>>206160
Nope, your 100% wrong, there is no size limit on /tits/
It was my idea, so yeah, you? You're part of the skinny thot loving brigade :P
>>206159
Exact opposite problem though. Most ssbbw's are contained in ssbbw some aren't. But no one is posting random insta thots to /ssbbw/ the way they used to slash still do on /tits/
Plenty of /tits/ threads had to seek refuse on /bbw/ because /tits/ wasn't for /tits/ but just for random insta thots.
The site is bbw-chan, not porn-chan. The concept of /tits/ was for bbw's who were top heavy. /booty/ for bottom heavy, etc. etc.
Every subboard is in theory supposed to be bbw-related.
At least that was the idea, barclay said it wouldn't work, and that including /tits/ and /booty/ would invite fat-haters, and barclay was right about it :P