Woman aims for 1,000 pound weight goal

[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]

Originally Posted by 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??

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]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

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]

Originally Posted by NJFemmie

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?

[UofMfan]

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?

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

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by UofMfan

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Random]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...

[Soft*Silver]

http://www.youtube.com/user/MuggleSa...78/fULtU2NfPQA

[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]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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]

Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow

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?

[Soon]

Originally Posted by apocalipstic

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]

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.