Woman aims for 1,000 pound weight goal

[Soft*Silver]

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

Originally Posted by Gemme

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]

Originally Posted by softness

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.

Originally Posted by Medusa

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.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by softness

"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.

Originally Posted by DapperButch

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]

Originally Posted by softness

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]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

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.

Originally Posted by DapperButch

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]

Originally Posted by Bit

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.

[Daywalker]

Originally Posted by June

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.




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.

[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...

[Daywalker]

Originally Posted by softness

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.

[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

[LadyFlamezzz]

Originally Posted by Daywalker

Thank You Juney.




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.

there is No comparison baybee!

[Bit]

Originally Posted by June

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.