My full reasoning behind listing both A and B is because I like to see beautiful women in all their glory. If a woman started modeling with small to medium breasts, then got implants to make herself feel more beautiful, would I boycott her new pictures or scenes? Hell no! I prefer natural, but if she wants bigger boobs to feel more confident more power to her. However; if it’s just a career move where she goes from B or C to bigger than DD, I don’t like it. Either way, adult websites keep the earlier pictures and scenes as well as the new up for many years. I thank you for that. Take for instance Jenna Jameson… I prefer her naturals to her Gs or HHs. She didn’t need them any bigger than when she shot her first scene. She just got implants to please all the idiots who expect porn-stars to make them as big as possible no matter how bad they look on them. I thought she was a 10 in the first scene I saw her in, now I consider her an 8… mostly because of her energy.
I vote current weight, but the best choise is both.
Peak-career weight makes sense if a girl has stopped working in that profession (model, pornstar), but if she is still active, it would be more correct to use the current weight or to indicate both. In my opinion, the weight could be separated into multiple entries: peak weight(or old) and current weight