# What happened to Posh (Scary)Spice?



## Pearlover90000 (Jun 11, 2007)

I'm sure you all saw Posh spice on the red carpet last week---in the mini--and the catsuit---as one of the spice girls--I'd say "Scary" indeed


----------



## Letiahna (Jun 11, 2007)

She looks terrible. No envy here.


----------



## Raider X (Jun 11, 2007)

Yeah, I think she's too skinny!


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jun 11, 2007)

I thought this was for looking at pictures of hot *fat* women (and men).


----------



## elle camino (Jun 11, 2007)

yeah frankly this is just as lame as some other board posting pictures of chubtype girls in the public eye and railing on them for being fatasses. 
and personally, when people are making fun of me for my weight, the last thing i'm thinking to myself is 'wow, i want to be just like these guys!'
thumbs down.


----------



## TCUBOB (Jun 11, 2007)

Ummmm....I'll take "Pictures that don't belong on the Weight Board" for $500, Alex.

Oh, look....it's the Daily Double!!!!

Now if someone could just get HER a daily double......cheeseburger.....STAT!!!


----------



## Surlysomething (Jun 11, 2007)

she looks like Skeletor


----------



## mossystate (Jun 11, 2007)

I don't think anything 'happened'. I think...ummm...she is skinny...yeah...that's it.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jun 12, 2007)

elle camino said:


> yeah frankly this is just as lame as some other board posting pictures of chubtype girls in the public eye and railing on them for being fatasses.
> and personally, when people are making fun of me for my weight, the last thing i'm thinking to myself is 'wow, i want to be just like these guys!'
> thumbs down.



I'm going to have to agree.
Based on what I see, however (If I wished to make a call on what I think of her physically: She's sa'right.


----------



## kioewen (Jun 12, 2007)

elle camino said:


> yeah frankly this is just as lame as some other board posting pictures of chubtype girls in the public eye and railing on them for being fatasses.



Typical misconception. You see this kind of thinking parroted on so many size-related boards, and it's always wrong. Why? Because these anorexic celebrities (Posh is just one example) have been proven, in study after study, to prompt young women to develope eating disorders. That is not the case with images of full-figured celebrities.

So the notion that one ideal is just as bad as the other is false, no matter how much some people wish it weren't. The grim fact is that the underweight ideal is harmful, while the curvy ideal is not.


----------



## Breakfiend (Jun 12, 2007)

Since when did they make a bronze statue of posh? Seriously though she is encouraging anorexia looking like that. We want women not bone bags, I could go on a paleontalogical(dino) dig and find healthier things than her in the rock.


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 12, 2007)

kioewen said:


> Typical misconception. You see this kind of thinking parroted on so many size-related boards, and it's always wrong. Why? Because these anorexic celebrities (Posh is just one example) have been proven, in study after study, to prompt young women to develope eating disorders. That is not the case with images of full-figured celebrities.
> 
> So the notion that one ideal is just as bad as the other is false, no matter how much some people wish it weren't. The grim fact is that the underweight ideal is harmful, while the curvy ideal is not.


 
Fun with assumptions!! 

That isn't a misconception. It is in equally poor taste when other sites post pictures of, say, Kelly Clarkson and talk about how much weight she's gained. and how unhealthy that is. Bullshit, right? Obviously nonsense. Same thing, no matter how you try to spin it. 

An otherwise mentally healthy woman DOES NOT develop an eating disorder just because she sees Posh looking slim. If someone has the predisposition to EDs, and a whole slew of other emotional factors, images of very thin women will trigger them, yes. But the correlation isn't as simple as you make it sound. Unless you're a woman (or man) who has suffered through an eating disorder and yours was brought on solely by a glimpse of Lindsay Lohan's hipbones, then you can't say.

*"The grim fact is that the underweight ideal is harmful while the curvy ideal is not."* 

I'm not sure how to even approach a sentence which is nothing but hyperbole. First of all we know nothing of Victoria Beckham's health, or the health of anyone that we would, from appearance alone, call "underweight". And saying "curvy ideal" is just too vague. You realize that your sentence could easily be reversed and then parrot the same thing that we hear in the media every day. Watch:

"The grim fact is that being overweight is harmful while the slender ideal is not."

Both sentences are incorrect, unproven, make too many assumptions, and alienate most people.

The bottom line is that health cannot be determined by looking at someone's shape. On Dims we support fat acceptance, so how would it sound if I said that the ideal here is obviously unhealthy? What if I said that it has "been proven in study after study" that being overweight is dangerous to your health? You'd have my hide, and for good reason. 

We're here for acceptance. If that means that we only accept our own and talk shit about people who fall into a different category, then we might as well all go home now because we're hypocrites.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jun 12, 2007)

Quote one of those studies. As someone with an eating disorder, I'd love to see it. Doesn't have to be a net link, just an article I can look up at the local library is just fine.

Strawman argument here: "Well, if we treat thin people as attractive, we'll encourage eating disorders." Think about that. Wouldn't having heavier celebs encourage "obesity epidemics?" I mean, same logic, and for every McCall's *opinion* column written about how having thin stars that weigh less than the author is driving young girls to eating disorders, I can find an *opinion* article about how anyone who carries ten lbs. or more than the author is a big fat evil pig eating herself to her grave. (Seriously, look at the weight of the author. Almost always going to base their opinions on their own weight and they are almost all high end average weight women.)



kioewen said:


> Typical misconception. You see this kind of thinking parroted on so many size-related boards, and it's always wrong. Why? Because these anorexic celebrities (Posh is just one example) have been proven, in study after study, to prompt young women to develope eating disorders. That is not the case with images of full-figured celebrities.
> 
> So the notion that one ideal is just as bad as the other is false, no matter how much some people wish it weren't. The grim fact is that the underweight ideal is harmful, while the curvy ideal is not.


----------



## TCUBOB (Jun 12, 2007)

I do think it is valid to object to her pic being posted on the Weight Board where, one would assume, you're going to see pics of attractive people who are actually visible when they turn to the side. I think that's where some of the posters were going.

That said, anyone who used the opportunity to make judgments about her health or impact on anyone other than themselves should probably shut their pie hole. Because that's like Bill Frist "diagnosing" Terri Schiavo from a freakin' videotape. Only less credible because A) it's a still pic and B) I don't know that anyone here is a world-class heart surgeon, much less plays a doctor on TV. 

Unless Hugh Laurie has started cruising Dims in general and this thread in particular. Which would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cool. Because Hugh Laurie is the bomb, yo!



Waxwing said:


> Fun with assumptions!!
> 
> That isn't a misconception. It is in equally poor taste when other sites post pictures of, say, Kelly Clarkson and talk about how much weight she's gained. and how unhealthy that is. Bullshit, right? Obviously nonsense. Same thing, no matter how you try to spin it.
> 
> ...


----------



## dodo (Jun 12, 2007)

Not.

She's a lollipop.


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 12, 2007)

dodo said:


> Not.
> 
> She's a lollipop.



Thanks for keeping up with the conversational trend, dude. 




You know, it's fine if you don't find her attractive. But (and I'll repeat myself until someone GETS IT), it is just as inappropriate for us to talk shit about the skinny girl as it is for other people to talk shit about the fat girl.


----------



## Jes (Jun 12, 2007)

I don't get it.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 12, 2007)

I don't think it's cool to make fun of her. 

I do agree that these images of ultra-thin actress and models are psychologically damaging to women and men. People are influenced by what they see and these images reinforced over and over again as the ideal of female beauty cannot be healthy. 

I've always stressed in these types of conversations that fat and thin in extremes are unhealthy. There is only so much punishment the human body can take. I read even Keira Knightly was recently quoted in an interview, and I'm paraphrasing here, was upset to learn the anorexic subculture was using her as thinsperation and realized there was a problem.


----------



## GWARrior (Jun 12, 2007)

TCUBOB said:


> Unless Hugh Laurie has started cruising Dims in general and this thread in particular. Which would be waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay cool. Because Hugh Laurie is the bomb, yo!



If Hugh was here at Dims I would wet my pants from excitement. and then proceed to cyber stalk him. :wubu: 

mmmmmm Huuuggghhh. :eat2: :eat2: :eat2:


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 12, 2007)

Jack Skellington said:


> I've always stressed in these types of conversations that fat and thin in extremes are unhealthy. There is only so much punishment the human body can take. I read even Keira Knightly was recently quoted in an interview, and I'm paraphrasing here, was upset to learn the anorexic subculture was using her as thinsperation and realized there was a problem.



You're right, but the problem is that we can't know who actually engages in anorectic behavior just by looking at them. Extremely thin doesn't always equal anorexia, just as fat doesn't always equal COE. The issue is that it is a matter of taste, and some people prefer the stick-like and some the more ample. It's a mistake to infer anything about a person based on the size of their pants. 

It's just a dangerous road, and if we expect, no, demand, to be treated with respect, the onus is upon us to extend that respect to everyone else.

The object of my wrath still has not responded. And it may seem like I'm looking for an argument, which, i guess, I kind of am.


----------



## TCUBOB (Jun 12, 2007)

So chuck wrath and use your drunken elegance to seduce the boss-crush. Grab some bagels and tell him you want to play ring toss. Or give him that winning Waxy smile. Or do that thing where you <whisper whisper whisper> with your hand and then <whisper whisper> American flag and <chuckle whisper> bat eyes seductively followed by the <gesture whisper> while the kazoo player does that thing. You know. That thing.



Waxwing said:


> You're right, but the problem is that we can't know who actually engages in anorectic behavior just by looking at them. Extremely thin doesn't always equal anorexia, just as fat doesn't always equal COE. The issue is that it is a matter of taste, and some people prefer the stick-like and some the more ample. It's a mistake to infer anything about a person based on the size of their pants.
> 
> It's just a dangerous road, and if we expect, no, demand, to be treated with respect, the onus is upon us to extend that respect to everyone else.
> 
> The object of my wrath still has not responded. And it may seem like I'm looking for an argument, which, i guess, I kind of am.


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 12, 2007)

Yes, the silly is good, but seriously this topic pisses me off.

And it would do even more so if I hadn't had a 3 martini lunch (or the beer equivalent).


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jun 12, 2007)

I think what Waxy's getting at is, that if we acknowledge the healthy, normal women who weigh 300-400 lbs., then can't we at least acknowledge the healthy, normal women at 100-110 lbs.?


----------



## TCUBOB (Jun 12, 2007)

*<focuses calming thoughts on Waxwing, though he knows it will do no good>*


----------



## TCUBOB (Jun 12, 2007)

Sure, why not? Though I will say that she does not appear healthy in that second picture. But I am not a doctor and don't play one on TV, so I can't and won't judge her. I'm just giving an opinion. And her legs look like bony toothpics.

And again, I'll wonder why we are obsessing over skinny chicks on the WEIGHT BOARD? Though I guess it is not called the "Heavyweight Board," or the "Overweight Board," or the "You Must Be This Heavy to Ride this Ride" Weight Board.



TheSadeianLinguist said:


> I think what Waxy's getting at is, that if we acknowledge the healthy, normal women who weigh 300-400 lbs., then can't we at least acknowledge the healthy, normal women at 100-110 lbs.?


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 12, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> I think what Waxy's getting at is, that if we acknowledge the healthy, normal women who weigh 300-400 lbs., then can't we at least acknowledge the healthy, normal women at 100-110 lbs.?



Thin can be healthy. Fat can be healthy. But not in extremes. Like what I mentioned in the immobility discussion awhile back, there is obviously a point when your size will damage your health. The extreme thin is the other side of that unhealthy coin. 

Again, thin can be good. Thin can be beautiful. Thin can be healthy. But obviously not when taken to such extremes. You don't have to be a doctor to realize when seeing a picture of a model or actress that has become so thin that they look like concentration camp victim they have crossed that line. Same with a woman that is so large she is immobile and covered in bed sores and her skin has broken down. 

That is not healthy (or attractive) in either case.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jun 12, 2007)

Jack Skellington said:


> Thin can be healthy. Fat can be healthy. But not in extremes. Like what I mentioned in the immobility discussion awhile back, there is obviously a point when your size will damage your health. The extreme thin is the other side of that unhealthy coin.
> 
> Again, thin can be good. Thin can be beautiful. Thin can be healthy. But obviously not when taken to such extremes. You don't have to be a doctor to realize when seeing a picture of a model or actress that has become so thin that they look like concentration camp victim they have crossed that line. Same with a woman that is so large she is immobile and covered in bed sores and her skin has broken down.
> 
> That is not healthy (or attractive) in either case.



Those extremes are still subjective.
We all remember the man on the Brook Haven Obesity clinic who at 700 lbs experienced no health problems beyond immobility.
The person that was posted: She's thin, but I've yet to see any of the people insulting her take out her body statistics and determine how much she weighs and how she lives her life. For all I know it could very well be one of her natural builds (Because most humans have mixed builds instead having a concrete level of being "Ectomorphic" or "Mesomorphic for example). Not all of these hollywood models are starving themselves to thiness. You can't know of a person's behavior based on their weight.
I agree with Waxwing and SDL. Reverse sizeism is still sizeism. There's a tactful way of expressing your opinion, but it doesn't involve posting a picture to be berated.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jun 12, 2007)

She's on the cusp of "too thin," agreed. 



Jack Skellington said:


> Thin can be healthy. Fat can be healthy. But not in extremes. Like what I mentioned in the immobility discussion awhile back, there is obviously a point when your size will damage your health. The extreme thin is the other side of that unhealthy coin.
> 
> Again, thin can be good. Thin can be beautiful. Thin can be healthy. But obviously not when taken to such extremes. You don't have to be a doctor to realize when seeing a picture of a model or actress that has become so thin that they look like concentration camp victim they have crossed that line. Same with a woman that is so large she is immobile and covered in bed sores and her skin has broken down.
> 
> That is not healthy (or attractive) in either case.


----------



## Totmacher (Jun 12, 2007)

I think i can say with reasonable certianty that she's too thin for me. Maybe we should post this on the main board and take a poll?


----------



## Ivy (Jun 12, 2007)

fxck that, i think she is beautiful. people can be beautiful at any size and i think Victoria looks better than ever. i wouldn't want her body, but for her it is great.


----------



## Mini (Jun 12, 2007)

About the only time I can I can judge someone's health based on a picture is when their head is separated from their body by more than three feet. Not much of a leap to think that they're under the weather.

Posh? She's cute. Not my type. Hope she's healthy, at least to the extent that I give a shit about a completely irrelevant pseudo-celeb's health.

File this one under "Who gives a shit?" and eat a sandwich. You'll feel better in 10.


----------



## Ruby Ripples (Jun 12, 2007)

I am SICK of the sight of Victoria Beckham. She is everywhere in magazines, even on my freakin yahoo home page most days. I honestly thought Dimensions was one place I could avoid her!!


----------



## exile in thighville (Jun 13, 2007)

elle camino said:


> yeah frankly this is just as lame as some other board posting pictures of chubtype girls in the public eye and railing on them for being fatasses.
> and personally, when people are making fun of me for my weight, the last thing i'm thinking to myself is 'wow, i want to be just like these guys!'
> thumbs down.



yeah, thank you. i know i've said the same thing here before. you don't fight fire with fire to combat discrimination, people.


----------



## exile in thighville (Jun 13, 2007)

kioewen said:


> Typical misconception. You see this kind of thinking parroted on so many size-related boards, and it's always wrong. Why? Because these anorexic celebrities (Posh is just one example) have been proven, in study after study, to prompt young women to develope eating disorders. That is not the case with images of full-figured celebrities.
> 
> So the notion that one ideal is just as bad as the other is false, no matter how much some people wish it weren't. The grim fact is that the underweight ideal is harmful, while the curvy ideal is not.



what's your point? the same one that blonde psycho made about jordin sparks being a bad role model for kids? let the fucking celebrities live their own lives and either go to med school or worry about yourself. and your "grim fact" undercuts that this is not a board of "curvy" folks.


----------



## TCUBOB (Jun 13, 2007)

I took a second look at that picture, and I'm revising my previous statement. There could be absolutely nothing wrong with her, health-wise. She just looks a little too.....bony...for me. 

And here's the thing: I'm not an FA. Do I like my women a little heavier than the norm? Yes. But it's more of a "I don't want to caress bones and silicon" than "I must have a big fat chick" 

But she still looks scary skinny to me. But that's Hollywood, I guess. And she has a right to be whatever weight she wants, no excuses, no criticism. Except for the normal female cattiness about her being too thin or having fat ankles or yeah, well I hear she's had work done or whatever.


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 13, 2007)

TCUBOB said:


> I took a second look at that picture, and I'm revising my previous statement. There could be absolutely nothing wrong with her, health-wise. She just looks a little too.....bony...for me.
> 
> And here's the thing: I'm not an FA. Do I like my women a little heavier than the norm? Yes. But it's more of a "I don't want to caress bones and silicon" than "I must have a big fat chick"
> 
> But she still looks scary skinny to me. But that's Hollywood, I guess. And she has a right to be whatever weight she wants, no excuses, no criticism. Except for the normal female cattiness about her being too thin or having fat ankles or yeah, well I hear she's had work done or whatever.



Bob, you're doing just what you were speaking out against. It doesn't matter what we think of her. I don't care if she's too thin or too fat or blue or green. And it's none of our business.


----------



## Jes (Jun 13, 2007)

If you don't all stop equating her worth, attractiveness, health level, importance, bony-ness, xyz to whether or not she looks good enough to you to make you want to bone her, i swear to god, every last one of you is going to be on my List. Do you understand me? Do you?


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 13, 2007)

Jes said:


> If you don't all stop equating her worth, attractiveness, health level, importance, bony-ness, xyz to whether or not she looks good enough to you to make you want to bone her, i swear to god, every last one of you is going to be on my List. Do you understand me? Do you?



Want I do or do not find attractive is of absolutely no importance and doesn't factor into this. I don't want to "bone" anyone at this point. That's not what this is about for me.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jun 13, 2007)

Jes said:


> If you don't all stop equating her worth, attractiveness, health level, importance, bony-ness, xyz to whether or not she looks good enough to you to make you want to bone her, i swear to god, every last one of you is going to be on my List. Do you understand me? Do you?



You're next on the Objectification List, missy. Don't even try to weasel out of it.


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 13, 2007)

Jes said:


> If you don't all stop equating her worth, attractiveness, health level, importance, bony-ness, xyz to whether or not she looks good enough to you to make you want to bone her, i swear to god, every last one of you is going to be on my List. Do you understand me? Do you?



Can we merge our lists? I'll fax you mine.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 13, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> Can we merge our lists? I'll fax you mine.



I sure hope I'm on these lists because if I'm not annoying or offending people, I'm just not doing my job. Don't want my spite to lose its edge after all.


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 13, 2007)

Jack Skellington said:


> I sure hope I'm on these lists because if I'm not annoying or offending people, I'm just not doing my job. Don't want my spite to lose its edge after all.



Well, you're not on mine, but if it means a great deal to you I can add you as an honorary member. I can *pretend* that I hate you.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jun 13, 2007)

Yeah, I'm late to commenting on this, but I pretty much agree with what Elle and Jes and Waxwing have said.

Size Acceptance should mean refraining from commenting on people's size and furthermore, it should mean refraining from attaching any suspected qualities or behaviours onto a person you don't know based just on their size. If you see a fat person, they are not necessarily lazy, sloppy, unhealthy or overindulgent. A skinny person is not necessarily eating disordered or "scarey" looking. Everyone is entitled to his or her own taste, but the fact that a particular woman does not fall into your "approved" category doesn't mean she isn't beautiful or that there is something wrong with her.

And for the record, I also am tired of the terminology of "needing" to lose/gain weight or being "too fat/skinny." Those comments are really open ended; if you need to lose or gain weight it is for a reason. i.e. "She needs to lose weight to fit into a certain size dress" or "she needs to lose weight prior to surgery" or "he'd need to gain weight to shop at Casual Male XL." 

By the same token, if you are a size 14, you'd be "too thin to wear a size 20" or "too fat to be a ballet dancer" but I don't agree with the idea of calling somebody just plain "too thin" or "too fat."


----------



## mossystate (Jun 13, 2007)

TCUBOB said:


> Except for the normal female cattiness about her being too thin or having fat ankles or yeah, well I hear she's had work done or whatever.





Yeah, like the feMALE cattiness of the OP... 

Your cute lil sexism is showing.


----------



## dodo (Jun 13, 2007)

Jes said:


> If you don't all stop equating her worth, attractiveness, health level, importance, bony-ness, xyz to whether or not she looks good enough to you to make you want to bone her, i swear to god, every last one of you is going to be on my List. Do you understand me? Do you?



Hi,

If I tried to "bone" her, she'd just end up "boning" me.

Love,

d


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jun 13, 2007)

LoveBHMS said:


> Yeah, I'm late to commenting on this, but I pretty much agree with what Elle and Jes and Waxwing have said.
> 
> Size Acceptance should mean refraining from commenting on people's size and furthermore, it should mean refraining from attaching any suspected qualities or behaviours onto a person you don't know based just on their size. If you see a fat person, they are not necessarily lazy, sloppy, unhealthy or overindulgent. A skinny person is not necessarily eating disordered or "scarey" looking. Everyone is entitled to his or her own taste, but the fact that a particular woman does not fall into your "approved" category doesn't mean she isn't beautiful or that there is something wrong with her.
> 
> ...



+1!!!! I'm all about opinion expression, but this is honestly no better than what society does.


----------



## dodo (Jun 13, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> **quote removed due to text having been changed**



Couldn't be done without your help.

Much appreciated,

d


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 13, 2007)

dodo said:


> Hi,
> 
> If I tried to "bone" her, she'd just end up "boning" me.
> 
> ...



keep trying. you'll say something clever one of these days. chin up.


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 13, 2007)

dodo said:


> Couldn't be done without your help.
> 
> Much appreciated,
> 
> d



Well, this one took more effort, but it's still puerile and unfunny.

I think it's time for you to go away now. Thanks!

Love,
w

edited to add that now that the misquote was fixed I'm less steamed. which is too bad, because i enjoy being steamed.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jun 13, 2007)

dodo said:


> Couldn't be done without your help.
> 
> Much appreciated,
> 
> d



You're rapidly crossing a line. No one says, "Well, you MUST be attracted to thin women and admit they're all the epitome of health!" Robert Anton Wilson had an expression, "I'll tolerate your hobbies if you tolerate mine." Want to be accepted for your preferences? Ever notice the most successful FAs and fat people are well-liked, nice people who respect differences even if they don't enjoy them?


----------



## activistfatgirl (Jun 13, 2007)

Maybe there's something I'm missing. While I agree with waxwing, tsl, and others that what we want here is to stop objectifying and categorizing bodies as its anti-size acceptance. It's come up a lot here. 

Whenever someone posts someone very then, inevitably people will comment "ew! gross" or "I just don't think that's attractive" or further down the line "totally not doable". 

Then people---mostly women---respond saying that this is not what this site is for, we're about acceptance of our size regardless of where we're at. And they're right.

However, I'm growing awfully tired of people not being allowed to openly comment on a thin frame and talk about attraction. This is only place in the world many of us get a chance to say "you know, that's really not attractive to me". It is okay for people to be reacting with a certain amount of "ew" to Victoria's picture because in this particular community we're wired a bit differently.

I'm really thankful for some of the smaller ladies who are more attuned to the thin female embodiedment issues and will step up to defend that size as part of the all sizes are good if you're happy spectrum. However there are times that I feel like we're not allowed to speak our mind and our attractions freely. 

It was nice for a second to look at her and say, "you know what? i don't want that, nor do I find that the least bit attractive" and not feel like that wasn't an enlightened enough response.

Sometimes our responses having to do with sexual attraction don't have to be so complex. So debated. So highly nuanced. I guess I'm just tired. I want to say she's too skinny and move on about my day. So I just did. Sorry.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Jun 13, 2007)

That's fine to think she's gross. I don't see the point of droning on about it or being rude about it. If some guy said, "Well, I think all women below 500 lbs. are gross and slaves to the diet industry! Look at this gross woman below 500 lbs.! She's not a real woman!" people would go apeshit. Rightfully. Just because it's the dominant paradigm doesn't excuse outright being an ass. What's the point of putting a skinny woman image on the weight board just to say she's awful? 

Now back to your regularly scheduled fat, food, and sexual fantasies, I hope.


----------



## Pearlover90000 (Jun 13, 2007)

Thanks Activistfatgirl:

That is why I posted this in the first place--
I thought this was a place where we could come to voice these opinons and to be able to voice it in a supportive place---and I respect eveyone's thoughts positive or negative---






activistfatgirl said:


> Maybe there's something I'm missing. While I agree with waxwing, tsl, and others that what we want here is to stop objectifying and categorizing bodies as its anti-size acceptance. It's come up a lot here.
> 
> Whenever someone posts someone very then, inevitably people will comment "ew! gross" or "I just don't think that's attractive" or further down the line "totally not doable".
> 
> ...


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jun 13, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> That's fine to think she's gross. I don't see the point of droning on about it or being rude about it. If some guy said, "Well, I think all women below 500 lbs. are gross and slaves to the diet industry! Look at this gross woman below 500 lbs.! She's not a real woman!" people would go apeshit. Rightfully. Just because it's the dominant paradigm doesn't excuse outright being an ass. What's the point of putting a skinny woman image on the weight board just to say she's awful?
> 
> Now back to your regularly scheduled fat, food, and sexual fantasies, I hope.


+1 again. Let me see if I can rep....nope .


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jun 13, 2007)

> However, I'm growing awfully tired of people not being allowed to openly comment on a thin frame and talk about attraction. This is only place in the world many of us get a chance to say "you know, that's really not attractive to me". It is okay for people to be reacting with a certain amount of "ew" to Victoria's picture because in this particular community we're wired a bit differently.
> 
> I'm really thankful for some of the smaller ladies who are more attuned to the thin female embodiedment issues and will step up to defend that size as part of the all sizes are good if you're happy spectrum. However there are times that I feel like we're not allowed to speak our mind and our attractions freely.



I guess this is nuance. There is a huge difference between posting pics of Beth Ditto and saying "This is hot" and posting pics of Victoria Beckham and saying "Isn't this gross?" One is size acceptance and the other is just fat supremacy, which is no different from thin supremacy, rooted as it is in sexual attraction and approval of a body type as it satisfies or does not satisfy the desires or approval of whomever is commenting.

There is also a difference between defending her size and being opposed to the practice of denigrating somebody for her size. Of course I (and everyone of any size or shape) supports her right to be whatever size she wants, but even more strenuously, I support her right to do so without commentary.

None of us have encouraged the webmasters to invite average/thin internet models to advertise on the paysite board. But that does not mean we're not going to object to a "Ew, she's gross" based on a woman's size when that is exactly what the National Enquirer does with Kirstie Alley.


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 13, 2007)

But you said "she's too thin" not "omg she's so gross holy fuck what a monster." You said it in a reasonable way. 

See, it's not the opinion that bothers me. Personally, I think she looks kind of awful! So I'm not particularly keen on her bod. But it's the vehemence with which the opinions were initially stated which bugged me. And which I thought crossed the line. 

I see your point, and I agree with you that we should be able to say that's not what we find attractive. It just gets dangerous when people start talking about health. 

I'm sorry if it seemed as though opinions were being suppressed. Besides, I worship you AFG, so let's never fight again. :wubu:


----------



## Pearlover90000 (Jun 13, 2007)

To Sadie:

I never said she was "Gross" --if you look back----
So please don't say that I did---and I never thought it would go on this long--





Waxwing said:


> But you said "she's too thin" not "omg she's so gross holy fuck what a monster." You said it in a reasonable way.
> 
> See, it's not the opinion that bothers me. Personally, I think she looks kind of awful! So I'm not particularly keen on her bod. But it's the vehemence with which the opinions were initially stated which bugged me. And which I thought crossed the line.
> 
> ...


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 13, 2007)

Pearlover90000 said:


> To Sadie:
> 
> I never said she was "Gross" --if you look back----
> So please don't say that I did---and I never thought it would go on this long--



Who's Sadie? I'm not Sadie, though that's a cool name and I'm going to start using it as an alias.

And who accused you of that? Nobody's getting on your case specifically-- I wasn't referring to you. It's just a general thing. I don't think that you meant any harm with the original post. And things always go on here far longer than you think they will.


----------



## activistfatgirl (Jun 13, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> I'm sorry if it seemed as though opinions were being suppressed. Besides, I worship you AFG, so let's never fight again. :wubu:



Oh, totally not fighting. However, let's pretend we are and make up. :batting:


----------



## dodo (Jun 13, 2007)

TheSadeianLinguist said:


> You're rapidly crossing a line. No one says, "Well, you MUST be attracted to thin women and admit they're all the epitome of health!" Robert Anton Wilson had an expression, "I'll tolerate your hobbies if you tolerate mine." Want to be accepted for your preferences? Ever notice the most successful FAs and fat people are well-liked, nice people who respect differences even if they don't enjoy them?



I consider myself a successful FA. I successfully admire fat. I don't always successfully admire who's wearing it. My bad.

Signed,

d


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 13, 2007)

activistfatgirl said:


> Oh, totally not fighting. However, let's pretend we are and make up. :batting:



Make-up sex!!!!


----------



## TCUBOB (Jun 13, 2007)

Um, I thought I was pulling back from my previous statement, where I said that she WAS too thin and that she didn't appear to be healthy. Then I gave a personal opinion that I don't like the way that she looks, from an ability to be attracted to her. I dunno exactly where I messed up there.... 



Waxwing said:


> Bob, you're doing just what you were speaking out against. It doesn't matter what we think of her. I don't care if she's too thin or too fat or blue or green. And it's none of our business.





TCUBOB said:


> I took a second look at that picture, and I'm revising my previous statement. There could be absolutely nothing wrong with her, health-wise. She just looks a little too.....bony...for me.
> 
> And here's the thing: I'm not an FA. Do I like my women a little heavier than the norm? Yes. But it's more of a "I don't want to caress bones and silicon" than "I must have a big fat chick"
> 
> But she still looks scary skinny to me. But that's Hollywood, I guess. And she has a right to be whatever weight she wants, no excuses, no criticism. Except for the normal female cattiness about her being too thin or having fat ankles or yeah, well I hear she's had work done or whatever.





TCUBOB said:


> Sure, why not? Though I will say that she does not appear healthy in that second picture. But I am not a doctor and don't play one on TV, so I can't and won't judge her. I'm just giving an opinion. And her legs look like bony toothpics.
> 
> And again, I'll wonder why we are obsessing over skinny chicks on the WEIGHT BOARD? Though I guess it is not called the "Heavyweight Board," or the "Overweight Board," or the "You Must Be This Heavy to Ride this Ride" Weight Board.


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 13, 2007)

TCUBOB said:


> Um, I thought I was pulling back from my previous statement, where I said that she WAS too thin and that she didn't appear to be healthy. Then I gave a personal opinion that I don't like the way that she looks, from an ability to be attracted to her. I dunno exactly where I messed up there....



you didn't. all is well.

i misunderstood. 

*hands you a beer*


----------



## TCUBOB (Jun 13, 2007)

I confess that I finally finished my post and missed like 20 posts relevant to it and now I'm more confused than ever before. I think my brian is borken. It might have something to do with the fact that I've been listening to people whine about the fucking Homeland Security bill for the second day in a row without actually saying anything. 

But I was treated to the....irony?...of Rep. John Doolittle, who is under FBI investigation for earmark steering, come down to the floor of the House and complain about the lack of transparency in the earmarking process in the new Democratic Congress. That really took some chutzpah, and totally made my day.


----------



## dodo (Jun 13, 2007)

Pearlover90000 said:


> To Sadie:
> 
> I never said she was "Gross" --if you look back----
> So please don't say that I did---and I never thought it would go on this long--



Dear Sadie,

I'll bet you're really hot in person. You kind of have a big mouth, and I like girls with big mouths. I'm also an extreme pear lover. I don't know that I'm a successful extreme pear lover, but 

Sincerely,


----------



## TCUBOB (Jun 13, 2007)

Sadie is really hot in person. If by Sadie you mean Waxwing. Which you may not. I can't tell what the hell is going on anymore.


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 13, 2007)

dodo said:


> Dear Sadie,
> 
> I'll bet you're really hot in person. You kind of have a big mouth, and I like girls with big mouths. I'm also an extreme pear lover. I don't know that I'm a successful extreme pear lover, but
> 
> Sincerely,



Sadie is a DISH, that girl. Man. Teh hotness. Definitely a big mouth, too. Good stuff.


----------



## TCUBOB (Jun 13, 2007)

Her mouth isn't big at all! She could barely get it around a cheeseburger! 

Wait, who are we talking about? Is Sybil there? I want to talk to Sybil.



Waxwing said:


> Sadie is a DISH, that girl. Man. Teh hotness. Definitely a big mouth, too. Good stuff.


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 13, 2007)

TCUBOB said:


> Her mouth isn't big at all! She could barely get it around a cheeseburger!
> 
> Wait, who are we talking about?



I dunno. Sadie. The hot girl. She's my new imaginary friend/ alter-ego. dodo and I are gonna fight over her.


----------



## dodo (Jun 13, 2007)

TCUBOB said:


> Sadie is really hot in person. If by Sadie you mean Waxwing. Which you may not. I can't tell what the hell is going on anymore.



I'll fill you in. Somebody drew a line in the sand. Like Alice through the looking glass, I crossed it. Then my knuckles hit the dirt, my supraorbital tori pinocchio-ed out about a metre, and my blue jeans fig-leafed into a leopard thong.

Chess intimidates me.


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 13, 2007)

dodo said:


> I'll fill you in. Somebody drew a line in the sand. Like Alice through the looking glass, I crossed it. Then my knuckles hit the dirt, my supraorbital tori pinocchio-ed out about a metre, and my blue jeans fig-leafed into a leopard thong.
> 
> Chess intimidates me.



I'm disappointed. You seemed like an ass, but you're just weird. I like weird. Dammit. Now who can I fight with?


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 13, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> Now who can I fight with?



There's always me.


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 13, 2007)

Jack Skellington said:


> There's always me.



Shut up or I'll pound you!

(yay!)


----------



## Jack Skellington (Jun 13, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> Shut up or I'll pound you!
> 
> (yay!)



That's the stuff! Damn, I wish I could rep you again.


----------



## exile in thighville (Jun 13, 2007)

activistfatgirl said:


> However, I'm growing awfully tired of people not being allowed to openly comment on a thin frame and talk about attraction. This is only place in the world many of us get a chance to say "you know, that's really not attractive to me". It is okay for people to be reacting with a certain amount of "ew" to Victoria's picture because in this particular community we're wired a bit differently.
> 
> I'm really thankful for some of the smaller ladies who are more attuned to the thin female embodiedment issues and will step up to defend that size as part of the all sizes are good if you're happy spectrum. However there are times that I feel like we're not allowed to speak our mind and our attractions freely.
> 
> ...



too skinny for whom, though? i personally don't like to be told what's attractive is all, regardless of being an FA. i think if anything, you should express your opinion to the "normal" people outside of the board. help subvert what's okay for people to say. it should be okay for you to say she's too skinny to friends and such. let them be uncomfortable with the idea of a fat woman telling them her idea of beauty a few times and force them to get used to it. nothing's more irritating to me personally though than having someone gossip something to me about someone one else's looks as if it's automatic that i'd agree with them. they're always shocked when i rebut "no, i like that." and then they get uncomfortable and pretend the conversation never took place. and that's what's supposed to happen because there's no goddamn universal standard of beauty. getting back to this however, i like dimensions as the "if you can't say something nice, stfu" place and curvage as the "rate this piece of ass" place. there's plenty of people here i don't find attractive, but there's no reason for me to say so. someone else will dig them. i mock plenty of celebrities and celebrities' looks but it just comes off petty to just mock them for being thin, especially on a SIZE ACCEPTANCE forum.

plus, she's a spice girl people. she'll chunk out eventually. she's just holding out longer than the others.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jun 14, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> But you said "she's too thin" not "omg she's so gross holy fuck what a monster." You said it in a reasonable way.
> 
> See, it's not the opinion that bothers me. Personally, I think she looks kind of awful! So I'm not particularly keen on her bod. But it's the vehemence with which the opinions were initially stated which bugged me. And which I thought crossed the line.
> 
> ...



Agree Agree Agree Agree...  
Can't... Rep.... Batman!


----------



## Waxwing (Jun 14, 2007)

Jon Blaze said:


> Agree Agree Agree Agree...
> Can't... Rep.... Batman!



You know why that's extra funny? My name name is Robin, and all my life people have referred to Batman in my presence.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Jun 14, 2007)

Waxwing said:


> You know why that's extra funny? My name name is Robin, and all my life people have referred to Batman in my presence.



SCHWEEEETT!!!


----------



## Tooz (Jun 14, 2007)

omg are there seriously four pages on this thread now


----------



## Still a Skye fan (Jun 15, 2007)

Pearlover90000 said:


> I'm sure you all saw Posh spice on the red carpet last week---in the mini--and the catsuit---as one of the spice girls--I'd say "Scary" indeed




Now I know why I don't miss them any.


Dennis


----------

