Great post at Raging Feminist about fatophobic sex scenes in The L Word, and in MSM in general:
It should have been an interesting scene, then, as she fell into bed with her new romantic interest. Sure, he was a man, but he’s an interesting fat man. Boy was I disappointed, but not shocked, when they cut to a completely different scene as soon as Kit and her man hit their hotel bed. Now I’m not one to look for the sex scenes, and, in fact, the soft core porn atmosphere of the show is often very upsetting to my feminist politics, but damn, if I’m going to see a bunch of people having sex, if I’m going to be subjected to tons of explicit heterosexual screwing, and if I’m going to hear women talking about fucking one another every week, completely internalizing patriarchal ideas about sex, then damn it, I want to see some fat! I want to see Kit’s big body with its soft rolls of fat and big thighs just like we see Katherine Moennig’s spine and boney sternum on every single episode.
Why can’t we see Kit having sex? Why is she hidden behind everyone else in the orgiastic promo pics for the show? If it’s because she doesn’t want to do nudity then fine, but go out and find other fat women to include on the show as well, and don’t hide them.
The fat haters, and you all know who you are, need to get over this shit, because I’m tired of being told that fat women aren’t sexy. I’m sick of watching perfectly gorgeous women covered up and ignored in favor of an aesthetic that promotes eating disorders, depression, and low self-esteem. Show me the fat, and pass me the donuts while you’re at it.
Raging Feminist via Brutal Women. (I love that I just typed that sentence.)
Fat women being sexy have started to get media traction. I can track back to Camryn Manheim getting it on in The Practice. Keep shouting. You’re getting noticed. Write letters. Write fan mail. Sound smart, be focused, and get mediagenic spokespeople.
Plus, if you’re in SF, go see Fat Bottom Review.
Or, alternatively, the producers might have been acting out of sensitivity to the lesbian/gay viewership who is inundated with images of heterosexual screwing everywhere we turn. Food for thought.
Fatophobic ! Fatophobic !
I rest my case concerning both the intellectual weight of this blog & the veracity that terms such as homophobic should be given.
Creepy. Bean, when was this rape scene? I don’t watch the show (mostly because of the anti-realism), and no one blogged about it anywhere. It sounds like it wasn’t represented as rape–this is clunky phrasing; I guess I mean that the writers apparently didn’t intend for the characters or the audience to react to it as such? What happened?
Good point! Well, you certainly showed me. I’ve learned my lesson.
Guess there’s nothing more for you to do here. Move along, move along.
What exactly is lunadyke really hoping for here?
If she’s seeking to have the show fulfill a fetish of hers, then she’s kind of missing the point. TV sex – even the most tawdry kind – exists to garner the broadest appeal possible. You don’t ever see much more than the mildest deviance from the norm, because the goal is to get as many people hot as possible.
As it is, this kind of sounds like something Pat Buchanan would say, i.e. she’s being ” subjected to” all this awful sex between thin people, when the obvious answer is what everyone tells Pat and all of his right-wing whiners: change the channel.
I’m not sure what a “fat hater” is, but this sounds like nothing more than one person hoping to work out their self esteem issues with a TV show. That’s sad, and it’s foolish.
Seems a bit silly
thats all
you do know that the term phobic covers any irrational negative reaction to a subject, right?
so someone who is arachnophobic may be both fearful of spiders, or simply hateful of the little bugs.
so someone who is irrationally hateful of gay people is homophobic. there are technical terms of the general culture of fat phobia (from the irrational fear of gaining weight specifically to the irrational negative reactions to individuals who are fat, though all really have the same root cause, and tend to be co-symptomatic)
people generate phobic reactions from some deep rooted psychological reaction. something about the situation troubles them, be it from direct, traumatic experiences or just cultural education.
so if your reaction is “that’s just silly! I’m not afraid of fat people” maybe you aren’t. but that doesn’t make you not phobic. and judging by how dismissive you are, I’m willing to bet that yeah, you actually do have irrational dislike of fat or gay people.
Yes, but so irrational as to be medically diagnosed as a “phobia”
Homophobia would break down (in the Greek) as “fear of oneness” or “fear of sameness”
You could have religiophobia
or Catholicphobis & Protestantphobia -or generalized Fundiphobia
There’s always conservaphobia & rightwingaphobia
As well as
Straightaphobis & pennisaphobia & vaginaaphobia.
Rather than accuse my opponents of all this, I just say there wrong and avoid the talk of pathologies and attempts to medicalize their opinions.
Why? Because its silly ““just plain silly.
Ugh. I know I’ve encountered # 1 in cinema (Blade Runner, The Human Beast, Young Adam, &c.) and books (every romance novel ever published), but I can’t think of any specific instance on TV. I suppose I wouldn’t have a problem with #2–I might even be happy about an acknowledgement of domestic violence in a lesbian relationship–if I had faith that the show would present it in a non-exploitative way. Doesn’t sound like it did.
Oh. So they didn’t, or you get the general–utterly justifiable–sense from the show’s previous record that they won’t?
I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to watch this myself, but I’m getting curious as to how it was staged. And I’m kinda curious as to how intimate relationships between women are presented on the show in general.
Where’s a TWOP full-season order when you need it?
If she’s seeking to have the show fulfill a fetish of hers, then she’s kind of missing the point.
This is downright insulting – that the only reason one would want this on TV is to fulfill a fetish. (If the complaint was that ethnic minorities were not represented as sexy, would we call the complainer fetishistic?)
TV sex – even the most tawdry kind – exists to garner the broadest appeal possible. You don’t ever see much more than the mildest deviance from the norm, because the goal is to get as many people hot as possible.
You are aware that the folks typically shown having sex in TV/film are more of a deviance from the norm than most of the folks considered “fat,” right?
Who’s got a fetish again?
What happened between Jenny and Tim was apsolutely rape. And he was also using sex to punish her for cheating on him. Here’s part of the transcript for the scene. It’s disturbing to read but even more unsettling to watch.
(gacked from http://l-word.com/transcripts/)
[Tim comes in. The lights are off; Jenny fell asleep in bed in her clothes, reading a book. Tim walks over to her. He stands there a moment, looking at her, then starts to take all his clothes off.]
Tim: (quietly) Jen. (louder) Jen.
[Jenny stirs a little, then rolls over and sees Tim, naked. After a moment, Tim climbs onto the foot of the bed and pulls the covers away. Jenny tries to pull them back. Tim pulls them away again. He starts to climb on top of her. Jenny looks around, a little unnerved.]
Jenny: No… this seems wrong.
[Tim continues. He starts to raise her dress and pull her tights off.]
Jenny: I don’t think this is the way we should…
[Tim doesn’t stop.]
Jenny: It’s not the way… (shakes head)
[Tim pulls her tights off and throws them aside, then starts to climb on top of her. Jenny puts her knees against his chest. He moves them. He leans down and kisses her. Jenny closes her eyes and tries not to touch him. He starts to have sex with her, but she isn’t into it.]
Tim: Is that good?
Jenny: Yeah…
[All of a sudden, Tim stops, climbs off, and puts his clothes back on.]
Jenny: What are you doing?
Tim: I’m gonna go. I don’t wanna wait until the morning.
[Jenny sits up and covers herself. Tim walks to the door.]
Jenny: Tim.
[Tim stops and looks at her.]
Jenny: Please.
[Tim walks away.]
Jenny: Don’t leave.
Not necessarily. Homophobics clearly fear the “spread” of homosexuality – that is, they fear they or their children may become gay, or they fear that gays will “corrupt” society to the point that it becomes unpleasant for them. There is no definable “fear” of fat people, however. People may have anxiety over their own weight, but they do not fear that fat people will try to change them somehow; their battle with their waistline will be a private one, ether way.
Bias against fat people is more likely biologically-based. From the time we’re infants, we’re inclined to respond most positively to individuals who have symmetrical features and a healthy glow about them.
Whether you like it or not, a lot of how we’re wired isn’t about culture or bias. It’s about genetics. Men and wen are inclined to be attracted to people of a certain figure, because that figure reflects both healthiness and good breeding capabilities. You can argue as to whether you think that’s “fair,” but you’d be missing the point. People like what they like, and you can’t talk them into believing that something is (or isn’t) sexy.
lunadyke states it herself: ” I want to see some fat! I want to see Kit’s big body with its soft rolls of fat… ”
No, because:
A) A fetishist as you describe would find the minority sexy, no matter how they were portrayed.
B) Most people tend not to limit their arousal to their own race. If you polled blacks, asians, and whites independently, you’ll find that they all favor Carmen Electra and Halle Berry over Kathy Bates and Oprah. The various races all tend to have the same standards for what is considered beautiful.
There’s a reason why we call it “stimulation.” It jars out of our ordinary thoughts. For most people, watching attractive people have sex is more exciting precisely because it is unusual. Beautiful people are rare, as you admit, and seeing them go at it is something that few people manage to experience themselves. You must remember that a big part of arousal is fantasy, and in sexuality, much of fantasy revolves around the idealization of the genders. That’s why millions of young women can watch Titanic, and project their fantasies of Leonardo through Kate Winslet’s role.
why do people keep doing that?
yes, obviously, because for as long as you can remember, fat people have been victims of prejudice obviously, people are genetically inclined to hate fat people
fucking stop it.
I’m not just talking to you. everyone, everywhere. stop talking about human genetic predispositions for behavior. if you hear someone else do it, tell them to shut the fuck up, because they don’t know what they’re talking about either.
even assuming ANY human instincts actually survived the domestication process, anthropological evidence sugguests that anything you’d consider “normal” and “right” in a modern, western point of view is basically a perversion of it.
Okay, Karpad covered this, but this was a seriously ridiculous thing to say:
Less than 50 years ago, Marilyn Monroe was considered the height of femininity. Today, she’s considered fat — actress Elizabeth Hurley was even quoted saying, “I’d kill myself if I were that fat.”
I have a sneaky feeling that our basic human biology didn’t change in a mere 50 years, especially since it would have had to change within a single ethnic subgroup. Or did the poster forget that different ethnic groups within the United States have different standards for what constitutes “too fat”?
Uh huh, interesting. Let me let that sink in one moment. Okay, it’s sunk in. Now here’s the reaction:
Bullshit. Pure, utter, smelly, gloppy bullshit. It wasn’t all too long ago that fat was considered sexy. Or go to a part of the world where famine is an issue. Fat is tres chic there.
Carnivale is the only show I can think of where fat women have been portrayed as sexy. All I know is when Jonesy was having sex with Rita Sue he was grabbing quite a few healthy love handles on her.
I think there’s a reasonable distinction between “fat-phobia” and “just not finding fat people sexy.” I think that fat-phobia is the belief that there is something wrong with people who are fat.
Analogy: I don’t find men sexy, but I don’t think that there’s something wrong with men either.
These evolutionary determinist arguments are interesting, but about as useful to the debate as, well, every other assertion based on virtually no information: not very.
And who says you can’t be fat and look healthy and radiant? Particularly if you’re wearing so much makeup that your actual skin tone is invisible. And if you’re not on an 800-calorie diet like your co-stars. What’s your evolutionary hypothesis as to abnormally skinny women being portrayed as beautiful? Is there some reproductive benefit to extreme thinness that I’m missing here?
Maybe incredibly skinny women are more attractive because they made less attractive targets for predators. Or because they gave almost all of the berries and roots they gathered to their mates. Or because their bony hips could be used to cut hides.
And morgan: Ugh. Just, ugh. It sounds very similar to the other rape; I wonder if they’ll be resolved the same way.
…What about the belief–apparently held by the media in general and The L Word in particular–that there’s something wrong with people who find fat people sexy? We’ve already heard it described as a fetish, even though far fewer people in this country are overweight than skinny.
Wait a second, people.
First and foremost, genetically, we do respond positively to symmetrical bodies/faces, and people we consider “healthy”. The problem comes down to the definition of healthy.
If your fat in a country full of starving people, you have the double sexiness of assumed health and assumed power. If you’re super skinny in America, and you’re not tired looking (a side effect of aneorixia, waxy skin, brittle hair, and a general lack of energy: tired, sick) then you are assumed healthy and/or able to afford diet pills and gym subscription.
So, Karpad’s comment was technically correct, but the interpretation was seriously flawed.
Speaking as someone who’s a size 14 and still goddamn hot.
Do you ever feel inclined to settle down, have kids, have sex, or eat? These are all human instincts. Modern society can’t change the fact that females will ovulate, and males will tend to behave more aggressively as testosterone builds up in their bodies.
I agree with piny that finding something wrong to be with people who find fat people sexy would fall under fat-phobia. Though I would not say that fetish is bad, regardless of how daffodil is using it. I don’t think that finding fat people sexy is a fetish, but if it were, so what?
This is a myth. Monroe’s size 12 is not the same as our modern size 12, as this photo cleverly illustrates:
And this pic of Marilyn pretty much ends the idea that she was overweight for our era:
http://www.allposters.com/gallery.asp?aid=841713&item=262854
But what is most important in answering the question about women’s attractiveness is not size, it’s proportion. Even at her heaviest, Monroe still possessed an hourglass figure that was almost perfectly in proportion with the ideal. Also, take note of the sex symbols of Monroe’s era. Thin was in back then, too – just look at Rita Hayworth, Audrew Hepburn, etc.
Like I said, if you give people the choice between Halle Berry and Oprah, the vast majority will choose Berry, irrespective of their ethnic background.
People seem to have already shot down this argument, but anyway…
Discussing wether or not fat is sexy is hard because there’s no strict line of what is fat and what isn’t. I’d quickly categorize bodily appearances as {skinny,thin,plump,fat,obese} from which thin and plump I personally find erotic (all other things e.g. factial features kept equal). Too much of anything (skinninness,fatness, or even boobies) tends to be a turn-out.
Checking out Marilyn pictures, I found her to be thin and at most plump in most pics, not fat at all. I kinda agree with daffodil that “fat” differs from “plump” in that the person loses his/her basic figures due to the excessive fat.
I don’t think that finding fat people sexy is a fetish, but if it were, so what?
The problems I have with it:
1) “Fetish” may not be bad to you, but it is a normative statement that marginalizes forms of attraction and is often used pejoratively.
2) The message in this case, unlike many fetishes, is that if you’re not thin, the only people who will find you attractive are people with a “fetish”.
3) Conversely, it suggests that anyone who’s attracted to people considered “fat” is attracted exclusively to them, or primarily to that aspect of them, or that “the bigger the better.”
4) “Fetish” connotes a qualitatively different sort of attraction than “non-fetish,” one that’s often considered incomplete or inferior.
I guess it depends on what you’re comparing the usage to. To me, calling attraction to people considered “fat” a “fetish” isn’t using the term in the way people talking about BDSM, clothing, etc., do, but more in the accusatory way some people use it to discourage interracial relationships or relationships with large age differences.
sorry, the first link didn’t come through:
http://www.jessicaseigel.com/marilyn.shtml
I also found a good article on the matter at Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/mmdress.htm
As for my earlier statement regarding the biological foundation of beauty bias, check out these links:
Link 1
Link 2
lunadyke states it herself: “? I want to see some fat! I want to see Kit’s big body with its soft rolls of fat… “?
Perhaps. I didn’t interpret that as fetishistic, because the impression I got was not that it was due to sexual attraction to that body type so much as wanting the producers of the show to not stigmatize it.
A) A fetishist as you describe would find the minority sexy, no matter how they were portrayed.
And that’s one of the problems I have with calling this “fetishistic.”
If you polled blacks, asians, and whites independently, you’ll find that they all favor Carmen Electra and Halle Berry over Kathy Bates and Oprah. The various races all tend to have the same standards for what is considered beautiful.
That’d be an incredibly bad study if you failed to account for (i) the PR machine that tells us that Carmen Electra and Halle Berry are particularly beautiful; (ii) factors that aren’t directly related to weight, like facial features or skin tone; and (iii) the fact that Ms. Berry and Ms. Electra have a lot more incentive to maintain their appearance, because it affects their livelihood to a greater degree.
Take non-celebrities, do a properly controlled study, and I’ll wager you’ll find that the range of body types most people find attractive is wider than the range shown in the media as “sexy.” (Couldn’t be much narrower.)
There is nothing insulting or shameful about having a fetish. What’s more, if you’re taking this as “only fetishists find fat people hot,” then you’re misunderstanding me. lunadyke’s original post struck me as distinctly fetishistic – it is not that a fat person on this tv show aroused her; it is the fat itself that aroused her.
That’s the difference between a fetish, and just finding an individual attractive. Being aroused by overweight people, among many other body types, is different than being aroused only by fat people, or simply fat itself.
A fetish is simply an object or body part that either ellicits arousal on its own, or is required for arousal to take place. A man who finds women in garter belts sexy probably doesn’t have a fetish; a man who finds garter belts sexy on their own does.
What’s more, if you’re taking this as “only fetishists find fat people hot,”? then you’re misunderstanding me.
Well, I wasn’t misunderstanding *you* there, as in that post I was responding to someone else’s comment about why “fetishes aren’t necessarily bad” is not an appropriate response to the implication that attraction to people considered to be fat is fetishistic. I stand by my comments there.
I still disagree, however, with your interpretation of lunadyke’s comments – I see the language as promotion of fat acceptance rather than an expression of personal attraction.
Being aroused by overweight people, among many other body types, is different than being aroused only by fat people, or simply fat itself.
But this is never acknowledged. The person who’s attracted to all types is pressured to only admit to the socially acceptable ones, and anyone who admits to liking someone considered fat is labelled a fetishist, and this is a problem.
…Well, yes, but fat and unfit was in a century or two ago. Google “Lillian Russell.” Thinner is in now: Ally McBeal, Kate Moss, Courtney Cox, Renee Zellweger, and the cast of The L Word. How do you explain how models on average have dropped weight since Marilyn’s era? How do you explain how frequently actresses gain and lose weight, independent of any role, to fit fashions that fluctuate ten pounds or more from year to year?
Since you were the one to bring up evo psych, what natural reason could there be for desiring a woman who is so abnormally, artificially thin that she cannot bear children? What natural reason is there for not desiring a “proportionate” woman who is more voluptuous than Marilyn Monroe?
I’m having a problem with the confluence (not just here, but in society in general) of thinness with “attractiveness” and “health.” I’ve seen some extremely attractive fat people, and some extremely unattractive thin people. Daffodil’s own links point out that the evo psych explanations for attractiveness deal more with symmetry than anything else. Who’s to say a fat person cannot be symmetrical?
As for thin=healthy and fat=unhealthy, that’s pure bullshit. You can’t determine how healthy someone is by how much they weigh, unless they are on either extreme of the weight scale (extremely fat or extremely skinny).
In the discussions about fat-phobia or what have your that I read, I like to count the comments until someone decides that the fat acceptance movement is somehow a movement designed to make straight men have sex with women they aren’t attracted to. It usually is only a few comments in–I’m surprised it took this thread that long before it devolved into this.
Jeff: “Take non-celebrities, do a properly controlled study, and I’ll wager you’ll find that the range of body types most people find attractive is wider than the range shown in the media as “sexy.”
Yes, please! Someone should do that study, ASAP. I am sure that several such studies have already been done, now we just have to find them.
However, you should first define what exactly you mean by “find attractive”. For starters, it does not mean the same as “could settle for”. You can’t see somebody’s preferences from what they settle for, but you see them far better from what they reject.
Speaking of which, has any normal-weight woman reading this been ever rejected by their boyfriend or husband who decided to pair up with an obese woman? If this happened just as often as it happens to the other direction, this would be excellent evidence for the claim that many men find obese women sexy.
Another curious thing about the same claim is that for all the supposed diversity in people’s preferences, this diversity has an uncanny tendency to disappear when we look at people who are not that constrained in their choices. For example, among the workplace superstars who many employers try to grab with high-salary offers, we never seem to find a revealed preference in scrubbing toilets in McDonalds. Similarly, among the scarce beautiful people that the opposite sex competes for, we seldom find a preference to obese partners, even as anonymous one-night stands. Wonder why this is so?
Hogwash. In some African cultures, women deliberately fatten themselves to be more attractive to the men. In some South Pacific cultures, fatter women have always been considered beautiful. And ask any fat women who’s travelled to the Caribbean about the increased male interest she received there vs. in the U.S.
And, as always, What Amanda Said.
I knew Illkka would come out and threaten the fat girls with loneliness and make sure that you know if you can’t count all your ribs and still have a boyfriend or husband, he doesn’t love you but is biding his time until someone skinnier comes along.
However, you should first define what exactly you mean by “find attractive”?. For starters, it does not mean the same as “could settle for”?. You can’t see somebody’s preferences from what they settle for, but you see them far better from what they reject.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. By find attractive, I mean you show the person a picture, say “is this person attractive to you?” and record a yes or no. None of this “settling for” nonsense (which is another lovely stereotype that gets floated around – everyone wants a skeletal model type and “settles” for anything different). Sure, you might find that the percentage which says yes drops a bit, but it’s not the drop from (e.g.) 90% to 10% that everyone acts like it is.
Speaking of which, has any normal-weight woman reading this been ever rejected by their boyfriend or husband who decided to pair up with an obese woman? If this happened just as often as it happens to the other direction, this would be excellent evidence for the claim that many men find obese women sexy.
What you’re doing here is creating a false dichotomy, in this case between “normal” and “obese”. This gets done a lot – when people talk about fat, they tend to equivocate on the definition between “a few extra pounds” and “morbidly obese” depending on the point they need to make (e.g., if it’s an epidemic then being 20 pounds overweight counts, but if it’s a serious health hazard one trots out the 400-pounders).
My point in positing the hypothetical study is that you would likely find virtually no significant difference between people deemed thin and people deemed somewhat overweight once you controlled for other aspects (i.e., stopped comparing your average Jane to your average supermodel).
Similarly, among the scarce beautiful people that the opposite sex competes for, we seldom find a preference to obese partners, even as anonymous one-night stands. Wonder why this is so?
If I had to guess, it’s because the “beautiful people” you’re thinking of are probably in the politics entertainment industry, which means that (a) they’re disproportionately likely to be involved with other members of those professions, which select against fat people; (b) they’re very concerned with PR and know that a partner who’s not conventionally attractive will lower their status; and (c) availability bias (we hear more about the relationships between two high-profile celebrities than we do between a celebrity and a non-public figure.
Actually, this was an overall anti-female statement, not just anti-fat-women. After all, if you’re skinny your man doesn’t love you for you–he only loves your bony ass.
And I’m also noticing how heterocentric a thread about “The L-Word” has become. ;-)
That figure has nothing to do with weight, but proportion. I may be overweight, but I have a waist-hip ratio well within that considered most desirable across cultures. Which is certainly in evidence by the multilingual comments I get walking down the street.
And yes, I do get laid. Many men and women — brace yourself, Ilkka — actually prefer larger women to smaller women. Just as some prefer smaller women to larger women, or darker skin to lighter skin, smaller breasts to larger ones, and on and on.
When a man is attracted to me, I don’t worry that he’s “settling” and really wants to be with a thin woman. After all, if he’s with me, that means both that he finds me attractive AND that I find him attractive (as well as free of issues regarding my size other than liking it). Because, you see, it works both ways.
I find it sad that you buy so wholeheartedly into Hollywood and fashion stereotypes. Are you so insecure about your own appeal?
Wait! Hold the phone here!
I just looked up The L Word’s website on Showtime, and Kit — the “fat” one — is played by PAM GRIER?
They’re shying away from showing PAM FRIGGIN’ GRIER nude? In what universe is PAM FRIGGIN’ GRIER fat?
Jeff: “By find attractive, I mean you show the person a picture, say “is this person attractive to you?”? and record a yes or no. None of this “settling for”? nonsense ”
But the “settling for” nonsense is the thing that really matters. Actions and real choices count a lot more than mere words.
If the study showed employers pictures of people and asked “Could you consider hiring this person?”, and black people got as many “yes” responses as white people, would you conclude from this that there is no workplace discrimination against blacks? Or would you look at real-world hiring to see the truth?
“What you’re doing here is creating a false dichotomy, in this case between “normal”? and “obese”?. This gets done a lot – when people talk about fat, they tend to equivocate on the definition between “a few extra pounds”? and “morbidly obese”? depending on the point they need to make”
That is why I try to use well-defined terms as “obese”. The fat acceptance movement tries to purposefully cloud the issue, so that when some study says that five pounds of extra weight is not a big harm, this somehow proves that women who are 100 pounds overweight are beautiful.
” (b) they’re very concerned with PR and know that a partner who’s not conventionally attractive will lower their status;”
Let me explain why I just can’t believe this explanation.
Men’s sexuality is such a powerful force in their lives that they will take enormous risks to satisfy it, despite any social disapproval. History of male homosexuals shows this. Not so many years ago even in the western world, when an ashamed male homosexual succumbed to social pressures and married a woman, there was a good chance that he tried to secretly satisfy his real preference, despite the unimaginably disastrous consequences that getting caught would have imposed on him.
So, if we assume that many high-status men are secretly fat admirers (“many” being here at least as many as there are homosexuals in this group) that the social pressure forces to pair up with beautiful women against their real desires, some kind of underground system would have emerged to cater to these desires. High-status men in the business world have all the resources they need to implement this.
But however many books and magazines I have ever read, I have never seen this underground system mentioned anywhere. Zip, nil, nada. Complete silence on the issue throughout the whole ideological spectrum.
But in the modern society, there is no chance of this vast system staying completely unmentioned so that not even one book or magazine article would ever mention it or document its workings. Therefore I conclude that this underground system simply does not exist.
And from this fact I in turn conclude that among the high-status men, there is practically zero demand for fat girls.
And from this I conclude that either (a) high-status men are somehow special in their preferences (this could be, they are not average in other important ways either) or (b) they simply use their power to do what the lesser men would do if they could.
i know this has been beaten to death, but (as someone who collects vintage clothing) i would like to add a specific fact about marilyn’s dress size: a 1950’s size 12 is almost exactly a modern size 6. the dress sizes were twice what they are now: a 14 is now a 7 and so on. elizabeth hurley is probably larger than a 6; she didn’t know what she was talking about. additionally, i have read in a couple places that the most pleasing shape of women (for men? for women? for only white american men?) is about a .7 waist-to-hip ratio, which doesn’t necessarily mean the woman has to be thin, just curvy. i think this number also does have some correlation with fertility levels. marilyn and kate moss both have this ratio. so do i, and i’m definitely not as thin as either of them.
Amanda: “I knew Illkka would come out and threaten the fat girls with loneliness ”
Actually, the whole fat acceptance movement exists because of the lower social status and desirability of fat people, especially fat women. Granted, it is sometimes hard to tell what the fat acceptance movement really wants, but if you wish to argue that they are wrong in this claim, go ahead.
“Actually, this was an overall anti-female statement, not just anti-fat-women. After all, if you’re skinny your man doesn’t love you for you”“he only loves your bony ass. ”
This is an interesting twist of logic. If I had asked how often a man leaves a non-stamp-collecting woman for a stamp-collecting woman, you would probably conclude that I meant that this man loves his woman for her stamp collecting.
I admit I am at fault here for my ambiguity, so let me rephrase my question to make its intent clearer. Remember, all this is based on the claim that a significant number of men really prefer fat women, which I try to refute.
We know that relationships end all the time: people leave their spouses and pair up with other people. Sometimes a man leaves a thin woman for a fat woman, and sometimes its the other way around. And the same thing the other way.
This gives us a way to measure the real preferences of people: see how often the trade goes either way. For any single man, there may have been many reasons why he chose to leave his woman for another. Maybe his ex was really annoying. But given diverse preferences, we would expect these trades go both ways equally often. if it turns out that men practically never leave a thin woman for a fat woman, this reveals a lot about their real preferences.
I recall once seeing your photograph in your blog, and if I remember correctly, you were normal weight. You have also written that you have a boyfriend. When another woman hits on your boyfriend, is your reaction any different if this woman is 100 pounds overweight, compared to if she is slender and beautiful?
Among you and your female friends, are there any who have had their heart broken by losing their man to a woman 100 pounds heavier than they are?
Let’s also test the limits of your progressive thinking. Among your male friends, could a man introduce a woman 100 pounds heavier than him to your circle of friends (both men and women) as his new girlfriend without all of you wondering what the heck is going on?
thought that some folks might find this article interesting…
http://salon.com/mwt/feature/2005/04/06/torrid/index.html
(a line of chic clothes for fat teens, with the de rigeur question of whether they might “encourage” obesity — the question gets skewered, but only toward the end)
I don’t think Lunadyke wants to see fat women having sex in the L Word simply because she finds fat in and of itself arousing (I get this mental picture of the quivering jelly-filled plastic bags from Fight Club…) or because she finds fat women arousing (though perhaps she does). I don’t think she is asking television to provide her with images that gratify her sexually- as if she believes the mass media has a responsibility to cater only to her personal desires. I think her point is that fat peoples’ sexuality is marginalised or even censored by the media overall, and it’s worth wondering WHY this is so, and discussing the good reasons that exist for why this should NOT be so.
America has a lot of fat people, but you’d never know it from watching American television. People like to see their ‘type’ represented in the media. (By ‘type’ I mean the type you ARE, not the type you desire.) It makes us feel part of society- acknowledged, accepted, etc. The L Word prides itself on taking as its central subject a certain type largely ignored by the media and society in general- lesbians. The show even has a few black characters. There’s a lot of explicit lesbian sex in each episode. If ever a stage was set for the debut of a fat sex scene, you’d think this would be it- but somehow, even in this ‘shocking’ environment, fat sex is just too out there for the L Word audience. Censored. Can’t be shown. That sends a pretty clear negative message to the fat, sexual viewers of the show- which is a BAD business move, because though many viewers want to see skinny sex objects on television, many viewers are fat and want to see their type represented on television. Common sense tells me that there are enough skinny hot lesbians on the L Word to make up for at least ONE fat sex scene- so showing it would have possibly attracted (okay- placated) the fat audience without alienating the mass majority of viewers. A show that indulges an aversion to the detriment of good business, imo, suggests some kind of neurosis- or phobia- in the mind of the society that produces it.
And that’s what I see as fatophobia. It’s not being unattracted to fat people, or being unwilling to divorce your skinny wife to take up with a fat mistress. It’s an aversion to fat people and a belief that they deserve less (media attention, sex, etc.) than skinny people. I DON’T think its biology, either. Fat people can look healthy and, excluding the obese, are more likely to be fertile than their 800-cal-diet counterparts. Fat people can have symmetrical faces, and fat women are idealised as the epitome of beauty in many past and present cultures. Furthermore, beauty is not as closely connected with fertility (thus biology) as people seem to think. Sexuality is so, so, so broad, that in all of human history/cultures/periods I don’t doubt that every part of the female body has at some point been associated with sexuality and thus hypersexualized. Ankles? Black teeth? Huge lip hole complete with plate? Big gut, tiny breasts? Pale, pale skin? Stretched neck? Tiny, broken, decomposing feet? It’d sure be amusing to hear how those markers of beauty could be related to the uterus.
But if it’s not biology, what is it? Maybe this is obvious to everyone else, but I think it has a lot to do with power- and that the power play behind fatophobia is really similar to that behind homophobia. Society at large has constructed the belief that it is better to be thin than fat (or straight than gay). Therefore, being thin or straight gives you power over those who are fat or gay. Being powerful has obvious benefits. Were this social model to be demolished, thin and straight people would lose that power- thus it behooves them to continue to treat fat and gay people as lesser beings, reinforcing their beneficial heirarchy.
There are way more straight people than gay, so the hierarchy is relatively easy for the straights to uphold. Now that more and more people are getting fat in America, though… I wonder what’ll happen?
Wow, this a long post for me…
Ilkka’s example is suspect, because it excludes social expectations from the consideration of a man who leaves an overweight or normal weight partner for a skinnier one. If the partner counts mostly as points towards one’s total success score, then one’s personal preferences about who to have sex with are less important that whether the partner meets society’s definition of attractive.
So, for example, Donald Trump’s wives all fit the social definition of attractive, but this tells us nothing about his sexual preference if the wives are merely markers for financial success. Conspicuous consumption in another form, so to speak.
There’s no porn in your country?
If you’re correct, then her viewpoint is even more troublesome. Basically, what she would then be asking for is affirmation – i.e. love and approval – from the media. That’s a road frought with fragility and disappointment. If a person needs television to assure them that their nature or their bodies are acceptable, then they’re doomed to getting hurt over and over again. The media loves no one.
LOL. Do you really think that guys need to be told that Carmen Electra is beautiful, before they find her beautiful?
Irrelevant. As a comedian once said, guys don’t care what job a woman has. If they’re smitten with her, she could be a butcher or clean toilets, and they’d still want her. Since we’re only talking about sex appeal here, how a given person achieves their look is beside the point. Most guys don’t care whether Carmen Electra has implants, or 100 trainers to help her. All they see is the swimsuit calendars, and they like what they see.
There is an easy way to find out what body types most people find attractive. Look at the volume of web pages devoted to given individual that focus strictly on how beautiful or handsome they are, and what body type that person has. It’d be interesting to learn what “fat” celebrity has the largest number of shrines devoted to his or her beauty.
Are you speaking from personal experience? Because I’ve never encountered such a scenario.
I’m reminded of TV back in the 60’s, when the few non-white people who appeared were maids or waiters. Black and Hispanic people pressured the media to include them, not because they were looking for validation, but rather inclusionin the cultural mainstream. Which like it or not, TV and media play a major role.
Whether someone is fat or old or in a wheelchair or has Downs or whatever, there’s a sense of being culturally invisible when you never see anyone like yourself in mainstream media. It’s no different than what people were for back in the 60’s: inclusion.
None of the celebs you mention, with the exception of Moss about 10 years ago, has ever been regarded as a pillar of beauty, and they certainly aren’t among the “hot” celebs now. Zellweger is particularly odd choice, given her rep for being plump.
Easily. The fashion industry has evolved. Designers realized that voluptuous models tended to distract viewers from the clothes. In addition, thinner models mean less material is needed to make the article of clothing, which means money saved.
You see, it’s not about a sinister conspiracy to ostracize heavier women. It’s about money. Waifs need fewer yards of fabric to clothe them.
Simple: they’re human.
A tad melodromatic, aren’t we?
If you return to your examples, all except Flockhart have given birth quite naturally. Despite your anxieties, clearly there are women who can easily maintain a thin figure, just as there are women whose metabolism keeps them from attaining such a figure.
Perhaps it’s nothing more than most people tend to find flatter stomachs more attractive than beer bellies. Whatever the reason, you’re engaging in a futile battle. Arguing over why men like thin, busty women is like arguing over why some people are gay. They just are. You can’t make a gay person straight, and you can’t keep a guy who prefers Carmen Electra from getting aroused by her.
No one has suggested a “sinister conspiracy.”
You’re welcome to stay here and disagree, but if you can’t tone back the tone of mocking contempt you have for people who disagree with your views, or stop yourself from making up straw men like refuting a “conspiracy” no one has actually suggested, then I wish you’d leave.
You’re not any smarter than the other folks here, and you’re not nearly as witty as you imagine. So lose the attitude, already.
Actually, Zellweger has a reputation for gaining weight to play Bridget Jones and then losing it and then some. She’s a “lollipop,” a woman so freakishly thin that her head seems abnormally large for her sticklike body.
You’re also wrong about the pillar-of-beauty thing. Maybe you weren’t around for Flashdance.
Why was Moss a pillar of beauty ten years ago, or ever?
And I’m not referring to the actual ability of these women to bear children. I’m wondering about a theory that thinks that men go, “Boobies! Woo! Time to mate!” when they see bags of saline but apparently don’t make the connection between concave chests and the low likelihood of their cave-wife surviving the winter.
Error in diction on my part: explain why fashion dictates that actresses gain and lose weight from year to year? Are men’s tastes that volatile?
…Again, you were the one who brought up evo psych. It’s just a tad inconsistent to go from that to “God only knows.”
pseu (writes)
“”And I’m also noticing how heterocentric a thread about “The L-Word”? has become. ;-) “”
Hetrocentric! Hetrocentric!
I rest my case concerning both the intellectual weight of this blog & the veracity that terms such as homophobic should be given.
…Incidentally, Playboy models have also gotten skinnier. I’d be surprised to learn that Hugh is that thrifty.
When you “rest your case,” you stop talking.
Nonsense. Have you looked at runway fashions lately? Yards upon yards of fabric draped and layered. It’s not like designers care about saving an extra 6″ of fabric. The belief is that clothes “drape” better on thinner models, but that doesn’t explain why the asthetic shifted from 5’8″, 125 lb models to 5’6″ 105 lb models as it did during the “waif” period in the 90’s, or why that same “waif” asthetic has prevailed when it comes to actresses or Playboy models.
And no, I’m not suggestion a “conspiracy” either. I just think it’s interesting to deconstruct cultural standards and why and how they change over time.
Fitz,
Now that you’ve rested your case, and your work here is done, maybe you can toddle off somewhere else? I really haven’t seen anything that you’ve written that has risen above the basic troll level, and you’ve had plenty of time to improve.
Illka,
What percentage of the population is 100 pounds heavier than the average weight? Not very much at all. So arguing that the direction of change should be equal is idiotic. The direction of change should be proportional to the percentage, so when someone who is 100 pounds above average weight is dumped for another person, we would expect the new partner to be thinner, and if a person of average weight is dumped for another person, then the new partner will rarely be 100 pounds fatter.
Of course, the character this thread started off concerned with is nothing like 100 pounds heavier than average, so your translation of fat to 100 pounds above average weight is exactly the sort of slippery ambiguous manipulation of the concept of fatness you were just accused of.
daffodil: You said the media loves no one. Nonsense. It loves everyone—everyone who is willing to consume their product; either in the form of paying for the media itself, or by advertising dollars by way of audience numbers. pseu is right; it’s about inclusion. Lunadyke wants representation. Why is representation of fat women in the media considered so threatening? In case you haven’t walked through a shopping mall lately, it’s not like fat women aren’t asserting their buying power—just look at the number of stores where the sizes start at 14! Even the women’s magazines are starting to feature heavier models, and I’m not just talking about the feminist ones like Bust and Bitch.
I read Lunadyke’s post and thought, “Right on! Right fucking on!” because I felt the same damn way being a Sicilian girl, growing up in a world where all the models were blonde and blue-eyed. No cover girls remotely looked like me or the women in my family. We had long, thick, healthy hair, but not a snowball’s chance in hell of being a “Breck Girl”. And sure, when we’d say something about it, some Anglo would always bop up with, “but…there’s Sophia Loren!…..and uhh….Raquel Welch!” as examples of brunette beauty. Big deal. Two actresses, who would occasionally get press. That was supposed to make up for the fact that every day we would see printed advertisements, and TV advertisements populated solely by blondes, and when we’d see a film, the leading ladies (and most of the walk-ons) were blondes. When I was growing up, you’d think only northern European folks ever took a bath, or brushed their teeth, or drove a car, or put on clothes, or……etc. I didn’t see representations of women who looked like me and my family (on any kind of regular basis) until the eighties.
I mean, “The L Word” is ostensibly about lesbians, yet is unwilling to show the full range of beauty that bona-fide lesbians find attractive?! Shit. I don’t thing it’s asking too much that “The L Word” do more than just co-opt lesbians as titillating subjects for what amounts to a late-night soap opera. Then again, I guess there’s a reason they aren’t calling it “The D Word.”
Bias against fat people is more likely biologically-based. From the time we’re infants, we’re inclined to respond most positively to individuals who have symmetrical features and a healthy glow about them.
Bullshit.
Whatever is upper-class and elite, is sexy. In cultures where food is a real problem, fat women are sexy. In our Western cultures, where calories are cheap, sedentary jobs the norm, and muscle requires serious leisure time devoted to the gym, thinness and muscles are sexy.
It’s not an evolutionary thing (although symettrical features may be). It’s a cultural prejudice.
Piny: “There’s no porn in your country?”
There is no porn that actually lets men really have sex with women.
Porn only takes things so far. If some man’s sexual preference is towards fat women, after some point porn is not going to cut it, but these men will eventually want to do the real thing. Exactly the same way that no homosexual man would be satisfied with just gay porn, but they will eventually want to find themselves a real flesh-and-blood man.
Unlike homosexuality until recent years, there is nothing illegal in having sex with fat women. The supposed significant portion of high-status men who prefer fat women would have no trouble starting an underground system to satisfy these desires, shielding them from the resulting social disapproval.
Even so, no journalist or author has ever mentioned this system with a single sentence. Despite all the other curious things that they write about. Despite that an article about this system and its inner workings and details and conventions would cause a total paradigm shift in people’s thinking.
Radical homosexuals liked to “out” high-status men as homosexuals, to gain more social acceptance for homosexuality. Why are there no radical fat acceptors who would similarly “out” high-status men who have sex with obese women, to boost the social status of obesity? Occam’s razor gives me one answer this question: such high-status men do not really exist in any significant numbers.
For discussion: how large is the market for fat porn that is not sold as a joke item?
Avenir: “America has a lot of fat people, but you’d never know it from watching American television. ”
To see as many fat people as you want, just go to the nearest mall.
When you think about it, everything in television is something that is extremely far from the average. The newscasts don’t report about average days and events. Sportscasts don’t give any airtime to average athletes. Comedy shows don’t show average situations. And as Daffodil noted, that is the whole point of television.
In general, anything that is described as “average” or “real” or “natural” usually sucks or is at best neutral or tolerable. There is no market for selling it, so the entertainment concentrates on the very best, the most desirable, the most interesting, the most exciting, the most titillating. In the real world, these things are in a serious scarcity, but this is not at all the case in the virtual world where duplication doesn’t cost anything.
If anybody wants to see the “average” and “real”, it is already out there in abundance, so there is no demand in it in entertainment. You don’t even need to pay any money to buy a ticket to see reality.
“There are way more straight people than gay, so the hierarchy is relatively easy for the straights to uphold. Now that more and more people are getting fat in America, though… I wonder what’ll happen?”
This, of course, explains a lot about real goals of the fat acceptance movement. It is far easier to be obese if lots of other people are also. And in our modern society with its caloric hyperabundance, countless millions of people teeter on the brink of letting themselves go. Homosexuals cannot really recruit, but the obese could easily increase their numbers with recruitment. (In this light, it is interesting that progressives generally liked the movie “Super size me” that vilifies McDonalds. Wouldn’t McD and its ilk actually be great benefactors to humanity for inducing the obesity epidemic?)
“Fat people can have symmetrical faces”
Symmetry is necessary for attractiveness, but it is hardly sufficient. Once the excess fat essentially makes someone look like a giant baby, they no longer send many of the cues that are necessary to evoke arousal in the opposite sex.
Ampersand: “No one has suggested a “sinister conspiracy.”?”
I agree. Fat rejectance is more of an emergent phenomenon, similar to the women’s seemingly collective decision to completely rule out short men from their sexual interest. (Any woman who insists that men are “shallow”, take the mote out of thine own eye first. The question “How tall was the shortest man that you have ever had sex with?” cuts through a lot of hypocrisy here, just like the similar question to businesses: “How tall was the shortest man that you ever considered to hire as your CEO?”)
I am sure that it would be amusing to read the sneering comments how I am bitter for women rejecting me for my short stature. But even so, I shall take away this opportunity by noting that I am 6’3″ and have been married for almost ten years.
You see, for some strange reason that I honestly cannot grasp, it is the “progressive” people who seem to have the strongest belief that a man’s worth depends on how many women he can sexually attract, even though they vigorously deny this belief. This is evident when we look how quick the feminists and progressives are to use this weapon to club their male opponents once they see a suitable opening. Two simple words provide more than enough evidence: “Virgin Ben”.
Wow, do you really believe this? Do you really believe that striving for inclusion and acceptance is about recruitment??? Not everyone wants everyone else to be just like them, and like what they like. It’s about acceptance of diversity and it’s about inclusion in popular culture. Nobody is trying to make you sleep with fat women, and nobody is trying to change your sexual orientation. Your arguments are reminiscent of James Dobson decrying “Will and Grace” and the “homosexual agenda.”
And you keep talking about “high status men”. What does that mean exactly? Donald Trump? People who culture rewards with money, status, power are those who toe the cultural line and uphold the dominant cultural values. Aside from physical attributes, people also tend to be attracted to others who share their values. So people who value money, status, a culturally approved appearance, expensive clothes, power, etc. are going to be attracted to other people who value the same things. Someone who’s highest value is helping the poor and homeless get medical care probably isn’t going to find a Pamela Anderson types attractive, or at least would probably not seek them out as mates.
Regarding your comment about “teetering on the brink of letting themselves go”, I’d argue that I don’t know a single fat person who got that way by “letting themselves go”. In my social circles, most of the fat women got that way by repeated dieting, which started at a very early age. Most (not all) of them are still trying to lose weight (which for well-documented biological reasons) gets more difficult with each try. The weight-loss, GI amputation and pharmaceutical industries are making a fortune off the misery of fat people who are daily fighting the stigma of being fat. “Letting themselves go” my ass.
For discussion: how large is the market for fat porn that is not sold as a joke item?
Are you talking about porn that features people who would be considered fat, or porn marketed as “fat porn”?
I doubt anything featuring someone who looked like Pam Grier (the actress being discussed in the original post) would be labelled “fat porn.”
Daffodil: “Look at the volume of web pages devoted to given individual that focus strictly on how beautiful or handsome they are, and what body type that person has.”
Nope. This one would be too easy to cook, once the fat acceptors realized that it is used as a meter.
AmyZawn: “As for thin=healthy and fat=unhealthy, that’s pure bullshit. You can’t determine how healthy someone is by how much they weigh,”
As for man=favoured and woman=oppressed, that’s pure bullshit. You can’t determine how large a salary someone has from their chromosomes.
As for white=favoured and black=oppressed, that’s pure bullshit. You can’t determine how large a salary someone has from their skin colour.
It can be very dangerous to claim that statistical arguments don’t really matter because of all the individual exceptions. Your ideological opponents might some day discover and start using the same technique, and how would you then respond?
ACM: Re: Torrid
Someone help me out here: what is the English word for when a journalist writes an article about some company which is obviously an advertisement for the said company and its intended image? I have seen this happen so often that it is not even funny any more. The words attributed to “Rachel Vickers” and “Erica Santiago” follow the Torrid’s PR department’s obvious talking points so closely that it makes me doubt that these girls are even real. Or if they are, their words were just fed to them. (What an appropriate choice of verb I accidentally made there.)
I can’t be the only one whose bullshit detector starts immediately beeping at the inspiring story of an insecure low-status teenager who became popular simply by using the right brand of clothes.
Daffodil: “People like what they like, and you can’t talk them into believing that something is (or isn’t) sexy.”
And this is especially difficult with men, who actually come with a built-in analog indicator that shows by its position when they find something attractive.
The near-constant use of the words “big beautiful women” shows best how deluded these obese women are. With certain important concepts that have a massive effect on how people’s lives tend to turn out, such as “beautiful”, “intelligent”, “profound”, “strong” etc. anyone who really is these things never has to explicitly use these words to describe themselves. They don’t have to, because the reality will be evident and undeniable to everyone around them.
If someone kept describing himself as “intelligent”, would anyone actually consider this to be evidence of his intelligence?
That’s quite a hole you’re digging yourself into, Illka. But don’t mind me, just keep shovelling. ;-)
No analogy. For one thing, there aren’t a bunch of people like you running around telling us non-stamp collectors that we are doomed to a sexless, lonely life if we don’t take up stamp-collecting or that we will have to “settle” for someone because we don’t collect stamps.
And yes, it means that men don’t actually love if they can all be counted on to leave the one they’re with for a bonier one at the first chance. Luckily, not all men think like that–some care about things other than poundage. The amusing thing is last night I had a guy say to me that he really liked bigger girls–nothing serious, just said it in passing. I cracked up and then had to explain to him why. Ah, my friends don’t understand my blogging tales.
pseu: ” Do you really believe that striving for inclusion and acceptance is about recruitment???”
No, but you can’t deny that the larger (again, an accidental pun) a minority is, the better chance it has to reach its goals.
“And you keep talking about “high status men”?. What does that mean exactly?”
I am sure that sociologists have an exact definition for this term, but the simplest operational definition for “high-status man” that I know is “a man who makes other men feel envious of him so that they try to come up with bitter putdowns to take him down a notch, and feel delight hearing about misfortunes falling on him”.
There is no need to go up to nationally famous billionaires, since any reasonably-sized town has several such men.
I tend to use the term “high-status” because it actually means something real. Nobody can seriously deny that social status hierarchies are real and have very concrete effects on people’s lives. (And just because I know there are some illiterates out there: I am under absolutely no illusion that I myself belong to this group. In fact, I doubt that anyone who actively writes or comments on blogs does.)
So, why? Because in almost every field of life, high-status people have more options open to them. Therefore the choices that these people make are more significant and tell more about the nature of reality than the choices made by the people who have fewer options open to them and therefore make their choices under constraints that are likely to prevent them for making the real preferred choices that they would make, given entirely free choice.
I do have to admit I can’t argue with the claim that the preferences of the high-status people might not be in perfect correlation with the average preferences of the whole population, since high-status people tend to be different from the average people in many other important things too. Hence the unanimous rejection of fatness by high-status people might not translate to unanimous rejection of fatness among average people.
Some sociologist or psychologist really should investigate this, by doing some real study instead of “I am going to show you a picture of a person and test if you are conscious of the social reality that expects you say that you find this person attractive, with the understanding that you don’t really have to prove your words in any way with real choices and actions.”
“Most (not all) of them are still trying to lose weight”
Why the heck? As has been constantly stated here and other forums, fat has no ill effects on health, well-being or social status. Fat also has no effect on the desirability of that person to the opposite sex and employers, because there is desire and preference for all body types among both men and women. With right clothes, hair and makeup, any woman could be as beautiful as she feels like, regardless of her weight.
So what is it that these women imagine they would gain by losing weight? Please ask them and report your findings: this way we can make progress.
So what is it that these women imagine they would gain by losing weight? Please ask them and report your findings: this way we can make progress.
Umm, maybe because a majority of people they encounter every day have attitudes (and prejudices) like yours and because they’ve also internalized those attitudes and prejudices? Maybe because we live in a culture that tells them they’re physically and morally inferior, and that it’s all their fault? Maybe because they know that they will probably face some very real discrimination when it comes to employment?
Why such antipathy toward fat women? Nobody’s saying you have to find any particular type attractive, only that some people do. Heck, I don’t find “washboard abs”, or really tall guys attractive, but I don’t want to ban them from public view. Chacun a son gout and all that.
piny:
Why do you put down thin people?
You undermine your cause by insulting those who are different from you. It becomes easy for people to chalk up what you have to say as jealousy. There are ways to win people over to your position (and I’m talking about the nation, not just myself), but the first thing you have to do is frame your concerns in more positive terms.
This is why conservative causes tend to win out over liberal causes. Too often, liberal causes come off as, “we don’t like you. and we want you to change to please us.” Conservative causes come off as “we care about you, and we like you as you are. you don’t need to change.” That’s a big reason why folks listen to them.
And btw, I’m a liberal.
Flashdance was Jennifer Beals, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at there.
Without Kurt Cobain, there would have been no Kate Moss. At the height of the grunge phenomenon, advertiser and fashion designers saw a dramatic shift in buying habits, so even the ritziest designers began to work on clothes that fed on the grunge image. Heroin chic was born, and unhealthy-looking models became cool. Kate was big not just because of her thinness, but also because she looked high all the time (and often was.) What’s more, drug addicts tend to be thin and frail, which made the waifs all the more in demand.
But I never really got a sense that guys ever had a thing for Kate. I think she was more poopular because of the image she represented.
I’m sorry, but I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. I don’t see how breast size reflects survival rates in harsh weather.
Maybe nothing more than the part they’re playing. Or, maybe their fluctuations aren’t dictated. As for men, I doubt they notice weight shifts as much as women do. If guy thinks a woman is hot, then that’s enough for them. They don’t notice if she’s gained or lost weight, unless it affects her figure via boney ribs or a beer belly.
pseu:
Oh, yes they do!
I know people who’ve worked at the fashion houses in Milan. The pressure on the bottom line is immense. The quality of fabric they use costs big bucks, and even the slightest error in stitching or threading means they have to throw the garment out ands start over. Can you imagine how much more expensive paintings would be if artists had to throw out their canvas and their paints every time they made a mistake?
That’s a polite way of saying that chesty models distract from the clothes.
(If you notice, the Victoria’s Secret models usually don’t get much runway work. There are a few exceptions, but by and large there are two major markets; the “Victoria’s Secret” type, and the regular runway models. The difference being that the VS models are sought after for their ample bosoms, and that’s a minus for the fashion houses.)
See above regarding heroin chic. As for the waif look, I don’t think it’s as dominant as you say. Look at the girls that populate Maxim. They’re almost always busty. And usually, when there is a trend, it’s because of some individual who captures peoples’ imaginations. The media is notorious for copying itself, and when someone or something catches fire, the public usually wants more of the same.
Ilkka:
Exactly!
Amanda: “And yes, it means that men don’t actually love if they can all be counted on to leave the one they’re with for a bonier one at the first chance.”
I have long hypothesised that some people actually cannot comprehend any types of statistical claims or reasoning (unless they support their own favourite positions, in which case they repeat them enthusiastically without understanding them), but instead live in a prenumeric black-and-white all-or-nothing world, like those primitive tribes that have only the numerals “zero”, “one” and “many”. Please tell me that you are not one of those people.
Second, please point out what part of what I wrote made you think I believe that “all” men can be counted to leave the one they’re with for a bonier one “at the first chance”. I really mean this. I am honestly puzzled why someone would think I wrote that. Just like I would be puzzled if somebody concluded that “black people face serious systematic discrimination in the workplace, as many employers prefer to have white employees” means the same as “all employers would immediately fire all their black employees as soon as a white applicant came around.” If a significant portion of readers gets this impression from my writings, it means that my written communication skills are seriously deficient and I must immediately take steps to fix them.
Now, to the actual point. People occasionally walk out of their relationships to be with someone else that they consider more preferable to them, for various reasons. Everyone knows that this happens, as it is one nasty consequence of the totally free and unregulated sexual market, even though most people can’t imagine that it could ever happen to them. Nasty stuff, but by looking at this phenomenon from the safe distance, we can tell a lot about what people really prefer.
For example, you know that there is no risk that your boyfriend would ever leave you for another woman who is significantly obese. And the same goes for your female circle of friends, if they are anything like the non-fat young women that I have known. And they probably are.
Second, I now also realized another thing that is probably a source of confusion here. You use love as some kind of “get out of jail free” -card that transcends and overcomes sexual preferences. In one sense, you are absolutely right: if a guy really loves a gal, he won’t leave her even if a much better (what a nasty word) gal tries to woo him.
But with the exception of certain people with serious mental illness, nobody actually falls in love at first sight. Love is an end result of a very complex process that, starting from the point of the first meeting (and in fact, even long before that for all the necessary preparatory work), has to overcome a hundred little thresholds, most of which we are not even consciously aware of. Fail to overcome even one of them, and it’s no love for this couple.
Now, a man’s motivation to go through these necessary steps is greatly affected by the sexual attractiveness of the woman, and vice versa. Therefore it is not a smart decision for an obese woman to trust her eggs in the love basket.
“The amusing thing is last night I had a guy say to me that he really liked bigger girls”“nothing serious, just said it in passing. I cracked up and then had to explain to him why. Ah, my friends don’t understand my blogging tales.”
No, it seems to me that at least this guy understands them perfectly, as any guy must learn to do to maintain his female friends. He knows that he has to say certain things about his sexual preferences not to make you think that he is evil and willing to leave his girlfriend at any second.
I also immediately noticed this guy’s masterfully vague use of “bigger”. I bet you didn’t ask for clarification for this in some objective terms such as actual weight or BMI. This is exactly why I want to see well-defined terms such as “overweight”, “obese”, “morbidly obese” become more common, so that one cannot hide behind meaningless euphemisms such as “bigger”, or glub forbid, “rubenesque”, “ample” or “plump”.
Goodness. This thread has really falled down a tangent since it started. Why am I not surprised to see Illka at the middle of it. Are we next going to discover that Spongebob’s problem is not simply that he has a gay love for Patrick, but that far more sisinsterly, he’s actually a chubby chaser for Patrick!
And just wow for that apples and oranges response to Amy’s refutation of your fat=unhealthy arguement. Displays the profound lack of understanding of the issue that one has come to expect from you.
Yes, fat people can be healthy. Yes, men can genuinely be attracted to fat women. Yes, fat people have a right to self-respect and to demand inclusion in the popular culture. And Yes, we are all out to recruit people for our evil conspiracy against the skinnies. We have vans we ride around in to kidnap people and force feed them Twinkies until we remember that eating isn’t as connected to weight as folks like you would like us to believe.
Gotta say, its amusing to see the comparisons people draw to the fat acceptance movement in order to bash it. The movement is woefully small and generally its leaders are highly unwilling to really advance the cause. Yet this humble little movement is routinely compared to the Tobacco Industry, and not the supposed “homosexual agenda”. I really wish the movement were as powerful and omnipotent as its critics pretend it is.
Oh, and the idea that you want judgemental and damning language which doesn’t really mean anything to begin with to be used more often is quite illuminating. I cringe everytime I see you reference “obese” women. Thanks for letting me know why Gays and lesbians object to the term “homosexual”. By defining us with clinical phrases, in this case a clinical phrase which explicitly condemns us, its just a means of dehumanizing us. We aren’t people. We are “obesity”. Gotta make it a lot easier to make sweeping condemnations that way.
Before I move on, I have a question: what if shows began to show fat people having sex or making out? What do you think would happen, and how would that change your lives?
La Lubu:
That’s not love. The media thrives on creating anxiety: lose weight, get a makeover, you’re uncool if you’re drinking the wrong soda/beer, the terrorists are out get you, germs are out to get you, etc. Even the “elite” are victims. Look how the media treats Ben Affleck and J Lo. Irrespective of their abilities as actors, they were treated brutally and hounded. Beautiful people are not exempt from judgement – see Joan Rivers’ oscar show, for example. Athletes and the rich are constant targets.
The media loves people only as much as it can use them. And I don’t see how it’s any healthier for fat people to pin their hopes on such an ugly system, than it is for thin people who fall victim to the “I have to be as thin as Kate Moss” syndrome.
But most of those size 14’s don’t want to be size 14’s, and they don’t desire overweight men. A size 14 woman is just as likely to have a crush on Tom Cruise and wish she looked like J Lo as a size 4.
In addition, you have to look at this show (the L Word) from the network’s viewpoint. They want as wide an audience as possible. I hate to say it, but the show markets itself as titillation, and the number of people who would be turned off by “fat sex” exceeds the number who would be turned on by it. A big reason for that is the male audience; they want to keep and retain as much of guys as they can. Though the show presents itself as somehow being feminist, the fact is, they know that a sizable part of their audience are guys who think lesbian sex is cool.
Bingo. That’s what I was trying to say, but you’ve said it far more succinctly. :-)
Or, a polite way of saying that it’s harder to design clothes that look better on fuller bodies. I’m always suspicious of clothing catalogs that only feature their clothes displayed on clothes hangers. Any piece of clothing can look nice on a clothes hanger, it’s how it looks on a real person’s body that counts. (And no, I’m not comparing thin women to clothes hangers. I’m speaking of literal clothes hangers here.)
I’m sorry, I guess the idea of including a significant portion of the population in the media’s representation of reality seemed to be a good enough reason on its own. Didn’t know it actually needed to affect my day to day life immediately.
Fat people (especially women) are extremely rare in popular culture. When seen rarely, they are almost always asexual. On the excessively rare instance a fat woman is seen as a sexual being, they are the kind of sexual being who never takes their clothes. And preferably played by a thin actress. And on those even more unheard of instances of a fat woman being seen as a sexual being who actually can remove a blouse, they are nearly always mocked.
I’m bothered that this is the treatment that a third of our population has to deal with. I’m bothered that these prejudices are perpetuated, taught, and reinforced by these extreme biases in portrayal. Yes, I’m a a man who is attracted to fat women, but I’d be upset anyway. Its just wrong. Just as it is wrong that there are so few Asians in popular culture, so few latinos, so disproportionally few blacks, so few gays, etc. With popular culture being used to promote a hegemony of thin white people, it should be a concern for us all.
Pingback: Dead From Cute
Me: ” If some man’s sexual preference is towards fat women, after some point porn is not going to cut it”
Bean: “Why do I get the feeling that if the subject were rape porn, Ilkka would be saying exactly the opposite?”
Your feeling would be incorrect. In fact, I would say that for any type of porn, its viewers are more likely, on average, to eventually want to try the same acts for real, compared to the general population, because men tend to choose porn that is geared to satisfy their existing preferences.
The choice of porn reveals awfully lot about man’s real sexual preferences. Which is, of course, why most wives would be mortally horrified to find their husband’s secret stash of gay porn or rape porn. They understand that it entails an increased probability of the real thing.
Which reminds me: do the obese men who are reading this prefer to masturbate to porn that features obese women, or do these men share the mainstream porn tastes of their slender brethren? I know that lots of obese men read this. So, it is confession time, men: what is in your porn stash?
“As for attraction being “genetic”? or “biological”? … then please explain why the same standards of beauty have not been in place everywhere since the beginning of time.”
I could ask similar questions to all the blank slaters. For example, among the thousands of cultures in the world, where are the ones that consider obese women to be the most sexually desirable? And why don’t the obese women who feel really depressed about their low social status ever take a vacation to these cultures to enjoy their new improved status as supermodel/princesses whose scraps of attention men eagerly compete for?
And of course, if attraction try results from social programming, why can it also be statistically observed in babies, who, as you may have heard, like to watch mainstream-attractive faces longer than they watch mainstream-ugly faces?
As someone noted upthread, there have been such scenes. Take, for example, some HBO shows. Carnivale was mentioned. Two of the three strippers in the cooch family were fat (and one is now dead). They regularly appear in the nude, and Rita Sue (the mother, who is fat) had some really very hot sex. Lila, the bearded lady, had sex that was supposed to be creepy and weird, but she was very much a sexual character (I’m sure partly because of the testosterone causing her hirsuteness). On The Sopranos, we regularly see Tony having sex, and there have been several fat women on the show who are highly sexual. Even Rosanne had network-TV-suggested married sex and extramarital kissing with fat characters, and the sky hasn’t fallen.
Someone who watches more TV than I do can probably think of more.
See post #40.
Also see pictures by Renoir, Reubens, and just about any art featuring nudes up until the last century. The women (and often men) in those artworks are appreciably larger than today’s cultural standards.
Simple–you stated that you’ll believe men are attracted to fat women when a “normal-sized” woman says her man left her for a fat woman. I notice, by the way, that you weren’t accepting stories from fat women who stole thin women’s men. But it certainly was a tip-off to a worldview of constant mate-stealing and sexual “trading up”. Fine if that’s your life, but believe it or not, most people are more boring than that.
Brian: “And just wow for that apples and oranges response to Amy’s refutation of your fat=unhealthy arguement. Displays the profound lack of understanding of the issue that one has come to expect from you.”
Looking up, Amy wrote: “As for thin=healthy and fat=unhealthy, that’s pure bullshit. You can’t determine how healthy someone is by how much they weigh, unless they are on either extreme of the weight scale (extremely fat or extremely skinny).”
I assume this is the refutation that you meant. I honestly don’t see how that paragraph refutes anything. And if this paragraph really refutes the claim that being fat is disadvantageous to health, then a perfectly analogous argument should similarly refute the claim that being black is disadvantageous in getting a well-paid job.
“Yes, fat people can be healthy.”
Never claimed otherwise. And black people can get well-paid jobs. In such a binary world, let’s just end all affirmative action right now.
“Oh, and the idea that you want judgemental and damning language which doesn’t really mean anything to begin with to be used more often is quite illuminating.”
On the contrary. The words “overweight”, “obese” and “morbidly obese” mean something. In fact, these words have very specific meanings. Your desire to discard these words and replace them with words that can be interpreted in different ways depending on what is currently most convenient for the fat acceptors is also very illuminating. It is always illuminating when somebody wants the power to define words and their meanings and use. The Bush administration keeps demonstrating this every day.
Now, of course you hate the word “obese”. You seem to erroneously believe that this word itself is bad, instead of the reality that this word is used to refer to. You assume that if people only used “good” words to talk about this reality, this reality would also be perceived as good. But it is this reality that makes the people consider words that refer to it to be bad and negative, not the other way around. Coming up with new euphemisms to refer to this reality can solve your problem only temporarily: once it is clear to everyone what those words actually refer to, your new words will have the exact same stigma that the word “obese” has now.
We can see this progress with words that refer to mental illnesses. For example, “moron” and “imbecile” used to be medical terms which automatically became bad words because they refer to a highly undesirable reality. (At this point, any holier-than-thou objectors should spend a day with somebody whose IQ is 50 and then say if they think their own lives would be improved if their own IQ fell to 50.) And as many positive words that well-meaning people tried to create to talk about mentally ill or retarded people in a positive way, the highly undesirable reality of these people always made these words something that you would never want to be used to talk about you.
For example, I understand that “retarded” itself is considered a bad word today.
Words take their emotional effect from the things they refer, not the other way around. To prove me wrong, come up with a word that (a) specifically refers to lottery millionaires, rock stars, high-powered CEOs or moviestar-level attractive women as a specific category and (b) makes people who hear it to think that the people that this word refers to are something disgusting that they wouldn’t want to be or associate with.
Of course, you know this and therefore want to have words that don’t really mean anything specific. Or as you put it, aren’t “judgemental”.
If I left a relationship with a then “normal sized” woman and my next relationship was with a fat woman, would that count towards Ilkka’s demands? Or do I litterally have to cheat on a “normal sized” woman and dump her with the express intent of dating a specific fat woman? If I need to actually do that, I’m not sure I can provide personal proof, but otherwise, I happily submit myself for consideration as a man who has demonstrated his preference for fat women by declining to date a “normal sized” woman.
Heck, right back when I was in high school a thin, conventionally attractive young woman had quite the crush on me, but I did not persue a relationship with her, prefering to entertain options involving fat partners. The thin young woman was entirely aware (and dare I say understanding) of my feelings on the matter. Can that count? Or have I still not sufficiently proven my existance to Ilkka’s satisfaction?
Overweight: Denotes someone is over a weight that it is detirmined they ought to be. By its nature, this is a means of defining a person by what they are not. As such, it expresses an explicit and undeniable domination over people classified as such.
Obese: A word taken from “obesity” which is regarded as a disease or disorder. By calling someone “obese” you are explicitly condemning their body as the product of disease. Moreover, the Latin root of the word is a reference to eating, so using the word not simply derides the fat body as a product of disease, but also suggest that said disease is self-inflicted.
I would regard both words as pretty darn loaded with judgement which have nothing to do with those who get subjected to the words. That is an external judgement being imposed on people because you have already detirmined there to be something fundamentally wrong with them. As such, it is litterally impossible to converse with you on the matter, since your chosen vocublary makes your opinion the only allowable one.
All words carry meaning that a person infers. There is no way to have a purely neutral word if we hold to such a high standard. In the real world, however, we can acknowledge that some words are more loaded than others, and would only be used if someone is wanting to broadcast their unwillingness to consider other viewpoints. I don’t suggest that the neutral words ought to be those that exault fatness. I simply say that we ought to seek out terms which by their definitions express a minimum of sentiment. There is an easy solution here. Fat.
Fat has some baggage of its own, most mostly in its etymology. In the real world, its used to reference the body tissue whose abundance causes a person to be called fat. Its as non-judgemental as we can get. Some people have negative experiences with the word, it is true. Yet, I think we must reclaim this word as the most basic and simple adjective to describe us. Certainly, it does not come with the unavoidable and explicit condemnations that your prefered “overweight” and “obese” do. Which I gather is why you decline to use it. Better to dehumanize us by defining us as diseases or to a standard you have set for us to fail.
Bean: “Anyone notice how Ilkka always shows up on this blog to spout anti-fat hatred and bigotry anytime there is a thread even related to fat. But never bothers to show up to respond to any other threads?”
Because threads about fat and feminism are the place where the loony left shows its easiest targets, the same way that creationism threads are where the loony right provides the same service. In my own rough estimate, you can find me in both places with about the same probability. And of course, there is certain ironic literary quality in a man who can’t control his urges to write about people who can’t control their urges to eat. Somebody should really write that short story.
Being about the style of liberal as Daffodil apparently is (judging from what I can read between the lines in his writing), I know perfectly well that the loony left does not represent the mainstream liberalism, but neither is it a completely fictional enemy.
In fact, I couldn’t dream of being immediately handed a better example of loony left relativism than your statement that a loss of IQ down to 50 points would not make any qualitative difference in your life, it would just be “different”.
Dramatic pause. Let that sink in for a moment. A drooling moron whose greatest achievement will be to walk from home to nearby store and buy himself a candy bar, and even this requires that he has been guided through the motions many times before. No better. No worse. Just “different”.
As stupid ideas go, this one leaves even the supersized fringes of the fat acceptance far behind and opens a whole new universe. A real prospect of such brain damage happening to them or to their loved ones would make any sane person shrivel with utter, indescribable horror. For a person who would go through such a change for real, everything of who they are and everything in their lives that gives them pleasure and makes life worth living would be lost forever.
Most people would definitely consider this to be a change for worse.
If some conservative had told me that some relativist lefty actually told him this (and only a relativist lefty or a Jebusite could ever claim something like that), I simply couldn’t believe it without seeing it myself. I would automatically assume that he is making it up. Nobody who can function in the modern society well enough to use a computer could possibly be that deep in the swamp of nothing-really-matters relativism. But no, it’s right there for me and everyone to read with my own eyes.
And what makes it even worse is that unless Daffodil chooses to chime in again, I will probably be the only one to express any doubt to this idea and argue that brain damage whose only effect is the loss of IQ down to 50 points would be a change to something that is immeasurably and unimaginably worse, not just to “different”.
To answer your implicit question: revealing moments like this are why I do this.
You’re welcome to stick around with your contrary opinions. But: Either stop using insulting terms like “loony left” or get the fuck off my website.
Is that clear enough for you, or do I need to find shorter words?
(This is not at all the first time I’ve told you something like this, but I guess I haven’t spoken plainly enough for your level of reading comprehension before.)
Whoa.
Amp, would it be rude–I mean, to them–to direct this guy to Berube’s blog? Or any of the others out there? Or to, I dunno, start swearing at him? Because this is just beyond the pale.
real classy way to handle the mentally handicapped too, Ilkka.
as I am right now, my IQ hangs at about 160, give or take a point or two depending on my mood. As such, lots of my idea of fun is based on my ability to use that intelligence. I enjoy learning, because I find it both easy and stimulating.
but if I had an IQ of 50, like my cousin Allen (I don’t know his exact IQ, but other intelligence tests, more appropriate for this sort of thing, place him at a mild to moderate mental handicap), I wouldn’t be miserable. I could function in day to day life. I wouldn’t be the same, but since I am able to see other people who ARE happy who lead lives different from me (Allen included), I imagine I can be happy as someone different.
and since I can’t think of any better way to define quality of life than “how happy you are with it” then yes, Allen isn’t worse, just different.
so shut your mouth. disrespecting my (our?) political ideas as “Looney Left” is one thing. calling my pleasant, sweet cousin and everyone similar to him a “drooling moron” is unpardonable.
You know, Illka, I have a child who probably isn’t too far off this description. And I’d guess that he’s a far happier and loving person than most of us, including you, will ever be. So stuff it.
Ilkka uses some rough words (“drooling handicap”, “loony left”), but besides those provocative terms he’s having a point: if a car was coming at you, would you a) move away to ensure your future well-being, or b) stay on your place because it doesn’t matter wether you stay healthy or get seriously damaged getting hit by the car?
Of course, after such an accident has happened (or if the person was born that way), nothing can change things back. Therefore many people wouldn’t like to associate the accident with terms such as “good” or “bad” (“better” or “worse”), because it doesn’t help the situation. (The cold-hearted could say that this is just a defense mechanism, though.)
the analogy doesn’t hold, Mikko, because you’re making a connection that isn’t there.
EVERYONE avoids injury.
handicaps aren’t injury, they’re a state of being. like hair color.
if you get attacked by a weirdo who dyes your hair, you might be upset.
but that doesn’t make people who are naturally brunettes or bald or what have you better or worse.
To prove me wrong, come up with a word that (a) specifically refers to lottery millionaires, rock stars, high- powered CEOs or moviestar-level attractive women as a specific category and (b) makes people who hear it to think that the people that this word refers to are something disgusting that they wouldn’t want to be or associate with.
“Elite.”
Took on quite unpleasant connotations in the most recent US national election, I seem to recall.
I guess it’s probably too late for me to ask, but what is fat? I’m having a hard time figuring it out. See, not too long ago, I read an Alicia Keys interview, where she described being told by a record company executive that they thought she had talent, and looks, but she’d have to lose some weight before she could be marketed. (she chose not to sign with that company for that reason).
And I’m thinking that that’s just crazy. Because by anyone’s standard, Alicia Keys is a thin woman. Practically all the thin female celebrities have had to lose weight, or lose a job. WTF?
And now here’s Showtime, thinking that Pam Grier is fat. And out comes Ilkka (natch) to bring up the spectre of women who are 100 pounds over average weight, if we even start to recognize that thin women aren’t the only ones walking the planet. Nor the only ones wanting representation. And if you question this, then you must be part of the “loony left”. Funny, I thought encouraging eating disorders was loony.
So, how fat is fat? Don’t direct me to height and weight tables; I’m sure Serena Williams (or any other female athlete) would be off-the-charts “fat” by that measure. I want the brass tacks. What makes a woman fat?
Karpad: “as I am right now, my IQ hangs at about 160, give or take a point or two depending on my mood. As such, lots of my idea of fun is based on my ability to use that intelligence. I enjoy learning, because I find it both easy and stimulating.”
Which is exactly why I couldn’t understand why losing that intelligence and regressing to the mental level that I described (perhaps unnecessarily harshly) would not be a change to worse for you. If that change is not to “worse” in any meaningful sense of that word, then you can really never say that anything is “worse” than anything else. Ultimate triumph of relativism.
If you knew that such a brain damage was going to happen to you tomorrow, would you just shrug it off, saying “nah, it’s just going to be different, not worse” ?
I know I wouldn’t. I would do everything in my power to try to avoid such horrible fate. Whatever begging, pleading, humiliation, enslavement and desperate cornered rat fighting it took, no price could ever be too big for me to pay to avoid it. I would most likely even choose suicide to avoid that fate. My actions would demonstrate that I would not be indifferent towards such change, but would consider it to be a change for worse, something horribly worse.
If saying this out loud makes me somehow evil, so be it. I wouldn’t be alone there, since I know I would have at least 99% of the humanity to keep me company.
Mikko’s example is also relevant here. If some rich drunk driver ran over your above-average IQ kid with his car, causing him brain damage and that way permanent severe mental retardation, but no other permanent injuries, would you sue for compensation? Or would you just say “no harm done, he is just different now, perhaps even happier and therefore better” and be OK with it?
As a side note:
moron, n. A person of mild mental retardation having a mental age of from 7 to 12 years and generally having communication and social skills enabling some degree of academic or vocational education.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: fag·got
Pronunciation: ‘fa-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
usually disparaging : a male homosexual
These are questions for Ilkka. So far, I get the impression that he simply wants to argue, and doesn’t really have any substantial points to make. Maybe this will clarify the beliefs behind his random statements.
Do you dislike fat people?
Do you think fat people are less valuable to society than thin people?
Do you believe it is better to be thin than to be fat, in all circumstances?
Do you think that the media should only depict things that the majority of the population agrees are ‘good for you’?
Do you believe that fat people should not appear on television?
Do you think fat people are wrong to desire media representation?
La Lubu said:
I guess it’s probably too late for me to ask, but what is fat? I’m having a hard time figuring it out.
I have no clue as to an answer. According to the height/weight charts, I am overweight.
I also have a question. In message # 95, Brian says that the words overweight and obese are judgemental and negative and that the word fat should be used in place of them. Now whan I was growing up, calling someone fat was considered to be rude. We were told the polite term was overweight because it was non specific and that it was less negative. So, am I being polite when I refer to someone as overweight or am I being insensitive?