Posted
Rename and Expand the "Body Type" Categories
I'd like to suggest renaming the current “Body type” field to “Figure Type” (or “Figure / Physique”), since the field is often described as overall shape and physique rather than simply weight.
The existing options are quite limited, and some overlap with each other. It would be helpful to expand the list to include commonly recognized figure types such as
1) Hourglass
2) Top Hourglass
3) Bottom Hourglass
4) Fit, Petite,
5) Curvaceous, and Full-Figured
. . .while keeping categories like Athletic, Muscular, Slim, and BBW. Adding clearer definitions for each option would also make classifications more consistent and reduce edit disputes.
EDIT:
Okay, maybe I need to elaborate, so here it is.
Babepedia currently uses a single dropdown called Body Type, but the options inside it mix three completely different concepts:
Body Shape (proportions: hourglass, pear, rectangle)
Physique / Build (slim, athletic, muscular)
Size Category (BBW, chubby, petite if added)
This guarantees confusion because editors are forced to choose one label to represent three different aspects of a woman’s figure.
My suggestion — expanding the list and renaming it to Figure Type or Figure / Physique — makes sense because it reflects how real modeling, fitness, and glamour industries describe bodies:
✔ Industry uses proportion terms
Hourglass, top hourglass, bottom hourglass, rectangle, inverted triangle.
✔ Industry uses physique terms
Slim, fit, athletic, muscular.
✔ Industry uses size categories
Petite, plus-size, full-figured.
Babepedia already collects detailed measurements (32–23–34, WHR, cup size, height, weight), so the site is capable of supporting more accurate classification — it just doesn’t offer the right options.
Expanding the list would:
Reduce edit disputes
Make profiles more accurate
Reflect real-world diversity
Match modeling terminology
Avoid outdated fruit metaphors
Allow editors to describe both shape and physique more clearly
Right now, Babepedia only leaves the door open for a narrow set of body types, which isn’t realistic given the diversity of women on the site.
Why Babepedia’s current system is outdated and confusing
Babepedia’s current Body Type list is outdated because it only includes:
Slim, Average, Athletic, Muscular, Chubby, BBW.
This list is:
❌ Too limited
It doesn’t allow for hourglass, pear, rectangle, inverted triangle, or any proportion-based classification.
❌ Mixed incorrectly
It combines physique (muscular), size (BBW), and shape (none included) into one field.
❌ Inconsistent with modeling, fitness, and glamour industries
No agency uses “BBW” or “Chubby” as professional descriptors.
❌ Missing the most common female body shape
Rectangle is the most common shape (~46% of women), yet it’s not even an option.
❌ Causes edit disputes
Editors argue because they’re forced to choose between vague labels that don’t match the model’s actual proportions.
❌ Doesn’t reflect the measurements Babepedia already displays
WHR, bust–waist–hip, height, and weight are shown — but the dropdown doesn’t use any of that information.
My suggestion fixes all of this by expanding the vocabulary and aligning it with real-world terminology.
Unfortunately, the administrator of Babepedia doesn't seem to like it when I point out obvious things that could improve the platform and could potentially help with the ridiculous back-and-forth abuse by some members who consistently abuse their privileges; they seem to prefer to ignore things I point out, despite the evidence I provide or the fact that it is in the Edit Logs. So, I'm not holding my breath for something I suggest to be implemented anytime soon.
The existing options are quite limited, and some overlap with each other. It would be helpful to expand the list to include commonly recognized figure types such as
1) Hourglass
2) Top Hourglass
3) Bottom Hourglass
4) Fit, Petite,
5) Curvaceous, and Full-Figured
. . .while keeping categories like Athletic, Muscular, Slim, and BBW. Adding clearer definitions for each option would also make classifications more consistent and reduce edit disputes.
EDIT:
Okay, maybe I need to elaborate, so here it is.
Babepedia currently uses a single dropdown called Body Type, but the options inside it mix three completely different concepts:
Body Shape (proportions: hourglass, pear, rectangle)
Physique / Build (slim, athletic, muscular)
Size Category (BBW, chubby, petite if added)
This guarantees confusion because editors are forced to choose one label to represent three different aspects of a woman’s figure.
My suggestion — expanding the list and renaming it to Figure Type or Figure / Physique — makes sense because it reflects how real modeling, fitness, and glamour industries describe bodies:
✔ Industry uses proportion terms
Hourglass, top hourglass, bottom hourglass, rectangle, inverted triangle.
✔ Industry uses physique terms
Slim, fit, athletic, muscular.
✔ Industry uses size categories
Petite, plus-size, full-figured.
Babepedia already collects detailed measurements (32–23–34, WHR, cup size, height, weight), so the site is capable of supporting more accurate classification — it just doesn’t offer the right options.
Expanding the list would:
Reduce edit disputes
Make profiles more accurate
Reflect real-world diversity
Match modeling terminology
Avoid outdated fruit metaphors
Allow editors to describe both shape and physique more clearly
Right now, Babepedia only leaves the door open for a narrow set of body types, which isn’t realistic given the diversity of women on the site.
Why Babepedia’s current system is outdated and confusing
Babepedia’s current Body Type list is outdated because it only includes:
Slim, Average, Athletic, Muscular, Chubby, BBW.
This list is:
❌ Too limited
It doesn’t allow for hourglass, pear, rectangle, inverted triangle, or any proportion-based classification.
❌ Mixed incorrectly
It combines physique (muscular), size (BBW), and shape (none included) into one field.
❌ Inconsistent with modeling, fitness, and glamour industries
No agency uses “BBW” or “Chubby” as professional descriptors.
❌ Missing the most common female body shape
Rectangle is the most common shape (~46% of women), yet it’s not even an option.
❌ Causes edit disputes
Editors argue because they’re forced to choose between vague labels that don’t match the model’s actual proportions.
❌ Doesn’t reflect the measurements Babepedia already displays
WHR, bust–waist–hip, height, and weight are shown — but the dropdown doesn’t use any of that information.
My suggestion fixes all of this by expanding the vocabulary and aligning it with real-world terminology.
Unfortunately, the administrator of Babepedia doesn't seem to like it when I point out obvious things that could improve the platform and could potentially help with the ridiculous back-and-forth abuse by some members who consistently abuse their privileges; they seem to prefer to ignore things I point out, despite the evidence I provide or the fact that it is in the Edit Logs. So, I'm not holding my breath for something I suggest to be implemented anytime soon.
Comments (3)
This should be able to calculated automatically when one enters measurements. I know hourglass has a very specific definition of a waist at least 9" smaller than the hips. Something similar is done with WHR already.
The terms “apple,” “pear,” and “banana/ruler” come from consumer fashion magazines, not from professional modeling, fitness, or glamour industries. Agencies, casting directors, and wardrobe stylists overwhelmingly use proportion‑based terminology such as hourglass, inverted triangle, rectangle, and bottom/top hourglass. These are standard in styling, tailoring, and physique description.
So the idea that “top hourglass” or “bottom hourglass” is confusing isn’t accurate — they’re widely used terms in professional contexts to describe proportion differences (shoulder‑dominant vs. hip‑dominant hourglass). They’re clearer and more precise than fruit metaphors.
Likewise, “fit” and “petite” aren’t body shapes — but Babepedia’s current dropdown already mixes shape, physique, and size category together (Slim, Athletic, Muscular, Chubby, BBW). My suggestion simply expands the system to reflect reality instead of limiting it to six vague options.
The 9‑inch rule for hourglass is also outdated. Modern classification uses WHR (waist‑to‑hip ratio), which Babepedia already displays on profiles. WHR is more accurate and more flexible across different body sizes.
In short:
Fruit shapes = consumer fashion blogs
Hourglass variations = industry standard
WHR = modern measurement
Babepedia’s dropdown = oversimplified and inconsistent
My suggestion is meant to bring clarity, accuracy, and consistency to a field that currently causes a lot of edit disputes.
Triangle/inverted triangle is just another, less confusing way of describing the top/bottom hourglass insisted on. I think the geometric shape terms are an acceptable compromise and easily understood. Users may need to be educated about these partial hourglass types. And I agree, it is deeply disappointing that the most common shape, rectangle, is not an option and does call into question why this site would make such a glaring oversight. However, I don't think openly calling out the editor is going to improve the chances of these changes being implemented.
How can WHR determine an hourglass figure if it only takes into account two of the elements that define an hourglass figure? And if it is possible, it can be automatically determined then.
There definitely needs to be a distinction between body shape, physique/build, and size. Those should not be conflated as they currently are. Separating them would improve searching, if nothing else.