Woman aims for 1,000 pound weight goal

[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.

[UofMfan]

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.

I agree. I think there lies the real problem.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[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]

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.

Originally Posted by Selenay

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.

Originally Posted by Random

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.

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Gemme

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.

[Soft*Silver]

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

[Apocalipstic]

Originally Posted by Random

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.

[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

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by Apocalipstic

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.