Woman aims for 1,000 pound weight goal

[Sachita]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 The info I posted was outdated.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_S...t_personality)

Official Website

[Starbuck]

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

[Soft*Silver]

Originally Posted by Sachita

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]

Originally Posted by Miss_Tia

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]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

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]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

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.

Originally Posted by Miss_Tia

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/2011/0...4.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."'