# Mike & Molly



## Scorsese86 (Aug 26, 2010)

Anybody heard about this TV series?

From Wikipedia:
_



Mike & Molly is an American sitcom created by Mark Roberts, who, along with Chuck Lorre, will serve as executive producer. The series will air Mondays (9:30-10:00 pm ET/PT) on CBS beginning September 20, 2010.

The series, set in Chicago, follows two overweight people  Mike Biggs, a police officer who wants to shed some pounds, and Molly Flynn, a fourth-grade teacher who wants to embrace her curves  who meet at an Overeaters Anonymous group and become an unlikely pair. However, they also have to deal with the comments, jokes, and criticism from Mike's fast-talking partner Carl McMillan; Molly's attractive sister Victoria and mother Joyce; and Samuel, a Senegalese waiter at the cops' favorite restaurant.

Click to expand...

_





I just have to say, I adore Melissa McCarthy, so I hope this is a decent show.


----------



## RVGleason (Aug 26, 2010)

I've seen a few clips of the show and it looks like it could be a cute series. We'll know in the fall. 

RV :eat1:


----------



## Amaranthine (Aug 26, 2010)

Sounds like an interesting show- light hearted at least. It's hard to tell how any show that deals with weight will handle it- anyone remember Starved? That show got assaulted by every group out there, especially anorexic support groups.


----------



## KHayes666 (Aug 26, 2010)

Amaranthine said:


> Sounds like an interesting show- light hearted at least. It's hard to tell how any show that deals with weight will handle it- anyone remember Starved? That show got assaulted by every group out there, especially anorexic support groups.



Well if someone is portrayed as EMBRACING themselves just the way they are, what's the harm in that? Then again....knowing mainstream television by the end of the series they both will be thin and have a PSA about obesity.


----------



## TwilightStarr (Aug 26, 2010)

I like both of the actors who play Mike & Molly and I am really looking forward to this show.


----------



## mossystate (Aug 26, 2010)

Follows two overweight people...unlikely pair...Molly's attractive sister.

Well, not sure if I am going to be grabbing the popcorn and settling in...but I might pop in to see how it's going to be. Oh, hell, I know how it's going to be. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmJdmG8PDC4

Attractive people ( thin people, in other words ), making jokes about fat people...fat people making jokes about themselves as fat people...thin people learning how insensitive it is to not fully understand the plight of the fat people, while the fat people thank them and jump back onto the treadmill........gooood fat person. I don't think the show needs to be anything else, as they are going for the comedy...I just hope they won't pretend.


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Aug 26, 2010)

I'll be watching this show with a critical eye. While I love the idea of two fat leads in a sit-com, which we haven't seen since Roseanne, I'm of the opinion that they're going to be running the usual lot of stereotypes about fat people, and heavily leaning on the "good fat/bad fat" dichotomy. You didn't get a lot of that on Roseanne. I must admit, though, to being a big fan of Melissa McCarthy, especially since I once saw her at a Neko Case show in LA, so I know she has good taste in music. I'd like to see her have more career success, so I hope the show does well...just not at the expense of fat people.


----------



## *Goofy*Girl* (Aug 27, 2010)

I've been looking forward to watching this show. I'm so excited to see it.


----------



## AppreSheAte (Aug 27, 2010)

Wish I had someone to watch it with...


----------



## *Goofy*Girl* (Aug 27, 2010)

AppreSheAte said:


> Wish I had someone to watch it with...



Maybe if you put your location in your profile, people from that area could contact you.


----------



## olwen (Aug 27, 2010)

I have mixed feelings about the show. I am hoping tho that since Melissa McCarthy managed to play a character who didn't spend all her time hating on her fat (Gilmore Girls) that maybe her character on this show will be some kind of normal. Who knows tho. I'll watch the show, but I will try to temper my expectations. It is a sitcom after all.


----------



## steve-aka (Aug 28, 2010)

mossystate said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmJdmG8PDC4



Mein Gaia! This looks fucking _awful_!


----------



## Adrian (Aug 28, 2010)

I would love to see a TV program or movie where the BBW has a thin gentleman friend / husband. TV has done programs where large men have average size attractive wives or couple where both people are large.


----------



## Scorsese86 (Aug 28, 2010)

I love _Gilmore Girls_, and during that series entire run, I can never remember any reference to Sooki's size. Rare.


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Aug 28, 2010)

McCarthy also played a goth girl who runs a murder house museum in Texas in the movie The Life of David Gale. Her part was a small one, but she played the role of a skeptical goth girl with an "I hate everything" attitude very convincingly, which I thought was interesting, considering the sweetness of Sookie's character on Gilmore Girls and her other character on that awful Christina Applegate sit-com.


----------



## crayola box (Aug 28, 2010)

mossystate said:


> Follows two overweight people...unlikely pair...Molly's attractive sister.
> 
> Well, not sure if I am going to be grabbing the popcorn and settling in...but I might pop in to see how it's going to be. Oh, hell, I know how it's going to be.
> 
> ...



I agree, I mean the premise is that they meet at OA, and the trailer does have fat jokes but really it doesn't come off as mean spirited mockery and never claims to be ground breaking so adjust expectations accordingly. I'll watch the pilot looking for it to be funny, thats all.


----------



## hostesshoho (Sep 20, 2010)

I will not watch it.... I have heard all the fat jokes already... I was wondering if this would still be a comedy if it were about alcoholics and met up in an AA meeting.


----------



## olwen (Sep 20, 2010)

Six minutes in and I already hate it. I probably won't watch it again.


----------



## AJ! (Sep 20, 2010)

I'm watching the show now and it's actually rather funny. Very sharp dialogue, the subject matter not withstanding. In fact, I find myself laughing in spite of myself, since I figured I'd hate this show like so many people here. I too am tired of fat people on TV always being down about themselves, making jokes at their own expense and having their sole focus being to lose weight. Since this show would seem to be based on those very premises, I didn't hold out much hope for it. Plus, I dont think I've liked a CBS sitcom since sometime in the 1970s, so color me double-surprised that I'm enjoying it as much as I am. It might not maintain my interest as the season progresses, but so far, so good.

And in case I haven't offended anyone with my observations yet, I'll add that I think what's-her-name is hot.


----------



## KendraLee (Sep 20, 2010)

Watched it! Love Melissa McCarthy but......not this show. Such stereotypical fat self hate and the jokes were just too obvious.

side note that I always found interesting is that I read once where Melissa McCarthy's sister is an adult actress. Now thats a show dynamic I'd love to watch.


----------



## KendraLee (Sep 20, 2010)

Scorsese86 said:


> I love _Gilmore Girls_, and during that series entire run, I can never remember any reference to Sooki's size. Rare.



I was actually just thinking about that and I loved that fact about the show


----------



## RVGleason (Sep 20, 2010)

Watched the show. I thought the characters had potential, but I didn't care for the humor, much too crude for my taste, which unfortunately, appears to be the norm with today's 'comedy'. If this series had been done in the 60's, the cuteness of the characters would have been stressed more and the humor would have reflected their relationship. I don't think I'm going to watch this show that much in future. A shame because I thought it had potential.


----------



## KHayes666 (Sep 20, 2010)

RVGleason said:


> Watched the show. I thought the characters had potential, but I didn't care for the humor, much too crude for my taste, which unfortunately, appears to be the norm with today's 'comedy'. If this series had been done in the 60's, the cuteness of the characters would have been stressed more and the humor would have reflected their relationship. I don't think I'm going to watch this show that much in future. A shame because I thought it had potential.



60's? Hell go back to the 50's where The Honeymooner's had people in stitches without ever having to be crude or lewd. They poked fun at Jackie Gleason's character Ralph Kramden's size all the time but the show characters didn't completely humiliate him for it.

Ralph Kramden > Mike


----------



## RVGleason (Sep 20, 2010)

KHayes666 said:


> 60's? Hell go back to the 50's where The Honeymooner's had people in stitches without ever having to be crude or lewd. They poked fun at Jackie Gleason's character Ralph Kramden's size all the time but the show characters didn't completely humiliate him for it.
> 
> Ralph Kramden > Mike



My point exactly. Gleason is the perfect example (as well as being my namesake  ) of how they handled his character and still made him lovable. I don't see this with Mike & Molly with the humor that was on display during the show tonight. The main characters had a cute factor going for them, but the crude humor took the shine off them. I'm afraid this show isn't going to last long.


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Sep 21, 2010)

I tried to watch it, but was so tired from work, I was asleep on the couch before it even started. I awoke in time to see the last 2 minutes of the show, but that's it. Damn.


----------



## Jes (Sep 21, 2010)

KHayes666 said:


> 60's? Hell go back to the 50's where The Honeymooner's had people in stitches without ever having to be crude or lewd. They poked fun at Jackie Gleason's character Ralph Kramden's size all the time but the show characters didn't completely humiliate him for it.
> 
> Ralph Kramden > Mike



you're right! my favorite part of that old chestnut was how Ralph was always threatening to hit his wife! A fair trade off for no fat jokes.


----------



## Amandy (Sep 21, 2010)

too bad it's lame, he's flippin adorable.


----------



## Happy FA (Sep 21, 2010)

I watched the show last night with much of the same trepidation that others have expressed. And, was pleasantly surprised about the quality of the humor. 

While there were a significant number of "fat jokes" they were much closer to the sort of fat jokes that many of us get from our friends who really are joking with us out of a base of friendship rather than making fun of us. And, the fat characters have a sense of humor as well as an inner toughness which is credible. They function in their real worlds (teaching fourth grade and being a cop) but have a sense of humor at their situations prior to meeting each other.

The shyness, tongue-tied efforts of Mike in trying to ask out Molly was, in my view played for laughs but was close enough to a reality that many of us (myself included) have experienced to ring true. 

Mike's skinny, black cop partner (who has one of the absolutely funniest scenes in recent memory as he's standing up from squatting down after using an elementary school urinal), is a good guy who you know really cares about and for his partner. They joke with each other but there is that core of caring and having the other's back that is critical to making this a potentially good show.

Molly's dried up mother (eating a huge acre of double chocolate fudge cake made with pudding instead of milk) and her curvaceous, boobs hanging out of her top airheaded, pot smoking sister were a lot over the top. But, goofy and hopefully more realistic going forward.

All in all I will give this series a shot and have set the DVR to record each episode.

PS At the very end of the show there is a screen with lots of writing on it from the Producer which is hilarious. It purports to be his memo to himself about his three shows, 2 and a half men, and another show, and this one which was hilarious. If you record it pause the tv at this point and read this hilarious stuff.

PPS I also found Molly "HOT". Not sure how the FFA's will like Mike, but he is certainly a big guy who doesn't or isn't able to hide his size.


----------



## KHayes666 (Sep 21, 2010)

Jes said:


> you're right! my favorite part of that old chestnut was how Ralph was always threatening to hit his wife! A fair trade off for no fat jokes.



*makes a fist* One of these days, BANG ZOOM!

Actually there were fat jokes on that show, except back then they were actually funny. 50 years of crude humor has taken all the fun out of it.


----------



## Mira (Sep 21, 2010)

I'm going to hang in there because I think the two leads are adorable and seem to have genuine chemistry. Melissa McCarthy is a sweetie pie and much cuter than her crazy cousin Jenny.

Most of the jokes were not mean and hopefully they will move off the body size issues. 

It did well in the initial overnights sandwiched between 2.5 Men and Hawaii Five-O, so we'll see what happens...


----------



## BBW MeganLynn44DD (Sep 21, 2010)

Didn't care for it myself,i actually started to dose off a bit myself.


----------



## HereticFA (Sep 21, 2010)

I have mixed feelings about the show myself. It relies too much on the current generation of "cringe comedy". It just uses fat jokes as the vehicle. Having Mike collapse a flimsy card table, and break his little finger (with plenty of screen time of the finger bent at a sharp right angle) as a byproduct. Slapstick is one thing, this is just sad. I shudder to think where this approach will lead in future episodes. Just think of the fat stereotypes with a spin to make you cringe and I'm sure we'll see them.

_Mike and Molly_ will probably appeal to those who liked _Nutty Professor_ and _Shallow Hal_. I don't think the warm, fuzzy underlying message is enough to offset the fat jokes. I do like the actors, just not the material.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 22, 2010)

wait a fat-based sitcom with fat-based jokes


----------



## TwilightStarr (Sep 23, 2010)

I loved it! I like comedy and they got that part right.
My favorite part was when Mike finally ask out Molly and he was all nervous and super adorable.


----------



## braindeadhead (Sep 24, 2010)

I watched it and thought it was a decent show. I didn't care for the prat fall or the OA meeting confessions. I thought those should have been less cute and more honest.

I will give it a few more tries before I pass final judgement. Pilots tend to be weak bellwethers for a show. Too much explanation not enough character and plot development ...


----------



## whome (Sep 26, 2010)

Scorsese86 said:


> Anybody heard about this TV series?
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> _
> ...


_

it was cute, but a lot of fat jokes that were not necessary. I dont think this show will last very long_


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Oct 2, 2010)

Ok, I saw the second episode, where Mike asks out Molly. I thought some of the physical comedy was funny, although "the fat guy in the loud shirt" joke was kind of played out. I agree with Braindead on the OA meeting; too 'cute' and not very realistic. I also don't understand why the writers had to create a fat woman character who lives at home with her completely unsupportive mom and glamazon sister. Part of the reason I live on my own, far away from my family, is to get away from their negative influence when it comes to body politics. I mean, I understand that the writers are trying to show the dichotomy between a "skinny bitch" character (mom) who is completely unsupportive of her fat daughter while cramming chocolate cake down her throat, but they could have just as easily shown that dichotomy with a "skinny bitch" neighbor character in Molly's apartment building. Why does Molly need to be so dependent on her family? Can't they give her a little more autonomy by having her live on her own?


----------



## braindeadhead (Oct 2, 2010)

I watched the second episode and felt it was bad one. Why would a big and tall shop carry/sell such an ugly shirt? Why does a fat person have to look so stupid? Why can't he look good? 

I get the feeling the writers have no idea how to write anything but a fat sidekick roll.


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Oct 2, 2010)

braindeadhead said:


> I watched the second episode and felt it was bad one. Why would a big and tall shop carry/sell such an ugly shirt? Why does a fat person have to look so stupid? Why can't he look good?
> 
> I get the feeling the writers have no idea how to write anything but a fat sidekick roll.



Well, in defense of the sweater, it *is* supposed to be fashionable and trendy. Just because something's trendy, though, doesn't mean it's going to look good on someone. And fugly trends aren't just relegated to big & tall shops. Just look at all the fugly at Lane Bryant and poor quality at Torrid. I can't believe some of the stuff they expect fat women to wear.


----------



## *Goofy*Girl* (Oct 6, 2010)

I didn't care much for the first episode, WAY too many fat jokes.

I loved the second episode where Molly was so f*cked up on codeine & her sister slipped her a diet pill, lol. 

Then she mixes it all down with booze at dinner & pukes it back up. 

Aaahhh, great entertainment!


----------



## degek2001 (Oct 10, 2010)

Sure, Melissa McCarthy is very adorable. I like her belly, round boobs and full butt. Hmmmm.
<3 Henk


----------



## roobuck (Oct 10, 2010)

Just watched episode 3 on the CBS website. The writing is sometimes lame and the jokes a little predictable, but overall this is a watchable show. The best scenes are always with just Mike and Molly together, exploring their growing feelings for eachother, making mistakes and "Putting things right" -to quote Mike in this episode when he grabs Molly for the first time and kisses her. The two central characters are what saves this show - it will be interesting to see how things continue with them in coming weeks.

Oh - and Melissa McCarthy is one hot, sweet cutie!!! It's worth watching just for her!!! :eat2:


----------



## Donna (Oct 10, 2010)

Melissa McCarthy is as cute as a bug in a rug, but I watch to see Billy Gardell. He's very attractive and the character of Mike reminds me a lot of my husband. The debut episode almost put me off because of the amount of the fat jokes, but I kept watching and will keep watching to see where they take these two characters. I think the amount of fat jokes are declining...and I like that Mike and Molly both get some good digs in on the folks surrounding them. 

Plus, I kind of had to watch the show since my friend's younger brother was featured in the first episode...he's the little red haired boy in the bathroom that wasn't going to wash his hands. His name is Tucker and he is an amazing young actor.


----------



## Scorsese86 (Oct 14, 2010)

Well, I've seen the pilot. I need to see more.
Can we actually believe that the obnoxious woman Victoria is Molly's sister. They don't look anything alike, plus she's clearly a moron, while Molly is smart.

It seems to be a bit many fat jokes, and I hope that is reduced. But it was charming. Melissa McCarthy is adorable, and Billy Gardell was also good. It seems like they have som real chemistry, so... let's hope it improves.


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Oct 14, 2010)

How did you guys feel about the joke at Mike's expense about his police hat blowing off his head because his head's "too big," and he has to run after it? The 'joke' was that Mike can only run a short distance before losing steam, and therefore, he's lost 3 new police hats in the past few days because he can't catch them when they blow off his head.


----------



## Donna (Oct 14, 2010)

The fat jokes make me wince a little, including the hat joke, but only because a lot of them hit a little too close to home. If the show was supposed to be a serious drama surrounding the lives of two fat people and what they face in the world, than the jokes would be out of place. But its not a size acceptance drama. It is a sit-com and jokes are what comedy is all about after all. Mike makes plenty of jokes at the expense of his partner (and the fact he lives at home with his grandmother) and the guy who runs the diner. Likewise, the traditionally attractive sister and mother are both trainwrecks, while Molly is the smart and well adjusted one. 

I don't want to over-analyze it because that might take some of the fun out of it.


----------



## Indicolts (Oct 15, 2010)

I think Molly is quite attractive.. there is something about her


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Oct 15, 2010)

Melissa McCarthy is adorable, and she has great taste in music. A few years ago, I saw her in the audience at Barndsall Art Park when I saw Neko Case live.


----------



## missyblew (Oct 18, 2010)

I have seen it and think it is funny.


----------



## RVGleason (Oct 25, 2010)

Looks like 'Mike & Molly' has been renewed for a full season.

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

RV :eat1:


----------



## PamelaLois (Oct 25, 2010)

tonight's episode was very very funny, dealing with issues that pretty much had nothing to do with weight and everything to do with overly possessive parents. There were some moments where I laughed out loud, the scenes with Molly and her family, and Mike discussing his "seduction" plans with his buddies. I really enjoy this show, so glad it was renewed.


----------



## Dansinfool (Oct 30, 2010)

I'm glad to see that they did renew the show  I've watched all the episodes so, I guess I can consider myself a fan.


----------



## Davastav (Nov 15, 2010)

I watched this show for the first time tonight and thought it was cute...I can say that identifying with the male character myself - I didn't find the jokes in the episode to be pushing some anti fat agenda as I feared - surprisingly the core of the show appears to be centered on characters who are simply overweight and dealing with their new found relationship - I thought it was cute and harmless and it would be nice to see a show like this succeed...its sort of refreshing to see characters that many people can identify with like Roseanne did awhile back..


----------



## mimosa (Nov 17, 2010)

So many reasons why I am a fan of the show. I will come later and explain. It's too early in the morning in my time zone as I type this. I love Mike and Molly!


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Nov 17, 2010)

I will say, this week's episode kind of hit home for me, with Mike cluelessly offering to be an OA sponsor for the woman who flirted with him at the meeting, and getting her phone number in the process. My first serious boyfriend in college often cluelessly did the same thing with women he met in random situations - the girl he met at the coffee shop who wanted to jam with him on guitar; the girl he met at a party who shared his interest in Russ Meyer flicks and invited him to the Meyer film festival the following weekend. He honestly had no idea these women had any interest in him because he didn't see himself as a guy who women openly flirted with. I knew he cared about me and would have never cheated on me, but I still needed to have a few serious conversations with him to clue him in about why it wasn't ok to get phone numbers from these women.

I still rankle about the whole OA angle of the show and wish that it could just be a show about fat people where losing weight and unhappiness with their bodies is not part of the discussion (thank you, Roseanne). But I know that's not true for every fat person and there are many fat people in the world who are _not_ happy with their bodies and are still on the path to acceptance, or not interested in looking for it at all. ...But I can identify with some of the storylines on Mike & Molly because I've been there myself.


----------



## mimosa (Nov 18, 2010)

Okay, I am back to explain why I love the show. 

Sure, two large actors being in the lead is appealing to me. But it's more to it than that. 

Numero uno :I think the writing is super funny. 

Numero dos: There is diversity in the cast and not just in size but in race also. That is very important to me. I love the fact that at least one of the characters is an immigrant. :happy:

Numero tres: It's lighthearted. It's exactly what I like to watch when I want to escape for a moment. The show makes me feel good after I watch it. It's almost as good as chocolate. 

Numero quatro : I can totally relate to Molly and her sister. My sister and I were also like night and day. My sister was the gorgeous, skinny one that guys always fell for. I have always been the cute and chubby sister. We also do not look like each other.

So those are just some of the reasons why I love the show. I know a lot of people are going to find flaws about it. People might not like the jokes. But for me, I just let go and enjoy. I do not want to over analyze. I already do enough of that in my life.


----------



## kioewen (Nov 19, 2010)

thirtiesgirl said:


> with Mike cluelessly offering to be an OA sponsor



I assume that OA stands for "Overeaters Anonymous." That's plenty sufficient enough reason to hate this show and never watch it.

What's next -- pathologizin_g breathing_?

The very idea that such an organization exists and is taken seriously is ridiculous, let alone that this show promotes it. Talk about an insidious form of product placement.

I think full-figured women face so much outright hate and scorn from the mass media that many seem to have become numb to less flagrant abuse, like this.


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Nov 19, 2010)

kioewen said:


> I assume that OA stands for "Overeaters Anonymous." That's plenty sufficient enough reason to hate this show and never watch it.
> 
> What's next -- pathologizin_g breathing_?
> 
> ...



I agree with you about OA, but what you're not quite getting here is that just because a person is fat, it doesn't mean they're going to toe the line with fat acceptance principles. It's unfortunate that every fat person doesn't love themselves for who they are, but that's just not going to happen in my lifetime or yours. So one of the things fat people do is go to OA, or go to fat camps, Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, etc. Personally, I don't support those organizations in any way, shape or form because I know the harmful effects they can have on a person's self-confidence and body image. But I'm not going to condemn another fat person for doing what they feel is best for them. I might not like it and might say that I wish that they wouldn't go to OA, Weight Watchers, etc, but again, the choice is ultimately theirs, and I'm not going to condemn them for doing what they feel is right. Maybe one day, they'll realize that OA, Weight Watchers, etc, causes more harm than good, but until they do, judging fat people for their choices is not going to help them get there any faster.

And for the record, Mike & Molly doesn't _promote_ OA. It's simply part of the show's premise, and in fact, is not part of every episode. There are no "OA support" messages at the end of the show, like, "overeating affects 99.9% of men and women in the U.S. If you know someone who is affected by overeating, call this number, 1-800-TOO-FATT...". There aren't any ads for OA, aside from the regular diet industry b.s. that's advertised on almost every network, on every show. So the show's producers are not trying to "promote" OA. The focus of the show is the budding relationship between two fat people, trying to find both self love and romantic love in a society that generally scorns fat people. They happened to have met in OA, where, much to our chagrin, many fat people still go. But I think it's a slightly more realistic premise than, say, two fat people just meeting on the street, or two fat people meeting through their respective groups of over-anxious hipster friends in their impossibly large NY apartments and slowly falling in love. (Just the idea of a bunch of barely employed 26 year olds affording a large NY apartment is a true stretch of the imagination.)

I don't like the idea that OA's part of the show, but I'm not going to condemn the show and stop watching it just because it has one aspect that I don't like. OA is a part of many fat people's lives, as much as I might not agree with it, and since it's not the focus of the show, I'm able to get beyond it and see some of the good points of the show.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Nov 19, 2010)

kioewen said:


> I assume that OA stands for "Overeaters Anonymous." That's plenty sufficient enough reason to hate this show and never watch it.
> 
> What's next -- pathologizin_g breathing_?
> 
> ...



I don't understand your issue with OA, there are people for whom food is like a drug. They don't eat because they are hungry, they eat because it's there, it fills some kind of hole, they enjoy the euphoric feeling they get from eating, as well as many other reasons. They usually hide that activity from their family and friends, and feel powerless to stop it. 

In many ways they behave just like someone who's addicted to drugs or alcohol but the difficult thing is they can't just quit food. People need food to live and OA gives people the tools to survive in a world where they have to consume the substance they are addicted to daily.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 19, 2010)

thirtiesgirl said:


> I agree with you about OA, but what you're not quite getting here is that just because a person is fat, it doesn't mean they're going to toe the line with fat acceptance principles. It's unfortunate that every fat person doesn't love themselves for who they are, but that's just not going to happen in my lifetime or yours. So one of the things fat people do is go to OA, or go to fat camps, Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, etc. Personally, I don't support those organizations in any way, shape or form because I know the harmful effects they can have on a person's self-confidence and body image. But I'm not going to condemn another fat person for doing what they feel is best for them. I might not like it and might say that I wish that they wouldn't go to OA, Weight Watchers, etc, but again, the choice is ultimately theirs, and I'm not going to condemn them for doing what they feel is right. Maybe one day, they'll realize that OA, Weight Watchers, etc, causes more harm than good, but until they do, judging fat people for their choices is not going to help them get there any faster.
> 
> And for the record, Mike & Molly doesn't _promote_ OA. It's simply part of the show's premise, and in fact, is not part of every episode. There are no "OA support" messages at the end of the show, like, "overeating affects 99.9% of men and women in the U.S. If you know someone who is affected by overeating, call this number, 1-800-TOO-FATT...". There aren't any ads for OA, aside from the regular diet industry b.s. that's advertised on almost every network, on every show. So the show's producers are not trying to "promote" OA. The focus of the show is the budding relationship between two fat people, trying to find both self love and romantic love in a society that generally scorns fat people. They happened to have met in OA, where, much to our chagrin, many fat people still go. But I think it's a slightly more realistic premise than, say, two fat people just meeting on the street, or two fat people meeting through their respective groups of over-anxious hipster friends in their impossibly large NY apartments and slowly falling in love. (Just the idea of a bunch of barely employed 26 year olds affording a large NY apartment is a true stretch of the imagination.)
> 
> I don't like the idea that OA's part of the show, but I'm not going to condemn the show and stop watching it just because it has one aspect that I don't like. OA is a part of many fat people's lives, as much as I might not agree with it, and since it's not the focus of the show, I'm able to get beyond it and see some of the good points of the show.



I agree with you. As far as fat people on TV, I think that this show is one of the more positive ones.


----------



## ThatFatGirl (Nov 19, 2010)

I'm surprised to see OA lumped into the same group as WW, Jenny Craig, etc. My participation in OA in the past focused nothing on losing weight or dieting, but on recognizing my compulsion to eat in response to my emotions. They also encourage people to give up constant monitoring of weight. That is a far cry from the others which are _businesses_.


----------



## mossystate (Nov 19, 2010)

kioewen said:


> I assume that OA stands for "Overeaters Anonymous." That's plenty sufficient enough reason to hate this show and never watch it.
> 
> What's next -- pathologizin_g breathing_?
> 
> ...



People actually go around overbreathing? It's not EA..._over_...and those full-figured women you are so concerned about, they might just understand a bit better what their lives are all about. Yes, every fat woman who has ever gotten real help, yes, even from OA...she is really just a numb lemming. Nice. I see you didn't mention full-figured men. That usually tells me all I need to know about an agenda.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 19, 2010)

mimosa said:


> Okay, I am back to explain why I love the show.
> 
> Sure, two large actors being in the lead is appealing to me. But it's more to it than that.
> 
> ...



Thank you for taking the time to post this review Mimosa. I didn't feel any urge to watch the show but your review gave me a new perspective. I may just check it out, it sounds like I might enjoy it. 

That being said and having not seen the show before, I have some misgivings about the association with OA. OA is not about being fat. OA is about an eating disorder that anyone at any size can have. Sight unseen is seems to me like a bad cliche being smeared across the minds of the rubes out there who think every fat person got fat at McDonalds.


----------



## mimosa (Nov 19, 2010)

LillyBBBW said:


> Thank you for taking the time to post this review Mimosa. I didn't feel any urge to watch the show but your review gave me a new perspective. I may just check it out, it sounds like I might enjoy it.
> 
> That being said and having not seen the show before, I have some misgivings about the association with OA. OA is not about being fat. OA is about an eating disorder that anyone at any size can have. Sight unseen is seems to me like a bad cliche being smeared across the minds of the rubes out there who think every fat person got fat at McDonalds.



That's great. I hope you enjoy it, darling. Big hugs. 

For the record, I am SOOOO glad they are showing the OA thing. I also have the same eating disorder. It feels good to know I am not the only one dealing with it. The show puts it out there. I see it as a good thing. But then again....that's just me.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 19, 2010)

mimosa said:


> That's great. I hope you enjoy it, darling. Big hugs.
> 
> For the record, I am SOOOO glad they are showing the OA thing. I also have the same eating disorder. It feels good to know I am not the only one dealing with it. The show puts it out there. I see it as a good thing. But then again....that's just me.



Yeah, your opinion holds more weight here. You've seen it so I will take your word for it. I was just worried.


----------



## mimosa (Nov 19, 2010)

LillyBBBW said:


> Yeah, your opinion holds more weight here. You've seen it so I will take your word for it. I was just worried.



Oh worried? More input please. 

For the record, just because I love the show, I am not saying I am blind to the way people are. I know that there are evil, hateful people out there. They try to stereotype all kinds of people. I see it on TV, news, online and in "real life". Heck, I get it just by being Mexican/American! ( Yes, for being fat also.)

But I think about what Gandhi said : "Be the change you want to see in the world.

I want to do my best NOT to do the same evil to another person. 

Just saying.


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Nov 20, 2010)

ThatFatGirl said:


> I'm surprised to see OA lumped into the same group as WW, Jenny Craig, etc. My participation in OA in the past focused nothing on losing weight or dieting, but on recognizing my compulsion to eat in response to my emotions. They also encourage people to give up constant monitoring of weight. That is a far cry from the others which are _businesses_.



True, OA is not a weight loss business and doesn't spend millions of dollars per year on advertising. But here's the thing: OA professes to pronounce moral judgment on people's reasons for eating. The idea that eating for emotional or psychological reasons is "wrong" just doesn't fly with me because it's based on the idea that food itself is either "good" or "bad." As if we need to place moral judgments on food. Eating food, for whatever reason you do it, is not inherently harmful to yourself or others, as opposed to using drugs or alcohol. Using drugs or alcohol can harm the individual or others, should the person taking drugs or drinking decide to drive or hurt someone to obtain money for drugs, etc. Eating food and being fat is not inherently harmful to the individual or others. So why place moral judgments on food and the reasons people eat?

Yes, some food has higher caloric, sodium and sugar content than others, and may lead to higher cholesterol, triglycerides, blood sugar, etc. But as has been proven many times over, food does not affect everyone in the same way, and what may cause poor health in some has no affect whatsoever on others. It's not the caloric, sodium or cholesterol content of food that's harmful, but how one's family history dictates how one's body will process those things. And yes, it's also true that having extra adipose tissue, carrying extra weight, can cause joint, back and mobility problems. But it's also been proven again that this is not true for every fat person on the planet and is a generalization often made when trying to use obesity scare tactics.

So I come back to my point about OA: why place moral judgment on food and the reasons people eat? It's not necessary and, in my opinion, continues to foster a harmful mind-body relationship for fat people that we just don't need any more of.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 20, 2010)

thirtiesgirl said:


> True, OA is not a weight loss business and doesn't spend millions of dollars per year on advertising. But here's the thing: *OA professes to pronounce moral judgment on people's reasons for eating. The idea that eating for emotional or psychological reasons is "wrong" just doesn't fly with me because it's based on the idea that food itself is either "good" or "bad." * As if we need to place moral judgments on food. Eating food, for whatever reason you do it, is not inherently harmful to yourself or others, as opposed to using drugs or alcohol. Using drugs or alcohol can harm the individual or others, should the person taking drugs or drinking decide to drive or hurt someone to obtain money for drugs, etc. Eating food and being fat is not inherently harmful to the individual or others. So why place moral judgments on food and the reasons people eat?
> 
> Yes, some food has higher caloric, sodium and sugar content than others, and may lead to higher cholesterol, triglycerides, blood sugar, etc. But as has been proven many times over, food does not affect everyone in the same way, and what may cause poor health in some has no affect whatsoever on others. It's not the caloric, sodium or cholesterol content of food that's harmful, but how one's family history dictates how one's body will process those things. And yes, it's also true that having extra adipose tissue, carrying extra weight, can cause joint, back and mobility problems. But it's also been proven again that this is not true for every fat person on the planet and is a generalization often made when trying to use obesity scare tactics.
> 
> So I come back to my point about OA: why place moral judgment on food and the reasons people eat? It's not necessary and, in my opinion, continues to foster a harmful mind-body relationship for fat people that we just don't need any more of.



That is simply not true. An eating disorder is not about being fat, it's not even about the food. It's about a compulsion which is totally different than someone who just likes to eat ice cream when they're feeling the blues. People who don't understand that will often feel villified by some of the concepts behind OA but truthfully these concepts aren't at all directed at people like you and me. It's serious help for people with an illness they can't control. While I'm not in favor of shushing them down and preventing people from having the help that they need readily available and accessible I'm still having a hard time reconciling the fact that OA is being used in a romantic sitcom. I suppose it's the same if there was one centered around meeting at an AA meeting but I would still be concerned with the handling of the subject. An alcoholic who needs help is not the same as someone who likes good wine.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Nov 20, 2010)

thirtiesgirl said:


> True, OA is not a weight loss business and doesn't spend millions of dollars per year on advertising. But here's the thing: OA professes to pronounce moral judgment on people's reasons for eating. The idea that eating for emotional or psychological reasons is "wrong" just doesn't fly with me because it's based on the idea that food itself is either "good" or "bad." As if we need to place moral judgments on food. Eating food, for whatever reason you do it, is not inherently harmful to yourself or others, as opposed to using drugs or alcohol. Using drugs or alcohol can harm the individual or others, should the person taking drugs or drinking decide to drive or hurt someone to obtain money for drugs, etc. Eating food and being fat is not inherently harmful to the individual or others. So why place moral judgments on food and the reasons people eat?
> 
> Yes, some food has higher caloric, sodium and sugar content than others, and may lead to higher cholesterol, triglycerides, blood sugar, etc. But as has been proven many times over, food does not affect everyone in the same way, and what may cause poor health in some has no affect whatsoever on others. It's not the caloric, sodium or cholesterol content of food that's harmful, but how one's family history dictates how one's body will process those things. And yes, it's also true that having extra adipose tissue, carrying extra weight, can cause joint, back and mobility problems. But it's also been proven again that this is not true for every fat person on the planet and is a generalization often made when trying to use obesity scare tactics.
> 
> So I come back to my point about OA: why place moral judgment on food and the reasons people eat? It's not necessary and, in my opinion, continues to foster a harmful mind-body relationship for fat people that we just don't need any more of.




Because some people eat for unhealthy reasons, just like some people drink for unhealthy reasons, shoot up for unhealthy reasons, or exercise constantly for unhealthy reasons. 

If you are doing anything to bury emotions, not deal with the outside world, or because you feel like its the only thing in your life you've got control over then chances are you might need help learning how to do those things only because you enjoy them. 

OA is about helping people learn how to deal with an eating disorder, not only fat people either.


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Nov 20, 2010)

fatgirlflyin said:


> Because some people eat for unhealthy reasons, just like some people drink for unhealthy reasons, shoot up for unhealthy reasons, or exercise constantly for unhealthy reasons.
> 
> If you are doing anything to bury emotions, not deal with the outside world, or because you feel like its the only thing in your life you've got control over then chances are you might need help learning how to do those things only because you enjoy them.
> 
> OA is about helping people learn how to deal with an eating disorder, not only fat people either.



But see, here's the thing: you're pronouncing moral judgment on people's reasons for eating ("people eat for unhealthy reasons"). I can understand doing that for drug and alcohol abuse, which is physically harmful to the drug or alcohol abuser, and can be physically harmful to others in their lives - people they hit in their car, people they assault for drug money, etc. But having a desire to eat food, whatever the reason for that desire, is, in general, not harmful. I don't see overeating as a disorder. Bulimia - overeating and purging - _is_ a disorder and should be treated as such due to the ill effects on one's health that purging can have. Anorexia is a disorder because going without food has been proven have harmful effects on the body. But overeating is not a disorder in my opinion because it hasn't been proven as the sole reason some fat people have poor health. For that reason, I don't think it's ok for anyone to pronounce moral judgment on people's reasons for eating, as you're doing here.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 20, 2010)

thirtiesgirl said:


> But see, here's the thing: you're pronouncing moral judgment on people's reasons for eating ("people eat for unhealthy reasons"). I can understand doing that for drug and alcohol abuse, which is physically harmful to the drug or alcohol abuser, and can be physically harmful to others in their lives - people they hit in their car, people they assault for drug money, etc. But having a desire to eat food, whatever the reason for that desire, is, in general, not harmful. I don't see overeating as a disorder. Bulimia - overeating and purging - _is_ a disorder and should be treated as such due to the ill effects on one's health that purging can have. Anorexia is a disorder because going without food has been proven have harmful effects on the body. But overeating is not a disorder in my opinion because it hasn't been proven as the sole reason some fat people have poor health. For that reason, I don't think it's ok for anyone to pronounce moral judgment on people's reasons for eating, as you're doing here.



I tend to agree with you in some respects. I think one of the red herrings here is that in some cases people tend to use a very thin description (pardon the pun) as to how or what a binge eating disorder really is. It's a compulsion to eat that's not generally connected to an emotion or need of some sort. It's not about, "I just lost my job. Let me go to Houlihans and order three rare steaks to quell the pain." It is not a concious deliberate thing. People often don't know why they're doing what they're doing, it's just happening and they can't make it stop. Some people don't even remember doing it. It is encouraged for people to examine their feelings or emotions while it's happening to try to find a correlation between what's going on outside as to what's going on inside. Though it can be connected to emotions it is not a direct connection to emotions and that is the distinction that is often missed when talking about binge eating as a disorder. People shouldn't be villfied either way but I think sometimes the way the topic is used it can sometimes blur the distinction of what it really is. When someone has an eating disorder, they KNOW. There is no pleasure at all derived in what is happening. People who are fat get beat on for this moreso than anyone else.


----------



## frankman (Nov 20, 2010)

mossystate said:


> People actually go around overbreathing? It's not EA..._over_...and those full-figured women you are so concerned about, they might just understand a bit better what their lives are all about. Yes, every fat woman who has ever gotten real help, yes, even from OA...she is really just a numb lemming. Nice. I see you didn't mention full-figured men. That usually tells me all I need to know about an agenda.



Do you ever consider letting a sexist post slide, on account of it just not being worth discussing, or you don't really feel like a fight, or you just have better things to do? Because if it was me, I'd get awfully tired and bitter.

On an unrelated note though, over-breathing is called hyperventilation, and those weezing bastards don't even really use the extra oxygen they take in. It's like their lust for air is bigger than their lung capacity - I still think their fainting is god's way of telling them greed is bad.


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Nov 20, 2010)

LillyBBBW said:


> I tend to agree with you in some respects. I think one of the red herrings here is that in some cases people tend to use a very thin description (pardon the pun) as to how or what a binge eating disorder really is. It's a compulsion to eat that's not generally connected to an emotion or need of some sort. It's not about, "I just lost my job. Let me go to Houlihans and order three rare steaks to quell the pain." It is not a concious deliberate thing. People often don't know why they're doing what they're doing, it's just happening and they can't make it stop. Some people don't even remember doing it. It is encouraged for people to examine their feelings or emotions while it's happening to try to find a correlation between what's going on outside as to what's going on inside. Though it can be connected to emotions it is not a direct connection to emotions and that is the distinction that is often missed when talking about binge eating as a disorder. People shouldn't be villfied either way but I think sometimes the way the topic is used it can sometimes blur the distinction of what it really is. When someone has an eating disorder, they KNOW. There is no pleasure at all derived in what is happening. People who are fat get beat on for this moreso than anyone else.



I get what you're saying and don't disagree with you that it's a good thing to examine one's emotions and the behaviors one is engaging in that are a direct result of those emotions, including eating a lot of food. But in my opinion, it's a _private issue_, one best discussed and examined with a therapist and not in the public venue of OA, no matter how "A" they may profess themselves to be. In my opinion, how one manages one's health and eating are private things, for the individual only, and a trusted doctor or therapist. Not to be discussed with others so they can pronounce judgment on it.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Nov 20, 2010)

thirtiesgirl said:


> But see, here's the thing: you're pronouncing moral judgment on people's reasons for eating ("people eat for unhealthy reasons"). I can understand doing that for drug and alcohol abuse, which is physically harmful to the drug or alcohol abuser, and can be physically harmful to others in their lives - people they hit in their car, people they assault for drug money, etc. But having a desire to eat food, whatever the reason for that desire, is, in general, not harmful. I don't see overeating as a disorder. Bulimia - overeating and purging - _is_ a disorder and should be treated as such due to the ill effects on one's health that purging can have. Anorexia is a disorder because going without food has been proven have harmful effects on the body. But overeating is not a disorder in my opinion because it hasn't been proven as the sole reason some fat people have poor health. For that reason, I don't think it's ok for anyone to pronounce moral judgment on people's reasons for eating, as you're doing here.




Hmmm I had an aunt who had an eating disorder. She would wait til everyone was away from home and then go hit up all the drive-thrus in her area. She would hide money away just for this purpose, I'd say that was fairly harmful to her family since there wasn't always money to pay bills or buy clothes for the kids. She also got so big that she became immobile and couldn't or wouldn't leave the house. My uncle and cousins ended up having to take care of her til the day she died because she was unable to do for herself. I'd also say that was pretty harmful to both herself and her family. I never knew what drove her to this behavior because she never thought she had a problem, but I'd imagine her family would disagree. 

I dont think its passing moral judgement to say that someone is doing something for an unhealthy reason. I didn't say eating was bad or good, just that if you are doing something, anything really, to escape reality it might not be all that healthy for you. 

I can't imagine what it must feel like to have an addiction or repulsion to something so necessary to life as food. Alcohol and drugs can be avoided a person can quit them cold turkey if they choose, but you can't do that with food.


----------



## mossystate (Nov 20, 2010)

frankman said:


> Do you ever consider letting a sexist post slide, on account of it just not being worth discussing, or you don't really feel like a fight, or you just have better things to do? Because if it was me, I'd get awfully tired and bitter.



If I commented on every whatever kind of post you disapprove of me responding to ( but it is nice, you show your concern for my energy level ), I would be a very, very, busy bee. When I happen to see a sexist post, yes, I will respond. It's very important to me, and doesn't cost me a thing, in any way. Think about others who don't let some things " slide ". Are they all tired and bitter? Nah. Maybe you don't have the desire or strength ( yeah, I know some view it as a weakness, and I am defining strength for myself )...I do. If I only did one thing, any one thing, 24/7, then call the doctors with the fancy jacket with straps. The posting itself is not about being bitter or tired ( this sinus infection is 100 times more tiring ), but assuming a person might be either of those things...that is a bit....something. " If it were me "... I mean, how can a person even respond to this kind of thing. I am really OK with how I use my energy. :happy:
---------
30's, I agree that struggles like this ' should ' be mostly addressed in private...but some folks move on to wanting/needing a community of sorts. Also, fact of the matter is...many people simply do not have access to a therapist, and are scrambling for anything. I also agree that it probably is a real minefield for many, especially when a focus is on numbers, or kinds of food.


----------



## mossystate (Nov 20, 2010)

fatgirlflyin said:


> I dont think its passing moral judgement to say that someone is doing something for an unhealthy reason. I didn't say eating was bad or good, just that if you are doing something, anything really, to escape reality it might not be all that healthy for you.



^^^. 
......


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 20, 2010)

thirtiesgirl said:


> I get what you're saying and don't disagree with you that it's a good thing to examine one's emotions and the behaviors one is engaging in that are a direct result of those emotions, including eating a lot of food. But in my opinion, it's a _private issue_, one best discussed and examined with a therapist and not in the public venue of OA, no matter how "A" they may profess themselves to be. In my opinion, how one manages one's health and eating are private things, for the individual only, and a trusted doctor or therapist. Not to be discussed with others so they can pronounce judgment on it.



I disagree with that only because I feel that this attitude is antithecal to size acceptance. Case in point, G-d forbid I should have a heart attack. If such a thing happens there is a sense of shame and guilt associated. I have to hide it from people, folks toss around that tired hyperbole about me of being a drain on healthcare, and I should be shamed and heaped with vitriol. But if I were thin I could be the spokesmodel for Lipitor. There is a sense that people who are ill or have issues commonly associated with the obesity epidemic should keep quiet and stay out of site so that all the normal well adjusted fatties can speak, but why? Nobody else has to skitter away when they are ill. They're treated like human beings and I'm of the belief that we should not be held up to a standard that no one else is expected to adhere to. Size acceptance shouldn't be dependent upon our health or mobility and I think we short change ourselves to the outside world by basing it on those concepts within the movement.


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Nov 20, 2010)

LillyBBBW said:


> I disagree with that only because I feel that this attitude is antithecal to size acceptance. Case in point, G-d forbid I should have a heart attack. If such a thing happens there is a sense of shame and guilt associated. I have to hide it from people, folks toss around that tired hyperbole about me of being a drain on healthcare, and I should be shamed and heaped with vitriol. But if I were thin I could be the spokesmodel for Lipitor. There is a sense that people who are ill or have issues commonly associated with the obesity epidemic should keep quiet and stay out of site so that all the normal well adjusted fatties can speak, but why? Nobody else has to skitter away when they are ill. They're treated like human beings and I'm of the belief that we should not be held up to a standard that no one else is expected to adhere to. Size acceptance shouldn't be dependent upon our health or mobility and I think we short change ourselves to the outside world by basing it on those concepts within the movement.



You've missed my point completely. I'm not advocating that fat people stay out of sight and stay silent, whether they're a "good"/"healthy" fat or not. What I'm saying is that one's medical issues and one's eating habits are one's own personal business and not up for discussion or judgment from anyone, especially OA. My eating habits and medical issues are no one's business but my own, which is why I don't post about them here. If I did, I'm sure I'd receive reams of judgment from other members for either being an "uppity healthy fat" or for "eating for unhealthy reasons." I've seen members here post both kinds of judgments on other fat people, and as far as I'm concerned, that's not ok. And I don't just mean to single out Dims. I've seen that kind of behavior in many other fat-positive communities, too, and of course from most of society in general who thinks they have a right to comment on every fat person's lifestyle. My health and eating habits are my business and not up for discussion by anyone except for my personal doctor and therapist.


----------



## spacedcowgirl (Nov 20, 2010)

thirtiesgirl said:


> But see, here's the thing: you're pronouncing moral judgment on people's reasons for eating ("people eat for unhealthy reasons"). I can understand doing that for drug and alcohol abuse, which is physically harmful to the drug or alcohol abuser, and can be physically harmful to others in their lives - people they hit in their car, people they assault for drug money, etc. But having a desire to eat food, whatever the reason for that desire, is, in general, not harmful. I don't see overeating as a disorder. Bulimia - overeating and purging - _is_ a disorder and should be treated as such due to the ill effects on one's health that purging can have. Anorexia is a disorder because going without food has been proven have harmful effects on the body. But overeating is not a disorder in my opinion because it hasn't been proven as the sole reason some fat people have poor health. For that reason, I don't think it's ok for anyone to pronounce moral judgment on people's reasons for eating, as you're doing here.



I feel that OA has been helpful for many people, so I don't want to act like I am blanket condemning it, but for me personally the premise of it is pretty suspect. "Abstinence" in eating tends to resemble a strict and often low-carb diet. If that works for someone and brings them some peace, great, but I just (again IMO) think that you can make a straight line connection between alcoholism and binge eating. You have to have food. I think yo-yo dieting and trying to rigidly control food intake from a young age is actually what results in erratic and compulsive eating in a lot of people, so it doesn't sit right with me to use that exact same tactic to try and treat binge eating disorder. I will fully admit that I don't have all the answers, though, and I have struggled with binge eating myself for most of my life.

My irritation with Mike & Molly is the idea that anyone who weighs what they do must be so consumed by overeating that they actually consider themselves "food addicts." It's kind of a fine line the show is trying to walk... if overeating is actually an "addiction" then they're making light of something that shouldn't really be joked about--I can't really see a TV show joking about alcoholism or drug addiction except in the most superficial way. If it's not, then they're playing into stereotypes for cheap laughs. I'd really have rather they met at Weight Watchers (clearly they could have called it "Diet Central" or something to avoid trademark problems) than OA, since dieting is such a near-universal experience for fat people in our current social climate.

Anyway, for most fat people I know, eating is not any more an obsession than it is for thin people, and one of the most eye-opening moments I had upon reading fat blogs was the realization that many "inappropriate" eating behaviors that I had beat myself up over and convinced myself were terribly aberrant (such as snacking when you're bored or upset, continuing to eat when you're already full, eating junk food instead of "healthy" food) are engaged in routinely by EVERYONE, it's just not considered a problem or a red flag if thin people do it whereas it is for fat people. I know we all struggle with making healthy food choices in our society (or with being judged for NOT choosing the healthy option all the time) but that's just it, we ALL struggle with that. Not just fat people. The fact that Mike & Molly chose overeating as a central struggle of the characters in a way that it would never do for thin characters is very offputting to me.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Nov 20, 2010)

thirtiesgirl said:


> You've missed my point completely. I'm not advocating that fat people stay out of sight and stay silent, whether they're a "good"/"healthy" fat or not. What I'm saying is that one's medical issues and one's eating habits are one's own personal business and not up for discussion or judgment from anyone, especially OA. My eating habits and medical issues are no one's business but my own, which is why I don't post about them here. If I did, I'm sure I'd receive reams of judgment from other members for either being an "uppity healthy fat" or for "eating for unhealthy reasons." I've seen members here post both kinds of judgments on other fat people, and as far as I'm concerned, that's not ok. And I don't just mean to single out Dims. I've seen that kind of behavior in many other fat-positive communities, too, and of course from most of society in general who thinks they have a right to comment on every fat person's lifestyle. My health and eating habits are my business and not up for discussion by anyone except for my personal doctor and therapist.



But the thing is with OA, people go LOOKING for support from other people. They share their issues and they do it of their own accord. Nobody is tying them up and dragging them kicking and screaming to weekly meetings. If they were then maybe your outrage about people's eating habits being made public business would make more sense to me.


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Nov 20, 2010)

fatgirlflyin said:


> But the thing is with OA, people go LOOKING for support from other people. They share their issues and they do it of their own accord. Nobody is tying them up and dragging them kicking and screaming to weekly meetings. If they were then maybe your outrage about people's eating habits being made public business would make more sense to me.



Looking for support is fine. I have no issue with that. What I have an issue with is that people look for support with an organization that passes moral judgment on their eating habits. I'd hope that they'd have a better sense of self than to put themselves through that kind of mindfuck.

And again, you've missed my point. I'm not angry that people's eating habits are made public business, because they aren't, in OA or anywhere else. (That's the "A" part; if a person chooses to share their eating habits with the group, it's their choice, and it's not shared outside the group.) What angers me is, as I wrote above, that people would look for support in an organization that judges them for their eating habits and that people would profess to pronounce judgment on one's eating habits in the first place, whether one shares their eating habits or not. People look at me walking down the street and automatically assume I live on a diet of McDonald's and Burger King all day. I haven't said a word to them about my eating habits, but they look at my body shape and make an assumption. _That's_ why I don't support OA or discuss my eating habits or medical issues with anyone other than my doctor or my therapist. No one else has a right to know. No one else has a right to pass judgment on my lifestyle but me.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Nov 21, 2010)

thirtiesgirl said:


> Looking for support is fine. I have no issue with that. What I have an issue with is that people look for support with an organization that passes moral judgment on their eating habits. I'd hope that they'd have a better sense of self than to put themselves through that kind of mindfuck.
> 
> And again, you've missed my point. I'm not angry that people's eating habits are made public business, because they aren't, in OA or anywhere else. (That's the "A" part; if a person chooses to share their eating habits with the group, it's their choice, and it's not shared outside the group.) What angers me is, as I wrote above, that people would look for support in an organization that judges them for their eating habits and that people would profess to pronounce judgment on one's eating habits in the first place, whether one shares their eating habits or not. People look at me walking down the street and automatically assume I live on a diet of McDonald's and Burger King all day. I haven't said a word to them about my eating habits, but they look at my body shape and make an assumption. _That's_ why I don't support OA or discuss my eating habits or medical issues with anyone other than my doctor or my therapist. No one else has a right to know. No one else has a right to pass judgment on my lifestyle but me.



Have you ever attended an OA, AA, or NA meeting? I have and I've never, ever felt as though I was being judged.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 21, 2010)

thirtiesgirl said:


> Looking for support is fine. I have no issue with that. *What I have an issue with is that people look for support with an organization that passes moral judgment on their eating habits. * I'd hope that they'd have a better sense of self than to put themselves through that kind of mindfuck.
> 
> And again, you've missed my point. I'm not angry that people's eating habits are made public business, because they aren't, in OA or anywhere else. (That's the "A" part; if a person chooses to share their eating habits with the group, it's their choice, and it's not shared outside the group.) What angers me is, as I wrote above, that people would look for support in an organization that judges them for their eating habits and that people would profess to pronounce judgment on one's eating habits in the first place, whether one shares their eating habits or not. People look at me walking down the street and automatically assume I live on a diet of McDonald's and Burger King all day. I haven't said a word to them about my eating habits, but they look at my body shape and make an assumption. _That's_ why I don't support OA or discuss my eating habits or medical issues with anyone other than my doctor or my therapist. No one else has a right to know. No one else has a right to pass judgment on my lifestyle but me.



NOTHING could be more untrue thirties girl.  When I was a tween my mother dragged me to an OA meeting kicking and screaming the whole way. I felt morally judged for food in every corner of the world at that stage but that was the one place where my mindset sobered up quickly. Even at that age it was crystal clear to me that I didn't belong on there, the experience was so vastly different than what I was expecting. In fact, my tiny mind was able to clearly see the hysteria behind the obsession everyone had with my eating habits and liberated me from the unjust judgement. My mother actually had the wherewithall to be embarassed though she didn't say so outwardly. Meetings can differ from each other but still, I don't think the judgement angle is there at all. If it were, no one would go. The meetings aren't filled with lemmings, they're there to be liberated from the fear and isolation that this disease can foster for people.


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Nov 21, 2010)

fatgirlflyin said:


> Have you ever attended an OA, AA, or NA meeting? I have and I've never, ever felt as though I was being judged.





LillyBBBW said:


> NOTHING could be more untrue thirties girl.  When I was a tween my mother dragged me to an OA meeting kicking and screaming the whole way. I felt morally judged for food in every corner of the world at that stage but that was the one place where my mindset sobered up quickly. Even at that age it was crystal clear to me that I didn't belong on there, the experience was so vastly different than what I was expecting. In fact, my tiny mind was able to clearly see the hysteria behind the obsession everyone had with my eating habits and liberated me from the unjust judgement. My mother actually had the wherewithall to be embarassed though she didn't say so outwardly. Meetings can differ from each other but still, I don't think the judgement angle is there at all. If it were, no one would go. The meetings aren't filled with lemmings, they're there to be liberated from the fear and isolation that this disease can foster for people.



It's not the _people_ who go to OA meetings who are judging you (at least not openly). It's the fact that every tenet of OA is based on the premise of judging one's eating habits and placing moral judgment on food ("good" and "bad" food). _That's_ my issue. If you want to continue supporting an organization that promotes passing judgment on people's eating habits, and want to continue doing so yourself, that's your prerogative. I, for one, will not be doing so, and you'll not convince me that OA is supportive of fat people, or anyone. "Supporting" people in a public venue to come together to discuss "unhealthy" eating habits is hugely damaging to one's mind-body connection, imo, and we don't need any more of it. If one feels he or she is losing control of their eating habits, one should discuss it privately with their therapist or doctor and not continue to support an organization that bases their "support system" on the idea that people should be judged for their choices and should place moral judgment on food.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 21, 2010)

thirtiesgirl said:


> It's not the _people_ who go to OA meetings who are judging you (at least not openly). It's the fact that every tenet of OA is based on the premise of judging one's eating habits and placing moral judgment on food ("good" and "bad" food). _That's_ my issue. If you want to continue supporting an organization that promotes passing judgment on people's eating habits, and want to continue doing so yourself, that's your prerogative. I, for one, will not be doing so, and you'll not convince me that OA is supportive of fat people, or anyone. "Supporting" people in a public venue to come together to discuss "unhealthy" eating habits is hugely damaging to one's mind-body connection, imo, and we don't need any more of it. If one feels he or she is losing control of their eating habits, one should discuss it privately with their therapist or doctor and not continue to support an organization that bases their "support system" on the idea that people should be judged for their choices and should place moral judgment on food.



There are no tenets in any of the litterature at OA that denote any judgements on one's eating habits beyond the confines of what makes compulsive overeating a deadly, horrifying disease. In this disease, people may have already eaten just moments ago and then the urge strikes you like a bolt of lightening to run back to the fridge and begin stuffing food down despite being full, despite throwing up, despite pain, despite bleeding and being unable to stop. The only judgement here is coming from you because you continue to insist that compulsive overeating is somehow connected to personal choice and by treating this disease it somehow soils the concept of choice for fat people. It. is. a. disease.... a compulsive disorder that comes from faulty transmitters in the brain. Food, weight loss and choice are immaterial. One might argue that the treatment and understanding of the disease is outdated and substandard, I tend to agree with that, but OA is not at all in the same category with judging food choices. They don't even have dieting or nutritional stuff connected to their meetings and their litterature encourages people to work that out for themselves or with a health care professional. They won't even touch that aspect of a person's developement. OA is something else entirely.


----------



## thirtiesgirl (Nov 21, 2010)

LillyBBBW said:


> There are no tenets in any of the litterature at OA that denote any judgements on one's eating habits beyond the confines of what makes compulsive overeating a deadly, horrifying disease. In this disease, people may have already eaten just moments ago and then the urge strikes you like a bolt of lightening to run back to the fridge and begin stuffing food down despite being full, despite throwing up, despite pain, despite bleeding and being unable to stop. The only judgement here is coming from you because you continue to insist that compulsive overeating is somehow connected to personal choice and by treating this disease it somehow soils the concept of choice for fat people. It. is. a. disease.... a compulsive disorder that comes from faulty transmitters in the brain. Food, weight loss and choice are immaterial. One might argue that the treatment and understanding of the disease is outdated and substandard, I tend to agree with that, but OA is not at all in the same category with judging food choices. They don't even have dieting or nutritional stuff connected to their meetings and their litterature encourages people to work that out for themselves or with a health care professional. They won't even touch that aspect of a person's developement. OA is something else entirely.



You're welcome to your opinion. Mine is different and you won't convince me that OA doesn't judge people on their eating habits. I've said what I need to say on the subject, and any further attempts to convince me will fall on deaf ears.


----------



## ThikJerseyChik (Nov 28, 2010)

thirtiesgirl said:


> Well, in defense of the sweater, it *is* supposed to be fashionable and trendy. Just because something's trendy, though, doesn't mean it's going to look good on someone. And fugly trends aren't just relegated to big & tall shops. Just look at all the fugly at Lane Bryant and poor quality at Torrid. I can't believe some of the stuff they expect fat women to wear.



Exactly - I agree 1000%


----------



## Buffetbelly (Apr 28, 2011)

Revisiting this thread nearly 6 months later, it has turned out that OA only figures in as the place Mike and Molly met. Once they found each other, they haven't been back, except Mike went back once when he thought that he and Molly were going to break up. There has been no incorporation of OA concepts into the writing at all.


----------



## HeavyDuty24 (Apr 28, 2011)

i have heard of this show and i want to watch it,but i haven't yet.


----------



## mimosa (Apr 28, 2011)

I still like the show.


----------



## imfree (Apr 28, 2011)

hostesshoho said:


> I will not watch it.... I have heard all the fat jokes already... I was wondering if this would still be a comedy if it were about alcoholics and met up in an AA meeting.



Nah, it's not PC to make fun of alcoholics, like it is to make fun of fat people.

That's sad because we're born with an innate need to eat and not die from undereating or overeating, but we can choose to drink or not to drink. Fat people are stigmatized, while addicts receive compassion.


----------



## imfree (Apr 28, 2011)

frankman said:


> Do you ever consider letting a sexist post slide, on account of it just not being worth discussing, or you don't really feel like a fight, or you just have better things to do? Because if it was me, I'd get awfully tired and bitter.
> 
> On an unrelated note though, over-breathing is called hyperventilation, and those weezing bastards don't even really use the extra oxygen they take in. It's like their lust for air is bigger than their lung capacity - I still think their fainting is god's way of telling them greed is bad.



Here is an interesting article on Overbreathing and Anxiety.


----------



## Buffetbelly (Apr 30, 2011)

I think Mike & Molly is very positive. There are fat jokes, but they are good natured. Mike and Molly's friends and relatives make accommodations to their size with a few wisecracks but not much stereotyping. 

I also like the way the show promotes racial harmony. Mike's best friend is black and they have a mutual friend who is a recent immigrant from Africa. 


























[/QUOTE]


----------



## HeavyDuty24 (Apr 30, 2011)

Buffetbelly said:


> I think Mike & Molly is very positive. There are fat jokes, but they are good natured. Mike and Molly's friends and relatives make accommodations to their size with a few wisecracks but not much stereotyping.
> 
> I also like the way the show promotes racial harmony. Mike's best friend is black and they have a mutual friend who is a recent immigrant from Africa.


[/QUOTE]


man i love it when shows are like that.also i feel Kevin James would have been perfect for the Mike role.and funny thing is,the guy who played Mike was on an episode of King Of Queens once as one of Doug's old football buddies.


----------



## mimosa (Apr 30, 2011)

Yes, agreed.That's what I love about it...DIVERSITY ! Its the spice of life. It feels good to see it on TV also. 
I don't watch TV. Mike and Molly is the only show I watch. 



Buffetbelly said:


> I think Mike & Molly is very positive. There are fat jokes, but they are good natured. Mike and Molly's friends and relatives make accommodations to their size with a few wisecracks but not much stereotyping.
> 
> I also like the way the show promotes racial harmony. Mike's best friend is black and they have a mutual friend who is a recent immigrant from Africa.


[/QUOTE]


----------



## BlueBurning (May 5, 2011)

I watched a number of the earlier episodes only to become tired of the repeated fat jokes. I fully knew a comedy show dealing with characters with certain physical traits would contain some jokes at the main characters expense but had no idea that the writers would be unable to come up with some original material.


----------



## chicken legs (Dec 8, 2011)

I just stumbled across Mike and Molly via this articleabout a Marie Claire blogger that went off the deep end because she used to be anorexic and I'm currently checking it out. I didn't know Melissa McCarthy was cousin's to Jennie McCarthy. That funny bone must be genetic. I never watched Gilmore Girls but I loved her in Charlie's Angels. 

Also, I skimmed over the article in Marie Claire. Its basically one addict bashing other possible addicts and then apologizing for tripping out cause her inner demons were showing. I say " possible addicts" because binge eating is like binge drinking with alcohol and I have personally seen (male) bulimics trip out over food. However, as a person who came from a gainer/bodybuilder mindset, I would have never compared the two because most gainers are very conscious of what they are doing and do it with a purpose of becoming as big as their body can handle for whatever purpose.

No offense, but its really hard to have fun with recovering addicts because they are soooo paranoid. Anywho..from what I have seen, its pretty funny in a very pg King of Queens way.


----------

