Woman aims for 1,000 pound weight goal

[Leigh]

I don't know what to think of this story, but figured I'd share it with everyone to get your opinion on what this woman is doing to her body:


http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/health-fitness/articles/family-health/yahoolifestyle/yahoolifestyle-woman_aims_for_1000_pound_weight_goal

[IrishGrrl]

This is where putting aside your own wants for the sake of your children come into play. Clearly this woman needs some major therapy and fast. I dont think taking her children away is the way to go. Family and personal therapy could really help though.

[Apocalipstic]

Not sure what I think either, I have issues around weight myself.

Several of the on line comments call for her children to be taken away. I guess this worries me most, are fat people going to start losing their children? What is the line?

Also, I must say that I have never seen an artcle or TV show where it mentions how much sushi someone can eat. Usually it is fried stuff. Just a random observation.

[Leigh]

I don't agree with them wanting to take the children away, but I do think that what she is doing to her own body is sending an unhealthy signal to her children about their own health. Why would someone want to gain weight this way? Therapy certainly would be a good way to go, but lets just hope that she can get help to see that what she is doing isn't healthy not only for her but also for her family.

[Medusa]

I support this woman's right to choose the weight that she feels comfortable and sexy with.

Women in this country do dangerous shit every day to lose enough weight to be on the other end of the weight spectrum. i.e. "If I only eat ice cubes for the next week and take these diet pills that have been shown to damage my heart and liver, I can get to my goal weight of 135 pounds!"

I'm itchy around the idea of taking someone's children away because they want to be super-sized. I'm itchy around the whole "fat = unhealthy" thing. Part of my scab is that I, too, am a biggo fat woman and I don't want people making judgments on my ability, health, or love of my family if I choose to gain or lose weight, have my breasts removed, have a hystorectomy, etc.

I'm also interested in the parallels around women who undergo elective cosmetic plastic surgery and who are not seen as putting their children in danger every time they go under the knife.

[Apocalipstic]

I support this woman's right to choose the weight that she feels comfortable and sexy with.

Women in this country do dangerous shit every day to lose enough weight to be on the other end of the weight spectrum. i.e. "If I only eat ice cubes for the next week and take these diet pills that have been shown to damage my heart and liver, I can get to my goal weight of 135 pounds!"

I'm itchy around the idea of taking someone's children away because they want to be super-sized. I'm itchy around the whole "fat = unhealthy" thing. Part of my scab is that I, too, am a biggo fat woman and I don't want people making judgments on my ability, health, or love of my family if I choose to gain or lose weight, have my breasts removed, have a hystorectomy, etc.

I'm also interested in the parallels around women who undergo elective cosmetic plastic surgery and who are not seen as putting their children in danger every time they go under the knife.

Thank you so much for this post!

It freaks me out to think that people judge our worth by our weight. It seems so invasive. I have issues about how I should feel about my own weight, I certainly am not about to make a judgment about anyone else...except you do make a great point. What about mothers who don't eat and are cadaverous? Is this better somehow?

I know someone like you describe. She is 5'5", 45, weights 95lbs, has had several face lifts, lip augmentations, at least 3 boob jobs (she does not have enough fat for them to look right) and is on tons of medication. Both of her daughters are size 22 and she berates them daily.

Which is healthier?

I try to be as fat positive as possible, but with so much in the media about how horrific it is to be fat, I get down on myself sometimes, especially if I gain. Yes, I weighed less when I drank all the time like a damn fish and even less than that when I did cocaine...but was that healthier?

[Cyclopea]

Smart lady- taking it all the way to the bank:

"MyFoxNY.com
OLD BRIDGE -- Donna Simpson, an Old Bridge resident who hopes to become the world’s heaviest woman, was looking for publicity. And she is getting it, big time.
Two days after the 42-year-old Simpson announced she intended to eat her way into the record books, "Entertainment Tonight" was at her door. Her manager was fielding phone calls from "Oprah," "Dr. Phil," and "Inside Edition." And she’s been offered a reality show and book deal.
Her newly assigned manager, Michael Taub, said the offers were in the mid-five figures range.
At her modest, sparse brick home on Pleasant Valley Road, a half-dozen camera crew members from television’s "ET" hauled video equipment from their cars to Simpson’s house in preparation for an interview today. In Simpson’s kitchen, a broadcast reporter was getting her hair and makeup done.
Simpson, dressed in a white tank top and black stretch pants, sat in a chair in her living room. She was on her phone and laptop. "You have to leave now," she said, referring all inquiries to "her representative." Simpson declined requests from The Star-Ledger to be interviewed and photographed.
Taub, who is based in San Diego said although "ET" was filming at Simpson’s house, the program would not necessarily air because no exclusive deal had been struck.
"Nothing has been finalized," said Taub,..."
------------
I don't really care what anyone does with their body but I do enjoy it when people can turn social prejudice and hypocrisy into coin. You go Donna!

[always2late]

I do not think this woman's children should be taken away, any more than I think someone should remove children from the home of someone who smokes. Same difference. We cannot start dictating who should or should not be a parent based on an action we perceive to be unhealthy, unless it is directly endangering the child.

I do not know why this woman is doing what she is doing, and I can't say that I personally agree with it. Not because of any societal notion of beauty, but because she is shortening her life significantly. I am a big girl...and I will always be a big girl...but I am also a nurse. And I see daily the result of being overweight. She is courting diabetes, heart disease, liver disease, renal failure, stroke...just to name a few. However, it is her right to do with her body as she sees fit. I just wonder why she wants to do it.

[Soft*Silver]

this woman runs a website for people who like to watch her eat. She is called a Gainer. The people who watch her, or actually help her eat, are called Feeders.

There is a movie about this fetish ...its on Netflix and its called Feed. Her is the summary of it:

After uncovering a sexually charged Web site that features morbidly obese women being held captive and taunted with fattening food, Australian cop Richard (Jack Thompson) travels to Ohio to investigate. Viewing the Aussie's appearance as an opportunity for a fun game rather than a reason for him to go offline, the site's sadistic webmaster (Alex O'Loughlin) lures Richard into a dangerous game that's unappetizing, to say the least.


I had never heard of this before, and when I ran across this movie, I was simply, stunned. I investigated the web for more details..and its a thriving community.

Do I agree with her right to gain weight. Absolutely. Do I think her children will be depended upon to do her role of caretaker so that SHE can be taken care of, instead of her taking care of them. Absolutely. Is this grounds for removal of the children. Depends. Just because someone lives differently than us, and does things that we might find odd, doesnt mean we are right and she is wrong. (not that anyone was saying that) She just needs to make sure the kids are taken care of and they arent forced into a role reversal.

[Olivia_Kay]

If she wasn't a mother I would say let her do whatever she wants its her body. The fact that she is a mother makes me furious. That has to be the most selfish thing you could do to yourself. She will not be around to watch her children grow up and thats sad.

[suebee]

I'm a big-boned gal myself, but this story doesn't have as much to do with weight as it would seem on the surface. This woman's addiction just happens to be food. In some twisted psychological self-enabling she's found a way to justify not only continuing her addiction, but raising it to a level where it could - and will kill her. There's no way this is well-adjusted behavior.

As for the kids (and I didn't read the comments - they're usually pure venom in a story like this) the article didn't say anything about her neglecting them in what would be normally considered a matter of child welfare, but it's obvious she doesn't have their best interests in mind if she is deliberately engaging in behavior that will limit her ability to be an active mother to them and most likely make them orphans at an early age.

And that's the way Sue :floatbee: sees the situation.

[Daywalker]

To me, although her choices are subject to public opinion and apparently
encouragement as well...it is but another unusual story of life and love.
:rose:
It puts me in mind of the 90's movie 'Gilbert Grape'.
The Mother in that movie never once stopped
loving her children, no matter her size.
:|

And folks depicted in that movie never stopped...twice, to think
of how it would make her feel when they take pictures of her
during rare public appearances. Anyway, this woman in the
article...seems to thrive on it...and that is HER choice.
:popcorn:

Oh, and for those who never saw the Gilbert Grape Classic:

YouTube- 1993: What's Eating Gilbert Grape Trailer HQ



:daywalker:

[Laidbackgrly]

shes a lil nuts ive seen people who cant get out of bed they were'nt happy and you can be skinny and have high bp ,diabeties,strokes and other major problems I think she is being selfish to her kids cause they will be waiting on her hand and foot! shell be lucky to be breathing at 1000 pounds how sad. All she cares about is being in the guinness books she should be thinking about being in her kids lives for a long time.

[Apocalipstic]

Maybe she will make enough money to hire someone to take care of her and her klids....sounds like she might. :)

[Softhearted]

As we say where I live : "Trop c'est comme pas assez" meaning

"Too much is as bad as not enough" ...

It is sad to see that the media will exploit this story, her and her children...

[Medusa]

She apparently owns several websites for fatties, feeders, gainers, and FAs (Fat Admirers). Im kinda with Cyclo on the "business woman" aspect of this one ;)

[Enchantress]

This is sad and simply disturbing. I won't even go into how I feel or what I think about the web site. Such drive and determination should be used to better oneself, become healthy and healthful, not destructive and death enhancing(edited to state that I believe she has the right to do as she wishes, but not to the detriment of her children). I can't even begin to conceive how an individual could begin to cope with 600 pounds let alone 1000. Although, odds are she won't make it to her goal(before dying). At what point do we (used universally) say this is not okay? Should Child Services be brought into the picture? I think possibly yes. She is purposefully setting out to harm herself and by proxy her children. It's obvious that an individual who chooses such a life (and goal)is not happy. There must be a great amount of self loathing and sadness in such a person and this is what the focus should be on. All in all an extremely disheartening story.

[Enchantress]

Not sure what I think either, I have issues around weight myself.

Several of the on line comments call for her children to be taken away. I guess this worries me most, are fat people going to start losing their children? What is the line?

Also, I must say that I have never seen an artcle or TV show where it mentions how much sushi someone can eat. Usually it is fried stuff. Just a random observation.

I don't believe this about fat people possibly losing their children. I believe this is about the safety and well being (both physical and emotional) of the children. Obviously, this household is not healthy (in my opinion). I am not advocating taking the children away, instead on Child Services stepping in to administer much needed (again in my opinion) assistance. I believe that all could and would benefit from therapy. However, I do believe that something should be done.

[Gemme]

Okay, I'm all for free will and whatnot, and I've actually known some Feeders and Gainers, but think about this....how will she move around at half a TON? She's already in a scooter. What comes after that? How will she leave her home? I still have visuals of an Oprah show (I think it was Oprah) when a gentleman's home had to be cut up so they could lift him up and out to get out of his own home because he could not walk out due to physical contraints and being larger than the doorway. How will she care for her children at 1000 pounds? Or will the 14 year old boy be the actual, hands on caretaker for the toddler? That sure seems fair for the children, doesn't it?

I understand one's need to reach some sort of goal, I do.
I understand one's desire to bring income into the family.
I do NOT understand how putting her health in jeopardy more than it already is, is a good thing, in any regard.

The strain put on the heart to sustain a person of that size would be tremendous! I do hope, that if she continues with this fiasco, that she has a will drawn up and a loving, support home for her children to go into.

If it were just her, that would be one thing. But she has children, one of whom is not even in school, and they need her. They need her to be there for them as they grow up and to do her part as a parent to teach them how to make their way through this world. There are some very scary lessons being taught now, like money is more important than health and her children are not as important to her as her own personal goals.

I'm just very, very upset by the selfishness I feel eminating from this story. I don't see a BBW with ambition. I see a couple of children that folks won't have to worry about taking away from their mother; she's working on that all by herself.

[Soon]

As we say where I live : "Trop c'est comme pas assez" meaning

"Too much is as bad as not enough" ...

It is sad to see that the media will exploit this story, her and her children...

How is the media exploiting this story when she runs websites that focus on this part of her life, and her stated intention--in interviews--is to make the Guinness Book of World Records (again)?

Isn't she the one inviting the media into her world?

[Soft*Silver]

I see its hard for some people to wrap their minds around the fact that she is mindfully doing something harmful to herself.

Could this not be said about people who practice BDSM?

The audience of the public, who is often uneducated about BDSM, often speaks lowly of people who practice this lifestyle. They cant get past the concept that they allow people to push pins in them, hang weights off their balls, are flogged and beaten and ask for more....

the audience of the public sometimes believes that women and men who do this, are not mentally healthy and should not be allowed to have children, especially if they live the lifestyle 24/7.

so how is this any different than her festish lifestyle?

[Gemme]

I see its hard for some people to wrap their minds around the fact that she is mindfully doing something harmful to herself.

Could this not be said about people who practice BDSM?

The audience of the public, who is often uneducated about BDSM, often speaks lowly of people who practice this lifestyle. They cant get past the concept that they allow people to push pins in them, hang weights off their balls, are flogged and beaten and ask for more....

the audience of the public sometimes believes that women and men who do this, are not mentally healthy and should not be allowed to have children, especially if they live the lifestyle 24/7.

so how is this any different than her festish lifestyle?

No, those who practice BDSM are not doing something that WILL kill them. They are doing something that does carry a risk, but it's not guaranteed.

[Medusa]

Hmm.

Wondering if folks feel the same way about smokers?

[Gemme]

Hmm.

Wondering if folks feel the same way about smokers?


Personally, no, because smoking is not a guaranteed death. Just like non-smokers get lung cancer, smokers may get something else that is not related to their smoking at all.

Our bodies are fragile. They are simply not designed to bear that much weight. It seems almost like a game to her (to me). My concern lies with her children.

[Soft*Silver]

I am not saying that in MY opinion, they are one and the same. In fact, I know they are not...as you said, her behavior could kill her. But the audience of the public will jam these two together...and say what she is doing is the same as those who practice BDSM

and as Ms Medusa just posted..is this in the same line as smokers? Honestly, I dont get why people are burning $6 a day habit that will eventually kill them. Now that is MHO.

No, those who practice BDSM are not doing something that WILL kill them. They are doing something that does carry a risk, but it's not guaranteed.

[Gemme]

I am not saying that in MY opinion, they are one and the same. In fact, I know they are not...as you said, her behavior could kill her. But the audience of the public will jam these two together...and say what she is doing is the same as those who practice BDSM

and as Ms Medusa just posted..is this in the same line as smokers? Honestly, I dont get why people are burning $6 a day habit that will eventually kill them. Now that is MHO.

My post about the smoking is above. I was addressing your post in general, not necessarily as if it were your line of thinking. :)

[Soft*Silver]

Personally, no, because smoking is not a guaranteed death. Just like non-smokers get lung cancer, smokers may get something else that is not related to their smoking at all.

Our bodies are fragile. They are simply not designed to bear that much weight. It seems almost like a game to her (to me). My concern lies with her children.

so...is there a cut off level of who much fat is too much fat? Is 50 lbs overweight enough? 100? 200? When do we say its too much?

and what about those who dont eat enough...arent they also doing something extremely unhealthy?

Smokers not only affect their lives but also their family and friend's lives that they smoke around. And you say smoking is not a guaranteed death...neither is overeating. They are SLOW deaths...and yes, some other factor will take them down death's lane but it most surely will be related to their habit of choice...

[Medusa]

Personally, no, because smoking is not a guaranteed death. Just like non-smokers get lung cancer, smokers may get something else that is not related to their smoking at all.

Our bodies are fragile. They are simply not designed to bear that much weight. It seems almost like a game to her (to me). My concern lies with her children.


Smoking is not guaranteed death but being fat is?

(not snark, just trying to follow the thought on this)

[Soft*Silver]

thanks...just wanted to make sure I wasnt misunderstood...

My post about the smoking is above. I was addressing your post in general, not necessarily as if it were your line of thinking. :)

[Gemme]

so...is there a cut off level of who much fat is too much fat? Is 50 lbs overweight enough? 100? 200? When do we say its too much?

and what about those who dont eat enough...arent they also doing something extremely unhealthy?

Smokers not only affect their lives but also their family and friend's lives that they smoke around. And you say smoking is not a guaranteed death...neither is overeating. They are SLOW deaths...and yes, some other factor will take them down death's lane but it most surely will be related to their habit of choice...

I don't know where the line lies and I'm certainly not the one to figure that out.

I didn't say that the guaranteed death would be quick. It's just guaranteed, like if all men lived long enough, they would absolutely get prostate cancer. I picked that nugget of information up in some journal several years back and it surprised me, and made me wonder about other 'inevitable' illnesses.

But I digress...

It's not about fat for me. It's about this woman purposely creating a body that will break her down from the inside out, until she's unable to BREATHE. For me, it's about the teenage boy and his little sister being without a mother.

I admit it; I'm approaching this completely from the mindset of the kids. I don't want them taken away from her. I don't want her to stop her affliliation with her fetish. I would like for her to consider her children's lives without her, because that is what she is planning and preparing for.

Smoking is not guaranteed death but being fat is?

(not snark, just trying to follow the thought on this)

Smoking definitely contributes to ill health. My mother died from complications due to advanced emphysema after smoking for more than 40 years, so I get this. But it's not guaranteed. There are smokers who exercise and eat well and are healthy in other aspects.

What I am saying is that it is impossible to live, to exist....at a weight of 1000 pounds. Our bodies are not designed to withstand bearing half a ton of weight. The heart, the muscles, the bones, the organs....they just aren't. They will shut down, one by one.

I have no issue with her wanting to do something to make her mark in this world. Her weight now is pretty heavy but I do think she's living and doing the things she needs to do to be a good parent. The damage that another 400 pounds would do to her body would most likely be irreversible. If she gets there...then what? She's very likely to be bedridden and on oxygen. What kind of a life is that?

I still keep coming back to 'what about her kids'?

Like I said, if it were just her, I'd say...it's your body, do what you want with it...but as a parent and one of a very small child....it doesn't seem to me as if the magnitude of this decision has dawned on her.

[DapperButch]

For me it is the simple issue of her having children.

If she wants to gain weight to hit some sort of record, potentially to the detriment of her own health, that is her issue. People do crap all the time that puts them at risk, for various reasons. Her choice to gain weight is her choice. For whatever reason (fame, money, she thinks she would be happier at that weight, etc.). That is all cool.

However, I really don't think that it is too much to ask that when someone is a parent they attempt to meet their child's physical and emotional needs to the best of their ability.

I don't really think it is very common that we find a person who sanely goes in the opposite direction. This woman will NOT be able to care for her toddler physically if she weighs 1,000 lbs. It will not be physically possible. Period. And this is the choice that she is sanely making. Her need to get whatever it is she will psychologically get out of weighing 1,000 lbs outweighs her desire to care for her children. It is that simple.

And that sucks for her kids.

But no, I don't think that anyone should attempt to take her children. She is currently able to care for her children (or at least we haven't heard otherwise).

[Soft*Silver]

"this woman will NOT be able to care for her toddler physically if she weighs 1,000 lbs. It will not be physically possible. Period" Dapper Butch

so...the mother who becomes incapacitated for some reason, and is no longer able to care for her child...should she have her children taken from her? Is it the INTENT of her actions that make it wrong for her and not wrong for the mother, who for the sake of arguement, gets MS after she has had children? I am just real curious because we draw the line with her, but I see examples all over my little world, of parents who should not have kids...and yet they do. People who dropped out of high school, work at minimum wage jobs and are having kids. People who drink like fish but hold down jobs.People who are of the generational welfare poverty community who have kids. These are all deliberate actions that truly do affect the lives of the children.

She wants to get fat. And she is supporting her family by doing so. How is that any different than the woman who is a strip artist or the high end prostitute who does it so she can support her childen.

I dunno...I think if she wants to get fat so she can support her family and her own desires, who are we to say she cant AND she cant be a good mother in doing so.

Personally I am appalled she is doing this. I cant understand why she would want to outsize herself that much. I couldnt imagine giving up my mobility. And I cant imagine not being able to shave my own legs. I am sorry..I am a practicle girl.

But .... she is her own person.

[Softhearted]

How is the media exploiting this story when she runs websites that focus on this part of her life, and her stated intention--in interviews--is to make the Guinness Book of World Records (again)?

Isn't she the one inviting the media into her world?

She might be the one inviting the media into her world but I don't think that her children invited the media into their world...

so...is there a cut off level of who much fat is too much fat? Is 50 lbs overweight enough? 100? 200? When do we say its too much?

I believe when someone has mobility problems, breathing problems, that begins to be too much.

and what about those who dont eat enough...arent they also doing something extremely unhealthy?

Not eating enough is as bad as eating too much

Smokers not only affect their lives but also their family and friend's lives that they smoke around. And you say smoking is not a guaranteed death...neither is overeating. They are SLOW deaths...and yes, some other factor will take them down death's lane but it most surely will be related to their habit of choice...

There is no guarantee of an imminent death, but I believe it will bring a pre-mature death

Of course that is her business and who am I to judge her... Hopefully she will live long enough to see her children become adults.

[DapperButch]

"this woman will NOT be able to care for her toddler physically if she weighs 1,000 lbs. It will not be physically possible. Period" Dapper Butch

so...the mother who becomes incapacitated for some reason, and is no longer able to care for her child...should she have her children taken from her? Is it the INTENT of her actions that make it wrong for her and not wrong for the mother, who for the sake of arguement, gets MS after she has had children? I am just real curious because we draw the line with her, but I see examples all over my little world, of parents who should not have kids...and yet they do. People who dropped out of high school, work at minimum wage jobs and are having kids. People who drink like fish but hold down jobs.People who are of the generational welfare poverty community who have kids. These are all deliberate actions that truly do affect the lives of the children.

She wants to get fat. And she is supporting her family by doing so. How is that any different than the woman who is a strip artist or the high end prostitute who does it so she can support her childen.

I dunno...I think if she wants to get fat so she can support her family and her own desires, who are we to say she cant AND she cant be a good mother in doing so.

Personally I am appalled she is doing this. I cant understand why she would want to outsize herself that much. I couldnt imagine giving up my mobility. And I cant imagine not being able to shave my own legs. I am sorry..I am a practicle girl.

But .... she is her own person.

Hi, Softness. I think that you are taking the above statement out of context which really gives the reader a completely different impression of what I was trying to get across in my post, and what my post was about.

And I think that you are aware of this, and that you already know the below, but I will clarify, just in case:

I did not say in my post that this woman's children should be taken away, so I have no idea why you implied that I said this somewhere in my post. In fact, if you want to get technical, I said, "But no, I don't think that anyone should attempt to take her children away."

[Soft*Silver]

Dapper..my apologies for my post seeming to imply this. I did NOT mean to do that at all. I am merely posing questions...thinking out loud, so to speak. And I dont want you to think I was intentionally misconstruing your words. I wasnt.

Hi, Softness. I think that you are taking the above statement out of context which really gives the reader a completely different impression of what I was trying to get across in my post, and what my post was about.

And I think that you are aware of this, and that you already know the below, but I will clarify, just in case:

I did not say in my post that this woman's children should be taken away, so I have no idea why you implied that I said this somewhere in my post. In fact, if you want to get technical, I said, "But no, I don't think that anyone should attempt to take her children away."

[DapperButch]

Dapper..my apologies for my post seeming to imply this. I did NOT mean to do that at all. I am merely posing questions...thinking out loud, so to speak. And I dont want you to think I was intentionally misconstruing your words. I wasnt.

Ok. Thanks.

[Bit]

I did not say in my post that this woman's children should be taken away, so I have no idea why you implied that I said this somewhere in my post. In fact, if you want to get technical, I said, "But no, I don't think that anyone should attempt to take her children away."

But you DID strongly imply it, Dapper, whether you meant to or not.


But no, I don't think that anyone should attempt to take her children. She is currently able to care for her children (or at least we haven't heard otherwise).

I bolded for emphasis to point out that whatever you meant, it came across as if someone who is not able to personally care for her children should have them taken away. And I think softness had a valid point: what if instead of being fat, she had MS?

Where do we draw the line, especially if she's supporting her family doing this? How do we know she won't make enough money to hire a nanny? I personally think it's a very slippery slope when we start talking about whether someone who is not, by any account at all, abusive deserves to have her children live with her or not. I understand that you don't think she should lose her children for this behavior--yet--but where do we draw the line without stepping on all their rights?

[Gemme]

But you DID strongly imply it, Dapper, whether you meant to or not.

I have to disagree, Bit. Hy said, very clearly, that hy didn't think anyone should attempt to take the children from her. It's at the end of Dapper's post, which is why it might have been missed.

Hy's saying, I believe, that being that size and dealing with the health complications that are sure to arise, that caring for her children will become more difficult for her.


I bolded for emphasis to point out that whatever you meant, it came across as if someone who is not able to personally care for her children should have them taken away. And I think softness had a valid point: what if instead of being fat, she had MS?

Where do we draw the line, especially if she's supporting her family doing this? How do we know she won't make enough money to hire a nanny? I personally think it's a very slippery slope when we start talking about whether someone who is not, by any account at all, abusive deserves to have her children live with her or not. I understand that you don't think she should lose her children for this behavior--yet--but where do we draw the line without stepping on all their rights?

Oh, you hit a sore point with me here (I must be uber sensitive tonight). So, anyone who has the money should just hire a nanny and not have that one on one quality time with their children? I respectfully disagree.

For myself, the point is not about her and her desires at all. It's about the FALLOUT from those desires upon her children. How many people do anyone of us know that are at or near 1000 pounds and living life as actively as most of us do? I don't know of any at all. Those folks that I have heard of that are in the 600-700-800 lb. and up range or that I have seen have immense health issues and have suffered a decrease in the quality of their lives.

Her choice to feed herself until she reaches 1000 lbs. will definitely affect her children, and not in a positive way. "Oh, look! Mom's getting money from strangers to eat and eating is robbing her of her mobility and now she doesn't have the ability to go anywhere with us and do stuff with us. We sit around her bed and hug and talk sometimes but I really wish I had my old mom back."

I see that happening, at the very best possibility.

MS, as we all know, is not a choice. This woman is making a CHOICE to do this to herself, with no apparent regard for her children. That is what gets my goat.

[suebee]

There's no beating around the bush for me: this woman WILL NOT be able to take care of her children. She will be bedridden. The human frame cannot support 1000lbs. This woman WILL die. The human heart cannot supply blood to a 1000lb. body without being overworked and eventually stopping. Becoming disabled to the point of NOT being able to care for her children is a choice for this woman. Leaving her children orphans is a choice for this woman. If she is mentally competant then she is making choices that will leave her unable to care for them. At the point she is unable to carry out her parental duties that will become neglect. If she's not mentally competant than she is not capable of making decisions that will enable her to look after the children.

MInd, there is a lot of information missing in the article. I don't think it said anything about who was the primary caregiver (though she did mention her children keeping her busy), nor did it mention if there was anybody else who was involved in their lives.

Sad situation all around.

[Gayla]

I am fat, kinky and smoke. I do not have children and, with the exception of myself, the only people affected by my actions are consenting adults who have the option of participating in, or being around when I participate in, these activities. When there were children in my life, I altered my behavior because the health and welfare of those children was more important than my personal wants. That's kinda what the whole parenting thing is about to me.

If this woman is able to take care of her children (in whatever manner that may involve for her - i.e. direct care or via caregivers) and they are happy, healthy, etc. then there is no reason to take her children away from her. If/when they are not being "taken care of", then they should be removed from her care.

Let's pretend for a minute that we knew nothing about this story but instead read a news article about two children who were horribly neglected because their mother weighed 1000lbs and did not / could not take care of them. Would any of us be arguing whether she had the right to keep her children?

[Miss Scarlett]

Do I agree with her choice?

No. But it's her choice and I respect that.

[DapperButch]

Hey, Bit.

I am running off to work, but I wanted to acknowledge your post and let you know that I will respond tonight.

[Soon]

She might be the one inviting the media into her world but I don't think that her children invited the media into their world...







Yes, her children didn't call up the media but, as their adult parent, she CHOSE to invite the media and any intrusion into her children's lives--and resulting fallout--was her decision.

[torchiegirl]

fifteen minutes of fame has certainly been acheived

[Words]

http://www.closeronline.co.uk/RealLife/Reallifestories/eating-my-way-to-72st.aspx

This woman is selfish. She obviously cares way more about getting her rocks off -which, to me, seems to be what it's all about - than she does about spending time with her children, and given the fact that she already has health issues directly related to her weight, she obviously doesn't care a shit about their future.

As to the working to pay for her food excuse, - I don't care how many hours a day she 'has' to work, the simple truth is that she obviously enjoys doing it rather than spending time with her daughter as otherwise, she wouldn't be doing what she's doing and wouldn't be relying on poor old Phillipe to 'do the things she can't' - what about the cost of her medical treatment, past and present, who's been paying/going to be paying for that? Again, she doesn't seem to care.

So, would I take her kid/s away from her? In a heartbeat. Womyn the world over have no choice but to work long hours in order to support their families. This woman works long hours simply because she wants to get her name in a record book and be famous, even if doing so means depriving her children of a mother? Please.

Words

[Daywalker]

Choosing. This is the point for me. My partner has MS, it is not a choice. I think if I ponder this long enough, it is going to feel like deliberate child neglect to me, which of course does have consequences.

And in my mind, there is no correlation between a consensual D/s relationship OR getting a chronic, debilitating disease, and CHOOSING to debilitate yourself. Frankly, I feel kind of offended at the insinuation, since I live with and love someone who doesn't have a choice.

And also, unfortunately, most people who acquire MS or other illnesses, often do not have the funds to just hire a fucking nanny or a housekeeper and in some cases, they can't even afford the medical care they need, and this woman, if she is "successful" is going to need some of that too.

Thank You Juney.
:gimmehug:



And how did this situation begin to be compared with MS?
:|

I'm not really sure how to feel about this.

I did not choose MS, however I take it on with gusto as I feel it was given
to me because perhaps someone else could not handle it. It is my Gift.
This woman is making a conscious choice to gain weight, has a goal...to
reach. I gained 12 pounds since last month, not because I had a goal...but
because the MS is giving me a hard time along with Raynauds now, and my
mobility has been effected. Her mobility is already effected, and she plans
to make it even harder to do the things I consider myself lucky to do.

So the comparison with this thread
topic and MS has me befuddled this morning.

I shall marinate on this a bit over coffee.

:coffee:

:daywalker:

[Soft*Silver]

I was the one who brought up MS. And I brought it up to illustrate there were OTHER reasons why people would not be able to tend to their children, yet that does not make them bad parents. In no way do I compare MS with her being a Gainer. Hers is by choice. MS comes as it does.

I laid in bed last night and thought about her. I thought about how selfish of a person she is for putting her business/pleasure ahead of her children. And then i realized she is a work aholic as well...she cannot escape from her means of work..her web site. She has to condition her body to be fat all the time...

then I thought...no. No. NO! There is something very disturbing about her ...as disturbing as that woman who gave birth to 12 children. They are both using their children to demonstrate they are good people. If not for the kids, would we not turn our faces and look away? She NEEDS those kids to keep our focus on her...its another string for her to pull, another manipulation...

[Leigh]

I am very glad to see that everyone is having a discussion about this, and that so far everyone has been pretty respectful of one another even if we disagree on certain points. What really hurts Me in this case, is that she is consciously choosing to put her own health in danger in order to achieve a record that really should not be something to aim for. She is clearly, at some point, not going to be able to care for her kids and if your going to put your own needs before the needs of your kids then why do you even have them?

I'm not meaning to make anyone upset here and I apologize if anything I say hits a chord with anyone, but I guess I just don't get how she could think of only herself and not her kids. If she wanted to chase some kind of a record in Guiness, why not wait until your kids are older and moved out before you begin something that will surely kill you long before its your time. Its sad really that she is doing this to herself and her family, and even if it is her choice I personally don't agree with it but thats just Me

[Bit]

And also, unfortunately, most people who acquire MS or other illnesses, often do not have the funds to just hire a fucking nanny or a housekeeper.....

And yet we do not take their children away.

My parents unofficially adopted the son of my mother's best friend when he was still in grade school, because her friend's MS had progressed to the point that she was not able to care for all ten of her children.

No one EVER tried to take the children away. It would have been unconscionable.

Gemme said, "So, anyone who has the money should just hire a nanny and not have that one on one quality time with their children?"

*puzzled look* What is quality time? How do we define it? Is one required to dress a child for school in order to have quality time? Is one required to cook for that child to have quality time? What if one spends the time they have reading to a child, or helping a child with their spelling, or any of a hundred other things which show love but do not require physical activity?

Believe me, I remember the times my mother read to me WAY more fondly than the times she went shrieking and slamming through the house doing housework, and by kindergarten we were all perfectly capable of taking our own baths and dressing ourselves.

As for whether this particular woman has a choice in the matter, it's pretty normal for people to get up to a couple hundred pounds, maybe a little more--you know, for a woman, size 2x is a VERY common size.

She weighs three times that. How did she get there? Surely she has the same hormonal imbalances that plague anyone who weighs three or four hundred pounds, right? Nobody gets that big just by eating; your hormones have to be out of whack for that kind of weight.

Seriously, by the time a person weighs five or six hundred pounds, what can they do for a living? Does this woman truly have the life choices that people are ascribing to her?

Maybe she does; maybe I'm seeing it wrong. But in this day and age when child protection agencies are failing to rescue children who are beaten every day, children who are the victims of incest, children who are used for sex with strangers so their parents can get more drugs--all parental choices!--in this day and age when the system utterly fails those who need it the very most, why are we focused on this woman?

I have a very uncomfortable feeling that it's because she's visible. I have a very uncomfortable feeling that it's because she's trespassing on our culture's strongly-held stereotypes of proper womanhood, proper motherhood.

We do not actually know that her children are or will be unhappy or neglected in any way.

[NJFemmie]

I've always felt that once you have children, your life isn't 'just' yours anymore. Your children come first.

With that being said, I really don't think I have to say anymore.

[IrishGrrl]

I find it interesting that the people who dont see how destructive this is for the children, are people who dont HAVE children.

(non judgy..just an observation)

[Medusa]

I've been kinda mulling this thing over in my head for a couple of days.
I think the place that I keep coming back to is centered somewhere around the whole "what about the children" thing.

Let me caveat what Im about to say with "I dont have kids for a reason":

I hear a lot of people bringing up the discussion point that this woman should be able to do whatever she wants but that it's the children's well-being that is the "but, but, but..." in this scenario. The idea that the woman can't do what she wants because she must put her children's needs above her own. The idea that it is "selfish" of her to focus on herself so wholly when she has children.

Im not at all saying I dont agree with this because I do think that bringing a child into this world is not something that people can do without responsibility. I think that children aren't able to take care of themselves (for the most part) and that parents have a responsibility to make good decisions around their health and well-being.

My itchy spot is the culture of "Motherhood" that states that getting pregnant and having a child must change the focus of the woman's life. I think I'm feeling something around all of those automaton-ish Soccer Mom's who whisk their kids from one recital to the next, bust their ass to be the "perfect Mom", but somehow lose themselves along the way.
I think that on some level society expects that or, as Bit said, you really run the risk as a Mother of being seen as an in improper Mother.
I think about a lot of Moms I have known who had kids and I didn't recognize them a year later. They no longer took care of themselves, they stopped doing their hobbies, their entire lives became focused on keeping the child healthy and happy...and somewhere in all of that chaos, the Mother forgot to keep *herself* healthy and so the child turned out to be an ill-behaved, spoiled little asshole that nobody could stand to be around.

(can you tell I don't do kids?) :P

I also wonder if this were a Man, if anyone would be asking about *his* children's well-being.

I can put aside my irritation over the fat=unhealthy thing for the sake of this discussion because I, too, agree that at 1000 pounds (even 600) that this woman's mobility is (as written in the article) severely limited. I imagine she might also have some weight-related joint issues either now or at some point.
Im thinking that she is buying into some fetishization around fat too. I looked at 3 of her websites and it looks like she participates in the feeder/gainer community and fat-love communities pretty heavily.

More thoughts in a bit..

[Soon]

And yet we do not take their children away.

My parents unofficially adopted the son of my mother's best friend when he was still in grade school, because her friend's MS had progressed to the point that she was not able to care for all ten of her children.

No one EVER tried to take the children away. It would have been unconscionable.

Gemme said, "So, anyone who has the money should just hire a nanny and not have that one on one quality time with their children?"

*puzzled look* What is quality time? How do we define it? Is one required to dress a child for school in order to have quality time? Is one required to cook for that child to have quality time? What if one spends the time they have reading to a child, or helping a child with their spelling, or any of a hundred other things which show love but do not require physical activity?

Believe me, I remember the times my mother read to me WAY more fondly than the times she went shrieking and slamming through the house doing housework, and by kindergarten we were all perfectly capable of taking our own baths and dressing ourselves.

As for whether this particular woman has a choice in the matter, it's pretty normal for people to get up to a couple hundred pounds, maybe a little more--you know, for a woman, size 2x is a VERY common size.

She weighs three times that. How did she get there? Surely she has the same hormonal imbalances that plague anyone who weighs three or four hundred pounds, right? Nobody gets that big just by eating; your hormones have to be out of whack for that kind of weight.

Seriously, by the time a person weighs five or six hundred pounds, what can they do for a living? Does this woman truly have the life choices that people are ascribing to her?

Maybe she does; maybe I'm seeing it wrong. But in this day and age when child protection agencies are failing to rescue children who are beaten every day, children who are the victims of incest, children who are used for sex with strangers so their parents can get more drugs--all parental choices!--in this day and age when the system utterly fails those who need it the very most, why are we focused on this woman?

I have a very uncomfortable feeling that it's because she's visible. I have a very uncomfortable feeling that it's because she's trespassing on our culture's strongly-held stereotypes of proper womanhood, proper motherhood.

We do not actually know that her children are or will be unhappy or neglected in any way.


How did she get where she is/was? (http://www.closeronline.co.uk/RealLi...y-to-72st.aspx)
.....


At the age of 24 Donna married Robert Simpson, a chef who encouraged her eating by bringing home leftovers from work to feed her. “He’d come home with steak and desserts,” she recalls. “He liked me supersized.”
......
For the first time ever she went on a diet, urged on by her father who was concerned for her health, and lost 5st in six months.

But she soon lapsed when she met fat-lover Philippe Gouamba, 47, in an online chat room for oversized women in 2006. “When I ate enough for five people on our first date, it really impressed him,” says Donna, from New Jersey, USA. Philippe, who counts watching his girlfriend eat as one of his favourite hobbies, says: “I’ve always been attracted to big women, but Donna is my fantasy. The more she weighs, the sexier she is.”


How she is planning to get to her target weight (1000 lbs.):

“My food costs £400 a week,” says Donna. “In a typical day I’ll eat four burgers and fries, a loaf of bread with peanut butter and jam, four servings of meatloaf and mashed potato, a large pizza, a chocolate cake with ice cream and cream, 12 cupcakes, two cheesecakes and fizzy drinks.


--------

Her health problems (and their effects on her children):


To reach her target, ex-carer Donna, who already suffers from diabetes and high-blood pressure, needs to gain another 27st and predicts it will take her until 2012 at her current weight gain of 7st a year.

.....
Although doctors had said her 38st frame would make it almost impossible to conceive, Donna fell pregnant within three months of dating Phillipe. But she developed diabetes and high-blood pressure during pregnancy and needed a team of 19 doctors and nurses to get through the high-risk Caesarean birth.

When baby Jacqueline was born weighing 8lbs 14oz in February 2007, Donna became the world’s fattest woman to give birth – the previous largest had weighed 34st. But she admits she struggles to care for her daughter, as she can barely walk 20ft without needing to sit down. “It’s difficult keeping up with Jacqueline, but we’re very closely bonded,” says Donna. “Fortunately, anything I can’t do with her, her dad can, so I don’t feel guilty.”

[Soon]

I find it interesting that the people who dont see how destructive this is for the children, are people who dont HAVE children.

(non judgy..just an observation)

I don't have children.

[Daywalker]

I was the one who brought up MS. And I brought it up to illustrate there were OTHER reasons why people would not be able to tend to their children, yet that does not make them bad parents. In no way do I compare MS with her being a Gainer. Hers is by choice. MS comes as it does.

I laid in bed last night and thought about her. I thought about how selfish of a person she is for putting her business/pleasure ahead of her children. And then i realized she is a work aholic as well...she cannot escape from her means of work..her web site. She has to condition her body to be fat all the time...

then I thought...no. No. NO! There is something very disturbing about her ...as disturbing as that woman who gave birth to 12 children. They are both using their children to demonstrate they are good people. If not for the kids, would we not turn our faces and look away? She NEEDS those kids to keep our focus on her...its another string for her to pull, another manipulation...

People with MS can and do have and raise and tend to their children.

:daywalker:

[christie]

[QUOTE=Bit;69864]why are we focused on this woman?

I have a very uncomfortable feeling that it's because she's visible. I have a very uncomfortable feeling that it's because she's trespassing on our culture's strongly-held stereotypes of proper womanhood, proper motherhood.

Bit, I snipped you post for brevity as this is the part that I wanted to respond to -

I think we are focused on "this woman" because she chose to put her quest for 1000lbs and her means of income (her websites) in the public eye.

My feelings about how she is instilling, what will most likely become, habits and ideas around food that her children will feel is "normal" and only led to what are commonly known health issues related to morbid obesity.

I feel as a mother, it is my responsibility to teach my son certain things; after all, I am his primary reference point or "barometer" in how to move through the world. I try to teach him that relationships aren't disposable and that they are about love AND commitment. I try to teach him to embrace diversity in ALL things - people, music, politics, religion, et al. I also try to teach him about moderation and healthy eating habits.

I know that he also learns less from my words and more from my actions - and is likely to mimic the behaviors he sees.

From that perspective, I don't care how many outside sources her children have for healthy living. I believe they will take more from her behaviors than from any external influence.

I always feel if someone puts something out in public, its fair game for discussion, opinions, comments and, at times, judgement and criticisms based on the "me" barometer of right/wrong/appropriate/inappropriate/healthy/nonhealthy.

From that me barometer, I just think she is being selfish and unfair to her children.
Christie

[Leigh]

How is she planning to get to her target weight (1000 lbs.):

“My food costs £400 a week,” says Donna. “In a typical day I’ll eat four burgers and fries, a loaf of bread with peanut butter and jam, four servings of meatloaf and mashed potato, a large pizza, a chocolate cake with ice cream and cream, 12 cupcakes, two cheesecakes and fizzy drinks.


Now I know that I'm not the healthiest eater in the world, and I often eat too much, but just thinking that one person could eat this much in a typical day makes Me sick (I mean physically nauseated)

How can you eat that much in one day, seriously? :blink:

[christie]

I also wonder if this were a Man, if anyone would be asking about *his* children's well-being.

I would like to think we would, especially if he were the custodial parent.

[LadyFlamezzz]

Thank You Juney.
:gimmehug:



And how did this situation begin to be compared with MS?
:|

I'm not really sure how to feel about this.

I did not choose MS, however I take it on with gusto as I feel it was given
to me because perhaps someone else could not handle it. It is my Gift.
This woman is making a conscious choice to gain weight, has a goal...to
reach. I gained 12 pounds since last month, not because I had a goal...but
because the MS is giving me a hard time along with Raynauds now, and my
mobility has been effected. Her mobility is already effected, and she plans
to make it even harder to do the things I consider myself lucky to do.

So the comparison with this thread
topic and MS has me befuddled this morning.

I shall marinate on this a bit over coffee.

:coffee:

:daywalker:




there is No comparison baybee!

[IrishGrrl]

And if these men think being that large is sexy, why dont THEY gain the weight?

I feel like this is just one more way woman are trying to look a certain way for a man. It makes me sick. Starving yourself to the detriment of your health is just as horrible.

[Soon]

And if these men think being that large is sexy, why dont THEY gain the weight??!@#

B/c a woman's body is meant for THEIR sexual arousal/objectification? (small, large--etc.) and some women will attempt to conform to whatever beauty ideal is perceived by others--no matter how destructive.

(and derive a form of self-fulfillment from achieving a certain look despite its toll on their physical well-being or its potential negative impact on others--including their children.)

[NJFemmie]

I find it interesting that the people who dont see how destructive this is for the children, are people who dont HAVE children.

(non judgy..just an observation)

Side note: I don't have children.

Medusa: You would be right, TOO.
I don't think a mother (or father) should "give up" their lives for their children - it certainly doesn't seem 'fair'. However, I think that those types of actions are a bit too extreme - you can find a medium place to have a life AND make sure you are there for your kids at the same time - I have lots of friends who do it, and they don't seem to be suffering for the sake of their children.

Fat positive to me does not equal destructive behavior. I really think her "goal" is set for self-destruct.

[apretty]

I dont care for this. I cannot imagine incapacitating oneself deliberately like this. Eating disorders are nothing to fuck with on either side of the scales.

She is not repulsive to me, what she is mindfully doing, is.

i agree.

she's killing herself.

would we watch a drug addict over a course of time, overdose? would we want to protect her children?

meh, this just sucks.

[Apocalipstic]

It freaks me out to think that we would want the government to take away her kids.

What is the line?

Who gets to pick?

Who would be in charge of deciding what is too fat. 200lbs? 300lbs? Mobility?

Should pregnant women be forced to give birth based on giving up one's life for ones children? If a child needs an organ, should the government force them to give it.

And no, I don't think we would look at a man on the same way. We never do.

No, I don't have kids or my own, but have lived with kids of a partner and I agree they take a lot of work, but do we want to government deciding on what weight is and is not safe to be a mother?

Slippery slope.

[Lynn]

The fact is that there are many people who develop diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure, and then choose not to follow their doctors' orders. My own brother is not severely overweight, but he challenges his ulcerative colitis daily to the point that I have to wonder if he is trying to kill himself. He's a young father, married with two children and a business that supports his family. His death, which doesn't seem so farfetched, would be emotionally and physically devastating to his family. His choices don't attract media attention, but they are questionable, none-the-less.

One thing about having kids is that you just don't know how it's going to turn out. There are situations when what is required is to put yourself aside for some years to make sure that their needs are met. Especially if there are medical issues or financial strains, it is conceivable that a person (a mom) will lose herself entirely for a time, and I don't think that's unusual. Keeping your own "center" through the roller-coaster of making sure your kid's needs are met is not easy or always functional, even. This is something I know about. If you read a parenting magazine in the doctor's waiting room, there are all these little articles about taking care of yourself: take a bubble bath, take up scrapbooking, read a book, join a photography class...etc. People have to be REMINDED to focus on themselves, even a couple of hours a week. That can be the reality of their lives.

Gaining weight to become 1,000 lbs, and all the stuff that goes with it for this woman is certainly her choice. I actually *do* think it's wrong on so many levels. I don't think her children should be taken away, in that they do have another caregiver in the home who can meet their basic needs. But, their mother is sure a questionable role model, and I can't help think about how they will view their mother and their childhood when they are grown. Having this woman as a mother is not a benign thing. Think about how our own mothers affected us. I do think it's OK to look at something, like this situation, and filter it through some sense of ethics without apology. Some things are actually right, and some things are actually not so right, even though we can agree that we won't all agree on what they are.

[Medusa]

i agree.

she's killing herself.

would we watch a drug addict over a course of time, overdose? would we want to protect her children?

meh, this just sucks.


I like the parallel that you draw between what this person is doing and a drug addict.
If we view her choice to eat this much (or the attention that she gets from eating this much?) as an addiction, would we view her husband as an enabler? (this one seems like a no brainer)
Would we view the feeder/gainer community that she is part of as culpable in helping her maintain her addiction? Is there a culture in the feeder/gainer community that celebrates this addiction?

[Bit]

“In a typical day I’ll eat four burgers and fries, a loaf of bread with peanut butter and jam, four servings of meatloaf and mashed potato, a large pizza, a chocolate cake with ice cream and cream, 12 cupcakes, two cheesecakes and fizzy drinks.

Thank you for the quotes, HSIN.

Here's my question for everyone. Can you choose to do that without throwing up? Can ANY of us choose to do that without throwing up?

There is something physically, hormonally wrong with this woman. That's why it really bothers me that her size is being attributed to her choice. She has some underlying hormonal imbalance that forces her body to turn what she eats into fat, and it allows her to eat unreasonable amounts of food--amounts that would make any of the rest of us throw up because our bodies would automatically reject the sheer volume of food.

She did not choose the underlying hormonal imbalance.

What she chooses to do with this problem that she is forced to live with, whether she chooses to embrace it, to celebrate it, to flaunt it--this does not negate the fact that she has an underlying physical problem that has caused it in the first place.

As for her children, are they being beaten or molested? Are they growing up under emotional abuse? Are they being prevented from attending school? Are they neglected?

Or are they happy and well-loved?

We do not have proof that her children will grow up maladjusted.

We don't actually have enough information--in either direction--to make an accurate judgment call about them. But let's assume for the sake of argument that they will somehow grow up maladjusted, that they will have a bad relationship with food, that they may need therapy to gain a healthy adult life.

What makes them any different from me, or from you? How many of us still struggle with weight issues, self-esteem issues? Even worse, how many of us struggle with abuse and molestation and neglect issues? How many of us only live healthy adult lives because we got therapy?

Nobody wishes for children to suffer; it wrenches the heart. But we survived it, and if these children do suffer, they also will survive it.

My guess is, they will survive it much more easily than those who are beaten, molested, and neglected.

[NJFemmie]

When someone says "I have a goal" ... it implies that they are purposely and actively working to attain that goal.

Hormonal balances aside - does it not say something when someone says I WANT to eat myself to 1000 lbs??

[Apocalipstic]

When someone says "I have a goal" ... it implies that they are purposely and actively working to attain that goal.

Hormonal balances aside - does it not say something when someone says I WANT to eat myself to 1000 lbs??

Right or wrong, do you think the government should take away her kids?

What is the line?

[UofMfan]

As a mother of a son who was almost taken away from me simply due to the fact that I was gay, I am a little weary when I hear people talk about the “government”, or anyone for that matter, taking kids away from their mothers. Having said that, I must keep in mind that I did not “choose” my sexual orientation, whereas this woman has chosen and as continuously chooses, to put herself and her dysfunctional ways before her children. In any event, I still don’t advocate anyone’s children being taken away unless they are truly in danger. There lies the question about child custody, and it is so difficult to decide in this case if they are indeed in danger or simply subjected to unhealthy behavior. It also amazes me that most of those who are appalled at the “government” running anything, more specifically healthcare, have no problem rationalizing the government’s role in parenting issues. I am with Apocalipstic, where do we draw the line?

The article is not giving us the whole picture, but the one that it does give us is very grim. This woman is willing to kill herself in the name of 15 minutes of fame and her name appearing in print in the Guinness Book of World Records. This says so much more about our society than it does about this poor woman. In the age of realities, celebrity worshiping, etc, how can we blame her? We have the Octomom as another example, when will we stop worshiping the wrong people for the wrong reasons? What will be next?

I personally don’t believe this has anything to do with being “fat positive”, and I am sure this will bring in a lot of comments. Being “fat positive” does not equal being suicidal. I have been pondering whether to post on here or not because of the sensitivity of the subject, but in my mind setting a goal to reach 1,000lbs is simply insane. It is not sexy it is not positive it is not safe, for her or her children. Being 1,000 lbs is not being fat, it is a legacy that this woman will leave her children, one that not only includes eating disorders, but it also includes giving your children the wrong lessons and more importantly, teaching them how low self-esteem can go.

[NJFemmie]

Right or wrong, do you think the government should take away her kids?

What is the line?

I think if she is unable or incapable of caring for her children, then yes, I do - just as I would with ANY type of child neglect/abuse/what-have-you from ANY parent - but not just because she wants to eat herself into oblivion. If she is capable of providing proper care, then of course not. I personally think she is not setting a good example - but that's my opinion.

Running along apretty's statement ... would you not want intervention if a drug addict's kid is being neglected?

When a person puts themselves out there (meaning in the public eye), EVERYONE, including government agencies (especially when the potential for danger exists) are going to watch closely. If they didn't - we'd cry that the system failed.

If she isn't thinking about her kids, maybe someone has to. But I don't think anything should be handled prematurely.

[Apocalipstic]

I think if she is unable or incapable of caring for her children, then yes, I do - just as I would with ANY type of child neglect/abuse/what-have-you from ANY parent - but not just because she wants to eat herself into oblivion. If she is capable of providing proper care, then of course not. I personally think she is not setting a good example - but that's my opinion.

Running along apretty's statement ... would you not want intervention if a drug addict's kid is being neglected?

When a person puts themselves out there (meaning in the public eye), EVERYONE, including government agencies (especially when the potential for danger exists) are going to watch closely. If they didn't - we'd cry that the system failed.

If she isn't thinking about her kids, maybe someone has to. But I don't think anything should be handled prematurely.

Agreed, I would want to know if indeed the kids are being neglected.

[Apocalipstic]

Are people who buy the Guiness Book of World Records or support the types of magazines and websites she is making money from culpable?

[Soon]

Bit,

Just as we don't have "proof that her children will grow up maladjusted" (or neglected, etc.), how do you know, for certain, that this she has an "underlying hormonal imbalance"?

I am no physiological expert, but from my understanding, the stomach can expand to to a much larger size depending on food intake.

Even if there was an initial imbalance, her choices override it at this point.

Everything I have read has attributed her increasing weight as her choice, and I find it interesting that you are focused on how she lacks choice due to a hormonal imbalance.

Maybe it's like saying a person has a predisposition to drug/alcohol addiction? However, be that as it may, I think society should become at least aware of a parent who knowingly and publicly asserts their right to their addictions to the point of self-destruction--at the very least to keep an eye on the children's welfare (to answer Apoc's question) to see if the children's needs are being met. However, even with the most basic needs met, I do worry about the inherent harm (present and future) such behaviour has on her children (psychological and, perhaps, later, physical)--but I don't think that is a reason to remove them.

She takes complete ownership and has encouraged publicity of this quest to reach her goal weight.

I don't have much empathy for her--unlike those who are struggling to overcome their issues/addictions for themselves and families--she desires to go head long into a journey that will lead to further harm.


To answer Apoc's last question: No, I don't think the World Record consumers are culpable.

[UofMfan]

Bit,

Just as we don't have "proof that her children will grow up maladjusted" (or neglected, etc.), how do you know, for certain, that this she has an "underlying hormonal imbalance"?

I am no physiological expert, but from my understanding, the stomach can expand to to a much larger size depending on food intake.

Even if there was an initial imbalance, her choices override it at this point.

Everything I have read has attributed her increasing weight as her choice, and I find it interesting that you are focused on how she lacks choice due to a hormonal imbalance.

Maybe it's like saying a person has a predisposition to drug/alcohol addiction? However, be that as it may, I think society should become at least aware of a parent who knowingly and publicly asserts their right to in their addictions to the point of self-destruction. At least to keep an eye on the children's welfare (to answer Apoc's question) to see if the children's needs are being met. However, even with the most basic needs met, I do worry about the inherent psychological harm (present and future) such behaviour has on her children--but I don't think that is a reason to remove them.

She takes complete ownership and has encouraged publicity of this quest to reach her goal weight.

I don't have much empathy for her--unlike those who are struggling to overcome their issues/addictions for themselves and families--she desires to go head long into a journey that will lead to further harm.




I have a hormonal imbalance and I do not weigh 1,000lbs, not even close!

[Apocalipstic]

Bit,

Just as we don't have "proof that her children will grow up maladjusted" (or neglected, etc.), how do you know, for certain, that this she has an "underlying hormonal imbalance"?

I am no physiological expert, but from my understanding, the stomach can expand to to a much larger size depending on food intake.

Even if there was an initial imbalance, her choices override it at this point.

Everything I have read has attributed her increasing weight as her choice, and I find it interesting that you are focused on how she lacks choice due to a hormonal imbalance.

Maybe it's like saying a person has a predisposition to drug/alcohol addiction? However, be that as it may, I think society should become at least aware of a parent who knowingly and publicly asserts their right to in their addictions to the point of self-destruction. At least to keep an eye on the children's welfare (to answer Apoc's question) to see if the children's needs are being met. However, even with the most basic needs met, I do worry about the inherent psychological harm (present and future) such behaviour has on her children--but I don't think that is a reason to remove them.

She takes complete ownership and has encouraged publicity of this quest to reach her goal weight.

I don't have much empathy for her--unlike those who are struggling to overcome their issues/addictions for themselves and families--she desires to go head long into a journey that will lead to further harm.


To answer Apoc's last question: No, I don't think the World Record consumers are culpable.



So only she is at fault?

[UofMfan]

Are people who buy the Guiness Book of World Records or support the types of magazines and websites she is making money from culpable?

I think an entire thread could be devoted to this question.

[Apocalipstic]

I think an entire thread could be devoted to this question.


I think as long as we as a society continue to be fascinated with people like this and continue to buy the books, we are encouraging people like her.

[UofMfan]

I think as long as we as a society continue to be fascinated with people like this and continue to buy the books, we are encouraging people like her.

I agree. I think there lies the real problem.

[Soon]

So only she is at fault?

I didn't say that; I do feel that there is some culpability in the men in her life who have encouraged her obesity to suit their desires.

However, again, she has chosen to allow herself to grow as part of their (and her own) fulfillment.

I would feel the same way with a woman who is intent on becoming extremely thin in order to cater to someone else's idea of beauty-even if she felt sexier for doing so.

[Apocalipstic]

I didn't say that; I do feel that there is some culpability in the men in her life who have encouraged her obesity to suit their desires.

However, again, she has chosen to allow herself to grow as part of their (and hers) fulfillment.

I would feel the same way with a woman who is intent on becoming extremely thin in order to cater to someone else's idea of beauty. Even if they themselves felt sexier for doing so.


I was not saying you did, just asking. :)

[NJFemmie]

So only she is at fault?

I didn't say that; I do feel that there is some culpability in the men in her life who have encouraged her obesity to suit their desires.

However, again, she has chosen to allow herself to grow as part of their (and her own) fulfillment.

I would feel the same way with a woman who is intent on becoming extremely thin in order to cater to someone else's idea of beauty-even if she felt sexier for doing so.

The only one putting a gun to her head is herself.
I can almost hear my sister saying "if they told you to jump off a bridge, would you...?"

[Random]

Hi... My name is Random and I'm an addict...

So many years since I first said those words..

I have been clean 19 yrs and nine months..
I didn't find out I was expecting until I was three months along..

The FIRST thought in my head after.. *what? what? no.. I have a ut infection and the stomake flu.. It was only ONE time..* was.. What the hell have I done to this kid.. I told the dr every drug I had taken in the last three months, that i was more than a close personal friend with Mr. Coccain and I had eaten mushrooms the night before..

It was a hard call... abortion or keeping him... keeping him or putting him up for adoption..

I chose adoption... I wanted to get back to MY life!!! My girlfriend wanted her girlfriend back.. I could stay clean for 6 months.. I could do what was fair for this life I CHOOSED to bring into this world...

I didn't end up adopting him out... I chose my child over my addiction and my old life... That was my choice... and with that choice I changed my priorites..

For me.... When you bring a life into the world and you make the choice to keep that life... Then you have to try your best to do what is right for that kid...

We, as parents screw up, we screw our kids up.. That's going to happen, because no one is perfect and no one makes the right choices all the time...

But for me.. There are limits and lines... Hard choices we have to make.. Our needs vs what is best for our families..

[Kat]

...Except this is now 2010 and the world has produced yet another woman who thinks she needs to subjugate her needs and those of her children for MEN.

OKAY! Maybe I just took that a bit too far...

Not at all too far, since I was about to make that very point.

Look at my puddin'! Being all feminist-y and stuff... :pile:

[Soft*Silver]

Yes, Daywalker, I know they do. One of my dear friends from years ago had MS and she had a family. My point being just because someone has something that interferes with their mobility, that doesnt mean they cant take care of themselves or thier children...


People with MS can and do have and raise and tend to their children.

:daywalker:

[Daywalker]

Yes, Daywalker, I know they do. One of my dear friends from years ago had MS and she had a family. My point being just because someone has something that interferes with their mobility, that doesnt mean they cant take care of themselves or thier children...Ok, so maybe I read this part all wrong?
:popcorn:


I was the one who brought up MS. And I brought it up to illustrate there were OTHER reasons why people would not be able to tend to their children, yet that does not make them bad parents. In no way do I compare MS with her being a Gainer. Hers is by choice. MS comes as it does.
:daywalker:

[Daywalker]

Sorry, had to edit that...LOL...quoted Kat on accident.

:byebye:

:daywalker:

[DapperButch]

Bit -

So much posting has gone on since you responded to my post early this morning, that you may not have an interest in my response at this point, but I wanted to follow through and write back. If I miss anything, please let me know.

Sorry if I am interrupting the flow, folks.

I tried to cut and paste, but it was a mess, so I thought I would just respond free style.

It seems as though the main thing you were saying is that by my saying that if the woman becomes 1,000 lbs she would not be able to physically care for her child, (due to mobility issues), that I was strongly implying that her children should be taken away from her.

My answer is no, I do not think that anyone's children should be taken away from them unless they are being abused or neglected in some way. I don't see this woman any differently than I would anyone else. If she is indeed unable to physically care for her child at any point, then my hope is that some other adult can be a part of the household who can, so that they can all stay together.

If not, then I hope that the children would be with people they know (relatives or other), and not go into the foster care system, if possible.

Ok, so now I am off to read all of the posts I have missed all day!

P.S. Gemme, thanks for throwing out there what you thought I was saying since I couldn't post until now....you were right!

[Bit]

Yes, Dapper, that is what I thought you were saying. Thank you for clarifying!

[Soft*Silver]

yes....I just didnt state it clear enough. There are some people who would think that people with MS could not take care of their children. But, having MS is not reason for taking children away from them. One's physical ability does not make someone a bad parent. There are ways for that care to happen. A caregiver, another parent, a family member, etc...




Ok, so maybe I read this part all wrong?
:popcorn:


:daywalker:

[Gemme]

http://www.closeronline.co.uk/RealLife/Reallifestories/eating-my-way-to-72st.aspx

This woman is selfish. She obviously cares way more about getting her rocks off -which, to me, seems to be what it's all about - than she does about spending time with her children, and given the fact that she already has health issues directly related to her weight, she obviously doesn't care a shit about their future.

As to the working to pay for her food excuse, - I don't care how many hours a day she 'has' to work, the simple truth is that she obviously enjoys doing it rather than spending time with her daughter as otherwise, she wouldn't be doing what she's doing and wouldn't be relying on poor old Phillipe to 'do the things she can't' - what about the cost of her medical treatment, past and present, who's been paying/going to be paying for that? Again, she doesn't seem to care.

So, would I take her kid/s away from her? In a heartbeat. Womyn the world over have no choice but to work long hours in order to support their families. This woman works long hours simply because she wants to get her name in a record book and be famous, even if doing so means depriving her children of a mother? Please.

Words

Wow. Oh wow. Just......wow.

It's worse than I initially thought. :wtf:

Gemme said, "So, anyone who has the money should just hire a nanny and not have that one on one quality time with their children?"

*puzzled look* What is quality time? How do we define it? Is one required to dress a child for school in order to have quality time? Is one required to cook for that child to have quality time? What if one spends the time they have reading to a child, or helping a child with their spelling, or any of a hundred other things which show love but do not require physical activity?

Believe me, I remember the times my mother read to me WAY more fondly than the times she went shrieking and slamming through the house doing housework, and by kindergarten we were all perfectly capable of taking our own baths and dressing ourselves.

After reading both articles posted here for us, I have to honestly say that, at 1000 lbs, this woman is barely going to be able to BREATHE, much less read anyone a story. Even though there is another adult in their lives (thank goodness!), I don't think it's fair to rob the children of a mother. This woman will not be shrieking or slamming or reading to anyone. She will, at 1000 lbs, be bedridden and hugely troubled by physical issues or she will be dead. Period.

She weighs three times that. How did she get there? Surely she has the same hormonal imbalances that plague anyone who weighs three or four hundred pounds, right? Nobody gets that big just by eating; your hormones have to be out of whack for that kind of weight.

This was addressed earlier, but I appreciate you thinking of other alternatives other than personal gratification that would explain this woman's size and goal.

I have a very uncomfortable feeling that it's because she's visible. I have a very uncomfortable feeling that it's because she's trespassing on our culture's strongly-held stereotypes of proper womanhood, proper motherhood.

She's visible because SHE contacted the media. She announced her goal. No one else.

We do not actually know that her children are or will be unhappy or neglected in any way.

True. It is good that they have another trusted adult in their lives, even if he is an enabler to their mother.

I find it interesting that the people who dont see how destructive this is for the children, are people who dont HAVE children.

(non judgy..just an observation)

*raises hand*

I haven't any children either. :)

Now I know that I'm not the healthiest eater in the world, and I often eat too much, but just thinking that one person could eat this much in a typical day makes Me sick (I mean physically nauseated)

How can you eat that much in one day, seriously? :blink:

She didn't just wake up and eat thousands of calories in one day. She ate more and more, expanding her stomach and her appetite, until she reached where she is now. If she actually begins on this journey, and eats 12,000 calories per day, she will be eating per day what I eat in 9.28 days. :blink:

It freaks me out to think that we would want the government to take away her kids.


While there have been a few who mentioned the removal of the children, the vast majority of responses have not said that. I think that no one wants that to happen, but it is a possibilty if she didn't have Phillippe in her life. I think he, as the father of the toddler, will be able to help the kids. Hopefully, he will be strong enough to be the only parent, if she continues to attempt to reach her goal.

I like that they mentioned she feeds her daughter a healthy diet, so she does know the difference. As it's been pointed out several times, this is this woman's CHOICE. So sad.

I like the parallel that you draw between what this person is doing and a drug addict.
If we view her choice to eat this much (or the attention that she gets from eating this much?) as an addiction, would we view her husband as an enabler? (this one seems like a no brainer)
Would we view the feeder/gainer community that she is part of as culpable in helping her maintain her addiction? Is there a culture in the feeder/gainer community that celebrates this addiction?

Absolutely! He's a major enabler in a long line of them.

Good questions. I haven't known many Gainers, but those that I do and have known always kept their health in mind. They did eat for others' pleasure, but never to that extent. They still wanted to be able to "Get out and experience LIFE!"...direct quote...as well as their fetish.

I think that it's up to the gainer to determine what is right for them. I believe they have the ultimate control. It's their fetish, their body, their lives. But, I do believe that if it crosses over from the enjoyment of a fetish to a full blown addiction, I believe that that would not happen without the prodding of a feeder. It could easily be a shared addiction, like a shared hallucination. Both parties would feel like nothing was wrong, but the push and pull of their addiction would be out of control.

Are people who buy the Guiness Book of World Records or support the types of magazines and websites she is making money from culpable?

Not at all. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of records in those books. No one is going to buy one book at, what?, $50 bucks for one little entry.

I do agree that the media and enterprises through the media have some responsibility. It would surprise me greatly and impress the Hell out of me if the Guiness Book turned her down. Unlikely though.

I think as long as we as a society continue to be fascinated with people like this and continue to buy the books, we are encouraging people like her.

*nods*

To me, this is no different than Foot Binding (Making the woman reliant upon a man for everything AND unable to escape) which was also fetishized. See the correlation? Except this is now 2010 and the world has produced yet another woman who thinks she needs to subjugate her needs and those of her children for MEN.

OKAY! Maybe I just took that a bit too far, however, even in these times there are lots of religious sects who still espouse having lots of children and it's the womans job to take care of them, as though all of her worth poured out of her pussy till she's spent, then you know, just get another wife.

Women: We're disposable to others and unfortunately in this womans case, she seems to believe she is as well.

And hormones? Uh, yeah, I'm fat because I've got a "glandular problem". No, I'm fat because (pick some) I have mobility issues, I eat too much, I excercise too little, I can't help it, my body doesn't process carbs in the regular way... This woman is CHOOSING! She is saying I WANT THIS! She is stating very clearly WHY.

I have never been a binge eater, but I have at different times in my life been a purger. Many of us suffer from eating disorders of one kind or another, many of us have complicated relationships with food. MOST of us would NEVER CHOOSE to have a goal of completely disabling ourselves. She might be a food addict who is being heinously enabled, but I'm not a Doctor, I just play one online.

As far as being a mom? I'm in it to win it. Once I decided to bring my child into the world, he became my number one priority. This doesn't mean I didn't live my life the way I needed to, but it does mean that everything, including coming out was thoughtfully considered as to how it might affect him. Even now that he's an adult, I consider him and luckily, because of the way I raised him, he considers me too.

And also, if my child was younger and I was disabled to the point where I could not take care of him, I would want him in the care of someone else. Motherhood is not selfish, or it shouldn't be. I'm not saying it wouldn't be heartwrenching or devastating, but it would probably be the right thing, and hopefully, if I knew what was down the pike, I would make arrangements ahead of time to ensure he was cared for by someone I knew and trusted rather than leaving it up to strangers. If I was an addict of any kind, my actions would severely limit my choice in the matter.

I love this whole post, but the underlined part is my view of motherhood as well.


P.S. Gemme, thanks for throwing out there what you thought I was saying since I couldn't post until now....you were right!

Thanks!

[Cyclopea]

She's a model. Period. Because models are marketing their physical body they may do any number of things the average person would not do (some of which are unhealthy) to modify their asset and enhance its profitability. Same with anyone else whose body is their business- athletes, bodybuilders, laborers, etc. Laborers who work in hot environments may pop sodium tablets like candy. Professional wrestlers may take narcotics to enable them to work when badly injured. Bodybuilders may inject steroids. Athletes- all of the above and more. Should a Barry Bonds have his children removed from him because his steroid cocktails may eventually render him disabled?

Obese women working as models -and making a very nice living doing so- is nothing new and has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands of years. And there has always been a sexualized aspect to the marketability of fat women. There is no equivalent history of fat men being marketable.

What happened here is that an offhand comment Donna made -part of her sales pitch/fantasy creation- was reported and took off like wildfire. The reason is that the meme of "willfully fat" is one that provokes pleasing self-righteous outrage from not only thin people, but "less fat" people, and "struggling to lose weight" people who can all enjoy a nice round of bonding and reassurance over putting down the willfully fat addict gluttonous "not like us" freak.
Ms. Simpson just so happens to be astute enough to know how to cash in on this widespread social fantasy of "Not Fat Like Us". And people are willing to pay for this modeling of otherness. Big time. If society wasn't extremely invested in this fantasy, this meme would die a quick death in the "Guy In Indiana Smokes Four Packs A Day" file.

The funny thing is that Ms. Simpson's statements and her truth no longer matters, because the meme of "willful fatty" is much more marketable than her little truth. Millions will be made off it. I only hope she is smart enough to play along and get a few pennies herself for her troubles.
-------------------------------------------------------------
600-pound NJ mom Donna Simpson's quest to be heaviest woman on Earth just 'a fantasy for fans'

BY Maria Fugate
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, March 17th 2010, 7:50 PM

Hungry size 4 fashion models, eat your hearts out.

Six-hundred-pound Donna Simpson, 42, isn't what most people picture when they think of modeling, but that's exactly how the New Jersey mom makes
big money these days, according to ABC News.

The pale brunette with curly slicked-back hair is a successful model on Supersizedbombsells.com, a Web site for men who worship big women, ABC
News reports.

"I have fans who send me baklava and cheesecake and everything else you can imagine," says Simpson . "I'm heavy, and I wouldn't mind being heavier."

Simpson made headlines this week after the British newspaper Daily Mail reported that she was on a quest to gain 400 pounds and be named Guinness
World Records' fattest woman on Earth.

But Simpson, stay-at-home mom of a 3-year-old girl, says the Mail got it twisted, ABC News reported.

"The whole thing about the 1,000 pounds is a fantasy I provide to my fans," she tells ABCNews.com, irked about the story.

Still, at more than a quarter of a ton, she's a heavyweight any way you slice it — and her husband, Phillippe Gouamba, told ABC News.com he
stands behind her.

"I support her because I enjoy it," he said.

He's hardly alone. Plus-size models all around the world are getting a noticably bigger share of the pie these days — proudly appearing everywhere from designer rundays to print and TV ads and proving there's a market for much more than one skinny size fits all.

And you only have to look up BBW -- big beautiful women -- online to find a wide range of sites celebrating curvier examples of female beauty.

Though Simpson is not shooting for a record and insists she's healthy as she is, many plus-size women acknowledge they face health significant risks, ABC News.com reports.

Obesity increases the likelihood of heart disease, diabetes, hypertension and some types of cancers, the government says; First Lady Michelle Obama
recently announced she will make a battle against childhood obesity in the nation her top priority this year.

But Mikey Garcia, who owns Mikey's BBW (Big Beautiful Women) Club in Waterford, Mich., notes there are many unhealthy thin women too because
they are constantly dieting or smoking.

"Just because a woman is a bigger size doesn't mean she's not healthy," Garcia said, according to ABC News.com.

The women of Supersized Bombshells, many of whom were mercilessly ridiculed as children in school and still shunned by some, bask in the positive attention.

Priscilla Bell, 26, who tips the scales at a hearty 355 pounds, says modeling for men lets her to be herself — a self-confident young mom, ABC News.
com reported.

She says she gets hundreds of e-mails from appreciative fans every day, and makes about $600 a month from her postings.

"There are men who look at me and say I'm as beautiful as Tyra Banks or Heidi Klum," says Bell, whose best-selling video shows her cooking in the
buff.

Sounds like a lot more fun than a daily diet of spring water and undressed salad.

[Soon]

<snip> To me, this is no different than Foot Binding (Making the woman reliant upon a man for everything AND unable to escape) which was also fetishized. See the correlation? Except this is now 2010 and the world has produced yet another woman who thinks she needs to subjugate her needs and those of her children for MEN.

OKAY! Maybe I just took that a bit too far, however, even in these times there are lots of religious sects who still espouse having lots of children and it's the womans job to take care of them, as though all of her worth poured out of her pussy till she's spent, then you know, just get another wife.

Women: We're disposable to others and unfortunately in this womans case, she seems to believe she is as well.



I don't think you took it too far.

An article from Salon.com

Feederism: A sex kink tabloids won't touch (http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/03/16/fat_fetish_overweight_woman/index.html)
The Daily Mail's story about a morbidly obese woman still gaining weight ignores one salacious detail


excerpt:
......

A sex story that even the Daily Mail won't touch? It goes to show that despite our desire to be titillated through shock and horror, there are certain sexual subcultures that are truly forbidden. The piece briefly mentions that Simpson "runs a website where men pay her to watch her eat fast food," but it ignores the site's dark sexual undercurrents. The site, SuperSizedBombshells.com, shows her posing naked, in lingerie, wearing handcuffs and rubbing folds of her flesh against another obese woman. Men don't just "pay to watch her eat," they pay to get off.

Her site is but a small part of a thriving online community for fat fetishists. Simpson actually met her current partner on a dating site for fat admirers. Innumerable porn sites delight in big-bodied women and folds of excess fat; and some take it farther, specializing in video clips of women struggling to do aerobics or otherwise demonstrating how their weight has incapacitated them. (For $12, visitors can buy a video clip of Simpson "testing her mobility" in her underwear.) Then, there are sites that cater to feederists, who like to watch super-sized women eat, sometimes to the point of painful fullness. Often times, there is a male "feeder" who gives a female "feedee" fatty junk foods.

It isn't just the tremendous health risks of feeder porn that most find unsettling. Several months ago, an excellent Bitch magazine article (http://bitchmagazine.org/article/feast-of-burden)explained:

Feeders get off on the idea that their feedee might one day become too 'satisfied' -- and too obese -- to move, thus making them completely dependent on their feeder. It's an extreme manifestation of the idea that masculinity in men involves eroticized dominance over women.

It's that element of misogyny that makes extreme fat fetishism unpopular in the fat acceptance community.

[Cyclopea]

Six foot tall 115 lb models market themselves to the male gaze (and perfect women look like that- really!). Two girls one cup market themselves to the male gaze (and they were really into that hotness-slurpilicious! - really!). Women who can puke on command market themselves to male fetishists (and they love puking!-really!) The stripper at the corner bar markets herself to dudes that really think she is oh so into him as she puts her hand on his thigh for a buck (She's really into you! You're special!), Fat models market themselves to fat fetishists/feeders (She's so into it!). Entire cultures of women keep their faces covered because men are not responsible for their actions when faced with the "eroticism" of a female face and to do otherwise "invites" rape (the raped then punished by death for incitement). Nothing new. Not news.
The only thing unique and newsworthy about this story is fat fatty mcfatterson.

[suebee]

Six foot tall 115 lb models market themselves to the male gaze (and perfect women look like that- really!). Two girls one cup market themselves to the male gaze (and they were really into that hotness-slurpilicious! - really!). Women who can puke on command market themselves to male fetishists (and they love puking!-really!) The stripper at the corner bar markets herself to dudes that really think she is oh so into him as she puts her hand on his thigh for a buck (She's really into you! You're special!), Fat models market themselves to fat fetishists/feeders (She's so into it!). Entire cultures of women keep their faces covered because men are not responsible for their actions when faced with the "eroticism" of a female face and to do otherwise "invites" rape (the raped then punished by death for incitement). Nothing new. Not news.
The only thing unique and newsworthy about this story is fat fatty mcfatterson.

You had me right up to the "fat fatty mcfatterson". :|

[Cyclopea]

You had me right up to the "fat fatty mcfatterson". :|
hmmmm :|:|:|

[apretty]

You had me right up to the "fat fatty mcfatterson". :|

seriously, what was that.

[Cyclopea]

5 out of 1290 misunderstood my post. Not bad!
:)

[Gayla]

5 out of 1290 misunderstood my post. Not bad!
:)

The majority of your post made perfect sense and I imagine, like me, many nodded their heads in agreement. Until that ending part there. That part I don't understand.

[suebee]

5 out of 1290 misunderstood my post. Not bad!
:)

First, I think you've got your stats reversed.

Second, enough people on this site have been called one of those names to recognize it for what it was.

[Bit]

First, I think you've got your stats reversed.

Second, enough people on this site have been called one of those names to recognize it for what it was.

Sue, I think Cyclopea probably forgot the quotation marks... I think the name calling was the reference to the way the media has sensationalized the story--in other words, I think it was an attempt to say that this story is "news" only because the media is branding Donna with the equivalent of the name.

[Bit]

BY Maria Fugate
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, March 17th 2010, 7:50 PM

...........But Simpson, stay-at-home mom of a 3-year-old girl, says the Mail got it twisted, ABC News reported.

"The whole thing about the 1,000 pounds is a fantasy I provide to my fans," she tells ABCNews.com, irked about the story.

So it's just a tempest in a teapot, then? We've been going on for pages because the Daily Mail skewed the story to sensationalism?

Sheesh.

(Here's a link to the story Cyclopea posted, in case anyone wants it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/03/17/2010-03-17_plusplus_models_the_next_big_thing.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/03/17/2010-03-17_plusplus_models_the_next_big_thing.html) )

[Gemme]

So it's just a tempest in a teapot, then? We've been going on for pages because the Daily Mail skewed the story to sensationalism?

Sheesh.

(Here's a link to the story Cyclopea posted, in case anyone wants it.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/03/17/2010-03-17_plusplus_models_the_next_big_thing.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/03/17/2010-03-17_plusplus_models_the_next_big_thing.html) )


Maybe yes, maybe no. She wouldn't have 'people' for the media to go to if she wasn't somewhat responsible for it, I'd think.

Wouldn't be the first time, though, would it?

*wry grin*

Just as a few (myself included) said something about media and what it jumps on....we do the same....but I think the discussion has been good. It looks like everyone seems to be more concerned with the care of the children than anything, which is the most important thing to me.

[Rockinonahigh]

Every sence I have been readnig about this women who, imho,is seriously sick to be doing the things she dose.what she is doing to her health,her kids..now and in the future,is so irrisponsable.Just so she can tody up to a bunch of guys who are about as sick as she is.I gess she is getting something out of all thais but she has a very low opinion of herself to be doing this,wich is another thing the kids will be liveing with when they get older..I wonder if this will haveing them doing the same thing?

[suebee]

Sue, I think Cyclopea probably forgot the quotation marks... I think the name calling was the reference to the way the media has sensationalized the story--in other words, I think it was an attempt to say that this story is "news" only because the media is branding Donna with the equivalent of the name.


Ah. Well proper grammatical format is important after all in that case. N'est pas?

[Random]

Every sence I have been readnig about this women who, imho,is seriously sick to be doing the things she dose.what she is doing to her health,her kids..now and in the future,is so irrisponsable.Just so she can tody up to a bunch of guys who are about as sick as she is.I gess she is getting something out of all thais but she has a very low opinion of herself to be doing this,wich is another thing the kids will be liveing with when they get older..I wonder if this will haveing them doing the same thing?


Ummm.. why is this any different than any sex worker setting up a webcam and making her living letting people watch her?

Why is it sick? Just because I don't agree with a kink, doesn't mean it's sick...

[Rufusboi]

I don't know what to think of this story, but figured I'd share it with everyone to get your opinion on what this woman is doing to her body:


http://ca.lifestyle.yahoo.com/health-fitness/articles/family-health/yahoolifestyle/yahoolifestyle-woman_aims_for_1000_pound_weight_goal

Is this story true or an Internet hoax. My first thought it is a hoax, but I could be wrong.

Rufus

[Cyclopea]

Sue, I think Cyclopea probably forgot the quotation marks... I think the name calling was the reference to the way the media has sensationalized the story--in other words, I think it was an attempt to say that this story is "news" only because the media is branding Donna with the equivalent of the name.

Thanks Bit! I thought it was clear and I'm glad you understood. A bit defeating when all the thoughts and ideas in a post are discarded because of poor punctuation! Oh well, that's the internetz! Or maybe nothing else was interesting in my posts.
Thank you for not only "getting" what I meant, but taking the time to explain it to those who were confused, and especially for then commenting on the meat of one of my posts. :)
Oh- and posting the link too!

[Rockinonahigh]

Let me rephrase that...to me its sick because it is just somethig her kids will see and beleave its normal.If mom wants to be kinky I could care less and if she dosent care what her kids see being harmfull to her health,wich in time eating like this will cause her more misery than she will ever know..sufocation by fat is a hellish way to die.I have seen people die from this because they just ate them selves to death.In case u may think im average weight ,no im not,I tip the scales at 259 and am 5'5"..I did weigh near 300 after being hurt in an accident and being unable to get around much,so I know how easy it is to pack on the pounds.. im loseing it a bit everyday so I will be hear for a long time and healthy to boot.
Btw, I have dated women who were stripers and not one of them stayed in it long..the $$$$ was good but puting up with the other draw backs of the trade wasnt worth it in the long run.THe others that I know who are still in it are looking for a way out ...

[Bit]

You're welcome, Cyclopea. Thanks for posting the article; I wouldn't have found on my own, wouldn't even have known to look for it.

[suebee]

Thanks Bit! I thought it was clear and I'm glad you understood. A bit defeating when all the thoughts and ideas in a post are discarded because of poor punctuation! Oh well, that's the internetz! Or maybe nothing else was interesting in my posts.
Thank you for not only "getting" what I meant, but taking the time to explain it to those who were confused, and especially for then commenting on the meat of one of my posts. :)
Oh- and posting the link too!

Just a suggestion: Perhaps instead being cryptic, and letting another member explain for you, and never really taking the responsibility for clarifying your post yourself, you could just explain, or use quotation marks the next time. Using the words you did without being clear on your intent - hateful destructive words - reeks of sizism. In fact, I'd rate it right up there with a number of other words we don't use on this site. A little sensitivity goes a long way.

[Gentle Tiger]

I've been thinking about this article. I must confess that my thoughts have been all over road which is why I wanted to think this through. No doubt I will think some more after this post. And of course being the nerd that I am I had to read everything I could find because I wanted to try and understand.This has been a good discussion. I apologize if I am being redundant.

My emotions have ranged from sad to angry to frustrated to convicted to stunned to compassion. I was sad because she was making a self destructive choice. It would be different if she remained healthy as she pushes to 1000lbs. But she is experiencing the negative consequences of her actions. She is having to battle with the health issues. However she remains determined to pursue her goal. My reaction is a natural one for me - Why? What is behind her decision? What is driving her to say screw the consequences, this is what I want? None of us truly knows that. And it's too easy to simply call her selfish. I'm not saying that we ignore bad behavior or not hold individuals accountable. But let's be consistent.

I was angry because I didn't hear much of an outcry directed at her fiancee. I didn't hear or read much about him being a bad father or limiting his exposure to the children. After all isn't he enabling the addiction or whatever is driving her decisions to bring harm to herself? I was angry with those who support her sites. They too are contributing to her journey to self harm. Will they be supporting her when she is on the negative side of this journey? How sad it is that we as a society often find ways to benefit from another person's destruction.

And here's another question - How many of us CHOOSE do things that we KNOW will bring negative consequences? Yet we do it over and over again. We ignore what the Surgeon General says. We ignore what the "experts" say. (who are they anyway?) We boldly say by our actions - screw whatever <fill in the blank> says, I'm going to live my life. Do we lessen the salt, do the exercise, cut the soda, put down the alcohol, drive when we know we shouldn't because of lack of sleep or too much alcohol, text/yack on phone while driving? And the list goes on. Do we do the healthy/right stuff or do we by our actions say not today, I'm doing whatever I feel like. It's my right. But the immediate reaction what she's doing is different. I have to ask why, how? Because we see actions, her choices as more extreme? Who are to judge her?

These were things that hit me. What also stung me was the part about her physical exercise. I wasn't exercising at all either. And the bottom line truth is that my lack of action was a choice. The excuses were just that - excuses! So am I just as irresponsible as she is being? The truth is yes. Should I be denied raising my children (if I had any) because of such poor choices? I don't think so. So if I shouldn't why should she? Removing the children does not deal with the root cause. I guess it's an occupational hazard but I have to do a root cause analysis on everything to make sure the right areas are being addressed.

I know this takes the discussion off point a bit but I think we need to be careful and look at this from different angles. And if there is one, you know I'll find it. Even though we engage in self destructive behaviors on a regular basis (for those who don't fall into this category - you read with one eye so you know when it's safe to read with both later) we feel it is our right whether we have children or not. And the same is true when we choose to engage in behaviors that others think are not natural and they pull out some statistic or some manual to show proof that we should change. Some don't eat meat and believe it is a poor choice and bad judgment. We're harming our bodies. (obviously I don't believe this as I at Fudruckers yesterday - lol).

We weigh all the data and then we choose. This woman has chosen. It may not be our choice. It may be an unwise choice. But it is her choice. With choice comes consequences. Donna will have to deal with the consequences of her actions. And unfortunately in one way or another so will her children and fiancee. Maybe it's the pastor's heart that was hit as I read what I could find about Donna. I just want to make sure we're also taking a hard look at ourselves before we are so quick to judge.

And the biggest reason I was saddened - it took an extreme situation like this to really make me look at me.

I'll sit down now.

[suebee]

I've been thinking about this article. I must confess that my thoughts have been all over road which is why I wanted to think this through. No doubt I will think some more after this post. And of course being the nerd that I am I had to read everything I could find because I wanted to try and understand.This has been a good discussion. I apologize if I am being redundant.

My emotions have ranged from sad to angry to frustrated to convicted to stunned to compassion. I was sad because she was making a self destructive choice. It would be different if she remained healthy as she pushes to 1000lbs. But she is experiencing the negative consequences of her actions. She is having to battle with the health issues. However she remains determined to pursue her goal. My reaction is a natural one for me - Why? What is behind her decision? What is driving her to say screw the consequences, this is what I want? None of us truly knows that. And it's too easy to simply call her selfish. I'm not saying that we ignore bad behavior or not hold individuals accountable. But let's be consistent.

I was angry because I didn't hear much of an outcry directed at her fiancee. I didn't hear or read much about him being a bad father or limiting his exposure to the children. After all isn't he enabling the addiction or whatever is driving her decisions to bring harm to herself? I was angry with those who support her sites. They too are contributing to her journey to self harm. Will they be supporting her when she is on the negative side of this journey? How sad it is that we as a society often find ways to benefit from another person's destruction.

And here's another question - How many of us CHOOSE do things that we KNOW will bring negative consequences? Yet we do it over and over again. We ignore what the Surgeon General says. We ignore what the "experts" say. (who are they anyway?) We boldly say by our actions - screw whatever <fill in the blank> says, I'm going to live my life. Do we lessen the salt, do the exercise, cut the soda, put down the alcohol, drive when we know we shouldn't because of lack of sleep or too much alcohol, text/yack on phone while driving? And the list goes on. Do we do the healthy/right stuff or do we by our actions say not today, I'm doing whatever I feel like. It's my right. But the immediate reaction what she's doing is different. I have to ask why, how? Because we see actions, her choices as more extreme? Who are to judge her?

These were things that hit me. What also stung me was the part about her physical exercise. I wasn't exercising at all either. And the bottom line truth is that my lack of action was a choice. The excuses were just that - excuses! So am I just as irresponsible as she is being? The truth is yes. Should I be denied raising my children (if I had any) because of such poor choices? I don't think so. So if I shouldn't why should she? Removing the children does not deal with the root cause. I guess it's an occupational hazard but I have to do a root cause analysis on everything to make sure the right areas are being addressed.

I know this takes the discussion off point a bit but I think we need to be careful and look at this from different angles. And if there is one, you know I'll find it. Even though we engage in self destructive behaviors on a regular basis (for those who don't fall into this category - you read with one eye so you know when it's safe to read with both later) we feel it is our right whether we have children or not. And the same is true when we choose to engage in behaviors that others think are not natural and they pull out some statistic or some manual to show proof that we should change. Some don't eat meat and believe it is a poor choice and bad judgment. We're harming our bodies. (obviously I don't believe this as I at Fudruckers yesterday - lol).

We weigh all the data and then we choose. This woman has chosen. It may not be our choice. It may be an unwise choice. But it is her choice. With choice comes consequences. Donna will have to deal with the consequences of her actions. And unfortunately in one way or another so will her children and fiancee. Maybe it's the pastor's heart that was hit as I read what I could find about Donna. I just want to make sure we're also taking a hard look at ourselves before we are so quick to judge.

And the biggest reason I was saddened - it took an extreme situation like this to really make me look at me.

I'll sit down now.

Wow. Just wow.

[hippieflowergirl]

* food addicts cant quit. they have to figure out how to get the fix without getting high.

* food addicts are starving. they're trying to feed something that cant be sated with food.

* this isnt "news". it's us buying a product...sensationalism. it's candy and (the general) we are gluttons. news is a rare commodity and we dont see much of it when all is said and done.

* we're all dying. some people just know how.

[Apocalipstic]

I agree that if Donna were starving herself, it would not be an issue.

The issue is that the media and most people I know, including other fat people are fat phobic.

This is a news story because Donna is fat. Really fat, and not embarrassed about it.

[Selenay]

I agree that if Donna were starving herself, it would not be an issue.

The issue is that the media and most people I know, including other fat people are fat phobic.

This is a news story because Donna is fat. Really fat, and not embarrassed about it.

I think apocalipstic is completely right.

If this headline was, instead, "87 pound woman starving herself to be thinnest woman alive" we'd be having a hugely different conversation--even though many of the health risks (heart attack, weakness, inability to move) are similar for being hugely over or underweight.

[Andrew, Jr.]

I have mixed feelings on this topic. I am heavy. I have Diabetes, and have had a heart attack. I also have glaucoma, & floaters in my eyes. I have struggled for the last 8 years with my weight. I am judged every single day I am in public. I hate it. I am perceived as a fat person, and not a human being. There is a difference. The next time you go out in public, look around at those around you. Look at how they are starring at you. That speaks volumes.

As for this woman aimming to gain weight...for publicity. And she has children. That is not sitting well with me. :help:

[Random]

I agree that if Donna were starving herself, it would not be an issue.

The issue is that the media and most people I know, including other fat people are fat phobic.

This is a news story because Donna is fat. Really fat, and not embarrassed about it.

I don't know about that... Think about all the flack that thin *Stars* get for being too skinny...

I don't think people would be talking about having her kids removed if she was going for the record of being the most under weight...

[Rufusboi]

I've been watching the new Kirsti Alley show on A&E. There was drama leading up to her weigh in. The whole show is about her losing weight again. It turns out she only weighs 230lbs. To me, that is average. I don't know, but I was just amazed that all this fuss was being made about someone who is 230lbs. And then I thought how sad that the gossip mags say such horrible things about her and it is all related to her weight. As an actress she has to be about 110lbs and look emaciated to be "pretty." The whole show just reveals how sick our society is when it comes to women and weight and beauty. Rufus

[Gemme]

I agree that if Donna were starving herself, it would not be an issue.

The issue is that the media and most people I know, including other fat people are fat phobic.

This is a news story because Donna is fat. Really fat, and not embarrassed about it.



I think apocalipstic is completely right.

If this headline was, instead, "87 pound woman starving herself to be thinnest woman alive" we'd be having a hugely different conversation--even though many of the health risks (heart attack, weakness, inability to move) are similar for being hugely over or underweight.

I don't know about that... Think about all the flack that thin *Stars* get for being too skinny...

I don't think people would be talking about having her kids removed if she was going for the record of being the most under weight...

I agree with Random, mostly. Yes, we are a fat-phobic nation. Yes, this...in part...makes news because she is a larger person. Yes, I think that if someone made the announcement (whether only "for her fans" or not) that they wanted to lose so much weight that it would be unhealthy for them and put them in danger and their kids at risk of losing their mother, that the media would jump on it too.

I do think there tends to be more anger associated with this than there would be for someone going the opposite direction. Think "Oh, that poor woman! What is she trying to do to herself?" versus what has been said here about Donna.

To say, though, that someone with young children who still need their mother starving herself would 'not be an issue' cheats all of us and takes our humanity away. I'm an ass a lot of the time, I admit, but I don't like being tossed into a group of supposed non-feeling people so easily. That irks me.

Someone doing something harmful to their body is fine. It's their choice. Someone doing something that will kill them and will kill them IN FRONT OF THEIR CHILDREN, day by day, is extraordinarily sad and painful no matter if they are wasting away or eating themselves to death.

[Soft*Silver]

http://www.youtube.com/user/MuggleSam#p/u/78/fULtU2NfPQA

[Apocalipstic]

I don't know about that... Think about all the flack that thin *Stars* get for being too skinny...

I don't think people would be talking about having her kids removed if she was going for the record of being the most under weight...


I agree, I have never heard talk of removing people's kids for being too thin.

Too fat stuff makes me twitch.

[SuperFemme]

I've got nothing. :nothingtoadd:

[Apocalipstic]

I agree with Random, mostly. Yes, we are a fat-phobic nation. Yes, this...in part...makes news because she is a larger person. Yes, I think that if someone made the announcement (whether only "for her fans" or not) that they wanted to lose so much weight that it would be unhealthy for them and put them in danger and their kids at risk of losing their mother, that the media would jump on it too.

I do think there tends to be more anger associated with this than there would be for someone going the opposite direction. Think "Oh, that poor woman! What is she trying to do to herself?" versus what has been said here about Donna.

To say, though, that someone with young children who still need their mother starving herself would 'not be an issue' cheats all of us and takes our humanity away. I'm an ass a lot of the time, I admit, but I don't like being tossed into a group of supposed non-feeling people so easily. That irks me.

Someone doing something harmful to their body is fine. It's their choice. Someone doing something that will kill them and will kill them IN FRONT OF THEIR CHILDREN, day by day, is extraordinarily sad and painful no matter if they are wasting away or eating themselves to death.

Think about it this way?

My family had me on crazy diets starting at age 7. One after another.

I was not fat to start out with, but I sure am now.

Its OK that we don't agree about the kids being taken away, but we need a way larger pool of people with no food issues ready to help, if we start taking away the children of people with unhealthy eating issues. Wayyyyy more. And then, what if we remove them from their home and they are abused worse in the system, like so many are.

I just think its sad all around. The expecatations we have of other people, how children are treated, hormones and gross stuff in foods....all of it. Very depressing.

[Medusa]

I need to dig up an article because I seem to recall that Texas (?) had an initiative on the ballot a few years back about how people who were deemed "too fat" couldnt adopt or foster children.

Lemme see if I can find it

[SuperFemme]

Gary Stocklaufer weighs 500 pounds. He said a family court judge ruled this week that he wasn't fit enough to be an adoptive father."It's out-and-out discrimination," Stocklaufer said.Stocklaufer is a state-certified foster parent. He and his wife, Cynthia, had taken in baby Max from a cousin who couldn't raise him.

The couple also has an adopted son named Bobby.Stocklaufer said he and his wife wanted to formally adopt Max, so they went to family court and expected quick approval.They didn't get it.

"We had Max for three months. He was taken away around the 13th of last month," Stocklaufer said. "He means the world to us, and our world has been taken out from underneath of us."

Stocklaufer said his weight should remain immaterial to his being an adoptive father."I mean, if I'm able to be a licensed foster care parent and we've had lots of kids in this home, then why would I not be able to adopt my own cousin?" Stocklaufer said. "We tried to follow all the legal steps, not knowing my weight would ever be an issue."

The ruling has shaken the couple's faith in the state's system."We're hurt, sad, frustrated," Cynthia Stocklaufer said. "We've tried to raise our child to believe the justice system will work for you.""

"We understand they're out for the best interest of the child, but the state should not have this kind of authority," Stocklaufer said.

Coincidentally, the judge who ruled Stocklaufer unfit is the same judge who allowed the adoption of Bobby seven years ago.Meanwhile, Stocklaufer said he plans to continue fighting to get Max back.

A representative of the Jackson County Family court said she couldn't comment on the case because of children's privacy laws.

Late Thursday afternoon, the 16th Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri released a statement that said: "Missouri law restricts the disclosure of any information in adoption cases to very specific circumstances. Court files, records and information in adoption proceedings are closed and, aside from the parties in the case, can only be released by court order."

"The particular case that you are inquiring about is still an ongoing case. Additional proceedings may still occur in the case. While the petitioners are free to talk about the case, court personnel cannot discuss any of the facts involved in the proceeding."

"Under Missouri law, the court is required to consider the welfare and best interests of the child when determining whether or not an adoption should be approved, which is a complicated determination ... Factors to be considered include the petitioner's educational, financial, marital, medical and psychological status and criminal background check."

http://www.wmortv32.com/family/13767506/detail.html

[SuperFemme]

Here is a better breakdown of the story:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=3429655&page=1

[Bad_boi]

Wow. I support big girls but that is messed up. Its like reverse anorexia. I think it is for attention. Judging by the way she is in the GWRB and online for some kind of peep show. I think mabey she does not feel beautiful and wants all these men to see her as sexy so she feels good about herself. If that is the case she just needs a good guy who likes her for her, chubby chaser or not.

[Gemme]

Her story was on the daytime talk show The Doctors a while back. They were just as shocked as most of us.

[ScandalAndy]

I stumbled across this thread today while poking around looking for feeder/gainer support threads. For those of you who were following this, she's reached 700lbs. but the emphasis is still on the effect on her children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2011437/Worlds-fattest-mother-Donna-Simpsons-daughter-4-feeder.html

[EnderD_503]

I agree, I have never heard talk of removing people's kids for being too thin.

Too fat stuff makes me twitch.

I disagree with both of you and the comparisons made here about what would happen if a woman decided to try to become the most underweight woman on record. I would actually argue that society deems women who are anorexic and bulimic as more mentally and physically ill than a woman like the subject of this topic who is trying to achieve the 1000 lbs mark. Both anorexia and bulimia have been pathologized to a far greater extent than obesity as far as the medical community is concerned, in much the same way as self-mutilation and other inflictions of bodily harm and self-deprivation. If a mother were attempting to become the most underweight woman on record while also being the mother of young children, I honestly think they would have removed the children from her long ago and hospitalized her, because anorexia and bulimia are taken seriously as severe illnesses.

In comparison, something like excessive eating to the point of what this woman is trying to achieve is considered by society and medical community more along the lines of a "lifestyle choice" that someone has control over rather than a serious compulsion or illness. This is, of course, entirely the fault of society, its traditions and the way it has always deemed self-deprivation as a form of punishment on the body vs. over-indulgence as simply the inability to control "cravings." Of course, that is the result of a severe misunderstanding of why people either eat excessively or deprive themselves of food. But I do think it's dangerous to pit one against the other (overeating vs. bulimia/anorexia). Both are equally severe and its very important to recognise that, imo. But I see the opposite happen on this forum a lot when it comes to these discussions about weight. Because people have been hurt by society's negative stereotypes and behaviours towards those who don't fit the narrow social stereotype of "beauty," (here I mean that North American society seems to think that certain weights and body types are "more attractive" than others. It's totally wrong, imo, but don't know how else to express society's stereotypes/rigid perspectives that affect everyone negatively. Or even if we talk about methods of dress/self-presentation etc. Society always wants people to fit that rigid "role" that I think the queer community often defies.) they seem to exaggerate society's support for excessively thin women. Yet society is also extremely unkind to thin women, and I think it's wrong to assume that an anorexic woman wouldn't have her children taken away. In fact many anorexic mothers have had exactly that happen, because it was believed that their inability to feed themselves would negatively affect their ability to feed their children.

There is definitely a "range" that society has created, where people on either end, either "too thin" or "too big" get a lot of shit for being who they are and I don't think either side should be alienated from the other. Body image and negative social judgement is something both face perhaps more severely than other portions of the North American population, and should face together, imo.

[Sachita]

Not sure what I think either, I have issues around weight myself.

Several of the on line comments call for her children to be taken away. I guess this worries me most, are fat people going to start losing their children? What is the line?

Also, I must say that I have never seen an artcle or TV show where it mentions how much sushi someone can eat. Usually it is fried stuff. Just a random observation.

You don't wake up everyday thinking "How can I get fatter?" knowing that it can be a serious health risk. I am pretty sure its illegal to commit suicide and this looks like a clear case.

[Elijah]

The article states she is looking for a new "feeder" to take the pressure off her 4 year old daughter and this is what she says about that...

'He must be handsome, slim, and at least 10 years younger than me,' she says.


Interesting irony.

[ScandalAndy]

I love her, I think she's a superstar. I wish there weren't such negative connotations surrounding feeders/gainers. The media portrays sexualized and fetishized women all the time. Why is Donna any different? I wish I could be half as comfortable, at peace, and proud to be myself. I've recently come to realize that the only time I felt powerful and self-confident is when a feeder told me how the parts of my body were incredibly attractive to them. It's an amazingly empowering experience and I don't blame her at all for wanting to feel that way 24/7.

[nobelcarrot69]

Yowzzzza !!! Blink Blink

[ScandalAndy]

OOOOPS!! I have to print a retraction. The info I posted was outdated. As of August 2011 she has split with her fiance and is now trying to lose weight for the sake of her children. Her goal weight is 370 lbs.

She also has shut down her website and is turning it into a more family-oriented site with a blog. Interesting. Thoughts?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donna_Simpson_(internet_personality)

Official Website (http://officialdonnasimpson.com/)

[Starbuck]

Well damn, that's still a hefty gal, but it's a heap better than a 1,000 pounds! :blink:

[Soft*Silver]

You don't wake up everyday thinking "How can I get fatter?" knowing that it can be a serious health risk. I am pretty sure its illegal to commit suicide and this looks like a clear case.


so is smoking, consuming too much sugar and salt and having a diet loaded up in fast foods in general. Whats the limit of whats ok and not ok? Who are we to point fingers when in America, its ok to eat a bacon loaded double cheeseburger loaded with creamed dressings?

[EnderD_503]

so is smoking, consuming too much sugar and salt and having a diet loaded up in fast foods in general. Whats the limit of whats ok and not ok? Who are we to point fingers when in America, its ok to eat a bacon loaded double cheeseburger loaded with creamed dressings?

And that's the problem, I guess. At one point is it ok for medical professionals to call for intervention? Is there or should there be a difference between interference in the lives of those who are anorexic/bulimic and those who overeat to the extent that this woman does? Over here the government implements "sin taxes" on cigarettes and alcohol, largely because of the added stress those who fall ill due to excess of the above place on the health care system. Should similar taxes be placed on foods with higher risk of high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes etc for a similar reason? If the government does not provide health care services, should the government still be intervening in the lives of those who endanger their own health through whatever means? Or should it be entirely the individual's decision? And if it is, then does that mean that the government should not intervene in the instance of attempted suicide?

Personally, I do believe that everyone should have the ability to do with their own bodies as they please no matter how harmful it is, as long as they are not harming others. Though if they are at a higher risk of cancer, diabetes etc. due to their own consumption of products that place them at higher risks, I don't have anything against the implementation of "sin taxes."

But reading this woman's website that was posted here, it seems she's decided to lose weight in order to improve her health and to be better able to take care of her children. It seems as though she is now taking the stance that her goal was not entirely a result of trying to promote body positivity, but due to her own negative experiences with body image and family members trying to shame her for not fitting the stereotypical Western idea of "beauty." Interesting case anyways. I don't think it's entirely black and white, that's for sure.

[Cin]

Over here the government implements "sin taxes" on cigarettes and alcohol, largely because of the added stress those who fall ill due to excess of the above place on the health care system. Should similar taxes be placed on foods with higher risk of high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes etc for a similar reason? If the government does not provide health care services, should the government still be intervening in the lives of those who endanger their own health through whatever means? Or should it be entirely the individual's decision? And if it is, then does that mean that the government should not intervene in the instance of attempted suicide?

Though if they are at a higher risk of cancer, diabetes etc. due to their own consumption of products that place them at higher risks, I don't have anything against the implementation of "sin taxes."


Personally rather than taxes on high risk foods I would love to see healthy food subsidized somehow. Or at least sold cheaper. You can get buy 1 get 2 free bags of chips but fruits and veggies cost an arm and a leg. It's almost too expensive to eat healthy. And imagine a large family.

[Soft*Silver]

this woman has only decided to lose weight because family doesnt want her to be a burden on them, and she is complying. Her website states IF she finds someone who wants her heftier, she would start the process all over again. So in other words, she will do whatever it takes to be taken care of. Period.

dependency is dependency is dependency....

[EnderD_503]

Personally rather than taxes on high risk foods I would love to see healthy food subsidized somehow. Or at least sold cheaper. You can get buy 1 get 2 free bags of chips but fruits and veggies cost an arm and a leg. It's almost too expensive to eat healthy. And imagine a large family.

I wouldn't mind seeing both happen, really. I do think that taxation and warning labels do help raise awareness. Even if people still smoke with the labels and taxes on cigarettes, people are still aware of the fact that it causes cancer, yet I used to have so many clients who didn't know the negative effects of junk food.

this woman has only decided to lose weight because family doesnt want her to be a burden on them, and she is complying. Her website states IF she finds someone who wants her heftier, she would start the process all over again. So in other words, she will do whatever it takes to be taken care of. Period.

dependency is dependency is dependency....

Can you point to the precise passage where she says this and link it? I've read through her main website and blog and everything I read is along the lines of:

I’d like to share something personal with the world. I recently split with my fiancée of five years and moved with my two children back to my home town in Ohio. This life changing move made me realize something important. The health and welfare of my family was always my priority and they were well taken care of by my ex. Now that I have sole responsibility of taking care of my children, I must drastically change my lifestyle. Most people see me as a woman who became famous for wanting to gain weight while the rest of the world was trying to slim down. This was true as I was in a relationship that was based on a fetish that exists only in a fantasy.

I have only myself to blame for the position I am currently in and I must now face the greatest challenge of my life. In order for the people I love most to have a happy and healthy life; I must regain my emotional and physical well-being. This won’t be easy and I cannot accomplish this on my own. To reach the goals I’ve set for myself, it will be necessary to have a support team to guide me through this process.

In her blog she says very similar things. She seems to a) want to make sure she's there for her children, b) recognises that in order to be there for her kids she needs to regain emotional and physical well-being. So her concern seems to be both for her children and her own well-being first and foremost. If she was someone who was just look for the next person she could be dependent on I don't think she'd be saying things like "I have only myself to blame for the position I am currently in and I must now face the greatest challenge of my life."

[Soft*Silver]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/30/worlds-fattest-woman-donna-simpson-diet_n_934444.html#s361581

'According to a post on her website, Simpson says family concerns were the main reason behind her decision.

"Now that I have sole responsibility of taking care of my children, I must drastically change my lifestyle," she wrote. "Most people see me as a woman who became famous for wanting to gain weight while the rest of the world was trying to slim down. This was true as I was in a relationship that was based on a fetish that exists only in a fantasy."

Despite reports that she weighed as much as 730 pounds, Simpson says her peak weight was 600 pounds. However, the stress of moving to Ohio caused her to lose 60 pounds.

Now her plan is to lose another 170 pounds to get to a goal weight of 370 pounds.

"That is, unless I meet someone who wants me to be heavier," she said. "I need to lose enough weight so I can do things for myself, like get out of showers."'