# Marie Claire: "Fatties Get a Room".. wtf



## 1300 Class (Oct 27, 2010)

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ent...ammed-over-fatties-tirade-20101028-174eh.html


> Women's magazine Marie Claire is facing an internet firestorm after publishing an article about the repulsiveness of overweight actors kissing on television.
> 
> Under the title 'Should Fatties Get a Room (Even on TV)?' Marie Claire writer Maura Kelly expressed her disgust at the prospect of watching the two lead characters on new US sitcom Mike & Molly embrace on screen, complaining the show promoted obesity.
> 
> Kelly, a freelance writer, admitted she hadn't watched the show but said the prospect of it was sickening.


Heres the offending article: http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/dating-blog/overweight-couples-on-television#comments

Disgusting frankly.


----------



## frankman (Oct 27, 2010)

Australian Lord said:


> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ent...ammed-over-fatties-tirade-20101028-174eh.html
> 
> Heres the offending article: http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/dating-blog/overweight-couples-on-television#comments
> 
> Disgusting frankly.



It goes blahblahblah. Ad nauseum.


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Oct 27, 2010)

Fatshionista!.com post on the subject.

Fatshionista thread on the subject, from the Livejournal community.


----------



## Christov (Oct 27, 2010)

They can get a room.

With me.


I am so unqualified to wade into these serious threads.


----------



## superodalisque (Oct 27, 2010)

the writer just sounds like a miserable hateful thing. hope she finds some happiness with her life soon. she is clueless.


----------



## Dromond (Oct 28, 2010)

*ahem*

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79065


----------



## FrancescaBombshell (Oct 28, 2010)

My thoughts exactly..



superodalisque said:


> the writer just sounds like a miserable hateful thing. hope she finds some happiness with her life soon. she is clueless.


----------



## blazon (Oct 28, 2010)

And the apology.....? For real? She had to have taken the time to re-read, edit, etc. If she really felt that way she wouldn't have posted that trash in the first place. Was that the best they could do? I'm disappointed!


----------



## MozelleBomb (Oct 28, 2010)

I have never seen the show. I assume the writer has a right to her opinion even though it is offensive as heck. In turn I don't think I would like to watch two anarexic people making out or anything past that. I believe it is a great thing to show real people on TV. Television needs diversity. Many thin people are unhealthy. I have been big my whole life. My mother gets very emotional about my weight. She feels or just "knows" I am unhealthy. I routinely get my blood tested for diabeties and cholesterol. Blood pressure and whatever other unhealthy thing she comes up with. My doctor tells me I am healthier then many of her "normal" weight patients. My mother has also told me she thinks I am too comfortable with myself and that she wished I stayed home and didn't go to clubs and out so much. The fact is she is uncomfortable with my comfort in myself. This is me and I am happy in my skin. :batting:


----------



## Sydney Vicious (Oct 28, 2010)

I'm shocked that the editor didn't read that and feel any sort of red flag. How can her 'apology' be taken seriously???? It's blatantly a 'sorry (that I got told I can't wrote things like this b.c it's rude, fatty)'

I won't be buying Marie Claire any more. ever.

It's people like this writer that were the bullies in high school that made us 'fatties' feel horrible. Shame on the writer, I hope her momma reads that article and tells her she was raised better than to act like this.


----------



## Rowan (Oct 28, 2010)

i saw that too and im sorry but that bitch who is writing a fucking dating column because her stupid, likely ugly ass cant get one (write about what you dont know and all) really pissed me off earlier today when i first saw this. I saw a pic of that bitch who wants to think she has an opinion, and nasty cant hold a damn candle to most the women here who "gross" her out. FUCK HER

sorry...that ho made me growly


----------



## toni (Oct 28, 2010)

This is such a blatantly hateful article. I am shocked and appalled that sort of trash made it to publication.


----------



## Jes (Oct 28, 2010)

I can't know what the author thinks of other American shows with fat male leads b/c I haven't read her opinions on those, but I do think it telling that we have King of Queens and similar programs with fat husbands and hottie wives. But she picks on this show which has a fat male lead AND a fat female lead. KnowwhatI'msayin'?


----------



## LovelyLiz (Oct 28, 2010)

I don't remember whether I read this in another thread here, or somewhere else, but that article is so blatantly messed up and hateful that I almost wonder whether it was put in on purpose, to give some sensationalized publicity to Marie Claire (honestly, who gave one f*ck about that magazine last week?). 

Theory: Now they can do some size celebration issue 2 issues from now (that they've already been planning for a year) and show how they've amended their ways AND increased readership and notoriety!


----------



## Jes (Oct 28, 2010)

I want to know why she hates romance novels! I read her phrase 'heroine addicted' and laughed out loud. If you're writing a think piece and you can't write OR think, then...that's 0 for 2.

I can't believe this entire thing, start to finish. That it was put on a blog, I mean. She obviously has many demons of her own, and that whole 'now don't get me wrong, I have some plump friends!' is the OLDEST and LAMEST trick in the book. I mean, hell, I have some Latino friends. Why, there's one outside mowing my grass right now!

Do we know that obesity costs most than cancer? Really? How exactly do we know that? And if someone has actually compiled numbers of some kind, does anyone really think this woman is a Rhodes Scholar and can read medical literature? SHe's so flip about it AND about the in-the-middle-of-the-article-parenthetical-qualifier weight-loss tips she gives, as though her readers are so desperate for her help that they can't even move on to the next paragraph without her kind promise of salvation!

And the apology is, by far, the worst I've ever read, in a variety of ways. She completely misses the point of what she's saying. It's not that she's included spurious data, used offensive language, put too much of her own demons in her article and used a realllly terrible writing style. No, that's not it. It's that she should have been more kind about how hard it is for fat pigs, who need to look better to get laid in a non-offensive way, to lose weight, which clearly they are all, or SHOULD all be, trying to do THIS INSANT.

So weird. Honestly. The entire thing boggles the mind. Is no one vetting anything at MC online?


----------



## Oldtimer76 (Oct 28, 2010)

Rowan said:


> i saw that too and im sorry but that bitch who is writing a fucking dating column because her stupid, likely ugly ass cant get one (write about what you dont know and all) really pissed me off earlier today when i first saw this. I saw a pic of that bitch who wants to think she has an opinion, and nasty cant hold a damn candle to most the women here who "gross" her out. FUCK HER
> 
> sorry...that ho made me growly



I also read the article and have the same feelings, Rowan. "I find it aesthetically displeasing" to even read this, actually:doh:
People like her gross ME out!


----------



## AuntHen (Oct 28, 2010)

I wanted to remind this lady that "Roseanne and Dan Connor" were making out and having "moments" on *Roseanne *long before this show...*both fat *and it was one of the highest rated and most loved TV shows! She is absurd..I mean really! 


Dan Connor was hot by the way!


----------



## LJ Rock (Oct 28, 2010)

It seems to me that _editor_ of Marie Claire is as much to blame for this offense if not more than the so-called "journalist" in question. Clearly the woman writing the article has issues, and it seems like not only should the editor be the one in such a scenario to maintain some kind of sense and integrity in saying "this material will be offensive to people, it is inappropriate for a respectable publication," but also should NOT have been the one to apparently prompt this "clueless" individual to be doing an article about fat people on television.



> "The other day, my editor asked me, "Do you really think people feel uncomfortable when they see overweight people making out on television?"
> Because I can be kind of clueless  I'm not much of a TV person  I had no idea what she was talking about, so she steered me to this CNN article, about the CBS sitcom Mike & Molly."



What good could possibly have come of this? Not to sound like some sort of conspiracy theorist, but there is more to the story in here somewhere (I suppose there always is.) Could well be that the inevitable ensuing outrage was intentional and completely by design; someone hung this chick out to dry.

I haven't seen _Mike and Molly,_ I have idea whether the show "promotes obesity" or not (probably not.) That aside, this is just a poorly written article by a poor excuse of a writer with a shoddy-at-best editor. Welcome to journalism in 2010.


----------



## PeanutButterfly (Oct 28, 2010)

fat9276 said:


> I wanted to remind this lady that "Roseanne and Dan Connor" were making out and having "moments" on *Roseanne *long before this show...*both fat *and it was one of the highest rated and most loved TV shows! She is absurd..I mean really!
> 
> 
> Dan Connor was hot by the way!



This is what confuses me. I've watched many episodes of Roseanne, I love that show :wubu: but when it first came out I was too young to watch it. Can some of the older Dimmers help me out? Did Roseanne receive the same amount of negative feedback that Mike and Molly seems to be generating? Is it because there were significantly less fat people in the '90s? Or has the world in general become more fat phobic in the last 15 years?


----------



## indy500tchr (Oct 28, 2010)

PeanutButterfly said:


> This is what confuses me. I've watched many episodes of Roseanne, I love that show :wubu: but when it first came out I was too young to watch it. Can some of the older Dimmers help me out? Did Roseanne receive the same amount of negative feedback that Mike and Molly seems to be generating? Is it because there were significantly less fat people in the '90s? Or has the world in general become more fat phobic in the last 15 years?



not even close. society has become increasingly more fatphobic.


----------



## Cynthia (Oct 28, 2010)

PeanutButterfly said:


> Did Roseanne receive the same amount of negative feedback that Mike and Molly seems to be generating?



I don't recall a lot of negative responses to the Roseanne show. One big difference, I think, is that weight wasn't really a focal point for that sitcom. Dan and Roseanne didn't go to OA meetings, meditate on their body size, or talk about diet and exercise any more than other people. It was more like, "Yeah, they happen to be fat, big deal."


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Oct 28, 2010)

Cynthia said:


> I don't recall a lot of negative responses to the Roseanne show. One big difference, I think, is that weight wasn't really a focal point for that sitcom. Dan and Roseanne didn't go to OA meetings, meditate on their body size, or talk about diet and exercise any more than other people. It was more like, "Yeah, they happen to be fat, big deal."



And that's what I loved most about the show, the fact that they were just fat and it wasn't an issue. Nor do I ever remember the kids having an issue like "will I get fat because my mom and dad are fat?" The only thing I recall from the show that was slightly body-size related was when Roseanne had breast reduction surgery, so her character did, too. At the end of the show, she was hugging Dan in the kitchen, he tried to grope her boobs, and she had to move his hand to where her bustline had moved, saying, "they're higher now."

I do recall, however, reading some fat-hating speech directed at John Goodman in a British music rag, either Melody Maker or NME, in the early '90s, when Roseanne was in its last seasons. Either Melody Maker or NME ran an article about American television in which they praised Roseanne Barr for her weight loss (by the show's last seasons, she did weigh less than when it started, although I don't recall the show addressing the issue), and completely hated on John Goodman for gaining weight. They made some hateful comments about his acting ability dwindling as his body size grew, which I thought was completely unnecessary. I don't recall ever seeing anything like that written about the show's stars in an American media publication.


----------



## hugesue (Oct 28, 2010)

I have not read the article and I am not going to based on all the comments here. I agree that it was probably a publicity stunt. Doesn't matter who they tick off as long as it increases sales.
I will say one thing - I LOVE "Mike & Molly". I love it that the fat people are the sane ones! The skinny characters (Molly's mom and sister and Mike's mom) are NUTS. That is my opinion anyway - and you know what they say about opinions!


----------



## spacedcowgirl (Oct 28, 2010)

PeanutButterfly said:


> This is what confuses me. I've watched many episodes of Roseanne, I love that show :wubu: but when it first came out I was too young to watch it. Can some of the older Dimmers help me out? Did Roseanne receive the same amount of negative feedback that Mike and Molly seems to be generating? Is it because there were significantly less fat people in the '90s? Or has the world in general become more fat phobic in the last 15 years?





indy500tchr said:


> not even close. society has become increasingly more fatphobic.



This is my take also. Certainly fat people didn't have it easy in the '80s or before, and Roseanne (the actress and the character) was the butt of fat jokes, but this whole tiresome business of acting like fat people are "promoting" anything just by existing, and the pants-peeing five-alarm obesity freakouts, have gotten worse over time IMO.

It's funny, the show was pretty groundbreaking at the time for portraying working class not-Hollywood-perfect characters, but I don't even think it could get on the air now. Just when I think we're making progress...


----------



## frankman (Oct 29, 2010)

spacedcowgirl said:


> This is my take also. Certainly fat people didn't have it easy in the '80s or before, and Roseanne (the actress and the character) was the butt of fat jokes, but this whole tiresome business of acting like fat people are "promoting" anything just by existing, and the pants-peeing five-alarm obesity freakouts, have gotten worse over time IMO.
> 
> It's funny, the show was pretty groundbreaking at the time for portraying working class not-Hollywood-perfect characters, but I don't even think it could get on the air now. Just when I think we're making progress...



This is patently untrue. The only reason Roseanne still has reruns is the fact that it's pretty much timeless (except for the hairdo's). A show as well-written as Roseanne would get viewers no matter what the main characters look like, because they don't focus on the fatness.

What is happening in sit-com world, is that they think the US audience is getting exponentially dumber. They insulted the world with Will and Grace. It's a miracle there were actual gay people who liked that crap. They take a topic that is slightly relevant and cram out half a season of the least offensive jokes the general public could hope for and call it controversial.

TV won't touch real controversy. Not enough smart people to watch it.

This will all blow over as soon as they cancel the show, which mark my words they will do soon. Unless this whole fuss creates a hype for the show, maybe even get some national TV news time. That'll work just as well.

Your justified anger is insuring crap TV's future.


----------



## LovelyLiz (Oct 29, 2010)

frankman said:


> *This will all blow over as soon as they cancel the show, which mark my words they will do soon.* Unless this whole fuss creates a hype for the show, maybe even get some national TV news time. That'll work just as well.
> 
> Your justified anger is insuring crap TV's future.



Even tho I support the movement, I kind of do hope they do cancel the show soon. It's a very poorly written show with lowest-common-denominator humor and (completely unfunny) fat jokes. While it's great to see fat people on TV, this show is just not funny. 

Roseanne worked, in part, because she was a hilarious stand-up comedienne already in her own right - and the other writers and contributors were great too. Are there any super talented, fat stand up comediennes rocking the scene now? If so, they should get a show. If not, I am going to become a stand-up comedienne.


----------



## spacedcowgirl (Oct 29, 2010)

frankman said:


> This is patently untrue. The only reason Roseanne still has reruns is the fact that it's pretty much timeless (except for the hairdo's). A show as well-written as Roseanne would get viewers no matter what the main characters look like, because they don't focus on the fatness.
> 
> What is happening in sit-com world, is that they think the US audience is getting exponentially dumber. They insulted the world with Will and Grace. It's a miracle there were actual gay people who liked that crap. They take a topic that is slightly relevant and cram out half a season of the least offensive jokes the general public could hope for and call it controversial.
> 
> ...



Um, I love "good TV" as much as the next person, but if you think good writing, an interesting concept, and good character development is enough to keep a show on the air for more than a few seasons, then I guess you must believe that _Pushing Daisies_, _Arrested Development_, _Veronica Mars_, _Angel_, _Firefly_, _Freaks and Geeks_, _Huge_... (should I continue? OK, just to beat my own personal bitter dead horse, _Andy Richter Controls the Universe_ and _Andy Barker, P.I._) were all canceled just because they were bad.

Also, your statement "TV won't touch real controversy. Not enough smart people to watch it." is exactly why I think _Roseanne_ would not be successful now. I think that even though the show did not make the characters' weight a central focus, society certainly would in a way that they did not back when the show was actually on. If the show made it on the air I think it would still have a very strong following, as in many ways it IS timeless, but I question the networks' willingness to open themselves up to criticism and accusations of killing our children with TEH OBESITEES from the likes of MeMe Roth--just by putting something like _Roseanne_ on the air in the first place in our current social climate.

I think we are actually saying almost exactly the same thing, so I'm not sure why you're angry at me. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Please note also that I don't work in the television industry and have no power to determine which shows get on the air. I watch the ones I think are good and they either get canceled or they don't. The days of my beloved _Fringe_ seem to be numbered...


----------



## RVGleason (Oct 29, 2010)

frankman said:


> This will all blow over as soon as they cancel the show, which mark my words they will do soon.



Apparently, you didn't get the memo:

http://www.fanbolt.com/headline/9563/CBS_Orders_Full_Seasons_Of_Five_New_Shows


----------



## frankman (Oct 29, 2010)

spacedcowgirl said:


> Um, I love "good TV" as much as the next person, but if you think good writing, an interesting concept, and good character development is enough to keep a show on the air for more than a few seasons, then I guess you must believe that _Pushing Daisies_, _Arrested Development_, _Veronica Mars_, _Angel_, _Firefly_, _Freaks and Geeks_, _Huge_... (should I continue? OK, just to beat my own personal bitter dead horse, _Andy Richter Controls the Universe_ and _Andy Barker, P.I._) were all canceled just because they were bad.
> 
> Also, your statement "TV won't touch real controversy. Not enough smart people to watch it." is exactly why I think _Roseanne_ would not be successful now. I think that even though the show did not make the characters' weight a central focus, society certainly would in a way that they did not back when the show was actually on. If the show made it on the air I think it would still have a very strong following, as in many ways it IS timeless, but I question the networks' willingness to open themselves up to criticism and accusations of killing our children with TEH OBESITEES from the likes of MeMe Roth--just by putting something like _Roseanne_ on the air in the first place in our current social climate.
> 
> I think we are actually saying almost exactly the same thing, so I'm not sure why you're angry at me. Maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Please note also that I don't work in the television industry and have no power to determine which shows get on the air. I watch the ones I think are good and they either get canceled or they don't. The days of my beloved _Fringe_ seem to be numbered...



1) Am not angry at you
2) Angel had plenty of seasons. I liked it, but it had a pretty successful run.
3) Plenty of sitcoms with fat characters. King of Queens and that one show with James Belushi come to mind.
4) Veronica Mars is awesome.
5) I am really not mad. I can't stress this enough.


----------



## frankman (Oct 29, 2010)

RVGleason said:


> Apparently, you didn't get the memo:
> 
> http://www.fanbolt.com/headline/9563/CBS_Orders_Full_Seasons_Of_Five_New_Shows



Plan B, then.


----------



## spacedcowgirl (Oct 30, 2010)

frankman said:


> 1) Am not angry at you
> 2) Angel had plenty of seasons. I liked it, but it had a pretty successful run.
> 3) Plenty of sitcoms with fat characters. King of Queens and that one show with James Belushi come to mind.
> 4) Veronica Mars is awesome.
> 5) I am really not mad. I can't stress this enough.



Gotcha, I took your comments personally whereas I probably should have realized they were simply an expression of frustration with the current state of television.  (You're right about Angel too, I thought about that after I posted)

I'm pretty sure there is a sexist angle to the whole issue of there being fat men on television, and that flies under the radar as long as they have thin wives... I also think the MeMe Roth style hysteria has gotten worse in the last 5 years or so, so something premiering now is under more scrutiny. I could be wrong about all of this, just an impression I have.


----------



## rmjpub (Nov 1, 2010)

In the New York Post today, the entertainment editor said she agreed with the comments, and if anyone wanted to see it there would be fat porn stars...never seen THIS forum has she? :doh:


----------



## LovelyLiz (Nov 1, 2010)

rmjpub said:


> In the New York Post today, the entertainment editor said she agreed with the comments, and if anyone wanted to see it there would be fat porn stars...never seen THIS forum has she? :doh:



Well, she's clueless...because even outside of this forum, there are TONS of fat porn stars.


----------



## LovelyLiz (Nov 1, 2010)

Here's the link to the NY Post Article (blog entry?):

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/tv/big_fat_truth_bXRJotpVNXW4PwNgoCPSkL


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Nov 1, 2010)

mcbeth said:


> Roseanne worked, in part, because she was a hilarious stand-up comedienne already in her own right - and the other writers and contributors were great too. Are there any super talented, fat stand up comediennes rocking the scene now? If so, they should get a show. If not, I am going to become a stand-up comedienne.



On the rare occasions when I've watched Last Comic Standing, I've seen a few fairly funny fat women comics. They're still working to get their break so they haven't really 'made it' yet, but let's hope they make it soon. There's a black woman stand up comic who I've seen a few times on Comedy Central... not Mo'Nique... I can't think of her name at the moment, but she's very size positive and usually pretty damn hilarious. And of course there's Lisa Lampinelli, who I don't usually find all that funny. Her particular brand of comedy is so blue, it wouldn't translate well to a sit-com at all.

I'm also a fan of Dawn French, who is one of the funniest fat women comics from the UK. She wrote and starred with comic Jennifer Saunders in the French & Saunders show, which debuted on BBC tv in 1987 and continued to run into the '90s. They still periodically get together for French & Saunders tv specials, and were also the voices for Miss Spink and Miss Forcible in Henry Selick's film Coraline. French also had the comedic starring role in the British sit-com The Vicar of Dibley, which aired until 2007. French also starred as The Fat Lady (in the painting) in the Harry Potter movie, The Prisoner of Azkaban. She's been happily married to her husband since 1984.

Dawn French & hubs.







French & Saunders as Amy Winehouse and Britney Spears.


----------



## indy500tchr (Nov 1, 2010)

thirtiesgirl said:


> She's been happily married to her husband since 1984.



Don't think so.... http://www.rtvchannel.tv/the-fat-lady-dawn-french-divorces-lenny-henry-after-25-years/

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71481&highlight=dawn


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Nov 2, 2010)

Ah, bummer. I hadn't heard she'd gotten divorced. Well, she's doing what's best for her.


----------



## joswitch (Nov 2, 2010)

Australian Lord said:


> http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ent...ammed-over-fatties-tirade-20101028-174eh.html
> 
> Heres the offending article: http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/dating-blog/overweight-couples-on-television#comments
> 
> Disgusting frankly.



Moral of the story:

Editors - do not allow an anorexic to write an opinion piece on anything to do with other people's bodies.

That is all.


Also:
"Internet firestorm" = lolz!


----------



## Prince_Of_Ravens (Jan 2, 2011)

I'm not big on conspiracy theories (I know Paul isn't dead and I know that the USS Eldridge did not instantly travel from Philadelphia Harbor to Norfolk Virginia in 1943) but it seems to me that over the last few years journalism in general has been sliding toward tabloidism. I'm wondering if the article wasn't actually published specifically to generate this kind of response. Everybody knows how popular scandal is. Sells more copies, gets more people talking, "the only bad publicity is NO publicity", etc. The fact is that there are and will always be narrow-minded people that have disgusting opinions and unsavory ideas and all we can do is try to prevent the spread of such ignorance.

And if that sounds paranoid, well....Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after me!"


----------



## 1love_emily (Jan 3, 2011)

1) A Journalism Degree - what a piece of CRAP blog. I don't care what degree she may actually have, but her writing SUCKS. I'm a senior in high school in AP Classes, and I can write better. She needs to know what is important and needs to be talked about. And if she wants to hate on the majority of the people in this country, she needs to be a better writer, at least.

2) A Deep Fried Twinkie - maybe when she can start enjoying some food, she can start seeing why we're "fatties" and why were okay not changing. 

Why do people EXPECT overweight people to just want to up and change? I don't want to change. I don't feel like working out or eating salad. I want a goddamn cheeseburger and some fries and ice cream.


----------



## mithrandirjn (Jan 5, 2011)

This is the kind of thing that disgusts me.

I can understand wanting to promote healthy ways of living and lifestyles. There's nothing offensive or wrong about that, and it's obviously a big deal on this board that a person should strive for health regardless of weight. 

But this kind of BS is awful; it's not about "not wanting to promote obesity", it's about wanting to say that fat people should be treated differently and ostracized due to their weight. It's saying "sitcom couples kiss and hug all the time, but these two are fat, so they're not allowed due to how they look".

Does the writer even understand how close she is to promoting...well, c'mon, do I even have to say it? Discrimination based on looks. Apply to anything kind of "look" you don't like, I guess: weight, skin color, body shape, maybe you don't like people who wear glasses, blah blah blah. Does she realize that's essentially what she's saying?

And I can only think of two factors that could be driving the writer here. Either A) we "shouldn't promote obesity", and instead make anyone fat think that nobody will ever love them or want to be intimate with them, as that will somehow work and not drive millions to depression instead, or B) "Ew, </insert "non-normal" looking group here>! I don't want to see them on my TV, get them off!".

Either way, what a vile mindset.


----------



## imfree (Jan 5, 2011)

mithrandirjn said:


> This is the kind of thing that disgusts me.
> 
> I can understand wanting to promote healthy ways of living and lifestyles. There's nothing offensive or wrong about that, and it's obviously a big deal on this board that a person should strive for health regardless of weight.
> 
> ...



In this day and age when everything is permissible, it's considered morally reprehensible for a fat couple to physically express love!?!?! WTF!?!?!? Some people must really believe that fat people have no right to live or be loved. :doh: That kind of thinking is really morally reprehensible.


----------



## Mikey (Jan 31, 2011)

I think Billy Gardell gave the perfect response!

http://www.tvsquad.com/2011/01/31/m...e-claire-critici/?ncid=wsc-tv_replay-watchnow


----------



## Lamia (Jan 31, 2011)

It's hate speech pure and simple and should not be tolerated.


----------



## Mikey (Feb 2, 2011)

Lamia said:


> It's hate speech pure and simple and should not be tolerated.



I agree 150%!!


----------



## Blackhawk2293 (Feb 2, 2011)

superodalisque said:


> the writer just sounds like a miserable hateful thing. hope she finds some happiness with her life soon. she is clueless.



You wish her happiness? Why? Let her wallow in her misery.


----------



## mithrandirjn (Feb 3, 2011)

Blackhawk2293 said:


> You wish her happiness? Why? Let her wallow in her misery.



If she actually finds happiness, her vile mindset will potentially brighten up.

People who make awful statements like this tend to be miserable in some way, even if it's deep down, and can't find enough joy in their own lives. Thus, they seek to stamp out joy in others' lives. 

Maybe if she finally found some inner-happiness, she wouldn't be so bitter and spiteful, and, worse, influencing others to think like her.


----------

