LondonFA:Just finished survey. I'd say under body categories for selves and adults you probably need more. For example, I grew up in a household of former olympic level sports people, my father and mother, post career both became body builders and owned a chain of gymnasia.
There is more than underweight, skinny, normal, chubby, obese etc in terms of body type.
PsychResearchFF:Yes, this first survey has just been a simple one to get an outline on how to better detail the next few. I will be making much more detailed specific surveys in the coming days, along with more questions about the social and cultural influences people have experienced surrounding this fetish as a young age.

Thank you for taking the survey tho!
glad to be part of it.
Re the comment: It's that ithing in surveys with the balance of quantifiable answers, understandability and the need to not create a skew by having weighted questions.
"Normal" is a dangerous answer to have available as although it does allow for the isolation of an outsider in a set, it equally does not help in identification of the idea of paraphilias being from the "outside" of what people internally feel as sexually normal attraction.
I used myself as an example as "normal" for me as an army officer from a family of athletes, but equally being someone with family in rural florida and northern england, has no normal in a historic sense in body type. Fit, unfit, short, tall, fat, slim, they are all equally weighted, not just for me but for most in Europe and North America.
We are a highly migrant society with an increasingly broad influencer set from across our native linguistic media base.
We have Oprah and Ellen in common media; if looking at a visual "normal", that makes for a very broad topped curve and hence, to be sucessfully multi varied in analysis, having 'normal' as an answer without sufficient alternatives forces a skew and therefore eliminates all value in the data set.