Woman aims for 1,000 pound weight goal

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

So only she is at fault?

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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]

Originally Posted by June

...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...

[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...

Originally Posted by Daywalker

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

[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?

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]

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

[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...

Originally Posted by Daywalker

Ok, so maybe I read this part all wrong?

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Words

http://www.closeronline.co.uk/RealLi...y-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.

Originally Posted by Bit

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.

Originally Posted by 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)

*raises hand*

I haven't any children either.

Originally Posted by Braedon

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?

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.

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

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.

Originally Posted by Medusa

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

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*

Originally Posted by June

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.

Originally Posted by DapperButch

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]

Originally Posted by June

<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
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 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Cyclopea]

Originally Posted by cybersuebee

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

hmmmm

[apretty]

Originally Posted by cybersuebee

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]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

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]

Originally Posted by Cyclopea

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.