# Preference VS fetish.



## 4BDN1

I'm certain that this topic is somewhere up here but I guess I'm too lazy to look. LOL. Anyway I was talking with a friend and we got on preferences and attractions. I brought up the fact that I prefer full figured women to skinny or "average" women. They seemed shocked by my response and I asked why? They then asked was it my preference or my fetish. Thing is this is not the first time I had this asked. I am physically attracted to a pear shaped woman whose an 18 than a carrot shaped 8. So I just wanted to ask has anyone else ever had that asked of them before? Why must my preference be known as a fetish?


----------



## Mini

I'm fairly close to three sheets at the moment, so forgive the flippancy, but what's the difference? You get off to what you get off to, and as most people use fetish to refer to anything that doesn't appeal to them sexually I don't really see what the problem is.


----------



## Jon Blaze

Because some people think a Fetish is anything that our society doesn't deem "Normal," when what is normal has nothing to do with it as far as its definition goes.

The general concept here is that if you need it for sexual gratification it could be a fetish, but if you don't need it at times then no. But there's so many arguments that can be brought up. Is it the amount? Is it the substance? is it a shape?


----------



## Mini

Jon Blaze said:


> Because some people think a Fetish is anything that our society doesn't deem "Normal," when what is normal has nothing to do with it as far as its definition goes.
> 
> The general concept here is that if you need it for sexual gratification it could be a fetish, but if you don't need it at times then no. But there's so many arguments that can be brought up. Is it the amount? Is it the substance? is it a shape?



I totally get what you're saying, but I can't say I've ever stopped mid-wank and been like, wow, maybe I'm acting on a fetish! This isn't a preference at all!

I know it's not just semantics, but it still boils down to "who fuckin' cares?" for me


----------



## D_A_Bunny

Jon Blaze said:


> Because some people think a Fetish is anything that our society doesn't deem "Normal," when what is normal has nothing to do with it as far as its definition goes.
> 
> *The general concept here is that if you need it for sexual gratification it could be a fetish, but if you don't need it at times then no.* But there's so many arguments that can be brought up. Is it the amount? Is it the substance? is it a shape?



I bolded the part of this statement that I am responding to. Then wouldn't that make a guy who ONLY likes thin women a fetishist? Because if he can't get his rocks off with a big girl, then it means he needs a thin women at all times.

I think that the fact that someone prefers a larger partner, in and of itself, is a preference. And that is what it is. 

Just as some prefer flavors of ice cream. I might try other flavors, I might not, but it does not mean that one has a flavor fetish because to truly enjoy ice cream they want THE flavor that they want.

And I merely used part of your post as a way to state my opinion. I was not making this statement at you personally.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood

D_A_Bunny said:


> Just as some prefer flavors of ice cream. I might try other flavors, I might not, but it does not mean that one has a flavor fetish because to truly enjoy ice cream they want THE flavor that they want.



Unless, perhaps, that flavor is Lima Bean Almond Fudge.


----------



## Jon Blaze

D_A_Bunny said:


> I bolded the part of this statement that I am responding to. Then wouldn't that make a guy who ONLY likes thin women a fetishist? Because if he can't get his rocks off with a big girl, then it means he needs a thin women at all times.
> 
> I think that the fact that someone prefers a larger partner, in and of itself, is a preference. And that is what it is.
> 
> Just as some prefer flavors of ice cream. I might try other flavors, I might not, but it does not mean that one has a flavor fetish because to truly enjoy ice cream they want THE flavor that they want.
> 
> And I merely used part of your post as a way to state my opinion. I was not making this statement at you personally.




Oh I agree, and I apologize for the "In general" comment.

To go deeper: Plus being able to be content with it without other pieces to the person like their personality. Basically the whole "Bag of fat" scenario.


----------



## Jon Blaze

Mini said:


> I totally get what you're saying, but I can't say I've ever stopped mid-wank and been like, wow, maybe I'm acting on a fetish! This isn't a preference at all!
> 
> I know it's not just semantics, but it still boils down to "who fuckin' cares?" for me



Nothing wrong with that at all. It's just an intriguing conversation to bring up occasionally. I like "Talking shop" at times. lol

I'm right with you on the first comment too. Never have I looked back and thought about it. To be fair, however: My pr0nz stash covers all sizes. lol


----------



## StarWitness

D_A_Bunny said:


> Then wouldn't that make a guy who ONLY likes thin women a fetishist? Because if he can't get his rocks off with a big girl, then it means he needs a thin women at all times.



Personally, I'd label that guy as having a fetish for thin women. It meets the given requirements, it just doesn't look like a fetish because it's widely accepted as being "normal." 



Jon Blaze said:


> To go deeper: Plus being able to be content with it without other pieces to the person like their personality. Basically the whole "Bag of fat" scenario.



I don't know about that... would that make a one-night stand that's completely "vanilla" fetishistic? Personally, I've tried to act on fetishes with a person I didn't connect with; that didn't work out at all. Even if it's a casual encounter with someone I've recently met, it has to be someone I "click" with. Does that mean I don't have any fetishes? Or maybe I have a fetish for likable personalities... HMMMMMM....


----------



## LovelyLiz

StarWitness said:


> Personally, I'd label that guy as having a fetish for thin women. It meets the given requirements, it just doesn't look like a fetish because it's widely accepted as being "normal."



I love that, and I'm totally going to use it. Next time someone says they aren't interested in a girl/guy because s/he's too fat, I'm going to say, "Oh, do you have a thin fetish or something?"

Word.


----------



## Jon Blaze

StarWitness said:


> Personally, I'd label that guy as having a fetish for thin women. It meets the given requirements, it just doesn't look like a fetish because it's widely accepted as being "normal."
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about that... would that make a one-night stand that's completely "vanilla" fetishistic? Personally, I've tried to act on fetishes with a person I didn't connect with; that didn't work out at all. Even if it's a casual encounter with someone I've recently met, it has to be someone I "click" with. Does that mean I don't have any fetishes? Or maybe I have a fetish for likable personalities... HMMMMMM....



I think the latter is more of a choice. And I mean everything beyond those things related to size to include personality.

I think that applies to both. Choice vs "I literally can't do this... yet.." lol


----------



## LoveBHMS

Oh lord....

What is the difference? I mean who cares about the semantics of it, your sexuality is what it is. You're comfortable with it, you know what excites you. So long as you are honest and open with any partners or potential partners, who the heck cares about the terminology?


----------



## Dr. P Marshall

LoveBHMS said:


> Oh lord....
> 
> What is the difference? I mean who cares about the semantics of it, your sexuality is what it is. You're comfortable with it, you know what excites you. So long as you are honest and open with any partners or potential partners, who the heck cares about the terminology?



Exactly. How many times have we had this discussion here..........


----------



## StarWitness

But pointless arguments over semantics are fun! Said (typed?) with total sincerity!


----------



## D_A_Bunny

Dr. P Marshall said:


> Exactly. How many times have we had this discussion here..........



Yeah, but I was bored. Welcome back monkey butt LOVER


----------



## Dr. P Marshall

D_A_Bunny said:


> Yeah, but I was bored. Welcome back monkey butt LOVER



Thanks for the welcome back.  And actually, my own hypocrisy has just smacked me in the face now that I think about it. I can't really point fingers since I (try really, really hard to ) turn every discussion into a thread about monkeys.


----------



## Paquito

Dr. P Marshall said:


> Thanks for the welcome back.  And actually, my own hypocrisy has just smacked me in the face now that I think about it. I can't really point fingers since I (try really, really hard to ) turn every discussion into a thread about monkeys.



So does that mean you have a preference for monkeys, or a monkey fetish?


----------



## Dr. P Marshall

free2beme04 said:


> So does that mean you have a preference for monkeys, or a monkey fetish?


Clearly it is a fetish. Since I can't function IN ANY CAPACITY without monkeys.


----------



## Paquito

Dr. P Marshall said:


> Clearly it is a fetish. Since I can't function IN ANY CAPACITY without monkeys.



This is a valid point. It's a good thing we don't judge here, you man-worm monkey fetishist.


----------



## Dr. P Marshall

free2beme04 said:


> This is a valid point. It's a good thing we don't judge here, you man-worm monkey fetishist.



Shut up you sick freak.


----------



## exile in thighville

this isn't hard


----------



## 4BDN1

OK I'm not the only person with a monkey fetish..err I mean like..err...... Wouldn't mind chilling with an monkey ninja.


----------



## Teleute

I find it most useful to categorize things this way: if it's a person you're talking about, I call it a preference. If it's an action, item, costume, whatever, I call it a fetish. Is it the "official" definitions? No, but the medical definitions don't have much meaning for most people anyway, and it's a convenient way to refer to things which reduces the "omg what you like is freaky" that the term "fetish" brings up.


----------



## Jon Blaze

Teleute said:


> I find it most useful to categorize things this way: if it's a person you're talking about, I call it a preference. If it's an action, item, costume, whatever, I call it a fetish. Is it the "official" definitions? No, but the medical definitions don't have much meaning for most people anyway, and it's a convenient way to refer to things which reduces the "omg what you like is freaky" that the term "fetish" brings up.



That's basically the only reason I even consider thinking about it. Simply because the opposite is rarely considered a fetish. I find it offensive at times. I remember once someone realized that I like women on both ends and say "Fat is your fetish: Thin is your preference." I almost ripped his head off. lol


----------



## Ernest Nagel

A preference is something you could admit to on a first date and reasonably expect a second date. A fetish is something your wife's divorce attorney uses to make a down payment on a new BMW.


----------



## musicman

I'm sure the word "fetish" has some meaning in anthropology or sociology or whatever, but I think a lot of people use it as a negative label for a preference they either disagree with, or can't understand, or want to trivialize. It's like the words "religion" and "superstition". If they believe it, it's a (legitimate) religion; if not, then it's just a (silly) superstition. I think there are a lot of word pairs like that in our language. The use of a particular word often tells you more about the speaker than about his or her subject matter.


----------



## Zoom

A preference is something more inocuous and less-shameful-sounding, that certain other groups (friends, family, church, whatever) will not deign to condemn as evil and perverted.

Imagine the man who trains to become a sanitation engineer, and the first day on the job he hears, "Look, Mommy, it's the garbage man!"


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover

4BDN1 said:


> I'm certain that this topic is somewhere up here but I guess I'm too lazy to look. LOL. Anyway I was talking with a friend and we got on preferences and attractions. I brought up the fact that I prefer full figured women to skinny or "average" women. They seemed shocked by my response and I asked why? They then asked was it my preference or my fetish. Thing is this is not the first time I had this asked. I am physically attracted to a pear shaped woman whose an 18 than a carrot shaped 8. So I just wanted to ask has anyone else ever had that asked of them before? Why must my preference be known as a fetish?



For all of our talk about being a free society, we are a country in which people expect others to march in lockstep formation according to other people's norms. What is expected is that men are supposed to want skinny, waifish women with tight butts. For many women, even fat women, it's a shock to encounter a man who prefers larger partners. A person with such a preference is one who flies in the face of everything that these insecure women have been taught about fatness and fat people.

Having a non-mainstream sexual preference will cause others to stare or to make uncalled-for remarks. People act this way because they see you doing something that they could not comfortably do. Because fatness is supposed to represent ugliness, unhealthfulness, and undersirability to many people in the mainstream world (and even in the fat world), meeting confirmed FAs can be an eyebrow-raising experience for some people.

I've dealt with people like this before. I generally do not volunteer my preferences unless I am asked. And if asked, I will not lie to make others feel comfortable. 

My advice is to be yourself. It gets easier as you get older.


----------



## StarWitness

exile in thighville said:


> this isn't hard



Must be because your fetish object isn't present.


----------



## Lamia

Loving fat people isn't the norm so people put it in a category as a fetish which is false. A fetish is focusing on objects to get off such as needing someone to hit you in the head with an ashtray before you cum and it's the only way you can get off. They also assign it to people obesessing over a non-sexual body part like an armpit or ankle. Loving a woman's fat ass is not a fetish it's a preference. 

Some people might say that men obesessing over a fat belly is misplaced, but a woman's stomach has always been considered sexy.


----------



## BBW4Chattery

I see a fetish as being non-fixed, fluctuating, or transient. I see a preference as being consistent. I can express a fetish with anyone; hell, anything depending on the fetish. The preference has more limitations for me.

I see my fetishes as a cherry on a sundae. The sundae is delicious without them... and I can eat plain sundaes everyday and be ok with it... but adding the cherry is going to make it that much more special and memorable. 

I don't even know the actual definition of fetish but I wouldn't say that it's an attribute in a person. It's more of a situation; I guess. Whereas, I like bigger guys and that's my preference. I don't know, it's hard to make sense at this hour.


----------



## tigerlily

Lamia said:


> Loving fat people isn't the norm so people put it in a category as a fetish which is false. A fetish is focusing on objects to get off such as needing someone to hit you in the head with an ashtray before you cum and it's the only way you can get off. They also assign it to people obesessing over a non-sexual body part like an armpit or ankle. Loving a woman's fat ass is not a fetish it's a preference.
> 
> Some people might say that men obesessing over a fat belly is misplaced, but a woman's stomach has always been considered sexy.



I agree with this pretty much. 

Further, I have to say that I think a preference is a want, while a fetish is a need (granted, a sexual one.). 

My religion uses the word fetish quite differently, but Websters defines it as:



> Fetish : an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion.



And



> Fetish: an object or bodily part whose real or fantasied presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression.



Without wishing to be too graphic, when I'm trying to apply the denotative meaning of the words "preference" and "fetish", I ask myself this question: "Do I need a fat guy for sexual gratification?" And when I arrive at this answer: "Nah. But I'd sure as hell would like one.", I know that there's a line between the two words and where I feel that I can stand with regards to them. 

All that said, though, words have a way of morphing their cognitive meaning as generations pass. "Gay" is an example of that. So is "Ejaculate", which personally threw me for a loop when I first encountered in a Sherlock Holmes story.


----------



## Ernest Nagel

If you're reluctant to tell your parents about it, it's probably just a preference. If you're also hesitant to tell your partner about it, it could go either way. If you're afraid to admit it anonymously to Howard Stern you got yourself a serious, full-bore fetish going there.  JMO.


----------



## kioewen

musicman said:


> a lot of people use it as a negative label for a preference they either disagree with, or can't understand, or want to trivialize. It's like the words "religion" and "superstition". If they believe it, it's a (legitimate) religion; if not, then it's just a (silly) superstition.


I think this is absolutely right. For a lot of people, the following holds true:

If you have it, it's a preference.
If someone else has it, it's a fetish.


----------



## Blockierer

_Preference VS fetish?_
I think it's none of them. It's a talent, a gift, a way of life, a normality.


----------



## mergirl

Sick illness.


----------



## jakub

mergirl said:


> Sick illness.




And there is no cure....(but who cares?).


----------



## Ola

Ech, fetish or not, it's still your sexual preference. I don't see the big deal, but then again I've sorta accepted that I have a kinky side (with no relation to the nature of this forum) and to me "fetish" isn't a negative word. I mean shit, everyone have turn-ons (unless they're asexual obviously) and what we call said turn-ons don't don't change the fact that we have them. Some people like big boobs, others like butts, or even feet. Yet others like big men/women. ALL of those things could be called fetishism, OR it could be called "preference". You say tomato, I say screw it; it's still edible! =P

IMO though, this is a fetish forum, but hey you call it whatever you want. You'll find it doesn't really change anything.


----------



## Fascinita

A human being is never a fetish. A fetish is an _object_ without which it's not possible to feel sexually aroused or gratified. Fat is a quality of human beings, sometimes present in accumulations on certain parts of the body. No one can rightly separate the fat from the human without some trick of the imagination, some fetishization. But fat _people_ of themselves are never fetishes, and neither is an attraction to fat _people_ fetishistic.

If you have a preference for certain shapes or colors or heights or whatever in human beings--if those are the qualities you're attracted to in a human being--then you have a _preference_.

If your attraction is to fat legs alone, or to fat bellies, or to rolls, or to bony ribs that poke you when you hug a person, or whatever, then you're _fetishizing_ parts of human bodies--that is, treating parts of bodies as fetish objects.

So unless you're in the group of people who separate parts or qualities of bodies from whole human beings, singling out a part or quality as the _exclusive_ locus of your attraction without regard for the person as person, you don't have a fetish.

No one who says it's inherently "kinky" (as in sexual kink) to be attracted to fat people is speaking lucidly. What they mean is that they're aware it's not socially acceptable to like fat people, and that they've formed a taboo about fatness, maybe that they feel secretive about liking fat, or that they enjoy fat's current subversive "nature". That's not the same thing as having a fat fetish, unless they enjoy their taboo so intensely that they eventually begin to fetishize fat as an object of desire.

Repeat: Fat people are not fetishes. Only objects--or aspects, or parts of bodies treated as objects--can be fetishes. There are many fat people here who are not here to be treated as objects, who bring their own desires regardless of the desires of fetishists. This site may address aspects of fetish, but the participation and agency of whole, living human beings who happen to be fat--people who belong here as much as any fetishist--makes this site much more than a "fetish site."

Thank you for not reducing me to my fat bits. I am more than wallpaper.


----------



## joswitch

Fascinita said:


> A human being is never a fetish. A fetish is an _object_ without which it's not possible to feel sexually aroused or gratified. Fat is a quality of human beings, sometimes present in accumulations on certain parts of the body. No one can rightly separate the fat from the human without some trick of the imagination, some fetishization. But fat _people_ of themselves are never fetishes, and neither is an attraction to fat _people_ fetishistic.
> 
> If you have a preference for certain shapes or colors or heights or whatever in human beings--if those are the qualities you're attracted to in a human being--then you have a _preference_.
> 
> If your attraction is to fat legs alone, or to fat bellies, or to rolls, or to bony ribs that poke you when you hug a person, or whatever, then you're _fetishizing_ parts of human bodies--that is, treating parts of bodies as fetish objects.
> 
> So unless you're in the group of people who separate parts or qualities of bodies from whole human beings, singling out a part or quality as the _exclusive_ locus of your attraction without regard for the person as person, you don't have a fetish.
> 
> No one who says it's "kinky" (as in sexual kink) to be attracted to fat people is speaking lucidly. What they mean is that they're aware it's not socially acceptable to like fat people, and that they've formed a taboo about fatness, maybe that they feel secretive about liking fat, or that they enjoy fat's current subversive "nature". That's not the same thing as having a fat fetish, unless they enjoy their taboo so intensely that they eventually begin to fetishize fat as an object of desire.



Wise words mate!


----------



## joswitch

kioewen said:


> I think this is absolutely right. For a lot of people, the following holds true:
> 
> If you have it, it's a preference.
> If someone else has it, it's a fetish.



I also like this^! 

aaaand it;s time for me to log off for a bit!


----------



## katorade

Fascinita said:


> A human being is never a fetish. A fetish is an _object_ without which it's not possible to feel sexually aroused or gratified. Fat is a quality of human beings, sometimes present in accumulations on certain parts of the body. No one can rightly separate the fat from the human without some trick of the imagination, some fetishization. But fat _people_ of themselves are never fetishes, and neither is an attraction to fat _people_ fetishistic.
> 
> If you have a preference for certain shapes or colors or heights or whatever in human beings--if those are the qualities you're attracted to in a human being--then you have a _preference_.
> 
> If your attraction is to fat legs alone, or to fat bellies, or to rolls, or to bony ribs that poke you when you hug a person, or whatever, then you're _fetishizing_ parts of human bodies--that is, treating parts of bodies as fetish objects.
> 
> So unless you're in the group of people who separate parts or qualities of bodies from whole human beings, singling out a part or quality as the _exclusive_ locus of your attraction without regard for the person as person, you don't have a fetish.
> 
> No one who says it's inherently "kinky" (as in sexual kink) to be attracted to fat people is speaking lucidly. What they mean is that they're aware it's not socially acceptable to like fat people, and that they've formed a taboo about fatness, maybe that they feel secretive about liking fat, or that they enjoy fat's current subversive "nature". That's not the same thing as having a fat fetish, unless they enjoy their taboo so intensely that they eventually begin to fetishize fat as an object of desire.
> 
> Repeat: Fat people are not fetishes. Only objects--or aspects, or parts of bodies treated as objects--can be fetishes. There are many fat people here who are not here to be treated as objects, who bring their own desires regardless of the desires of fetishists. This site may address aspects of fetish, but the participation and agency of whole, living human beings who happen to be fat--people who belong here as much as any fetishist--makes this site much more than a "fetish site."
> 
> Thank you for not reducing me to my fat bits. I am more than wallpaper.




Couldn't have said it any better, and dammit, I can't rep you.


----------



## wolfpersona

Lamia said:


> Loving fat people isn't the norm so people put it in a category as a fetish which is false. A fetish is focusing on objects to get off such as needing someone to hit you in the head with an ashtray before you cum and it's the only way you can get off. They also assign it to people obesessing over a non-sexual body part like an armpit or ankle. Loving a woman's fat ass is not a fetish it's a preference.
> 
> Some people might say that men obesessing over a fat belly is misplaced, but a woman's stomach has always been considered sexy.



Hey I agree with you there. A fetish is like loving feet or hands or something. People have been loving big women for centuries. I cant resist a womans fat ass.:smitten:


----------



## Vader7476

There are a few different definitions of fetish.

Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.

S: (n) fetish (a form of sexual desire in which gratification depends to an abnormal degree on some object or item of clothing or part of the body) "common male fetishes are breasts, legs, hair, shoes, and underwear"

: an object or bodily part whose real or fantasized presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression

~Sexual fetishism, or erotic fetishism, is the sexual arousal brought on by any object, situation or body part not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature.


Clearly this is up to an individual, but given the definition it's not out of the realm of possibility that preferring fat partners can be a fetish(And if you like things like WG, overgrown outfits, feeding, etc. then yeah, definitely fetishistic) specifically in instances where thin women just don't do anything for you sexually. There is a thing called a thin fetish, where the people only are interested in thin partners(Below normal weights I believe). I think they both fall under a size/body kind of subfetish I would imagine. 

As long as you love your partner as a person first, I don't see anything inherently immoral about what your psychology dictates is appealing(Certain cases aside).

My two cents.


----------



## Ola

Fascinita, first of all I just want to say that I'm sorry for disecting yout post this way, but it's the easiest way to counter your points.



Fascinita said:


> A human being is never a fetish. A fetish is an _object_ *without which it's not possible to feel sexually aroused or gratified.*


Speaking as someone who's active in a fetish community, this depends solely on how hard-wired you are. For some that statement holds true, but for the majority of people (including myself) it doesn't. Yours is an extremely narrow definition of what a fetish may be. Not saying you're entirely wrong, but a lot of people (especially those who actually ARE fetishists) have a much looser definition of the term. 



Fascinita said:


> If you have a preference for certain shapes or colors or heights or whatever in human beings--if those are the qualities you're attracted to in a human being--then you have a _preference_.


This also kinda depends on how hard-wired you are. I'd say there's a stage where it goes beyond just being a preference, and I can imagine that's the case for many of the members on this forum.



Fascinita said:


> So unless you're in the group of people who separate parts or qualities of bodies from whole human beings, singling out a part or quality as the _exclusive_ locus of your attraction without regard for the person as person, you don't have a fetish.


You can have a fetish for a body-part/type/whatever and still be attracted to the individual as well you know.  Believe me, if you want a relationship to work, a lot of things have to click aside from your kinks or fetishes, shared or not.



Fascinita said:


> No one who says it's inherently "kinky" (as in sexual kink) to be attracted to fat people is speaking lucidly. *What they mean is that they're aware it's not socially acceptable to like fat people, and that they've formed a taboo about fatness, maybe that they feel secretive about liking fat, or that they enjoy fat's current subversive "nature".* That's not the same thing as having a fat fetish, unless they enjoy their taboo so intensely that they eventually begin to fetishize fat as an object of desire.


Not so. First of all, it's not INHERENTLY kinky to like big people, but given the nature of this forum... Come on, who are we trying to fool here? Obviously it is a kink/fetish to at least some people here, and there's no reason to patronize them by pretending that we understand exactly how they think or feel about their "interest". I sure as hell would have been offended by that, personally. To some, a fetish/kink isn't necessarily taboo, it's just not very "mainstream", or to use an even better word, common. But of course, when some people think of the word fetish they immediately make a negative association to it. That doesn't make them right though. I mean, some would make that same negative association to gay people, or even people of certain skin colours.



Fascinita said:


> Repeat: Fat people are not fetishes. Only objects--or aspects, or parts of bodies treated as objects--can be fetishes. *There are many fat people here who are not here to be treated as objects, *who bring their own desires regardless of the desires of fetishists. This site may address aspects of fetish, but the participation and agency of whole, living human beings who happen to be fat--people who belong here as much as any fetishist--makes this site much more than a "fetish site."


Hey, I'm also a big guy, but who the hell is saying that we're being reduced to objects?  I think the problem here is that you kinda have your idea of what a fetishist can (or rather, has) to be, while I have mine. I literally know more than a hundred people who would label themselves as fetishists, but trust me, they ALWAYS see the person first. In fact, they are some of the most loving and caring people I know and they would NEVER objectify ANYONE. In return though, I think that they - as well as I - would appreciate it if others would recognize the fact that our likes and attractions are nothing negative or bad.



Fascinita said:


> Thank you for not reducing me to my fat bits. I am more than wallpaper.


Eh, you can't really complain if people are turned on by the way you look though, now can you?  Seriously mate, I can relate to where you're coming from, and that statement in particular I can understand, but... I think you're wrong, and I can't say I like how you're telling ME - a fetishist - what a fetish can or can't be.


----------



## Fascinita

Ola said:


> how hard-wired you are



I don't believe in "hard-wiredness"--not the way that term is usually applied.

For reasons why, please see the work of Michel Foucault and Judith Butler, among others, re: socially constructed identities.

Thanks for your feedback, though.

RE: "me telling you what a fetish is..."

If what you're saying is that you want the freedom to call yourself a fetishist, by all means knock yourself out. The rest of us can come to a consensus about what we mean when we talk about fetish and you can exclude yourself from that conversation. My "wallpaper" point was rhetorical--whether you _actually_ reduce me to wallpaper or not doesn't concern me, as I'm always going to use my voice to talk back atcha anyway. You can always try to explain why your definition of fetish trumps general consensus, but see above.

RE: your claiming I attributed negative qualities to fetish.

Not so. But I know certain others (maybe you among them?) who do jumble ideas of "morals" into the definition of fetish, some of whom have chimed in above. For those folks, it appears that anything that seems to them "naughty" or "forbidden" is equal to a fetish.

In fact, one thing I was trying to do with my post above was to rescue fetish from the purvey of morality foisted on it by those who conflate their personal fears with ideas of "good" or "bad" ways to be. No one who has a fetish and practices it responsibly should be made to feel bad (or good, for that matter) for what they do. A fetish of itself simply is. Same goes for preference.


----------



## katorade

Vader7476 said:


> There are a few different definitions of fetish.
> 
> Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
> 
> S: (n) fetish (a form of sexual desire in which gratification depends to an abnormal degree on some object or item of clothing or part of the body) "common male fetishes are breasts, legs, hair, shoes, and underwear"
> 
> : an object or bodily part whose real or fantasized presence is psychologically necessary for sexual gratification and that is an object of fixation to the extent that it may interfere with complete sexual expression
> 
> ~Sexual fetishism, or erotic fetishism, is the sexual arousal brought on by any object, situation or body part not conventionally viewed as being sexual in nature.
> 
> 
> Clearly this is up to an individual, but given the definition it's not out of the realm of possibility that preferring fat partners can be a fetish(And if you like things like WG, overgrown outfits, feeding, etc. then yeah, definitely fetishistic) specifically in instances where thin women just don't do anything for you sexually. There is a thing called a thin fetish, where the people only are interested in thin partners(Below normal weights I believe). I think they both fall under a size/body kind of subfetish I would imagine.
> 
> As long as you love your partner as a person first, I don't see anything inherently immoral about what your psychology dictates is appealing(Certain cases aside).
> 
> My two cents.



How did I know you were going to show up?


----------



## mergirl

katorade said:


> How did I know you were going to show up?


Cause THE FORCE is strong in you Katorade.


----------



## joswitch

Fascinita said:


> I don't believe in "hard-wiredness"--not the way that term is usually applied.
> 
> *For reasons why, please see the work of Michel Foucault and Judith Butler, among others, re: socially constructed identities.*
> 
> Thanks for your feedback, though.
> 
> RE: "me telling you what a fetish is..."
> 
> If what you're saying is that you want the freedom to call yourself a fetishist, by all means knock yourself out. The rest of us can come to a consensus about what we mean when we talk about fetish and you can exclude yourself from that conversation. My "wallpaper" point was rhetorical--whether you _actually_ reduce me to wallpaper or not doesn't concern me, as I'm always going to use my voice to talk back atcha anyway. You can always try to explain why your definition of fetish trumps general consensus, but see above.
> 
> RE: your claiming I attributed negative qualities to fetish.
> 
> Not so. But I know certain others (maybe you among them?) who do jumble ideas of "morals" into the definition of fetish, some of whom have chimed in above. For those folks, it appears that anything that seems to them "naughty" or "forbidden" is equal to a fetish.
> 
> *In fact, one thing I was trying to do with my post above was to rescue fetish from the purvey of morality foisted on it by those who conflate their personal fears with ideas of "good" or "bad" ways to be. No one who has a fetish and practices it responsibly should be made to feel bad (or good, for that matter) for what they do. A fetish of itself simply is. Same goes for preference.*



Somewhat to derail:
- Interestingly, (or not, depending on your p.o.v.) for reasons that I'll not share with the board, but which have to do with my very, very earliest "pre-social" internal life - I'm prettay damn sure my FAness is not socially constructed.... possible socially (or reality) "compromised"... But anyway, wheresoever those desires wound up, they seemed to have started from somewhere pretty deep down....
- I think of my FAness as my orientation, not a "fetish" 'cos it is to do with the whole person that I'm desiring*... and my other things (feeder/ee ness, some BDSM and other stuff :blush: ) as kinks - being subtly distinct from fetishes that they are not required as such, but they sure turn up the hottness a notch when brought into sexay times.... which seems to be the attitude that people are calling a preference....


Fascinita - I can't rep you for that last paragraph!  I shall settle for *cheering* you instead. 


*I think maybe some BBWs mentally disassociate themselves from their fat(ness)??? i.e. do not identify as a fat person... Whereas for me, as the beholder - it's ALL HER...:blush:


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> How did I know you were going to show up?



Because this argument was touched upon within that other topic. Not really all that shocking. I'm far more interested with the veracity of my post though if you'd care to indulge me.


----------



## stan_der_man

joswitch said:


> ...
> I'm prettay damn sure my FAness is not socially constructed.... possible socially (or reality) "compromised"... But anyway, wheresoever those desires wound up, they seemed to have started from somewhere pretty deep down....
> - I think of my FAness as my orientation...
> 
> ...



As Fascinita and others have pointed out (I believe it was in a past thread...?) the whole concept of "hardwired" in the human brain is a dubious concept (with some exceptions...), difficult to prove at best, especially when it comes to sexual attraction or other behaviours that develop later on. _Identity_ is a social construct though. But I do agree with you that FAness is more than just a social construct, I think orientation is a valid term, but again... calling ourselves "hardwired" FAs is difficult to prove. I've also felt attracted to fat women since I was very young, too young to completely account for my attraction being socially developed IMO.





Ernest Nagel said:


> If you're reluctant to tell your parents about it, it's probably just a preference. If you're also hesitant to tell your partner about it, it could go either way. If you're afraid to admit it anonymously to Howard Stern you got yourself a serious, full-bore fetish going there.  JMO.



But, if you are eager to throw blows over it on the Jerry Springer Show, or talk about it on Tyra... then it's nothin' but bullshit! 




mergirl said:


> Cause THE FORCE is strong in you Katorade.



All I have to say is NEVER underestimate the power of the Vanilla side of the Force! If you do it will crush you under the weight of it's thick, rich creaminess when you least expect it... and you will enjoy every minute... :bow:


----------



## katorade

fa_man_stan said:


> As Fascinita and others have pointed out (I believe it was in a past thread...?) the whole concept of "hardwired" in the human brain is a dubious concept (with some exceptions...), difficult to prove at best, especially when it comes to sexual attraction or other behaviours that develop later on. _Identity_ is a social construct though. But I do agree with you that FAness is more than just a social construct, I think orientation is a valid term, but again... calling ourselves "hardwired" FAs is difficult to prove. I've also felt attracted to fat women since I was very young, too young to completely account for my attraction being socially developed IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, if you are eager to throw blows over it on the Jerry Springer Show, or talk about it on Tyra... then it's nothin' but bullshit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I have to say is NEVER underestimate the power of the Vanilla side of the Force! If you do it will crush you under the weight of it's thick, rich creaminess when you least expect it... and you will enjoy every minute... :bow:




Actually, I'm going to go ahead and argue that liking THIN women is a social construct and that liking fat women is completely natural, considering that our brains instinctual triggers for fertility are large breasts and wide, sturdy, child-birthin' hips. Larger, albeit not necessarily super-obese, women were the norm of beauty for centuries, and in some countries not influenced by Western culture, still are. 

Liking very large women may no more be a fetish than liking very large breasts, which, thank you very much, is NOT a fetish. Breasts signify sexuality as much as a vagina, and before anyone storms in with their "function" as a body part, let's not forget what comes popping out of the vagina 9 months after a fun night, or why our lips plump during sex even though their main function is to suck on...lollipops. Or, for that matter, why we have errogenous zones all over the human body. Or why you can't even touch our most significant sexual organ, the brain. Unless you're into trepanning, THEN you might have a case for a fetishistic attachment.

My point is, the entire human body is sexual, and different people have different PREFERENCES for attributes they're attracted to. Preferring a fat body over a thin body is no more a fetish than preferring blondes over brunettes, or preferring large nipples over small, or preferring hairy chests to a freshly-shorn pectoral.

That is all PREFERENCE. It attracts you in and you have sex WITH THE PERSON. It becomes a fetish when you completely disregard the person surrounding the area of attraction. You have a foot fetish when you can obtain sexual gratification and arousal from a foot without having to acknowledge the person it is attached to. Just because a man can _appreciate _a woman's pretty feet does NOT mean he has a foot fetish. It just freaking means he likes a nice foot!


P.S. Oh, Stan. I haven't been called thick, rich and creamy since I was in the band Thick, Rich & Creamy. How did you know?:blush:

P.P.S. Vader, I'm pretty sure we went over the accuracy of your post in the _last _thread. Do we really need to go there again?


----------



## Vader7476

You say sex with a person. What about masturbation(As the inclusion of sex with a person isn't necessary for it to be a fetish) and pictures or stories? What do you mean by person? There are lots of people with a breast fetish, either large or small. (A site I'm on actually, the Breast Expansion Archive is dedicated to large breasts) Because you're making it sound like when a real person is involved and the fetishist doesn't objectify her, then it's not a fetish. Well what about when that person isn't with someone? Is it then a fetish? 

And by definition, it's not necessary for the person to be disregarded for it to be a fetish, nor is it absolutely necessary for said object to be present for arousal. There are many, many examples of this. 

As a side note, breasts signifying sexuality seems common enough, but that also depends on culture. Asses can be seen this way as well as hips. In more remote locations, thighs are often sexual and in africa some tribes sexualize the neck. I'm sure there's others, but from what I understand, some people even fetishize parts of the vagina(Clitoris size, although I'm not sure if that starts to blur into Futanari or is considered a part of that fetish).


----------



## Fascinita

Speaking of all this, does anyone here consider himself fatish?


----------



## Jon Blaze

Vader7476 said:


> You say sex with a person. What about masturbation(As the inclusion of sex with a person isn't necessary for it to be a fetish) and pictures or stories? What do you mean by person? There are lots of people with a breast fetish, either large or small. (A site I'm on actually, the Breast Expansion Archive is dedicated to large breasts) Because you're making it sound like when a real person is involved and the fetishist doesn't objectify her, then it's not a fetish. Well what about when that person isn't with someone? Is it then a fetish?
> 
> And by definition, it's not necessary for the person to be disregarded for it to be a fetish, nor is it absolutely necessary for said object to be present for arousal. There are many, many examples of this.
> 
> As a side note, breasts signifying sexuality seems common enough, but that also depends on culture. Asses can be seen this way as well as hips. In more remote locations, thighs are often sexual and in africa some tribes sexualize the neck. I'm sure there's others, but from what I understand, some people even fetishize parts of the vagina(Clitoris size, although I'm not sure if that starts to blur into Futanari or is considered a part of that fetish).



Commonality has nothing to do with what a fetish is.

And this is how the gaining piece sometimes associated with feederism is different from fat admiration. Focusing on a body the way it is isn't a fetish. Focusing directly on its change can be in some people.


----------



## Vader7476

Jon Blaze said:


> Expansion isn't the same thing as just liking large breasts.



No, it's not. But there are a lot of parts to that site that just deals with large breasts, models, porn stars, etc. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Jon Blaze

Vader7476 said:


> No, it's not. But there are a lot of parts to that site that just deals with large breasts, models, porn stars, etc. Sorry for the confusion.



Ok. Forget half my comment then.


----------



## olwen

Fascinita said:


> A human being is never a fetish. A fetish is an _object_ without which it's not possible to feel sexually aroused or gratified. Fat is a quality of human beings, sometimes present in accumulations on certain parts of the body. No one can rightly separate the fat from the human without some trick of the imagination, some fetishization. But fat _people_ of themselves are never fetishes, and neither is an attraction to fat _people_ fetishistic.
> 
> If you have a preference for certain shapes or colors or heights or whatever in human beings--if those are the qualities you're attracted to in a human being--then you have a _preference_.
> 
> If your attraction is to fat legs alone, or to fat bellies, or to rolls, or to bony ribs that poke you when you hug a person, or whatever, then you're _fetishizing_ parts of human bodies--that is, treating parts of bodies as fetish objects.
> 
> So unless you're in the group of people who separate parts or qualities of bodies from whole human beings, singling out a part or quality as the _exclusive_ locus of your attraction without regard for the person as person, you don't have a fetish.
> 
> No one who says it's inherently "kinky" (as in sexual kink) to be attracted to fat people is speaking lucidly. What they mean is that they're aware it's not socially acceptable to like fat people, and that they've formed a taboo about fatness, maybe that they feel secretive about liking fat, or that they enjoy fat's current subversive "nature". That's not the same thing as having a fat fetish, unless they enjoy their taboo so intensely that they eventually begin to fetishize fat as an object of desire.
> 
> Repeat: Fat people are not fetishes. Only objects--or aspects, or parts of bodies treated as objects--can be fetishes. There are many fat people here who are not here to be treated as objects, who bring their own desires regardless of the desires of fetishists. This site may address aspects of fetish, but the participation and agency of whole, living human beings who happen to be fat--people who belong here as much as any fetishist--makes this site much more than a "fetish site."
> 
> Thank you for not reducing me to my fat bits. I am more than wallpaper.



I couldn't rep you, but I agree with every word of this.

Also, I no longer see the need to make these distinctions and it is starting to seem offensive to me that people feel the need to have to make the distinction as if the people who are being desired aren't in the room. It's like talking about a kid to another adult while the kid is sitting right next to you. I also feel like every time someone utters the word fetish in regards to fat it is like saying fat people are subhuman. What the fuck is that? No way I would want to be with an FA who believes deep down fat people are subhuman fetish objects. Any FA who believes that is more of a poseur than an FA. O to live in a world where fat wasn't demonized and everyone would feel free to openly enjoy fat bodies without having to reduce us to mere things to make them feel better about themselves.


----------



## Vader7476

Jon Blaze said:


> Commonality has nothing to do with what a fetish is.
> 
> And this is how the gaining piece sometimes associated with feederism is different from fat admiration. Focusing on a body the way it is isn't a fetish. Focusing directly on its change can be in some people.



Depending on definition, commonality can be important, but that's not what my post was talking about. I was referring to breasts being sexual, and while that is the case for many cultures, it's not necessarily universal.

Focusing on the body the way it is can definitely be a fetish. Feet have been brought up and I regret to bring it up again. The body changing though, tranformation and expansion, transgender, and who knows what else are definitely fetishes though, yeah, I agree with that.


----------



## Dr. P Marshall

Vader7476 said:


> You say sex with a person. What about masturbation(As the inclusion of sex with a person isn't necessary for it to be a fetish) and pictures or stories?



Wow, it's like you read my mind. Earlier today I checked in on this thread and realized that despite my earlier foolish behavior, I DID have more thoughts about this. More specifically, I had more thoughts about why everyone always wants to debate this. (To the OP, I know you're new and none of what follows is directed at you personally. It's more my thoughts over time having seen this argument a million times here.) I was afraid I would get flamed/be called an asshole/ be accused of throwing out FA/FFA stereotypes (and since I'm editing the myths threads that seemed in bad form) but you know what? What the hell? My thoughts earlier today were that the FA/FFAs who INSIST it is a fetish and who discuss it in such dehumanizing detail are most likely the fat admirers who rarely, if ever, have sex with other people. Yes, I know, I just said that. Follow with me. When you are masturbating, usually each person has that "perfect scenario" that they know gets the job done. And that can lead to very specific details that have nothing to do with who the person is, sexual experimentation etc. So I often think all of this obsessing is really the result of fat admirers with too much time on their hands(pun intended) and not enough real world action. Because when you're with a partner it is different. Very few couples do the exact same thing every time, let alone play out the same scenario over and over. Plus, if you're with someone a while, you will find different things exciting at different times. Even if overall you tend to fetishize breasts, or hips, or weight gain, it's going to be more fluid in the confines of a sexual relationship. Even a brief sexual relationship. Because the other person is there and they talk and they move and they have preferences and desires and wants and needs FROM YOU TOO. So if someone has a fetish for large breasts and may choose their partners that way, I find it very unlikely that most people with that fetish would actually spend an evening of sex doing nothing but playing with her breasts. Just saying. Unless she had the exact same fetish. 

As for the fetish/preference issue, I am an FFA and a weight gain fetishist but I don't consider being an FFA fetishistic at all. I also don't need weight gain to be happening or happening all the time so maybe I have a weight gain preference. maybe I just don't care.  I do think there may be a small number of people who are fetishistic fat admirers naturally. In other words, there probably are people who fetishize fat to the extreme the same way there are shoe fetishists who just need the shoes. But I would assume those people are very rare and have more in common with other extreme fetishists than they do with other FAs. And by extreme fetishists, I mean people who are incapable of sexualizing human beings at all. That's just my guess, that there is a different issue at play. But to find fat people more sexually attractive? Not a fetish most of the time. Most of us do have traits we seek out that are not physical at all, just like everyone else. Not every fat admirer is going to click with every fat person just because they are fat. That's ridiculous. I also know for me personally, all of the men I have dated from the thinnest to the fattest (and I have even dated a couple of thin men despite the fact that I am not bisizual) all have the same basic personality. That's the common thing, not their weight. 

As for "hard wired" I tend to think of that in terms of sexual orientation, something that you are born with that then can express itself differently depending on the circumstances of your life. I also was aware of my attraction to fat people at a very early age. I'm not sure what other people mean when they say that, though. To me it just means, all things being equal, I'll go for the bigger guys.

Also, I do think there is something to the idea that we get called fat fetishists because society is opposed to fat. I've been saying that a long time. AFter all, there are men who are far skinnier than is considered conventionally attractive, but no one refers to women who date only those men as "skinny fetishists" they really don't. But if I say I like big guys, suddenly I'm a fat fetishist. I think maybe too many people are too afraid of fat and feel that there has to be some pathological/clinical explanation for the fact that I really do just find fat men more attractive than thinner men. Here amongst ourselves, I discuss it, but honestly in a conversation with any non-SA member, I get absolutely offended when someone tries to dissect me and my choice of partners. I find it dehumanizing to fat people, to fat admirers and just all around annoying. I usually just point out the things that that person's last couple of boyfriends/girlfriends had in common and then demand to know why they always date a man/woman like that. Amazingly, it shuts most people up and has even gotten me a few apologies.


----------



## Jon Blaze

Vader7476 said:


> Depending on definition, commonality can be important, but that's not what my post was talking about. I was referring to breasts being sexual, and while that is the case for many cultures, it's not necessarily universal.
> 
> Focusing on the body the way it is can definitely be a fetish. Feet have been brought up and I regret to bring it up again. The body changing though, tranformation and expansion, transgender, and who knows what else are definitely fetishes though, yeah, I agree with that.



Another mistake there. You can't compare a part fixation (Partialism, which you would be right) with a state of the body. Different things completely, and it isn't the say that they can't be, but they aren't in themselves fetishes.


----------



## Vader7476

Jon Blaze said:


> Another mistake there. You can't compare a part fixation (Partialism, which you would be right) with a state of the body. Different things completely, and it isn't the say that they can't be, but they aren't in themselves fetishes.




You said focusing on the body the way it is. I took that to mean any part of the body, including adipose. (Depending on source, obesity can be seen as a partialism but it's not entirely relevant what category fat fetishism would be under if it was a fetish) I'm curious as to how you define state of one's body. Ethnicity and race I would consider a state of one's body(Although they are their own fetish), but you can fetishize that. Same with Pregnancy, or would you consider that a change? Or disability? There are certainly fetishes for states of the body unless I'm misunderstanding you.


----------



## bmann0413

Fascinita said:


> A human being is never a fetish. A fetish is an _object_ without which it's not possible to feel sexually aroused or gratified. Fat is a quality of human beings, sometimes present in accumulations on certain parts of the body. No one can rightly separate the fat from the human without some trick of the imagination, some fetishization. But fat _people_ of themselves are never fetishes, and neither is an attraction to fat _people_ fetishistic.
> 
> If you have a preference for certain shapes or colors or heights or whatever in human beings--if those are the qualities you're attracted to in a human being--then you have a _preference_.
> 
> If your attraction is to fat legs alone, or to fat bellies, or to rolls, or to bony ribs that poke you when you hug a person, or whatever, then you're _fetishizing_ parts of human bodies--that is, treating parts of bodies as fetish objects.
> 
> So unless you're in the group of people who separate parts or qualities of bodies from whole human beings, singling out a part or quality as the _exclusive_ locus of your attraction without regard for the person as person, you don't have a fetish.
> 
> No one who says it's inherently "kinky" (as in sexual kink) to be attracted to fat people is speaking lucidly. What they mean is that they're aware it's not socially acceptable to like fat people, and that they've formed a taboo about fatness, maybe that they feel secretive about liking fat, or that they enjoy fat's current subversive "nature". That's not the same thing as having a fat fetish, unless they enjoy their taboo so intensely that they eventually begin to fetishize fat as an object of desire.
> 
> Repeat: Fat people are not fetishes. Only objects--or aspects, or parts of bodies treated as objects--can be fetishes. There are many fat people here who are not here to be treated as objects, who bring their own desires regardless of the desires of fetishists. This site may address aspects of fetish, but the participation and agency of whole, living human beings who happen to be fat--people who belong here as much as any fetishist--makes this site much more than a "fetish site."
> 
> Thank you for not reducing me to my fat bits. I am more than wallpaper.



THERE IT IS!


----------



## joswitch

katorade said:


> Actually, I'm going to go ahead and argue that liking THIN women is a social construct and that liking fat women is completely natural, considering that our brains instinctual triggers for fertility are large breasts and wide, sturdy, child-birthin' hips. Larger, albeit not necessarily super-obese, women were the norm of beauty for centuries, and in some countries not influenced by Western culture, still are.
> 
> Liking very large women may no more be a fetish than liking very large breasts, which, thank you very much, is NOT a fetish. Breasts signify sexuality as much as a vagina, and before anyone storms in with their "function" as a body part, let's not forget what comes popping out of the vagina 9 months after a fun night, or why our lips plump during sex even though their main function is to suck on...lollipops. Or, for that matter, why we have errogenous zones all over the human body. Or why you can't even touch our most significant sexual organ, the brain. Unless you're into trepanning, THEN you might have a case for a fetishistic attachment.
> 
> My point is, the entire human body is sexual, and different people have different PREFERENCES for attributes they're attracted to. Preferring a fat body over a thin body is no more a fetish than preferring blondes over brunettes, or preferring large nipples over small, or preferring hairy chests to a freshly-shorn pectoral.
> 
> That is all PREFERENCE. It attracts you in and you have sex WITH THE PERSON. It becomes a fetish when you completely disregard the person surrounding the area of attraction. You have a foot fetish when you can obtain sexual gratification and arousal from a foot without having to acknowledge the person it is attached to. Just because a man can _appreciate _a woman's pretty feet does NOT mean he has a foot fetish. It just freaking means he likes a nice foot!
> 
> ....



I cannot rep your post!


----------



## stan_der_man

joswitch said:


> I cannot rep your post!



I sent some reps to Katorade!


----------



## katorade

Vader7476 said:


> You say sex with a person. What about masturbation(As the inclusion of sex with a person isn't necessary for it to be a fetish) and pictures or stories? What do you mean by person? There are lots of people with a breast fetish, either large or small. (A site I'm on actually, the Breast Expansion Archive is dedicated to large breasts) Because you're making it sound like when a real person is involved and the fetishist doesn't objectify her, then it's not a fetish. Well what about when that person isn't with someone? Is it then a fetish?
> 
> And by definition, it's not necessary for the person to be disregarded for it to be a fetish, nor is it absolutely necessary for said object to be present for arousal. There are many, many examples of this.
> 
> As a side note, breasts signifying sexuality seems common enough, but that also depends on culture. Asses can be seen this way as well as hips. In more remote locations, thighs are often sexual and in africa some tribes sexualize the neck. I'm sure there's others, but from what I understand, some people even fetishize parts of the vagina(Clitoris size, although I'm not sure if that starts to blur into Futanari or is considered a part of that fetish).



Well that all depends on your definition of "is", President Clinton. Way to not focus on the actual post and instead focus on the definition of a definition of a definition like you're constantly prone to do.

You know what, I am done taking you seriously _at all _while you refer to women as fat bitches and fat lazy little piggies in your stories. I STILL don't understand why you are allowed to post that s**t (yes, s**t) on a site that purports to embrace size acceptance or why you even CHOOSE to. There's plenty of other sites that would love to have you post your sexist, objectifying "_art_". 

Stop trying to defend your points of view to me or addressing my posts at all, because anything you have to say to me is going to fall on deaf ears. You're not even worth arguing with.


----------



## Jon Blaze

Vader7476 said:


> You said focusing on the body the way it is. I took that to mean any part of the body, including adipose. (Depending on source, obesity can be seen as a partialism but it's not entirely relevant what category fat fetishism would be under if it was a fetish) I'm curious as to how you define state of one's body. Ethnicity and race I would consider a state of one's body(Although they are their own fetish), but you can fetishize that. Same with Pregnancy, or would you consider that a change? Or disability? There are certainly fetishes for states of the body unless I'm misunderstanding you.



Well I meant the body as a whole in my example.

I agree with you in some instances, but just like with your example: Not all people that date someone exclusively based on ethnicity or race do it because of fetishistic tendencies. The same can be said about fat, thin, etc.

But I think I get your argument now. You aren't saying that these things are fetishes, but they may or may not be depending on people. Is that what you're saying? Because if you are I think we're just disagreeing on semantics.


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> Well that all depends on your definition of "is", President Clinton. Way to not focus on the actual post and instead focus on the definition of a definition of a definition like you're constantly prone to do.
> 
> You know what, I am done taking you seriously _at all _while you refer to women as fat bitches and fat lazy little piggies in your stories. I STILL don't understand why you are allowed to post that s**t (yes, s**t) on a site that purports to embrace size acceptance or why you even CHOOSE to. There's plenty of other sites that would love to have you post your sexist, objectifying "_art_".
> 
> Stop trying to defend your points of view to me or addressing my posts at all, because anything you have to say to me is going to fall on deaf ears. You're not even worth arguing with.



Well this qualifies as ironic.


----------



## Vader7476

Jon Blaze said:


> Well I meant the body as a whole in my example.
> 
> I agree with you in some instances, but just like with your example: Not all people that date someone exclusively based on ethnicity or race do it because of fetishistic tendencies. The same can be said about fat, thin, etc.
> 
> But I think I get your argument now. You aren't saying that these things are fetishes, but they may or may not be depending on people. Is that what you're saying? Because if you are I think we're just disagreeing on semantics.



That's basically what I'm saying sir. 

I think some of those cases are fetishes more often than not, sure, but clearly that's a question that will go unanswered(Without significant polling and studies). 

Wikipedia has under its sexual fetishism article a small bit about classification. It doesn't sound like it's in use or fully formed as a hypothesis, but it's interesting to note how they class the lowest levels of a fetish. I'm far more broad in how I'm using the word fetish and quite like how modern theory on that same page states it. To quote, "Psychologists and medical practitioners regard fetishism as normal variations of human sexuality. Even those orientations that are potential forms of fetishism are usually considered unobjectionable as long as all people involved feel comfortable."


----------



## katorade

Not really a surprise that you don't understand the definition of irony, either.


----------



## Vader7476

If you'd like me to illustrate the irony, I'll do so, but I was under the impression that those deaf ears were going to be coming into play. How quickly that changed! If you can't stick to your word, why should I take you seriously?


----------



## katorade

Vader7476 said:


> If you'd like me to illustrate the irony, I'll do so, but I was under the impression that those deaf ears were going to be coming into play. How quickly that changed! If you can't stick to your word, why should I take you seriously?




I said I wasn't even going to bother taking your retorts seriously, not that I was putting you on ignore. I don't put people on ignore as it disrupts the flow of a thread.

I simply can't find anything you say or believe in to be laudable in any way. You _disgust _me and I have absolutely NO idea why you're on this website, which purports itself as a SIZE/FAT ACCEPTANCE community, when there are plenty of other places you could post your demeaning, insulting, misogynistic stories, and it makes me even more upset that they're even allowed here and there are people that ENJOY them.

Oh wait, I forgot, this place is all about the porn.

And before anyone treads into "don't like it, don't read it" territory, he invited me to read his works. He even said he hoped I wouldn't find anything offensive. Out. of. touch.


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> I said I wasn't even going to bother taking your retorts seriously, not that I was putting you on ignore. I don't put people on ignore as it disrupts the flow of a thread.
> 
> I simply can't find anything you say or believe in to be laudable in any way. You _disgust _me and I have absolutely NO idea why you're on this website, which purports itself as a SIZE/FAT ACCEPTANCE community, when there are plenty of other places you could post your demeaning, insulting, misogynistic stories, and it makes me even more upset that they're even allowed here and there are people that ENJOY them.
> 
> Oh wait, I forgot, this place is all about the porn.
> 
> And before anyone treads into "don't like it, don't read it" territory, he invited me to read his works. He even said he hoped I wouldn't find anything offensive. Out. of. touch.



I preface this post by saying that the points you've brought up and questions you've raised I have to spend time on adequately. And the following isnt as adequate as Id hope it to be, but at the risk of being too verbose, I tried to consolidate some of it and keep other parts short.

Except you outright stated that I wasn't worth arguing with, and everything I said was going to fall on deaf ears. Whether you hit the ignore button or not, I took that to mean that you wouldn't be responding to me, since you said it wasn't worth it. Hence my brevity. Seeing now that isn't the case, I can't ponder a reason why else you might say that.

Considering Jon seems to be agreeing with me in principle, is it fair to say you would say the same for his statements? However, I feel the need to make it clear that I particularly don't care if you think they're worthy of praise. I only care about their correctness. (As a side note, we have agreed on several points about this site)

I also don't care if I disgust you (Nice acceptance! Oh wait, that's not irony at all, because I don't know what irony means [Although to be fair, it'd only be ironic if that disgust comment was about my size which I know it was not]). For a brief history lesson: Originally, the magazine was catered directly to FA's. Men actually, to make the distinction. FA meaning fat admirer, someone who prefers women of size. Although no nudity, it was of a prurient nature. It stemmed from a newsletter for NAAFA, but has sort of grown out of that over time into its own. All this I assume you know. In knowing so, there's no denial that acceptance isn't the magazine's or this site's only purpose. The admirer aspect is prominent and I dare say originally the main intention. This is why women, in the magazine, were objectified as sex objects to be lusted after, alluring to the FA's. On that point, I don't think you'd have contention with. If you do not, then I don't understand how you can't see how that aspect has grown and flourished into other things FA's like doing and have enjoyed doing, including the fetish aspects. 

There is, without a doubt, porn on this site. Whether you want to admit that they're the main purpose or not is irrelevant to our current discussion. There's no way, at all, you can deny that pornographic material is on this site even if only a little. That's CONRAD's decision, and if you don't like how he runs his site, take it up with him. Not ME. I think it is important to say, that many of the writers and readers in the library already feel like outcasts because of their preference to large women and men. I beseech you, humbly, not out of my own sake (I already said your opinions of me don't bother me) but out of theirs: On a site about acceptance, please don't ostracize them further. 

Why do I post stories here? Believe me, I argued extensively for them not to be put on this site for quite a while. I was asked, multiple times by someone you dislike but holds power here to put them on. I have my own website. It's in the link in my sig. I post here because it's another place where someone can read my writings and get enjoyment out of them. Many readers and writers enjoy my stories, and that makes me feel pretty damned good about myself in an otherwise miserable world. I love that people like what I do. That's a great feeling. I know, for whatever you find fulfilling (Whether it be work, volunteering, sculpture, what have you) it makes it great when other people enjoy it too. 

Perhaps I overlooked it, but when did I ask you personally to read my stories? That doesn't sound like something I'd say. I know I'm forgetful in my old age, but I'd really like to know where and when I said this, because I'm having trouble finding it. 

Considering Green Eyed Fairy is of a similar opinion to you on my stories, I flat out stated to her(In post 334 of that other topic) that I rather her not read my stories, and know she'd despise my two newer stories(One of which is not posted here). 

(Oooh, I found it. I read most of my posts to you and the chat to you, not easy work! If this is what you're thinking of. Our personal AIM conversation? I did not invite you to read my stories. I'm reading the log of it now. You said some of the stories disgusted you here, I responded hopefully none of mine! [Which clearly isn't me saying they aren't disgusting, just that if you had read them, hopefully they didn't disgust you and is certainly NOT an invitation to read them, and at this time you hadn't told me what disgusted you about stories on here yet] And you went on to say that farting and stench from fat rolls disgusted you about those stories. [Which kind of validates my stories not of the ones that did disgust you. Our conversation about stories didn't delve into objectifying women, misogyny, etc.])


Knowing I openly stated that they're pornographic in nature, and you dislike that, why would you then go and read them anyway? Especially since you also don't like amateur writing, and I admitted my writing was VERY poor. Out of pure curiosity now, which story(ies) of mine did you read?


----------



## katorade

Vader7476 said:


> On a site about acceptance, please don't ostracize them further...
> 
> 
> And you went on to say that farting and stench from fat rolls disgusted you about those stories. [Which kind of validates my stories not of the ones that did disgust you. Our conversation about stories didn't delve into objectifying women, misogyny, etc.])...
> 
> 
> Knowing I openly stated that they're pornographic in nature, and you dislike that, why would you then go and read them anyway? Especially since you also don't like amateur writing, and I admitted my writing was VERY poor. Out of pure curiosity now, which story(ies) of mine did you read?



Again, the only thing I'm going to point out is that you clearly don't get it. Let's not ostracize people that enjoy stories about the _degradation_ of _fat people_ on a size acceptance site?!? Are you kidding me?

Not understanding why I would possibly find stories referring to fat women as lazy fat little piggies and fat bitches and protagonists despising the fact that they've become fat, wishing a heart attack upon other fat characters, when I am myself a fat woman? Why would I NOT be offended?!? 

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the story being PORNOGRAPHIC. NOTHING. This is why you don't _get it._

And for what it's worth, I read one of your stories because you said you hoped I hadn't been offended by anything you'd written, and I read one in order to give you the _benefit of the doubt._ Looks like THAT backfired.


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> Again, the only thing I'm going to point out is that you clearly don't get it. Let's not ostracize people that enjoy stories about the _degradation_ of _fat people_ on a size acceptance site?!? Are you kidding me?
> 
> Not understanding why I would possibly find stories referring to fat women as lazy fat little piggies and fat bitches and protagonists despising the fact that they've become fat, wishing a heart attack upon other fat characters, when I am myself a fat woman? Why would I NOT be offended?!?
> 
> It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the story being PORNOGRAPHIC. NOTHING. This is why you don't _get it._
> 
> And for what it's worth, I read one of your stories because you said you hoped I hadn't been offended by anything you'd written, and I read one in order to give you the _benefit of the doubt._ Looks like THAT backfired.



Not all of the stories in the library are degrading. However, the point you miss is that CONRAD lets these stories on the site. Take your issue up with him, not the writers or readers of what he allows. So yes, I do understand, and I've never said contrary to your complaints about the stories on this site. I disagree with them in a few ways, but understand your reasoning. Do you understand? (Interesting to note is that there are fat writers on the forum. I don't think they degrade fat people in their own minds.)

I never questioned you being offended. I believe you're genuine in that belief. I understood why you didn't like the stories when you explained that to me in the last thread. 

You can't bring up one without the other. The stories, for the most part, are meant to be pornography. They go into the details of fat fetishism. Feeding, humiliation, weight gain, etc. The list goes on and on. You dislike that, because of the reasons you've given. Knowing my stories have all those aspects you hate(Which is why I admitted they were pornographic to this fetish to you personally), why go and read them? 

I'll ask again: Which story did you read?

I also need to bring up this point. Being offended and being disgusted are different. You originally made it sound like some of the things written disgusted you, and you brought up farting. I can understand that. I will quote our conversation and edit out our screen names and a few lines that dealt with another topic.



> Katorade (12:00:11 AM):	i'm not a fan of erotic literature or amateur stories.
> 
> Katorade (12:00:28 AM):	and some of the stories i HAVE read on there have absolutely disgusted me.
> 
> Katorade (12:02:16 AM):	my biggest problem is this...
> 
> Vader7476 (12:04:23 AM):	Stories have disgusted you on there? Hopefully none of mine. But what about them disgusted you? That's kind of saddening to hear as a poor writer and having many writer friends and artists.
> 
> Vader7476 (12:05:44 AM):	I'm not a writer by profession or trade, I draw more than write, I meant I'm a bad writer. Haha.
> 
> Katorade (12:06:14 AM):	i can't remember the whole of them, but i remember a lot of farting
> 
> Katorade (12:06:40 AM):	and thinks like stench eminating from between fat rolls
> 
> Vader7476 (12:06:51 AM):	Ooh, that fetish. Yeah, can't say I understand that one too much. Never got into farting or smells.
> 
> Vader7476 (12:07:17 AM):	But I try not to judge anyone's fetish knowing my own is rather odd.
> 
> Katorade (12:07:19 AM):	things that, as a fat woman, are on the exact opposite of sexy and are downright offensive and insulting
> 
> Katorade (12:07:38 AM):	right, and there's the problem
> 
> Katorade (12:07:48 AM):	having the fetish co-exist with the reality



I think anyone who reads this will see that not only did I not ask you to read my story, you were talking about things that were gross. And didn't define the objectification of women until well after this conversation took place. I had only hoped that my stories didn't disgust you(Cause at that time we had NOT talked about what you didn't like about stories), not that you wouldn't be disgusted only because I didn't know if you had read them or not. It was basically an apology. 

So don't you dare say I asked you to read one, or told you that you wouldn't be offended. To put it tersely: That's bull.


----------



## katorade

Fine, I will gladly admit the fact that you did not invite me to read your stories, and that my memory on that point did not serve me well, but that does not mean that my intentions were not absolutely the same.

I remembered you saying that you hoped none of your stories offended me. 

I found _reason _in that to actually read one of your stories, because from what it sounded like, they wouldn't be offensive.

I was wrong.

The fact that you don't understand that this story: http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64823
could be construed as offensive by someone that also thinks it's offensive to find stereotyping fat people as disgusting creatures that fart a lot and smell bad...well...that's just freaking beyond me. 

The fact that you don't understand why that's offensive REGARDLESS of the fact of what ELSE I find disgusting and offensive, regardless of having ever spoken to me, regardless of ever having spoken to ANY woman...again, beyond me!

The fact that it's absolutely HUMOROUS that you would hope any fat woman not be offended, and be puzzled as to why she should be at paragraphs such as this:


> She pushes me away. I’m confused and she looks upset. “Oh, I’m so sorry,” she says to me. She looks me up and down. What? She’s judging ME? This fat fucking bitch has the fucking nerve to TELL ME that I don’t look good? You FUCKING pig, I hope you die of a heart attack stuffing your fat fucking face! I’ll kill you!


 and the fact that you've apparently written enough similar material that you can't immediately pick out which one I'm talking about...

What the hell world do you live in, anyway? 

I am not interested in Conrad's viewpoint at this moment. I'm asking YOU why YOU are here at all, when there are plenty of other forums that having nothing to do with this pesky size acceptance issue. I may very well start a thread that will most likely get closed for pointing out the obvious problems on this site and ask Conrad what the beef is, and why he allows it to continue on like this when he himself has said the focus of this forum is size acceptance, NOT pornography. 

In fact, I remember not that long ago you were on the side of "it doesn't matter what Conrad says because the majority are here for the porn". Why be so worried about what he has to say now?

I will simply repeat. You simply don't get it.


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> Fine, I will gladly admit the fact that you did not invite me to read your stories, and that my memory on that point did not serve me well, but that does not mean that my intentions were not absolutely the same.
> 
> I remembered you saying that you hoped none of your stories offended me.
> 
> I found _reason _in that to actually read one of your stories, because from what it sounded like, they wouldn't be offensive.
> 
> I was wrong.
> 
> The fact that you don't understand that this story: http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64823
> could be construed as offensive by someone that also thinks it's offensive to find stereotyping fat people as disgusting creatures that fart a lot and smell bad...well...that's just freaking beyond me.
> 
> The fact that you don't understand why that's offensive REGARDLESS of the fact of what ELSE I find disgusting and offensive, regardless of having ever spoken to me, regardless of ever having spoken to ANY woman...again, beyond me!
> 
> The fact that it's absolutely HUMOROUS that you would hope any fat woman not be offended, and be puzzled as to why she should be at paragraphs such as this:
> and the fact that you've apparently written enough similar material that you can't immediately pick out which one I'm talking about...
> 
> What the hell world do you live in, anyway?
> 
> I am not interested in Conrad's viewpoint at this moment. I'm asking YOU why YOU are here at all, when there are plenty of other forums that having nothing to do with this pesky size acceptance issue. I may very well start a thread that will most likely get closed for pointing out the obvious problems on this site and ask Conrad what the beef is, and why he allows it to continue on like this when he himself has said the focus of this forum is size acceptance, NOT pornography.
> 
> In fact, I remember not that long ago you were on the side of "it doesn't matter what Conrad says because the majority are here for the porn". Why be so worried about what he has to say now?
> 
> I will simply repeat. You simply don't get it.



That story is titled: Kisses. The entire point of that story is that it's offensive. The protagonist is driven mad by lust and openly ridicules a fat character. She is objectified, and the purpose of it was to show misogyny. So yes, that's the absolute worst story of mine for you to have read, and I outright stated in the foreword that it was like that. (Although my other stories are going to be almost as bad, and suggest you stay away from them)

I'll state it again, if you feel the fetish aspects of the stories objectify women, show misogyny, are insulting, then yes, my stories qualify as well as many others, especially Kisses. It's mainly used as porn for the people that read them, and many argue that pornography objectifies women. I said it before to you that I can see where you're coming from and don't necessarily disagree. There are somethings about that I'd question, but I told you I feel your belief in those thoughts are genuine and I understand your reasoning. As such, I never defended the stories based on that, because under your belief, they very well are a lot of the things you've said. 

I also need to say again that you originally said disgusting, which is different than offensive, and I practically apologized for that preemptively. 

I already answered why I'm here, quite extensively I thought. Did I not?

I don't care what he thinks. My suggestion to you was that he allows this stuff on the forum, on the site, and in the magazine when it was published. We are here, the writers and readers, and welcomed to be here. We have our own section. If you have a problem with what's written on this site, you have to take that up with the person that allows it to be. I can not do anything for you. You can call my stories shit, you can tell me how terrible they are, how they portray women, how they view fatness, etc. Some of that I would agree with, others not at all, but ultimately if you don't wish them here, you need to talk with the person that can do something about it. I would think you feel the models on this site who post also get objectified, and dislike the paysite board. You told me you also don't go into the admirer parts of the site. I can not help you with your quest there. 

Conrad's view of the site isn't one I agree with. We talked about this a little, and we both agreed there is a strange dichotomy that this site holds both for acceptance and for the admirer(Or fetish). From a business standpoint, most of the traffic visits the admirer and adult parts of the site. It would break the site to take them off, even if he did agree 100% with your view which I don't believe he does. If I were to guess, to FA's he wants them to be able to explore their own sexuality safely on this site, without ridicule. That is something that I DO agree with.


----------



## That Guy You Met Once

My opinion is that it's whatever you call it, and there's no objective distinction.

However, I think a fetish is something, (a body aspect, clothing item, action, etc.) that's not generally thought of as sex-related, but gives *you* a unique sexual thrill.

A preference means that you'd probably choose someone with a quality you like over someone without it for relations.

Fetishes aren't bad unless you think of them that way. The reason people avoid the term is that they, very understandably, don't want to be grouped in with yiffers, sadomasochists, and some of the more extreme aspects of the fat fetish community. (as we see above.)

However, I think "preference" should only be used if you have a distinct bias towards people that have whatever quality you like. E.g.: If you were presented with a choice between two potential partners whose only difference was body weight, you'd choose the fatter one.

That's why I think of myself as having a fat fetish, but not much of a preference.

However, when asked, I just say I "like big girls." That's probably the smartest course for most people.


----------



## mergirl

First the pedophiles and now violence against women.. Is nothing or no one safe anymore?!!
You can bet, although the pedo stories will be disected and disgarded quick smart the violence against women ones will stay.
Btw, the piece of writing quoted, is very much in the style of 'American Psycho' but less good.


----------



## Vader7476

I really liked that movie. Haven't read the book though. 

I would expect it to be not as well done, I'm not a professional author.


----------



## mergirl

Vader7476 said:


> I really liked that movie. Haven't read the book though.
> 
> I would expect it to be not as well done, I'm not a professional author.


The book is great! Its a feminist classic! The guy totally objectifies women, calls them all sorts of disgusting names, wants to kill them (and does) but at the end of the day he is SUCH a pathetic loser/wanker that whatever he does/says/writes ultimately means nothing. I think you would enjoy it.. much better than the film.. but isn't that always the way.


----------



## joswitch

mergirl said:


> The book is great! Its a feminist classic! The guy totally objectifies women, calls them all sorts of disgusting names, wants to kill them (and does) but at the end of the day he is SUCH a pathetic loser/wanker that whatever he does/says/writes ultimately means nothing. I think you would enjoy it.. much better than the film.. but isn't that always the way.



I read "American Psycho".... It proper freaked me out - I wanted to scrub my brain afterwards... I'd picked the book up from a pile someone had left lying in the yard... and I actually took it back outside and left it out in the rain, so as not to have it in the house - cos it actually made me feel sick... That's what built in autovisualisation does for ya....  ....murder and torture? not on my list of entertaining things... unless it's like silly, comedy, horror (Shaun of the Dead and such) ...OT I know... sorry...


----------



## mergirl

joswitch said:


> I read "American Psycho".... It proper freaked me out - I wanted to scrub my brain afterwards... I'd picked the book up from a pile someone had left lying in the yard... and I actually took it back outside and left it out in the rain, so as not to have it in the house - cos it actually made me feel sick... That's what built in autovisualisation does for ya....  ....murder and torture? not on my list of entertaining things... unless it's like silly, comedy, horror (Shaun of the Dead and such) ...OT I know... sorry...


Yes. The violence is almost too much.. I could talk about that too but i am hoping it gets picked for next months book group and i can discuss it then.. and so can you!! lol 
I actually have about 1 chapter left to read because i have had to manically study..gah.
Anyway.. we digress..


----------



## Scorsese86

I *prefer* a size 16-28 woman. It's not a fetish at all. It's what I prefer.


----------



## GTAFA

I am going to weigh in (if you'll forgive the term) on this, even though it appears lots has been said already. 

I think several people have offered the definition of fetish as "that without which you can't orgasm" or words to that effect. What's missing from this, however, is the recognition that such language pathologizes. I think the terminology was cooked up by a sex researcher, examining human sexual response. Why are some people wired differently? the answer was, that there were preferences that were somehow more extreme, possibly hard-wired from birth, possibly learned. 

Once the genie was out of the bottle it was pretty hard to put it back in the bottle; although i am not aware of anyone's preference(haha) one way or the other, concerning the usage of the word "fetish". The point is, once a (for eaxmple) Freud comes along and talks about "penis envy" or "hysteria", no matter how wrong those observations are, they become rooted for generations among the psychiatrists who believed in the gospel according to Freud. Similarly, you had people like Kinsey doing seminal research (ha excuse the pun), and did anyone really duplicate the work, test the findings? 

So to repeat, i think the word "fetish" stigmatizes and pathologizes. In the absence of real evidence, the word is pretty close to meaningless. Someone can't cum without the magic thing that's their fetish (whether fat or feathers or leather or lace...)? Or maybe it's because a bunch of researchers in white coats are all peering at you naked in bed. OR in your mind's eye you're not quite comfortable with your own preference. Yes science gives a wonderful rationale for moralizing about your choices.

I think the word "fetish" isn't very useful, and if i had the power would have it consigned to a place where it's only used for fun. Yes we can play with fetishes and let it be a word that makes people go oooh and ahhh, a word to help glamorize saturday night and sunday morning, to stimulate and titillate (tit til eight? nevermind).. But as a word that makes people feel uncomfortable in their skin? no, fetish serves no purpose.


----------



## Vader7476

mergirl said:


> The book is great! Its a feminist classic! The guy totally objectifies women, calls them all sorts of disgusting names, wants to kill them (and does) but at the end of the day he is SUCH a pathetic loser/wanker that whatever he does/says/writes ultimately means nothing. I think you would enjoy it.. much better than the film.. but isn't that always the way.



I think you missed a crucial point! Although that's prevelant, the film and book(Haven't read the book but know enough about it) is that the reader doesn't know what's real and what isn't. It's definitely a satire of 80's culture and big business and maybe that's why he faded into obscurity, but it's backdropped against his own sanity and reality ultimately. Fantastic stuff, I'm sure. 

Haha, although, I don't think I missed your little quip there. Burn!


----------



## Paquito

I have a _preference_ for larger women. It is not something that I need in fear that my penis will shrivel up and die. But I do prefer larger women to smaller women.

However, since I like fat _women_ and not blow up dolls, it is in fact, just a preference.

Did I use enough slow speech and italics for you?


----------



## mergirl

Vader7476 said:


> I think you missed a crucial point! Although that's prevelant, the film and book(Haven't read the book but know enough about it) is that the reader doesn't know what's real and what isn't. It's definitely a satire of 80's culture and big business and maybe that's why he faded into obscurity, but it's backdropped against his own sanity and reality ultimately. Fantastic stuff, I'm sure.
> 
> Haha, although, I don't think I missed your little quip there. Burn!


Tee-hee.. You have a keen eye i shall give you that. Yeah, there was only so much i could fit into my analogy, i didn't actually miss any key themes of the book. It does feel a little unreal.. arguing about allowing pedophillia etc into erotic stories.. DOES seem unreal to me. Also, that Dims could EVER claim to be a 'size acceptance' site when it has stories where the protaganist talks about a women being a 'pig' and 'hopes they die of a heart attack'. More fool me though, for believing it for so long. Its really a wankfest with sprinkles on top.


----------



## Vader7476

mergirl said:


> Tee-hee.. You have a keen eye i shall give you that. Yeah, there was only so much i could fit into my analogy, i didn't actually miss any key themes of the book. It does feel a little unreal.. arguing about allowing pedophillia etc into erotic stories.. DOES seem unreal to me. Also, that Dims could EVER claim to be a 'size acceptance' site when it has stories where the protaganist talks about a women being a 'pig' and 'hopes they die of a heart attack'. More fool me though, for believing it for so long. Its really a wankfest with sprinkles on top.



My eyes are almost as sharp as my wit!  Hehe.

It wasn't about allowing pedophillia. There's a big difference between that, and allowing characters that are under 18 to be in the story. My main issue was that if I write a story about a mother of young children, and how raising them makes her lose time to devote to her diet, that story is now banned from this site. I can understand the pedophillia argument(I don't agree, but I can understand it and respect it somewhat), but saying every character(Even ones in passing) must be over 18 regardless is a lot different. As someone who would like the utmost freedom especially in literature, you could see how that's not something I would agree with.

Okay, I need to say about my story Kisses(The one quoted) is that the character saying that is psychotic. Mentally crazy, deluded, etc. The protagonist is not supposed to be sympathetic, and it's a slam AGAINST that kind of fat admirer, who does not see beyond the fat. Is it a misogynistic story that objectifies women? Yes, absolutely. Does it put that in a positive light? No. Or rather, it was not my intention to. Whether you disagree, or not, is up to you.

What I find interesting in your post is that you feel this site is about size acceptance. If that's the case, then why be against stories of underage protagonists altogether?


----------



## Webmaster

mergirl said:


> ...Its really a wankfest with sprinkles on top.



And Scotland is really a tactless morass of ill-chosen real estate for freeing convicted terrorists so they can be celebrated in their native country. Neither your statement not the above is true, of course, and making outrageous statements for the sake of it seems silly.

Check the front page of Dimensions. It says:

_Dimensions Online is the website of Dimensions Magazine which has been published since 1984 as a forum for those who prefer the large figure and the people who attract them. It explains relationships and sexuality, reports on lifestyles, health, medical issues, activism, social events, and media perceptions. Dimensions Magazine also provides entertainment including opinion columns, spicy fiction and photo features of big, beautiful women. You must be of legal age to view the Dimensions website._

Check what it says in the Weight Room:

_No sense beating around the bush. What we have here are, for the most part, heavy duty weight gain stories. They are not very politically correct and you either love this sort of fiction or you don't_.

So as far as I am concerned, what we're seeing here is a classic confrontation between perceived male chauvinism and perceived feminist elite.


----------



## katorade

Webmaster said:


> And Scotland is really a tactless morass of ill-chosen real estate for freeing convicted terrorists so they can be celebrated in their native country. Neither your statement not the above is true, of course, and making outrageous statements for the sake of it seems silly.
> 
> Check the front page of Dimensions. It says:
> 
> _Dimensions Online is the website of Dimensions Magazine which has been published since 1984 as a forum for those who prefer the large figure and the people who attract them. It explains relationships and sexuality, reports on lifestyles, health, medical issues, activism, social events, and media perceptions. Dimensions Magazine also provides entertainment including opinion columns, spicy fiction and photo features of big, beautiful women. You must be of legal age to view the Dimensions website._
> 
> Check what it says in the Weight Room:
> 
> _No sense beating around the bush. What we have here are, for the most part, heavy duty weight gain stories. They are not very politically correct and you either love this sort of fiction or you don't_.
> 
> So as far as I am concerned, what we're seeing here is a classic confrontation between perceived male chauvinism and perceived feminist elite.




If that is, in fact, the purpose of this site, then pray tell WHY you keep purporting that its intention is size acceptance? They are two VERY different things, no matter how muddied they might be in your FA brain.


Oh, and Vader, puhleeze. 







Maybe if your story ended some way showing that misogyny is actually a BAD thing. Or maybe that you're a male writer writing from what you THINK a female misogynist would be thinking...I dunno. All I can do any more is laugh my big fat ass off at you.


----------



## Vader7476

I find it hard to believe anything that I've typed would even hint that I'm a male chauvinist, and none of the women who have argued with me thus far have used that term, nor do I see any statements that I've made that would be outrageous.


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> Oh, and Vader, puhleeze.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if your story ended some way showing that misogyny is actually a BAD thing. Or maybe that you're a male writer writing from what you THINK a female misogynist would be thinking...I dunno. All I can do any more is laugh my big fat ass off at you.



What you just said to me is cringe worthy. That would lack any subtlety at all, and would be terrible writing, even for amateurs. 

The protagonist doesn't end up with the "prize" that was sought. That speaks volumes as does the fact that the protagonist becomes INSANE and has those thoughts(The evil laugh should tip you off).


----------



## katorade

I'm sorry, what? The story I read ended with the fat character telling the bitch of a protagonist that "oh, sorry, i'm not gay, BUT I MIGHT HAVE A FRIEND THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN YOU CUZ NOW YOU'RE FAT." to which the protagonist replied that she was absolutely PISSED at the idea of becoming a fat person. Offensive, YET AGAIN! No surprise, though.

The fat character then chuckles and giggles in glee at the prospect that the "psychotic" finds her attractive at all, then offers to make her days pass a little easier by being eye candy until she CAN find a decent lesbian plumper.

Then the protagonist simply moves on to new victims and starts all over again.

Yeah...


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> I'm sorry, what? The story I read ended with the fat character telling the bitch of a protagonist that "oh, sorry, i'm not gay, BUT I MIGHT HAVE A FRIEND THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN YOU CUZ NOW YOU'RE FAT." to which the protagonist replied that she was absolutely PISSED at the idea of becoming a fat person. Offensive, YET AGAIN! No surprise, though.
> 
> The fat character then chuckles and giggles in glee at the prospect that the "psychotic" finds her attractive at all, then offers to make her days pass a little easier by being eye candy until she CAN find a decent lesbian plumper.
> 
> Then the protagonist simply moves on to new victims and starts all over again.
> 
> Yeah...



I was trying to dance around the plot twist, hahaha. Ya let the cat out of the bag. 

This is a different thing that was said originally. So all characters have to totally enjoy weight gain and fatness? So every FA is a BHM or BBW? I think not. Part of the reaction there is the idea of revenge and have the tables turned.

The scariest psychopaths, to me, are the ones that can mask it. The protagonist never lets on her internal mononlogue to Christine. Christine can't really judge a thought crime, if that even exists. 

I said it before, the story is dark. I'm not sure what you're trying to disagree with.


----------



## katorade

And if Dimensions is indeed for "the fat people that attract them" as well as the FAs, tell me, what is it here_ in this thread, that you can defend,_ that I'm supposed to be attracted to? I'm sorry if legions of drooling men wanting to see me stuff into a tight pair of pants or eat a piece of pie doesn't just _do _it for me. Where is the protection of the sense of community these people seek? WHERE is the defense of SIZE ACCEPTANCE in this...this...oxymoronic fantasy pile?? As far as I can tell, the only time I ever see it pop up is when the so-called "harpies" and their sympathizers dare to rear their ugly heads from their cages and bark angrily at being poked with sticks.


----------



## katorade

Vader7476 said:


> I was trying to dance around the plot twist, hahaha. Ya let the cat out of the bag.
> 
> This is a different thing that was said originally. So all characters have to totally enjoy weight gain and fatness? So every FA is a BHM or BBW? I think not. Part of the reaction there is the idea of revenge and have the tables turned.
> 
> The scariest psychopaths, to me, are the ones that can mask it. The protagonist never lets on her internal mononlogue to Christine. Christine can't really judge a thought crime, if that even exists.
> 
> I said it before, the story is dark. I'm not sure what you're trying to disagree with.




You tell me why they SHOULDN'T enjoy fatness? That is, after all, what fat appreciation is about, right? 

Again, I find it absolutely ridiculous that you don't understand why a FAT person would be offended by the fact that you can find DISLIKING FAT sexually appealing, or why anyone that actually has a real-life, loving, NON-FETISH relationship with a fat person themselves would think the same thing.

I never once said that an FA had to be fat. Don't know where you got that from. My point was that you created a character that was disgusted at the idea of becoming fat. Because fat is baaaaaad. It's only worthwhile when it's turning your crank and you're "doing" it to someone else. Right.


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> You tell me why they SHOULDN'T enjoy fatness? That is, after all, what fat appreciation is about, right?
> 
> Again, I find it absolutely ridiculous that you don't understand why a FAT person would be offended by the fact that you can find DISLIKING FAT sexually appealing, or why anyone that actually has a real-life, loving, NON-FETISH relationship with a fat person themselves would think the same thing.
> 
> I never once said that an FA had to be fat. Don't know where you got that from. My point was that you created a character that was disgusted at the idea of becoming fat. Because fat is baaaaaad. It's only worthwhile when it's turning your crank and you're "doing" it to someone else. Right.



I'll gladly tell you why they shouldn't enjoy fatness: That's not realistic. The readers enjoy larger women/men. That has no bearing at all on the characters, and it would be very boring if every character did enjoy fatness. That should really go without saying. Plus, I find it truly misogynistic that all women would WANT to actively gain weight. 

I find it ridiculous that you keep saying that my story is offensive(Which very well may be true) when you are openly offended by the library in its entirity. So you tell me: How much weight should I give to your argument here? Because it seems that your bias would overshadow anything I had to say anyway. 

I got that from your statements about the protagonist and you've restated them again. She doesn't want to be fat, and doesn't like it on her. You found it offensive that she didn't want to be fat and was pissed about the fact she didn't notice it. She's an FA. She doesn't want to be fat herself. If FA's wanted to be fat, there would be no thin FA's. There are plenty. Many work out to stay trim. You know this. Why do you state that it's offensive that one of them doesn't like the idea of themselves becoming fat? This goes back to your preference statements. If someone has a preference for fat people, that has no bearing on whether or not they want to be fat. I have a preference for women, that doesn't mean I want to become one. This is something you very well know, and I do not know why you're making me explain it to you.

The library is used as erotic literature, spicy fiction, for pornography purposes for a lot of the readers. I play to that and their fantasies. Any writer would.


----------



## katorade

And right there is where you proved you absolutely don't get it and are not _really _an FA.

You know a lot of fat people don't actually want to be or simply don't revel in being fat, right? But that doesn't stop them from wanting to be accepted either way.

You know a lot of fat people aren't GAINERS, right? 

You know a lot of thin people have the ability to not want to gain weight WITHOUT having to loooooooooathe the idea, right?

*You know that saying enjoying fatness isn't realistic when you claim to be an FA is just giant, gob-smacking proof that you're not actually an FA, right?*

The library itself does not offend me. The fact that a library on THIS site is used to as a dumping ground for misanthropic, anti-fat, dehumanizing CRAP that only people that do not truly understand what fat appreciation IS ABOUT is what offends me. You can understand that, right? Right?!? Oh wait, you haven't _yet_...


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> And right there is where you proved you absolutely don't get it and are not _really _an FA.



And here's my rebuttle, that blows that theory out of the water.



katorade said:


> You know a lot of fat people don't actually want to be or simply don't revel in being fat, right? But that doesn't stop them from wanting to be accepted either way.



Yes. Your point is?



katorade said:


> You know a lot of fat people aren't GAINERS, right?



Yes. Your point is?



katorade said:


> You know a lot of thin people have the ability to not want to gain weight WITHOUT having to loooooooooathe the idea, right?



Yes. Your point is?



katorade said:


> *You know that saying enjoying fatness isn't realistic when you claim to be an FA is just giant, gob-smacking proof that you're not actually an FA, right?*



You've based this on a response about every character in all the literature on this site(And not about real people). Here's why you're entirely incorrect:

A truly fat positive story(I underline that so you know that characters in *fiction* aren't real people). TRULY about someone dealing with their weight, and being accepted, liking their size would STILL encounter characters that didn't. That's life.

I can not explain how troubled I am that I had to outright state that just now.



katorade said:


> The library itself does not offend me. The fact that a library on THIS site is used to as a dumping ground for misanthropic, anti-fat, dehumanizing CRAP that only people that do not truly understand what fat appreciation IS ABOUT is what offends me. You can understand that, right? Right?!? Oh wait, you haven't _yet_...



I believe I stated you should bring it up to the man that can do something about it, who allows them on the site. Doesn't seem he agrees with you either, which stinks, I know, but that's how it is. 


Yeah, you're the only person that understands what fat appreciation is about. None of the writers in the library are women or fat. News to me.


----------



## katorade

Vader7476 said:


> And here's my rebuttle, that blows that theory out of the water.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Your point is?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Your point is?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Your point is?
> 
> 
> 
> You've based this on a response about every character in all the literature on this site(And not about real people). Here's why you're entirely incorrect:
> 
> A truly fat positive story(I underline that so you know that characters in *fiction* aren't real people). TRULY about someone dealing with their weight, and being accepted, liking their size would STILL encounter characters that didn't. That's life.
> 
> I can not explain how troubled I am that I had to outright state that just now.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe I stated you should bring it up to the man that can do something about it, who allows them on the site. Doesn't seem he agrees with you either, which stinks, I know, but that's how it is.
> 
> 
> Yeah, you're the only person that understands what fat appreciation is about. None of the writers in the library are women or fat. News to me.




LOL. Seriously. El Oh El. If only you knew, chippy.

Your stories are fiction. Not reality. They should stay that way. What I'm talking about is your inability to realize that if you were indeed for fat appreciation, you wouldn't be using the dehumanization of fat people to ENTICE anyone as a sexually appealing part of a _story_.

That's right _fatties_, feel free to think there's some group of people out there that are out to love and defend you, and we'll continuously bury your heads in the sand with uplifting stories about how cake makes your nipples perky and telling you that losing a single pound isn't necessary. Meanwhile the rest of us out here in reality realize that nobody likes fat people _for realz, _and any attempts you might make to actually say otherwise will just be chucked down the drain and either danced around or completely avoided by the powers that be. Silly fat people, thinking they're like the rest of us.

Thanks for clearing it up! I can seeeeeee the light now!

I can not explain how troubled _I_ am that _I_ had to outright state that just now.

I wonder how far back into the veritable fat dark ages this board would be thrust if the actual community just up and left out of disgust.


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> LOL. Seriously. El Oh El. If only you knew, chippy.



You'd be surprised if you'd stop being so arrogant and emotional.



katorade said:


> Your stories are fiction. Not reality. They should stay that way. What I'm talking about is your inability to realize that if you were indeed for fat appreciation, you wouldn't be using the dehumanization of fat people to ENTICE anyone as a sexually appealing part of a _story_.



Except you clearly forget that fat talk and humiliation are very sexy to people. These stories are pornographic in nature, they're not articles on why you should appreciate fat. They're erotic literature. They can be offensive. I've said almost all of this before. They're meant to be this way. Again: Take this up with Conrad. I can't do anything for you.



katorade said:


> That's right _fatties_, feel free to think there's some group of people out there that are out to love and defend you, and we'll continuously bury your heads in the sand with uplifting stories about how cake makes your nipples perky and telling you that losing a single pound isn't necessary. Meanwhile the rest of us out here in reality realize that nobody likes fat people _for realz, _and any attempts you might make to actually say otherwise will just be chucked down the drain and either danced around or completely avoided by the powers that be. Silly fat people, thinking they're like the rest of us.



I think I know what you're saying, but could you reiterate?




katorade said:


> I can not explain how troubled _I_ am that _I_ had to outright state that just now.



I'm looking for the part where you stated anything. 



katorade said:


> I wonder how far back into the veritable fat dark ages this board would be thrust if the actual community just up and left out of disgust.



Not far at all.


----------



## mossystate

Vader7476 said:


> Okay, I need to say about my story Kisses(The one quoted) is that the character saying that is psychotic. Mentally crazy, deluded, etc. The protagonist is not supposed to be sympathetic, and *it's a slam AGAINST that kind of fat admirer, who does not see beyond the fat*. * Is it a misogynistic story* that objectifies women? *Yes*,* absolutely. Does it put that in a positive light? No. Or rather, it was not my intention to. *





Vader7476 said:


> Except you clearly forget that *fat talk and humiliation are very sexy to people*. These stories are pornographic in nature, *they're not articles on why you should appreciate fat.* They're erotic literature. *They can be offensive. * I've said almost all of this before. *They're meant to be this way.*




So...ummmm. How many people are driving your car.


----------



## Santaclear

Webmaster said:


> So as far as I am concerned, what we're seeing here is a classic confrontation between perceived male chauvinism and perceived feminist elite.



This, for me, is a big part of what makes Dimensions fun and/or interesting. Mere horndoggery would quickly get sickening. Mere PC-ness would be immediately tiresome. This mix of apparently opposing views keeps us in reality.


----------



## Vader7476

mossystate said:


> So...ummmm. How many people are driving your car.



Never heard that expression before.

I assume you bolding things means you take issue with something said?


----------



## stan_der_man

Webmaster said:


> ...
> 
> So as far as I am concerned, what we're seeing here is a classic confrontation between perceived male chauvinism and perceived feminist elite.





Santaclear said:


> This, for me, is a big part of what makes Dimensions fun and/or interesting. Mere horndoggery would quickly get sickening. Mere PC-ness would be immediately tiresome. This mix of apparently opposing views keeps us in reality.



I second Santaclear said... Personally, I find nothing wrong with hearing a woman's perspective and debating how I may see things differently from a male perspective. 

Also, I think this statement of perceived "chauvinism" vs perceived "feminist elite" is only part of the chasm of which you speak that often divides members of Dimensions. I believe we also have a divide between the F"A"s who show their "admiration" of fat through their writings which are posted in "The Library" and the other FAs and fat people who have difficulty associating themselves with a website that makes such stories a prominent part of it's content. IMO, many of these stories are simply misogyny, abusive behavior and outright vulgarity disguised as"weight gain fiction". At least pedophilia is no longer part of that list!


----------



## Vader7476

fa_man_stan said:


> I second Santaclear said... Personally, I find nothing wrong with hearing a woman's perspective and debating how I may see things differently from a male perspective.
> 
> Also, I think this statement of perceived "chauvinism" vs perceived "feminist elite" is only part of the chasm of which you speak that often divides members of Dimensions. I believe we also have a divide between the F"A"s who show their "admiration" of fat through their writings which are posted in "The Library" and the other FAs and fat people who have difficulty associating themselves with a website that makes such stories a prominent part of it's content. IMO, many of these stories are simply misogyny, abusive behavior and outright vulgarity disguised as"weight gain fiction". At least pedophilia is no longer part of that list!



The point of most of it is to delve into the different aspects of what people like about weight gain. Of course that's going to get into everything the fetish can entail. How many stories do you read a week Stan?


----------



## Vespertine

Vader7476 said:


> I assume you bolding things means you take issue with something said?



She was pointing out how you contradicted yourself from one quote box, to the next.

Vader, I'm sure you're a shlub like me working through stuff in life. But I got to say, man... I'm just not sure why anyone who has cared for a fat person at any time in their life would create something so ugly, then proudly display it.

Why as an FA would you choose to add to the pile of negativity fat people already deal with in life? It's okay cos it turns you on? It was meant as satire??? You may need to progress as a writer before you can pull satire off in this context. I mean that as nicely as possible.

It isn't possible to work through angry fantasies in private? Just cos you feel or think it doesn't mean you /have/ to embrace it, defend it, and spend your precious energy writing about it. We all have darkness within, but you can see it, know what its doing, and then give your energy to something entirely more worthwhile. I think we can do with a little less hateful porn toward women in the world. Even a story less would be a much needed reduction! Seriously.

This just brings up for me why I had avoided this community...any community with fetishistic feeders hanging round. Cos they made me feel icky like I was a thing to be viewed, not a real person to interact with, who had lots going on in life besides eating and fatness (omg! I AM on topic!).

[Yes, I know not all FAs or feeders are down with this kind of thing. But there've been enough experiences to make me proceed with caution.]


----------



## stan_der_man

Vader7476 said:


> The point of most of it is to delve into the different aspects of what people like about weight gain. Of course that's going to get into everything the fetish can entail. How many stories do you read a week Stan?



I skim the library occasionally out of morbid curiosity.

The problem with debating you Vader is that you consistently miss the point with such regularity that missing the point appears to be your m.o. This makes attempting to have a logical conversation with you not even mildly amusing let alone worth the time.


----------



## mossystate

Vespertine, he knew what I was saying.


----------



## Jack Skellington

fa_man_stan said:


> IMO, many of these stories are simply misogyny, abusive behavior and outright vulgarity disguised as"weight gain fiction". At least pedophilia is no longer part of that list!



I agree. There is just so much cruelty, ugliness and down right obvious sheer hatred of women that I just avoid the story section like plague. The thought of it makes my skin crawl.


----------



## Vader7476

Vespertine said:


> She was pointing out how you contradicted yourself from one quote box, to the next.
> 
> Vader, I'm sure you're a shlub like me working through stuff in life. But I got to say, man... I'm just not sure why anyone who has cared for a fat person at any time in their life would create something so ugly, then proudly display it.
> 
> Why as an FA would you choose to add to the pile of negativity fat people already deal with in life? It's okay cos it turns you on? It was meant as satire??? You may need to progress as a writer before you can pull satire off in this context. I mean that as nicely as possible.
> 
> It isn't possible to work through angry fantasies in private? Just cos you feel or think it doesn't mean you /have/ to embrace it, defend it, and spend your precious energy writing about it. We all have darkness within, but you can see it, know what its doing, and then give your energy to something entirely more worthwhile. I think we can do with a little less hateful porn toward women in the world. Even a story less would be a much needed reduction! Seriously.
> 
> This just brings up for me why I had avoided this community...any community with fetishistic feeders hanging round. Cos they made me feel icky like I was a thing to be viewed, not a real person to interact with, who had lots going on in life besides eating and fatness (omg! I AM on topic!).
> 
> [Yes, I know not all FAs or feeders are down with this kind of thing. But there've been enough experiences to make me proceed with caution.]



I fail to see the contradiction. One is me talking openly on how I set up the story. The other is me generalizing about the stories in the library as a whole collective. 

I proudly display that story because it gets into aspects of the fetish that are okay to enjoy in a literature setting. Certainly you can see the difference in making fun of someone, and having that turn that person on, and if it's a fantasy setting. I'll say this, and it's quite personal: That story was me testing the waters into a part of the WG fetish that I hadn't explored. It's not done much, fat talk and humiliation. Some guys like being humiliated, I was seeing if I might be one of them. Every now and then I do enjoy it quite a bit, but it's not my main kink. I've never gotten into S&M but I wanted to see sort of how that would be verbally.

I've been told by both English Majors and Professors that my satire is top notch. I did not use satire in Kisses. Satire doesn't work well with this type of literature, unless it's more of an open attack on the literature itself. ID, a writer on here, did a piece that satirized all the cliche's of this genre. 

The stories, for a lot of authors, are written with the readers in mind and for what the readers want to read and find sexy. The people that read the stories in the library know what's real and what's not. They don't read these stories wanting a parter to eat herself to immobility, but it's fun for then to fantasize about. Kisses is a piece, with that in mind, sees who likes fat talk and humiliation. I'm sure there are many on the erotic weight gain board that enjoy fat talk in bed. The story I wanted to write had a lot of fat talk. There were a few ways, as a writer, I could accomplish that. I thought it's be interesting to have the protagonist be the darker side of the fetish, as it's not written much. So far it's been well received on my site and in the Library here. 

Add to the pile of negativity? I think you're taking the story far too seriously. I go to this site, to Curvage, etc. I find fat women beautiful. As an author, I hope you don't take what I write as a reflection on who I am. I often talk to other writers about what they write about. So this might be new to you, it might not. Most of the writers I've spoken with write because they find the reality of what they write abhorrent. I would despise a person who was like the protagonist in Kisses. I think we all would. But I think it okay to push the envelope and literature is perhaps the best way in the world to do that. 

I do not live a life where I shelter myself. Everything about myself I wish to test, prod, and explore. To better myself, and to see who I am as a person. Writing is an excellent way to do that, and I gave warning that the story was a dark story involving humiliation. If that's not your thing, I would expect you not to read it. However, a real event triggered that story, which I wanted to get down for my own benefit and the benefit of other readers of WG. I'm happy to say that because of Kisses, I'll never forget that moment. 

It's odd though, because my art is far more docile than my writing. I'm not sure why that is. 

I am not a feeder. I dislike feeding, the idea of feeding, and most of what is associated with that. In stories, I rather enjoy it though. I seperate fantasy from reality. In fantasy, I have higher tolerances for a lot of things. I love a good murder mystery! I like evil characters in fantasy(Darth Vader, W00t!) In real life? I value life as the most precious thing in this universe. I can't describe how much I hate when a person dies. In video games, I quite enjoy playing shooting games. 

Does this help Vespertine? I like the name by the way. After that type of flower?


----------



## Vader7476

fa_man_stan said:


> I skim the library occasionally out of morbid curiosity.
> 
> The problem with debating you Vader is that you consistently miss the point with such regularity that missing the point appears to be your m.o. This makes attempting to have a logical conversation with you not even mildly amusing let alone worth the time.



If you don't read regularly, how can you possibly say with any confidence that most are the way you described? Can you name me 3 stories that are not what you described by different authors?

I've understood quite clearly what everyone in this thread has said and what their points are. If you think I missed something, speak up. It's rather illogical to say I've missed points regularly when there's only been a couple that have popped up in this thread and to then not explain anything.

If you feel I'm not worth the time, you should know what to do.


----------



## fatgirlflyin

Something I've been thinking about today, someone posting a story here at dims doesn't make them an fa. I think we have seen many examples of that. I think some men come to dimensions to troll for women with low self esteem who they can then control and humiliate at will. Just because they can. Its sad that these kind of people have been able to find a hole to hide in here at dims while casting their nets. 
Nothing wrong with stories, even weight gain stories if that is what floats your boat, but for a story to be able to exist here that is seemingly full of fat hate makes no sense to me. 
Pro diet or wls talk is prohibited here, because we are supposed to be living in happy lala fat land, so why is a story so anti lala land allowed to exist? 
This is the kind of situation that sometimes makes me feel that dimensions is more about getting a dick hard than acceptance of any kind.


fa_man_stan said:


> I second Santaclear said... Personally, I find nothing wrong with hearing a woman's perspective and debating how I may see things differently from a male perspective.
> 
> Also, I think this statement of perceived "chauvinism" vs perceived "feminist elite" is only part of the chasm of which you speak that often divides members of Dimensions. I believe we also have a divide between the F"A"s who show their "admiration" of fat through their writings which are posted in "The Library" and the other FAs and fat people who have difficulty associating themselves with a website that makes such stories a prominent part of it's content. IMO, many of these stories are simply misogyny, abusive behavior and outright vulgarity disguised as"weight gain fiction". At least pedophilia is no longer part of that list!


----------



## Paquito

Thank god the BHM stories aren't like this. I tried to read a few BBW stories, but was too taken aback by the content that I exclusively read stories involving BHM and FFA (unless the writer is one of my favorites).


----------



## Vader7476

For many of us writing is a foray, an exploration into our own sexuality and the different aspects that make up what we like. I fail to see how that relates to how we are in the real world, or how that disqualifies us as an FA. Believe me, I can understand where you guys can come from on your thoughts about stories(To an extent). I guess I just don't see these stories as mandates for how someone should act.

Good night.


----------



## katorade

fatgirlflyin said:


> Pro diet or wls talk is prohibited here, because we are supposed to be living in happy lala fat land, so why is a story so anti lala land allowed to exist?
> This is the kind of situation that sometimes makes me feel that dimensions is more about getting a dick hard than acceptance of any kind.




Aaaaaaaaaaand scene!


----------



## mollycoddles

The "preference vs fetish" question is essentially meaningless. The only reason that we continuously have this same debate over and over again is because fetish has such a dirty, prurient connotation and people want to pretend that their love of larger women is something more noble and empowering than a mere kink. One poster said that people categorizing it as a "fetish" want it to be that way because they can't deal with the human aspect; I say that people who say it's anything other than a fetish are just romaticizing it.

Furthermore, this argument between Vader and Katorade is just plain ridiculous. For some reason, this website has attracted a strange mix of fat acceptance advocates and fat fetishists and it's rather silly to expect them to get along; it's like, as a friend of mine once said, expecting an amputee fetishist to care about getting wheelchair ramps installed at the local library. So there will probably never be peace unless we do sever the fat acceptance folks from the fetishists and give each their own slice of the web to putter around in. But for whatever reason that's not the situation we have here, so we have to learn to co-exist in some relative semblance of peace as long as we all frequent this site. 

Vader was contributing some interesting thoughts to this conversation, but Katorade, apparently not wanting to hear them, decided that she could discredit him by bringing in his entirely unrelated writing career under the assumption that a man with an interest in some of the more controversial aspects of this kink couldn't possibly have anything thoughtful to say. While one's kinks might say something about one's opinions and worldview, it isn't necessarily so. Many of us understand the difference between fantasy and reality and are able to easily compartmentalize these concepts in our minds. 

To assume that Vader's porn writing is the final word on his thoughts on this topic would be like assuming that a woman who enjoys being submissive in the bedroom could not possibly be a strong leader or an outspoken feminist outside of the bedroom. Vader can't control what he finds enticing any more than any of us can, but he's gone out of his way to warn you about this aspect of himself. He has been completely candid about the sorts of stories he writes and why he writes them. Katorade implies that Vader forced his writing upon her, but when Vader produces the AIM transcript, she changes her story. Suddenly the fact that Vader said he "hoped" that his stories hadn't offended her meant that he was basically promising that they wouldn't. "You told me X!" "No, I told you Y!" "Oh you told me X? Therefore I decided that X=Y"

Katorade has continuously criticized Vader for not understanding why she finds his stories offensive. Vader has, however, freely admitted that his stories are offensive to many people, even explaining that their being offensive is part of the point. He has said that he understands why Katorade might not like them. Katorade just keeps repeating accusations of "not getting it" because it makes it easy for her to dismiss anything that he says.

For shame! For shame, indeed!


----------



## Vespertine

Vader7476 said:


> I'll say this, and it's quite personal: That story was me testing the waters into a part of the WG fetish that I hadn't explored.



It was very, very clearly a product of your own personal psychology. Very clear on that. Don't worry.



> Add to the pile of negativity? I think you're taking the story far too seriously.



I don't think you take it seriously enough. Words are important, I always try to use them carefully. As someone so into literature, you should know the impact words can have, what impact they've had on you personally. You've never read anything that touched you, that became part of you, and made you better for it? I'm sure you have. It works the other way, you've never read anything so vile it haunts you for a while? Well, I recently have.



> I hope you don't take what I write as a reflection on who I am.



Of course it reflects on you. Not that I expect you live it out. I am far too optimistic about people to believe that easily. It reflects on how willingly you're given over to entertaining these unpleasantries in your mind, though you could be doing any number of other things with it. You only have so many hours in life, and you feel satisfied spending your time on this. It reflects on you.



> Most of the writers I've spoken with write because they find the reality of what they write abhorrent. .... But I think it okay to push the envelope and literature is perhaps the best way in the world to do that.



Why push the envelope there? Why wallow in abhorrence if you don't absolutely have to? Why are the lot of you wasting your time that way? Why not push the envelope on something that includes the possibility that everyone can get their rocks off without so much degredation involved?

You should totally do it. Make it insanely hot with your lit kung fu. Show those humiliation-story fappers that sex where someone isn't eviscerated can be even hotter. You could explore scenarios satisfying to you that might /also/ be popular with ladies whose sexual proclivities don't include violence toward them. What fun you'd have then, eh?



> I do not live a life where I shelter myself. Everything about myself I wish to test, prod, and explore. To better myself, and to see who I am as a person. Writing is an excellent way to do that, and I gave warning that the story was a dark story involving humiliation. If that's not your thing, I would expect you not to read it.



You don't have to be afraid or sheltered from these parts of yourself, to not have to embrace them. I totally get delving into your darkness. I believe it is vitally important that a person does, yet not get stuck there. To put these words out in the world that will live in people's minds, to entertain it in your consciousness for this long, to spend the time on it, seems rather stuck. 

I know, don't like it don't read it. I read it cos it was quoted here and I wanted a fuller understanding. I do come on to dims fairly regularly, and did wanna know what I'm cohabitating this neighborhood with. I had a vague memory of stories I read years and years ago that led me to stay far away from anything having to do with FAs and feeding. I don't think it was dims specifically. 

Honestly, this story of yours not different at all in essence from the fic I read years ago, so I am not sure why you think you're doing something revolutionary. I can't point to which story obvs, only that yours didn't surprise me as much as disappoint me that I was having intense deja vu. I will probably take a break from this place TBH.

PS Seriously dude. Even your avatar saw the light at some point. Don't wait till your last breath...ha ha.


----------



## katorade

I suppose that if you had a little more history here that you'd realize the debate started BEFORE this thread even popped up, but feel free to make all the misinformed decisions you like!

What you fail to understand is that my ire doesn't come from the fact that he writes, or has a fetish. I was a participant of a fetish community for several years. A good friend of mine made a living as a Domme. 

My disgust comes from the fact that he is too blatantly obtuse to realize that his story and others like it are NOT the type of material anyone would accept as belonging on a site dedicated to _size acceptance_, and more so that site ownership just tippy-toes around it.

Let's forget for a moment that actually posting a private conversation isn't allowed on the boards, and I totally could've been a bitch about it, but wasn't. I already apologized (unnecessarily, tyvm) about mis-remembering his exact wording because I don't actually bother to go and re-read chat logs from weeks ago. I also clarified that I read his story in order to give him the benefit of the doubt, because maybe he wasn't such a bad guy, and it was a huge slap in the face to see that he wrote INCREDIBLY offensive material. Material he previously had any inkling I might not be offended by.:doh: He simply catches my ire for being dense enough not to see why fat-offensive material SHOULDN'T be welcomed here, let alone invited, when this site touts itself as a size acceptance haven, and dares to even mention NAAFA without fear of spontaneously combusting. Vader's seriously the least of my annoyances, though. 

You're right, though. There is a weird mix of fat acceptance advocates and fat fetishists, and it's because both sought solace here under two completely different umbrellas that were offered to them. THAT is what really pisses me off. 

If the powers that be came on here and said that it's all been a farce, that indeed Dims is for the FAs, and they come first, and SA is merely an afterthought and doesn't actually have a leg to stand on when it comes to who has a say on the content of this site, then I would GLADLY high-tail it the hell off of this board, and I'm pretty sure a hell of a lot of other posters (not lurkers, mind you) would as well. According to members like Vader, though, that wouldn't really matter, since this place is all about the porn. I'll spare you the giant rolley-eyed icon this time.

Shall I mention how coincidental it is that the vast majority of your post history is in the Library and the Pay-Site boards?


----------



## katorade

Vespertine said:


> I know, don't like it don't read it.




Or, conversely, if you don't want people to bitch about not liking it, don't post it on a public forum full of your antagonists.


----------



## Fascinita

We enjoyed the blow-by-blow coverage, Howard Cosell! Thanks for providing this service. :bow:

As to whether loving larger women is allowed to be anything more noble and empowering than a kink... Well, just who are you fooling? The stories in question are clearly not about "loving" larger women.

Expecting respect and wanting to be treated like regular human beings does not amount to "romanticizing." It just means fat people want what anyone wants.

For those mired in fantasies of how gross and beyond the pale fat women are, I expect it's jarring to hear real fat people speaking back, establishing that we are not the abject yuckies the fantasists are happy to dream about.




mollycoddles said:


> The "preference vs fetish" question is essentially meaningless. The only reason that we continuously have this same debate over and over again is because fetish has such a dirty, prurient connotation and people want to *pretend that their love of larger women is something more noble and empowering than a mere kink. * One poster said that people categorizing it as a "fetish" want it to be that way because they can't deal with the human aspect; I say that people who say it's anything other than a fetish are just romaticizing it.
> 
> Furthermore, this argument between Vader and Katorade is just plain ridiculous. For some reason, this website has attracted a strange mix of fat acceptance advocates and fat fetishists and it's rather silly to expect them to get along; it's like, as a friend of mine once said, expecting an amputee fetishist to care about getting wheelchair ramps installed at the local library. So there will probably never be peace unless we do sever the fat acceptance folks from the fetishists and give each their own slice of the web to putter around in. But for whatever reason that's not the situation we have here, so we have to learn to co-exist in some relative semblance of peace as long as we all frequent this site.
> 
> Vader was contributing some interesting thoughts to this conversation, but Katorade, apparently not wanting to hear them, decided that she could discredit him by bringing in his entirely unrelated writing career under the assumption that a man with an interest in some of the more controversial aspects of this kink couldn't possibly have anything thoughtful to say. While one's kinks might say something about one's opinions and worldview, it isn't necessarily so. Many of us understand the difference between fantasy and reality and are able to easily compartmentalize these concepts in our minds.
> 
> To assume that Vader's porn writing is the final word on his thoughts on this topic would be like assuming that a woman who enjoys being submissive in the bedroom could not possibly be a strong leader or an outspoken feminist outside of the bedroom. Vader can't control what he finds enticing any more than any of us can, but he's gone out of his way to warn you about this aspect of himself. He has been completely candid about the sorts of stories he writes and why he writes them. Katorade implies that Vader forced his writing upon her, but when Vader produces the AIM transcript, she changes her story. Suddenly the fact that Vader said he "hoped" that his stories hadn't offended her meant that he was basically promising that they wouldn't. "You told me X!" "No, I told you Y!" "Oh you told me X? Therefore I decided that X=Y"
> 
> Katorade has continuously criticized Vader for not understanding why she finds his stories offensive. Vader has, however, freely admitted that his stories are offensive to many people, even explaining that their being offensive is part of the point. He has said that he understands why Katorade might not like them. Katorade just keeps repeating accusations of "not getting it" because it makes it easy for her to dismiss anything that he says.
> 
> For shame! For shame, indeed!


----------



## mollycoddles

Fascinita said:


> We enjoyed the blow-by-blow coverage, Howard Cosell! Thanks for providing this service. :bow:
> 
> As to whether loving larger women is allowed to be anything more noble and empowering than a kink... Well, just who are you fooling? The stories in question are clearly not about "loving" larger women.
> 
> Expecting respect and wanting to be treated like regular human beings does not amount to "romanticizing." It just means fat people want what anyone wants.
> 
> For those mired in fantasies of how gross and beyond the pale fat women are, I expect it's jarring to hear real fat people speaking back, establishing that we are not the abject yuckies the fantasists are happy to dream about.



Sorry, I wasn't thinking about the stories at all when I talked about preference vs. fetish. It just seems to me that there are an awful lot of men on this board who are clearly attracted to larger women because they are fat. Debating whether this is a preference or a fetish is just splitting hairs. People just don't want to call it a fetish because that word has a bad rap but, as far as I can tell, that's pretty much what it is. I'm not saying that larger women shouldn't be treated with respect, just that defining your like as a "preference" rather than a "fetish" doesn't seem like something that really makes any difference in the amount of respect afforded one's object of affection. They're the same thing, except that one is more brutally honest about the fetishizer's feelings.


----------



## mergirl

Ok, i will paste in all that i said so that my quotes are not just chopped up to say 'wank'-Thats twice in two days you have done that!! 

"It does feel a little unreal.. arguing about allowing pedophillia etc into erotic stories.. DOES seem unreal to me. Also, that Dims could EVER claim to be a 'size acceptance' site when it has stories where the protaganist talks about a women being a 'pig' and 'hopes they die of a heart attack'. More fool me though, for believing it for so long. Its really a wankfest with sprinkles on top."

*I'm not sure what you were trying to do there with the Scotland quote-Twas a wee nonsense there Conrad...lmao..Scotland has a fine history, one which i am proud of..so wind ups just wont work.* 

OK..I see now. Dimensions is: 
"those who prefer the large figure and the 'people who attract them'."
So its not ACTUALLY a place for fat woman to be equals. Any woman who is not 'attractive' to Fa's does not belong here. I guess this includes those that object to fat women being called "fucking pigs that should die of a heart attack". THIS-is what was said on your site. Yes, it was a story-but the lines between fantasy and reality can be extremely blurred here at times. There is a warning that the stories may not be pc. I agree. They are wank fodder. Call it as it is then. ie Not a size acceptance site. Stories like this are incompatable with size acceptance. 
I don't think its chauvinism to express you feelings by saying a woman is "A pig that he hopes dies of a heart attack" I think it is abusive and disgusting. If that makes me a feminist then so be it.. i am glad.
Btw-'The sprinkles' are the small shining lights of what this site could be and achive. 



Webmaster said:


> And Scotland is really a tactless morass of ill-chosen real estate for freeing convicted terrorists so they can be celebrated in their native country. Neither your statement not the above is true, of course, and making outrageous statements for the sake of it seems silly.
> 
> Check the front page of Dimensions. It says:
> 
> _Dimensions Online is the website of Dimensions Magazine which has been published since 1984 as a forum for those who prefer the large figure and the people who attract them. It explains relationships and sexuality, reports on lifestyles, health, medical issues, activism, social events, and media perceptions. Dimensions Magazine also provides entertainment including opinion columns, spicy fiction and photo features of big, beautiful women. You must be of legal age to view the Dimensions website._
> 
> Check what it says in the Weight Room:
> 
> _No sense beating around the bush. What we have here are, for the most part, heavy duty weight gain stories. They are not very politically correct and you either love this sort of fiction or you don't_.
> 
> So as far as I am concerned, what we're seeing here is a classic confrontation between perceived male chauvinism and perceived feminist elite.


----------



## mollycoddles

katorade said:


> I suppose that if you had a little more history here that you'd realize the debate started BEFORE this thread even popped up, but feel free to make all the misinformed decisions you like!
> 
> What you fail to understand is that my ire doesn't come from the fact that he writes, or has a fetish. I was a participant of a fetish community for several years. A good friend of mine made a living as a Domme.
> 
> My disgust comes from the fact that he is too blatantly obtuse to realize that his story and others like it are NOT the type of material anyone would accept as belonging on a site dedicated to _size acceptance_, and more so that site ownership just tippy-toes around it.
> 
> Let's forget for a moment that actually posting a private conversation isn't allowed on the boards, and I totally could've been a bitch about it, but wasn't. I already apologized (unnecessarily, tyvm) about mis-remembering his exact wording because I don't actually bother to go and re-read chat logs from weeks ago. I also clarified that I read his story in order to give him the benefit of the doubt, because maybe he wasn't such a bad guy, and it was a huge slap in the face to see that he wrote INCREDIBLY offensive material. Material he previously had any inkling I might not be offended by.:doh: He simply catches my ire for being dense enough not to see why fat-offensive material SHOULDN'T be welcomed here, let alone invited, when this site touts itself as a size acceptance haven, and dares to even mention NAAFA without fear of spontaneously combusting.



So is your main problem with Vader that you feel his stories should be posted on a site dedicated to fat fetishism rather than on one dedicated to fat acceptance? That's fair enough, but, like you said, the main problem is with the site administration then. You yourself admitted that this site is a weird and rather uncomfortable mix of fat acceptance sorts and fetishists. 

So regardless of whether these sorts of stories should or shouldn't be welcomed here, the fact is that *they are*. If the people who run this site want to make a clean break and expel all us perverts, they are well within their liberty to do so. I'm sure that there are enough fat acceptance sorts here that the site will continue to run smoothly without us. And the perverts would gnash our teeth in righteous indignation for a little while, I'm sure, but we'd soon decamp for greener pastures over at some other site. For the time being, though, I don't see how you can fault Vader for posting his story on this site when this site has made it abundantly clear that fat fetishism is one of the key reasons why it exists. For all intents and purposes, the site administration pretty much has a big flashing sign up that reads "PERVERTS WELCOME" so it's hard to get indignant when the perverts actually show up. I'm not complaining about that, since I'm in the pervert contingent, but I'm just sayin'. 

(BTW, I'd like to point out that I'm using pervert as a term of endearment in this post, and I apologize in advance if I've offended anyone with that salty language.) 



> If the powers that be came on here and said that it's all been a farce, that indeed Dims is for the FAs, and they come first, and SA is merely an afterthought and doesn't actually have a leg to stand on when it comes to who has a say on the content of this site, then I would GLADLY high-tail it the hell off of this board, and I'm pretty sure a hell of a lot of other posters (not lurkers, mind you) would as well. According to members like Vader, though, that wouldn't really matter, since this place is all about the porn. I'll spare you the giant rolley-eyed icon this time.



It sounds like, in the absence of some command from on-high about this site's purpose, you've declared that it's all about the fat acceptance bits and that the porn is some sort of unwelcome cancerous invader. Without divine guidance, I think we'll have to guess about the site's mission from what content is actually posted here. And there's a lot of porn here. Enough, I'd say, that the perverts have an argument that it's at least as integral a part of this site as the fat acceptance bits. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it's a reasonable conclusion for a visitor to draw from looking at the boards here.



> Shall I mention how coincidental it is that the vast majority of your post history is in the Library and the Pay-Site boards?



It's not a coincidence. Sorry if you feel that makes my points less valid. I've never really felt all that comfortable posting on the other boards and if my posting history is going to be held against me here, then I'll probably stay confined to those sub-boards in the future.


----------



## Santaclear

mollycoddles said:


> The "preference vs fetish" question is essentially meaningless. The only reason that we continuously have this same debate over and over again is because fetish has such a dirty, prurient connotation and people want to pretend that their love of larger women is something more noble and empowering than a mere kink. One poster said that people categorizing it as a "fetish" want it to be that way because they can't deal with the human aspect; I say that people who say it's anything other than a fetish are just romaticizing it.





mollycoddles said:


> Sorry, I wasn't thinking about the stories at all when I talked about preference vs. fetish. It just seems to me that there are an awful lot of men on this board who are clearly attracted to larger women because they are fat. Debating whether this is a preference or a fetish is just splitting hairs. People just don't want to call it a fetish because that word has a bad rap but, as far as I can tell, that's pretty much what it is. I'm not saying that larger women shouldn't be treated with respect, just that defining your like as a "preference" rather than a "fetish" doesn't seem like something that really makes any difference in the amount of respect afforded one's object of affection. They're the same thing, except that one is more brutally honest about the fetishizer's feelings.



To simplify, fetish sounds mostly bad and preference sounds good. 

On the one hand, yeah, who cares what you call it? (LovesBHMs said this earlier in the thread.) But on the other, it's not your place to call everyone who prefers a fat partner a "fetishist." You don't get to define their love. 

And you said that _"people who say it's anything other than a fetish are just romanticizing it."_ Well, isn't romance part of love? Or are you telling us that *_sob*_ all FAs are incapable of love?


----------



## bdog

I briefly scanned one of the stories and saw some talk of "fat pig" and such. Just standard fare bdsm humiliation. Plenty of girls and boys like it (giving and receiving).

What am I missing?


----------



## bdog

I can become aroused with the thought, "OMG that ass is huge."

I can become aroused from the deeper understanding and love that shows up after resolving a disagreement.

Preference of fetish? Well, I want to love a fat woman. In constraining one's thoughts between these two words the larger point is lost.


----------



## Fascinita

bdog said:


> I briefly scanned one of the stories and saw some talk of "fat pig" and such. Just standard fare bdsm humiliation. Plenty of girls and boys like it (giving and receiving).
> 
> What am I missing?



b, what you're missing is the blurring of the lines between fantasy and reality that occurs when some particularly vocal people who are "into" these fantasies want to make aggressive claims that "no one ever really loves a fat person" and "being sexually attracted to fat people is always a matter of kink and if you don't get it, you're romanticizing things" and that "everyone knows fat is not accepted by society, so anyone who's telling you they love a fat person is lying out of politeness or talking strictly about platonic love." Entire world views expressed in this thread and lines of thinking about Dimensions being a "fetish" site appear to be based on assumptions of that kind.

When fantasy is foisted unilaterally on unwilling real objects of fantasy as a purported reality, there is a problem. People aren't objects. Fat people come with their own reality. And though some fat people like to engage in fantasy, not all are comfortable with having their realities denied or supplanted for them, as happens when we're told that the only reality possible for fat people is that imagined in "admirer" fantasies. And though some fat people like to engage in fantasy, not every one of them wants to lose himself entirely in it, or to forget that fantasy and reality aren't quite the same thing.

This isn't about denying fantasy a place, but about saying that if there is also to be a place for _real_ fat people here, the fantasists have to contend with the fatties having a voice and bringing their realities to the table.


----------



## bdog

Fascinita said:


> b, what you're missing is the blurring of the lines between fantasy and reality that occurs when some particularly vocal people who are "into" these fantasies want to make aggressive claims that "no one ever really loves a fat person" and "being sexually attracted to fat people is always a matter of kink and if you don't get it, you're romanticizing things" and that "everyone knows fat is not accepted by society, so anyone who's telling you they love a fat person is lying out of politeness or talking strictly about platonic love." Entire world views expressed in this thread and lines of thinking about Dimensions being a "fetish" site appear to be based on assumptions of that kind.



Hmmm. That's indeed alarming... but it didn't quite look like that to me. And the sentence about platonic love doesn't even make sense so I think something must be getting mixed up. Maybe I didn't read closely enough, or maybe your perceptions are slightly off. Or both. *shrug*


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

katorade said:


> I will simply repeat. You simply don't get it.





mossystate said:


> Vespertine, he knew what I was saying.



Indeed

Getting it and giving a shit are two distinctly different things. 



katorade said:


> Maybe if your story ended some way showing that misogyny is actually a BAD thing. * Or maybe that you're a male writer writing from what you THINK a female misogynist would be thinking...I dunno. * All I can do any more is laugh my big fat ass off at you.



I always find it amusing when some males pretend to be women here so they can "teach" or show the real women how we SHOULD behave....

Lots of those stories in the library don't really involve how a real women would think.....just how they should serve some purpose/desire. 

Funny, I write stories and like to "engage" my male/female characters in dialogue/thought processes that revolve around each other's desires and impressions. 
Some of the male authors I have read here apparently don't view a woman's thoughts or impressions as a part of the sexual experience. If the body or act itself is all that matters to them, perhaps THEY are fetishists. 
The guys on here that actually engage with the real women, reading their thoughts......I tend to think they might be something more. 

I like it when the fetishists stick to the library myself.......



Vader7476 said:


> The point of most of it is to delve into the different aspects of what people like about weight gain. Of course that's going to get into everything the fetish can entail. How many stories do you read a week Stan?



Don't know about Stan but I have read way more than I care to. Are you off on some crusade to defend "art" again? Acting offended that people don't read all the stories? How soon to you switch again to being angry at those that actually read some but just don't like them?

Can't get your cake and eat it, too. No matter how hard you stomp your foot. 




Jack Skellington said:


> I agree. There is just so much cruelty, ugliness and down right obvious sheer hatred of women that I just avoid the story section like plague. The thought of it makes my skin crawl.



This. I regret my time helping to edit.....even though I console myself by the thought of how much ugliness I did manage to shear out of some of them. 



fatgirlflyin said:


> Something I've been thinking about today, someone posting a story here at dims doesn't make them an fa. I think we have seen many examples of that. I think some men come to dimensions to troll for women with low self esteem who they can then control and humiliate at will. Just because they can. Its sad that these kind of people have been able to find a hole to hide in here at dims while casting their nets.
> Nothing wrong with stories, even weight gain stories if that is what floats your boat, but for a story to be able to exist here that is seemingly full of fat hate makes no sense to me.
> *Pro diet or wls talk is prohibited here, because we are supposed to be living in happy lala fat land, so why is a story so anti lala land allowed to exist? *
> This is the kind of situation that sometimes makes me feel that dimensions is more about getting a dick hard than acceptance of any kind.



Excellent question



katorade said:


> Or, conversely, if you don't want people to bitch about not liking it, don't post it on a public forum full of your antagonists.



Lol, he gets mad when people don't read it either. He seems to enjoy being angry. 

Please....let him go back to the library.......


----------



## Vader7476

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Don't know about Stan but I have read way more than I care to. Are you off on some crusade to defend "art" again? Acting offended that people don't read all the stories? How soon to you switch again to being angry at those that actually read some but just don't like them?
> 
> Can't get your cake and eat it, too. No matter how hard you stomp your foot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, he gets mad when people don't read it either. He seems to enjoy being angry.
> 
> Please....let him go back to the library.......



I'm angry now? At what, praytell? The people that sound the most angry in this thread are those clamoring for the abolishment of the library. 

GEF, you seem to be another person on this forum that just randomly makes up thoughts. Or rather, misconstrue any and all events to serve some irresponsible purpose. Anyone reading my posts will openly see I never even mentioned reading all my stories, and in fact suggested not to. Not only to you, but to anyone that doesn't like that type of fiction. I didn't care, at all, what people read. My issue with you in that last thread, was that you judged a story that you DIDN'T read. 

I always thought getting your cake and eating it to is what got most of us here in the first place...


----------



## Vader7476

Forgive me if I'm wrong, isn't there an entire board devoted to WLS?


----------



## Vader7476

bdog said:


> I can become aroused with the thought, "OMG that ass is huge."
> 
> I can become aroused from the deeper understanding and love that shows up after resolving a disagreement.
> 
> Preference of fetish? Well, I want to love a fat woman. In constraining one's thoughts between these two words the larger point is lost.



THANK YOU! I agree 100%


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> Or, conversely, if you don't want people to bitch about not liking it, don't post it on a public forum full of your antagonists.



I didn't post it on this board, I posted it on the library. Where the readers there have enjoyed it thoroughly. I also couldn't care less as to whether or not you like it or whine about it. In fact, some of your concerns I AGREED with.


----------



## Vader7476

mergirl said:


> I don't think its chauvinism to express you feelings by saying a woman is "A pig that he hopes dies of a heart attack" I think it is abusive and disgusting. If that makes me a feminist then so be it.. i am glad.
> Btw-'The sprinkles' are the small shining lights of what this site could be and achive.



I never said that about a real person. Don't you feel you're reading a little too into the situation? I put in some humiliation(A fetish for some) into a WG story. That's what it boils down to. I expressed earlier, the thoughts of my characters are not my own.


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> What you fail to understand is that my ire doesn't come from the fact that he writes, or has a fetish. I was a participant of a fetish community for several years. A good friend of mine made a living as a Domme.
> 
> My disgust comes from the fact that he is too blatantly obtuse to realize that his story and others like it are NOT the type of material anyone would accept as belonging on a site dedicated to _size acceptance_, and more so that site ownership just tippy-toes around it.
> 
> Let's forget for a moment that actually posting a private conversation isn't allowed on the boards, and I totally could've been a bitch about it, but wasn't. I already apologized (unnecessarily, tyvm) about mis-remembering his exact wording because I don't actually bother to go and re-read chat logs from weeks ago. I also clarified that I read his story in order to give him the benefit of the doubt, because maybe he wasn't such a bad guy, and it was a huge slap in the face to see that he wrote INCREDIBLY offensive material. Material he previously had any inkling I might not be offended by.:doh: He simply catches my ire for being dense enough not to see why fat-offensive material SHOULDN'T be welcomed here, let alone invited, when this site touts itself as a size acceptance haven, and dares to even mention NAAFA without fear of spontaneously combusting. Vader's seriously the least of my annoyances, though.
> 
> You're right, though. There is a weird mix of fat acceptance advocates and fat fetishists, and it's because both sought solace here under two completely different umbrellas that were offered to them. THAT is what really pisses me off.
> 
> If the powers that be came on here and said that it's all been a farce, that indeed Dims is for the FAs, and they come first, and SA is merely an afterthought and doesn't actually have a leg to stand on when it comes to who has a say on the content of this site, then I would GLADLY high-tail it the hell off of this board, and I'm pretty sure a hell of a lot of other posters (not lurkers, mind you) would as well. According to members like Vader, though, that wouldn't really matter, since this place is all about the porn. I'll spare you the giant rolley-eyed icon this time.
> 
> Shall I mention how coincidental it is that the vast majority of your post history is in the Library and the Pay-Site boards?



Obtuse? I understood that point before you made it Kate. My response was basically what Mollycoddles response was: We're here already, take it up with admin. Care for me to quote it for you?

I know you're angry. But you also fail to realize that fat acceptance ISN'T the only reason people come here. It's just not. There are too many boards devoted to paysites, sexuality, and erotic literature for size acceptance to be the only thing that happens on this site. This is a porn site in my eyes. I reiterate it again. It's got pornography on it, it's adult only, it has fetish models. I never said it didn't have fat acceptance, I said that wasn't the main draw of the site. And looking at traffic numbers, I stand by that statement.


----------



## mollycoddles

Santaclear said:


> To simplify, fetish sounds mostly bad and preference sounds good.
> 
> On the one hand, yeah, who cares what you call it? (LovesBHMs said this earlier in the thread.) But on the other, it's not your place to call everyone who prefers a fat partner a "fetishist." You don't get to define their love.
> 
> And you said that _"people who say it's anything other than a fetish are just romanticizing it."_ Well, isn't romance part of love? Or are you telling us that *_sob*_ all FAs are incapable of love?



Perhaps "romanticizing" wasn't the best term to use. It's perfectly possible for one to have a fetish and still feel love. It's just a matter of not letting your fetish overwhelm you to the point that you only stop seeing your partner as a complete human being and only see her as a means to indulging your esoteric little kink. By "romanticizing," I meant that a lot of FAs want to believe that the kink itself is somehow noble. For example, quite a few men in this community like to get indignant about modern media portrayals of thin women as desirable, claiming that they're "more enlightened" because they prefer larger women. The reality is that they're still asking women to conform to their specific desires -- whether that desire is for a woman to be thin or fat is pretty much immaterial. There's nothing wrong with having a fetish for a particular sort of person, but it's silly to pretend that having a fetish that runs counter to the dominant social zeitgeist makes you some sort of iconoclast.


----------



## Vader7476

Vespertine said:


> I don't think you take it seriously enough. Words are important, I always try to use them carefully. As someone so into literature, you should know the impact words can have, what impact they've had on you personally. You've never read anything that touched you, that became part of you, and made you better for it? I'm sure you have. It works the other way, you've never read anything so vile it haunts you for a while? Well, I recently have.



Then we differ in this area. I'm skeptical of everything I read, and take it with a grain of salt. I let everything, good or bad, broaden my mind and thinking before I would let it hit my emotions. I understand what you're saying though, but my question would be: On a board dedicated to erotic literature, do you take everything written personally? I apologize for my story so negatively affecting you. Hopefully you can understand that you and the size acceptance activists were not the target audience.





Vespertine said:


> Of course it reflects on you. Not that I expect you live it out. I am far too optimistic about people to believe that easily. It reflects on how willingly you're given over to entertaining these unpleasantries in your mind, though you could be doing any number of other things with it. You only have so many hours in life, and you feel satisfied spending your time on this. It reflects on you.



I live a fairly miserable existence. I mean that in a more cosmic sense(Haha, letting out my inner physicist!). Anything that gives me pleasure or happiness I wish to entertain fully[with exceptions]. I have a preference and fetish that I am ridiculed for in society and on this site now. I enjoy creating things. Art and literature. I enjoy it immensely when others enjoy them too. But no, I don't think all writing reflects on the author. There are too many murderers in books for that to be the case. 





Vespertine said:


> Why push the envelope there? Why wallow in abhorrence if you don't absolutely have to? Why are the lot of you wasting your time that way? Why not push the envelope on something that includes the possibility that everyone can get their rocks off without so much degredation involved?



Because the ideas we play around with, are interesting. There are many artists and writers that create worlds full of all kinds of things. Planet sized women, force feeding, etc. Most, if not all, of them don't actually want that in reality for any number of excellent reasons. As a fantasy they can enjoy it, and I'm not one to say that they can't. I don't think anyone has the right to tell someone else what they're allowed to enjoy(again, some exceptions). 

Vespertine, I know you mean well, and I'm thankful for it. But how do you suggest I write something that gets everyone's rocks off? Look at the people in this thread. They hate every story, or nearly every story that was written and posted in the library. No matter what I write, they will find it degrading and objectifying. As its intention is pornography, I can understand where they're coming from. The task you'd have me do is too great for a writer of my calibur. I'm nowhere near that good, and I don't know if anyone else is either. 



Vespertine said:


> You should totally do it. Make it insanely hot with your lit kung fu. Show those humiliation-story fappers that sex where someone isn't eviscerated can be even hotter. You could explore scenarios satisfying to you that might /also/ be popular with ladies whose sexual proclivities don't include violence toward them. What fun you'd have then, eh?



I have written stories without violence toward women. Kisses takes it to the extremes of Dims, but not to the extremes of my mind. I didn't have Christine, raped, afterall or murdered. There are stories in the inflation fetish that involve popping. 

I do not come here to be popular. I think that's glaringly obvious, haha. I'm writing a story now that's like what you described though. It's about a married couple, both of whom are fat, that really enjoy being fat. Unfortunately, I can't post it on this site. Why? Because they have a small child. 





Vespertine said:


> You don't have to be afraid or sheltered from these parts of yourself, to not have to embrace them. I totally get delving into your darkness. I believe it is vitally important that a person does, yet not get stuck there. To put these words out in the world that will live in people's minds, to entertain it in your consciousness for this long, to spend the time on it, seems rather stuck.



What is writing but a window into one's consciousness? I also question whether or not this type of thing is dark. I see it like this: Whatever two adults consent to in the privacy of their own home is fine with me. I'm reminded of rape fantasies. I think we both agree that rape is a heinous crime. I think in the aforementioned environment, that fantasy is fine so far as no rape actually occurs. To bring that main idea back a bit, I think humiliating fat people is terrible. If two partners like it though, awesome! To bring that back even further, I did find out a bit about myself through the story.  I'm quite pleased I wrote it.




Vespertine said:


> I know, don't like it don't read it. I read it cos it was quoted here and I wanted a fuller understanding. I do come on to dims fairly regularly, and did wanna know what I'm cohabitating this neighborhood with. I had a vague memory of stories I read years and years ago that led me to stay far away from anything having to do with FAs and feeding. I don't think it was dims specifically.



But it shouldn't have been quoted here. This isn't the audience it was meant for. It was quoted as an attack on me as if I said it wasn't an offensive piece of writing. I openly admitted, many times now, that it is offensive. I didn't invite anyone to read it, and put a forewarning on that story to help with that cause. With all of that, the readers have commented on it quite nicely and it's gotten a lot of views. 

I hope you don't take the stories written as for how the authors are. I think you're very intelligent, well spoken, and extremely nice. I wish absolutely no ill will toward you, or anyone else in this thread. I don't agree with the main protagonist, and how she acts. I find it unethical to try and fatten someone up secretively, and personally dislike it openly(Some exceptions). I only appeal to your mind: Please don't judge me and my own thoughts on a fictional piece.




Vespertine said:


> Honestly, this story of yours not different at all in essence from the fic I read years ago, so I am not sure why you think you're doing something revolutionary. I can't point to which story obvs, only that yours didn't surprise me as much as disappoint me that I was having intense deja vu. I will probably take a break from this place TBH.



I don't think it's revolutionary, and I wouldn't describe it as such. A dark story such as that isn't written often, and I wanted to do one. I hadn't really done one before on that level. 

It saddens me that you'd take a break, I enjoyed this conversation very much. 



Vespertine said:


> PS Seriously dude. Even your avatar saw the light at some point. Don't wait till your last breath...ha ha.



But he couldn't do it himself!


----------



## joswitch

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Lol, he gets mad when people don't read it either. He seems to enjoy being angry.



Well, he is Darth Vader...



> Please....let him go back to the library.......



*PSSSSsch... CHRRRRrrr.... PSSSSsch.... ChRRRrrr....* 
"Er, Mr Vader, can you keep it down please? People are trying to read here."
*You dare! Why I'll....*
"Mr Vader, I'll take away your lenders card again!"
*curses! you win this time..... psssssch.... chrrrrrr..... pssssch.... chrrrrrr...*


----------



## joswitch

mollycoddles said:


> The "preference vs fetish" question is essentially meaningless. The only reason that we continuously have this same debate over and over again is because fetish has such a dirty, prurient connotation and people want to pretend that their love of larger women is something more noble and empowering than a mere kink. One poster said that people categorizing it as a "fetish" want it to be that way because they can't deal with the human aspect; *I say that people who say it's anything other than a fetish are just romaticizing it.*
> *snip*



And I say speak for yourself, bud.
Do you go around telling gay folks that they don't really feel love for their partners, that instead they just have a "fetish"???

I'm an FA and I have been in love with, (and have love for, still) my BBW gfs (now exes) when we were dating. And it's more than a fetish, for me. A fetish or a kink is a bit of fun that can be had, or... not, an optional extra if you like. Being with a BBW is such a strong preference for me that I describe it as my orientation. Cos nothing has EVER felt so right (and not just in a "hot" way) to me as being with a BBW I love. And yes, you know what? it is romantic. yes, it MATTERS.... to me. Even if I never, ever date again - that I have loved, wholeheartedly and been loved in return, well maybe that'll be enough that when I hit the buffers at the end of the line, I'll die with a smile on my face.

And to ref. one of your later points, that I'm FA doesn't make me better than a guy who has a preference for thin girls.... Just different. 

What makes me better than, ooooh millions of thin-pushing assholes / random abusive fucks / a vast media/politico/pharma conglomerate, is that I don't spend my time and resources trying to make women feel *miserable* so I can sell them some shit that will pretend (and probably fail) to make them thin(ner) whilst (frequently) fucking up their physical health and (mostly) trampling all over their self esteem. Yeah, I don't prey on other people's misery for my own $gain, nor shits and giggles. I'm better than THAT.


----------



## joswitch

Vader7476 said:


> *snip*
> 
> I don't think it's revolutionary, and I wouldn't describe it as such. *A dark story such as that isn't written often*, and I wanted to do one. I hadn't really done one before on that level.



Dude, there's like hundreds. maybe thousands of revenge, kidnap, psychological domination, humiliation etc. etc. weight gain stories out there on the web. I did click the link to yours, but I couldn't even bring myself to read past two paragraphs in, cos of the jaw-breaking YAAAAAWN that kicks in now, pretty much every time I come across the genre. Just the standard intro cliches (heights, weights, hair colour) and my eyes are already closing... 

Ok, you wanted to write it. Don't pretend it's even remotely unexplored territory.

And what Vespertine was suggesting was that a) fiction / art does influence the beholder (and I agree with her, humans live in their collective mythos, the logos comes a pisspoor second) - So b) why not create something uplifting (and horny, if you like)?? You bemoan your self-confessed lack of talent - well, shit, man - ASPIRE! Work harder, write better, or do something else you can create at successfully.... Aim to grow roses out of the shit of your subconcious and see where that gets you....


----------



## bdog

joswitch said:


> And I say speak for yourself, bud.
> Do you go around telling gay folks that they don't really feel love for their partners, that instead they just have a "fetish"???



I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he doesn't go around telling gay folks that their love is a just a fetish. Mostly because he didn't say that to FA's/BBW's either. Seriously.. it's baffling. How many other people want to misconstrue the same statement.

looking at this thread as a whole...
People express anger/indignation 10x stronger than they express hurt or other emotions. So the perpetrator ends up with his back against the wall defending himself. And the people who were offended don't want him anywhere else. There's seldom real dialogue.. 

I've been a member of these forums and aware of dimensions for over a decade. There have been multiple periods where I didn't login for a year, and other periods where I'd spend hours a day here. I'm getting ready to cut back on my time here... I think others could use a break as well. If you don't like my suggestion it's probably a good sign that you should take it.


----------



## Vader7476

joswitch said:


> Dude, there's like hundreds. maybe thousands of revenge, kidnap, psychological domination, humiliation etc. etc. weight gain stories out there on the web. I did click the link to yours, but I couldn't even bring myself to read past two paragraphs in, cos of the jaw-breaking YAAAAAWN that kicks in now, pretty much every time I come across the genre. Just the standard intro cliches (heights, weights, hair colour) and my eyes are already closing...
> 
> Ok, you wanted to write it. Don't pretend it's even remotely unexplored territory.
> 
> And what Vespertine was suggesting was that a) fiction / art does influence the beholder (and I agree with her, humans live in their collective mythos, the logos comes a pisspoor second) - So b) why not create something uplifting (and horny, if you like)?? You bemoan your self-confessed lack of talent - well, shit, man - ASPIRE! Work harder, write better, or do something else you can create at successfully.... Aim to grow roses out of the shit of your subconcious and see where that gets you....



There are a decent amount of revenge stories, the others you list have considerably less(Maybe they're so common that I don't see them that way, I'll have to think about that! Nice point sir). There's about 2,000 stories on this site. The ones that are dark are heavily outweighed by ones that are not. Not to mention the dark character in my story is flipped, usually the antagonists get what is coming to them, not so. That's why I consider it dark.

Intro cliche's are somewhat necessary. I agree, they are boring, but these types of stories rely heavily on description. You kind of have to, or else readers have no clue what the characters look like. This is where it's great to be a reader and a writer, because you know what audiences look for. Plus, to defend that story intro a little bit, it's written in first person and right away I set the tone that the protagonist is focusing on a girl's body. You'll notice it says nothing about her personality. 

I never said it was unexplored, I said it wasn't common, and humiliation when it does show up is rarely if ever the focus of a story. I wanted to make one where it was.

I know that fiction can influence, but my thoughts which I guess I didn't explain well enough is that these are meant to be pornographic in nature. They're not really up the scale in literary merit. They aren't a George Eliot, or Orwell, or Shaw. I agree with the mythos, logos, as well. Excellent point.

How can I make something uplifting? Let's put aside that I feel my audience uses my writing as porn. So we got a story, no target audience. What would you like me to write about that is uplifting? Because if I put in anything with a character as a foil, or an antagonist, I get called misogynistic, anti-fat, etc. I can't write about women, because I'm not one. I've now had multiple people in this thread bring that point up. How can I accomplish that goal, of uplifting all the SA people on this site? I honestly don't know how to do it. I'm being sincere, help me think of a plot.

I say I'm a poor writer, more as a defense. I actually think I'm decent, but I don't want anyone thinking I view myself as a professional or even the best of the amateurs on this site. Believe me, naysayers love to point those facts out. I just try to nip them early to get on with actual dialogue.


----------



## joswitch

bdog said:


> I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that he doesn't go around telling gay folks that their love is a just a fetish. Mostly because he didn't say that to FA's/BBW's either. Seriously.. it's baffling. How many other people want to misconstrue the same statement.



If you wanna give Mollycoddles the benefit of the doubt, go ahead. But those who are taking issue with her on this did not misconstrue what she wrote. If she didn't "mean" what we have understood her to mean, well then, she "miswrote". 



> looking at this thread as a whole...
> People express anger/indignation 10x stronger than they express hurt or other emotions. So the perpetrator ends up with his back against the wall defending himself. And the people who were offended don't want him anywhere else. There's seldom real dialogue..
> 
> I've been a member of these forums and aware of dimensions for over a decade. There have been multiple periods where I didn't login for a year, and other periods where I'd spend hours a day here. I'm getting ready to cut back on my time here... I think others could use a break as well. *If you don't like my suggestion it's probably a good sign that you should take it*.



ooooh, nice faux logic trap! A fruity little number that's both impudent and elegant! 

That said - I gotta do my friggin' tax return. Must. Stop. Procrastinating. On. Inter. Webz. Argh!


----------



## Vader7476

I hope she doesn't take issue with this, but Mollycoddles is a woman and a lesbian aside from being a feminist.


----------



## katorade

mollycoddles said:


> So is your main problem with Vader that you feel his stories should be posted on a site dedicated to fat fetishism rather than on one dedicated to fat acceptance? That's fair enough, but, like you said, the main problem is with the site administration then. You yourself admitted that this site is a weird and rather uncomfortable mix of fat acceptance sorts and fetishists.
> 
> So regardless of whether these sorts of stories should or shouldn't be welcomed here, the fact is that *they are*. If the people who run this site want to make a clean break and expel all us perverts, they are well within their liberty to do so. I'm sure that there are enough fat acceptance sorts here that the site will continue to run smoothly without us. And the perverts would gnash our teeth in righteous indignation for a little while, I'm sure, but we'd soon decamp for greener pastures over at some other site. For the time being, though, I don't see how you can fault Vader for posting his story on this site when this site has made it abundantly clear that fat fetishism is one of the key reasons why it exists. For all intents and purposes, the site administration pretty much has a big flashing sign up that reads "PERVERTS WELCOME" so it's hard to get indignant when the perverts actually show up. I'm not complaining about that, since I'm in the pervert contingent, but I'm just sayin'.
> 
> (BTW, I'd like to point out that I'm using pervert as a term of endearment in this post, and I apologize in advance if I've offended anyone with that salty language.)
> 
> 
> 
> *It sounds like, in the absence of some command from on-high about this site's purpose, you've declared that it's all about the fat acceptance bits and that the porn is some sort of unwelcome cancerous invader.* * Without divine guidance, I think we'll have to guess about the site's mission from what content is actually posted here.* And there's a lot of porn here. Enough, I'd say, that the perverts have an argument that it's at least as integral a part of this site as the fat acceptance bits. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it's a reasonable conclusion for a visitor to draw from looking at the boards here.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a coincidence. Sorry if you feel that makes my points less valid. I've never really felt all that comfortable posting on the other boards and if my posting history is going to be held against me here, then I'll probably stay confined to those sub-boards in the future.



Uh, yes, thanks again for telling me what I've already said.

I HAVE taken it up with them, in this very thread! You sure you read it?

A giant LOL @ divine guidance. Let's not slap any robes and pope hats on the deities just yet, please. To sort of contradict his previous mention of what it says on the main boards, here's a quote from Conrad himself from another thread:



> However, when you look at the FAQ, you'll see that _"for men, Dimensions is a place where they can talk and learn about their preference, and find lots of steamy fiction, picture, bulletin boards and plenty more. For women, it's a place where THEY, and not their skinny sisters, are the stars. It's a place where they can learn about their admirers and to see the beauty and attractiveness in their bodies_," and also that "*Dimensions is about size politics, acceptance, and mutual respect as much as it is about celebrating the larger figure.*




He also says...



> *See, just because some people do not get hurt by insults and attacks doesn't make it right.* Bullies have always liked venues where they can roam and pick on helpless victims. And online is offering bullies a virtual playground that must seem a veritable paradise to them, one where they are able to slash and hurt at random, anonymously, and without fear of getting their nose punched. That is not right. *People deserve safe places and I want for Dimensions to be one of them.* The Web is full of no-holds-barred venues for those who like to slash and attack and behave the way they hopefully never would in person.



And in his 2009 Bash speech he said:



> Also, it is important to hear from the fat women we admire. We need to learn about their side o the story. We need to know how fat people perceive us and what we can do to iron out some of the problems that often exist between FAs and fat women.
> 
> See, I always thought FAs and fat people were just a wonderful match. To us, fat women are the goddesses of our dreams, and I felt that as long as there were fat and very fat people in this world, it was only fair that there were those who wanted and desired them.
> 
> The problem is that theres a lot of distrust. One of the earliest books on size acceptance I read was Such a Pretty Face by Marsha Millman. In that book, FAs were basically categorized into three groups: infantile nursers who need an authoritarian figure, the insecure dealer type who accepts fat in return for his own shortcomings, and users who are after an easy lay.
> 
> Obviously I didnt agree. I knew I wasnt part of any of those categories, and I knew many other FAs who were not either. So I wanted to prove that we are for real and that we can be trusted even though we are only human and cannot always be the instant Knights in Shining Armor were sometimes expected to be.



Then there's this:


> A world free of any such prejudice would be terrific, but ours isn't. As a result, societal and sexual prejudice is very real and it can totally affect people's lives. I was 20 once and very much know how confusing such often conflicting directions and desires can be. *Whether a sexual interest is a fetish beyond one's control or a basic lifelong orientation is hard to say. If it is the latter, then it will not go away and taking that into consideration when seeking a partner in life will make things a whole lot easier for all involved.*



Guess which one he considers himself to be? Still not sure? There's this...


> Difficult question. *FAs so happen to have a preference for a fat partner, with various desires and ideals. Our preference is often dismissed as superficial or just some fetish. Nothing could be farther from the truth. *For whatever reason, we seem to be genetically wired in this particular way. If you're one of us, you know how strong and real this preference is, and what it means to you.



Here's some more:



> There's definitely a difference between a basic orientation and "fetishes." *My basic orientation is, and has always been, that I prefer fat women.* But on occasion, there's something that sexually grabs me. So what's that? How do those secondary fascinations fit in?* An orientation with little fetish spikes every now and then? I don't see it that way.* I think everyone encounters thoughts and situations that are turn-ons without taking over.



Shall I continue?



> I am pretty sure you will. *Once we stop viewing a preference as just a fantasy (or even fetish) and view it as a real, real-world part of ourselves,* we are well on our way to seeking and finding the right partner.




So Conrad does not, indeed, believe fat appreciation is a fetish. Why he just tip-toes around that is beyond me, rather than making it clear what his beliefs are and what his WANTS for the FA community to be.

Let's swing it back to my first quote, though, where I'll pose this question...

Is literature containing things like force feeding, and kidnapping, and rape, and degradation and humiliation supposed to be CELEBRATING fat? I say that because you allude to that being the "other" side of dimensions from size acceptance. Do you really think that's appreciation?

And with that, I honestly don't think the library should be abolished. I never said that. There certainly are stories there from writers like Caroline that aren't offensive. I'm simply addressing the stories and sub-forums that ARE offensive, to not just me, but to many, and why they were INVITED to be posted on a forum that is supposed to be a safe haven, not just for FAs, but for fat people.

Seriously, you don't _honestly_ think those two aspects of this site can peacefully co-exist, do you? That fat people should be comfortable with that which blatantly offends them and is the stuff of NIGHTMARES, and that FAs that prefer to live in a fantasy world should be confronted with real live actual fat people?

I'm really getting to a point in my life where I loathe the fact that I might be found attractive by someone that refers to himself as an FA BECAUSE of this site, not without it.


----------



## joswitch

Vader7476 said:


> There are a decent amount of revenge stories, the others you list have considerably less(Maybe they're so common that I don't see them that way, I'll have to think about that! Nice point sir). There's about 2,000 stories on this site. The ones that are dark are heavily outweighed by ones that are not. Not to mention the dark character in my story is flipped, usually the antagonists get what is coming to them, not so. That's why I consider it dark.
> 
> Intro cliche's are somewhat necessary. I agree, they are boring, but these types of stories rely heavily on description. You kind of have to, or else readers have no clue what the characters look like. This is where it's great to be a reader and a writer, because you know what audiences look for. Plus, to defend that story intro a little bit, it's written in first person and right away I set the tone that the protagonist is focusing on a girl's body. You'll notice it says nothing about her personality.
> 
> I never said it was unexplored, I said it wasn't common, and humiliation when it does show up is rarely if ever the focus of a story. I wanted to make one where it was.
> 
> I know that fiction can influence, but my thoughts which I guess I didn't explain well enough is that these are meant to be pornographic in nature. They're not really up the scale in literary merit. They aren't a George Eliot, or Orwell, or Shaw. I agree with the mythos, logos, as well. Excellent point.
> 
> How can I make something uplifting? Let's put aside that I feel my audience uses my writing as porn. So we got a story, no target audience. What would you like me to write about that is uplifting? Because if I put in anything with a character as a foil, or an antagonist, I get called misogynistic, anti-fat, etc. I can't write about women, because I'm not one. I've now had multiple people in this thread bring that point up. How can I accomplish that goal, of uplifting all the SA people on this site? I honestly don't know how to do it. I'm being sincere, help me think of a plot.
> 
> I say I'm a poor writer, more as a defense. I actually think I'm decent, but I don't want anyone thinking I view myself as a professional or even the best of the amateurs on this site. Believe me, naysayers love to point those facts out. I just try to nip them early to get on with actual dialogue.



DIMS is very much not the only site on the internet that hosts these kinda stories neither in history, nor currently. Get thee to google and search and you'll see what I meant about the ubiquity of the genre.

re. Intro cliches I think one of the YAAAWWNS is the numbers obsession - height and weight - you can describe these things, without numbers, in such a way that they occurr more naturally in the style of real human observation. The numbers obsession is also, I think, ONE of the big !!objectifying!! flags that ticks most women off with these stories. (Unless that *happens* to be their own kink)

I disagree that porny stories must be a bringdown. What could be a happier ending than everyone involved having a "happy ending" if you see what I mean. What of the capacity for sexuality, to heal, soothe, calm, arouse, fulfil, strengthen, satisfy and connect (among other things) physically, emotionally and spiritually.... think on that. It's often said that there are only really two human stories sex and death (I disagree) but within that endless variation. Why shouldn't porny stories be powerful and affecting over and above the money shot? 

I don't think you should restrict yourself from trying to imagine the p.o.v. of protangonists other than yourself (be they male or female), try to write at least one character in every story that the audience can sympathise / identify with and really try to imagine what it would be like to walk in their shoes. And maybe some research on how they might think were they to be RL people. (Clue: read / listen to the thoughts of similar actual people)

Also here's an idea for an excercise for you. Heard of that Pride and Predjudice plus Zombies book? Like a slashfic on a grand scale it inserts zombie horror into a pre-existing work of fine literature with well developed characters in it. Try the same with your porn work but really try to focus on maintaining character throughout the slash scenes. Try not to let the rush to the money-shot derail you, there's sooooo much pisspoor slashfic out there that does this. The real challenge is to insert relatively short slash scenes in bewteen scenes of the original work and maintain the characters' integrity. 

Another idea - invite people (especially women) to order stories from you to spec. i.e. get them to outline the kinks / scenarios that THEY like and write it for / to them. When you're writing for _someone else's_ kinks it _forces_ you to put yourself in their shoes. And puts off the rush to the money shot, too...

No, you'll never please all the people all of the time. But maybe you could reach more people than you currently are.


----------



## joswitch

katorade said:


> *snip*
> 
> I'm really getting to a point in my life where I loathe the fact that I might be found attractive by someone that refers to himself as an FA BECAUSE of this site, not without it.



Yeah, that's an impression that I get from a number of regular women posters here...


----------



## Vader7476

joswitch said:


> DIMS is very much not the only site on the internet that hosts these kinda stories neither in history, nor currently. Get thee to google and search and you'll see what I meant about the ubiquity of the genre.
> 
> re. Intro cliches I think one of the YAAAWWNS is the numbers obsession - height and weight - you can describe these things, without numbers, in such a way that they occurr more naturally in the style of real human observation. The numbers obsession is also, I think, ONE of the big !!objectifying!! flags that ticks most women off with these stories. (Unless that *happens* to be their own kink)
> 
> I disagree that porny stories must be a bringdown. What could be a happier ending than everyone involved having a "happy ending" if you see what I mean. What of the capacity for sexuality, to heal, soothe, calm, arouse, fulfil, strengthen, satisfy and connect (among other things) physically, emotionally and spiritually.... think on that. It's often said that there are only really two human stories sex and death (I disagree) but within that endless variation. Why shouldn't porny stories be powerful and affecting over and above the money shot?
> 
> I don't think you should restrict yourself from trying to imagine the p.o.v. of protangonists other than yourself (be they male or female), try to write at least one character in every story that the audience can sympathise / identify with and really try to imagine what it would be like to walk in their shoes. And maybe some research on how they might think were they to be RL people. (Clue: read / listen to the thoughts of similar actual people)
> 
> Also here's an idea for an excercise for you. Heard of that Pride and Predjudice plus Zombies book? Like a slashfic on a grand scale it inserts zombie horror into a pre-existing work of fine literature with well developed characters in it. Try the same with your porn work but really try to focus on maintaining character throughout the slash scenes. Try not to let the rush to the money-shot derail you, there's sooooo much pisspoor slashfic out there that does this. The real challenge is to insert relatively short slash scenes in bewteen scenes of the original work and maintain the characters' integrity.
> 
> Another idea - invite people (especially women) to order stories from you to spec. i.e. get them to outline the kinks / scenarios that THEY like and write it for / to them. When you're writing for someone else's kinks it _forces_ you to put yourself in their shoes.
> 
> No, you'll never please all the people all of the time. But maybe you could reach more people than you currently are.



Trust me, I've been to almost every place that offers these kinds of stories. Dimensions, Deviant Art, Writing.com, people's personal sites(Mollycoddles had one, MaxoutFA, etc.), Fantasy Feeder, Curvage, PG-13, Fatnats, PAWG, and that list goes on and on. Some I can't recall the names of the places. This site's library dwarfs all of those others combined(Except for DA, I don't know how many WG stories are on there, it might rival this site).

I dislike numbers greatly and yet I love them. It seems boring and nonsensical in a story(Now her hips were 50"! How would he know??!) unless outright explained, and it is fetishistic, but I do enjoy it every now and then. I don't think I used any numbers in Kisses(Save for breast size) but I might be wrong. I'd have to reread it. 

I don't understand what you mean by porny stories must be a bringdown. I don't think that they must be dehumanizing, but the nature of pornography is such that it can be objectifying. Believe me, we writers do try to make the story engaging and powerful, and try to have different things in the story for sure. The money shot, the description of a fat person, is always going to be important and prevelant.

I don't restrict myself. Kisses, the protagonist was a woman, lesbian, and FA. It's the big twist at the end. I wrote her in a male voice to try and hide the twist a bit. My other stories have all gotten inside a woman's head, and I usually spend more time on the women than men in my stories. I get thoughts from a few friends(writers) on stories before I post, where I do try to have different thoughts for characters. The story presented, Kisses, was an exploration for me to have the protagonist be unsymathetic. 

I actually have heard of that book. Friend of mine loved it. I was never into the whole zombie thing though, haha. Also, what you're describing I have done before, but to a smaller scale. In writing fan fiction. I've written Star Wars fan fiction and some anime/manga fanfiction. Staying in character while giving new events is very important with those. 

It is incredibly difficult if not impossible to write in someone else's shoes, especially if you don't like it. Write what ya know and all that jazz. When posing questions like that, I'd do it in the reader's forum. Mostly male, and hardly anyone from up in these forums comes down and chimes in. As has been said by the women in this thread, almost all the stories down there are anti size acceptance.

Almost all my paragraphs start with an I. Ewwww.


----------



## katorade

joswitch said:


> Yeah, that's an impression that I get from a number of regular women posters here...



And Jo, as much as we've had our very own squabbles, I will commend you on noticing that and finding it upsetting, which is a lot more than what others seem to think about the situation.

To go all the way back to the actual premise of this thread, because some of what Conrad wrote clicked in m brain, I'm gonna go ahead and have a problem with the idea that ALL FAs have this in-born preference for fat women. I think many of them are "learned" FAs.

Being a fat woman, it took me a long time to find beauty in my own body, or how anyone else could find it attractive. I now find my body to be beautiful in more ways than I could have imagined 10 years ago. Do I have to have a fetish for fat bodies to appreciate my own?

I have also been in relationships where I wasn't immediately physically drawn to the man, but over time his appearance became part of his overall character, and it became very attractive to me. For instance, I had a crush on a guy that had copious amounts of dark arm hair, and it initially grossed me out. 

After a while, though, I found myself finding it an attractive trait on other men. It was not that it would turn me on sexually, but it was just a trait that my brain linked with a personality I found pleasant. Included in those many traits is _larger men_. I found myself appreciating larger guys after initially NOT being attracted to them, and now enjoy every aspect of them. Comfortable bellies, big strong arms, etc. I now seek out those traits in a man because I now know I like them, not because they immediately sexually drew me in. 

THAT IS NOT A FREAKING FETISH, and I can't POSSIBLY be the only person, man or woman, that operates this way. There are most certainly men out there that did not initially have a "thing" for fat women, but may have fallen for a girl with more meat on her bones than he was typically used to. Out of those guys, there's likely a number of them that realized they weren't attracted to the fat, but there were a number of them that realized they ENJOYED the feeling of plush flesh or the look of a woman's curves or the abundant softness. Again, that is a learned appreciation, NOT a fetish.


----------



## katorade

Vader, either your stories aren't a reflection of who you are, or they're a window into your consciousness. You can't have it both ways.

And as far as this being a "porn" site, again, I'll quote Conrad, even though you've already said you don't think his opinion matters....



> Me, I have no use for porn, and never have had use for it. As a result, not a single one of the 88 or so issues of Dimensions I published over the years has ever had a single pornographic picture in it, not even a nipple. I always felt that the allure, beauty and elegance of the fat female body did not need any porn props at all, and pornographic imagery would only cheapen the appeal and magic of the fat female form.



This is also one of the Library Regulations:



> *Sensuality, Sex and Pornography* - *the desired emphasis of stories in the Dimensions collection should be on exploration and celebration of the large figure, and not on porn and such.* No picture that ever appeared in Dimensions Magazine was ever explicit or even nude, and no story was ever pornographic. We tend to permit a good deal of creative leeway here in terms of magic, fantasy and even eroticism. However, if a story is explicit first and treats size as incidental, it probably falls into the category of being a different genre. There are plenty of outlets for erotic/explicit writing;and we do not need stories featuring hardcore pornography and graphic exploration of alternative lifestyles here.



So no, it's NOT about the porn.


----------



## joswitch

Vader7476 said:


> Trust me, I've been to almost every place that offers these kinds of stories. Dimensions, Deviant Art, Writing.com, people's personal sites(Mollycoddles had one, MaxoutFA, etc.), Fantasy Feeder, Curvage, PG-13, Fatnats, PAWG, and that list goes on and on. Some I can't recall the names of the places. This site's library dwarfs all of those others combined(Except for DA, I don't know how many WG stories are on there, it might rival this site).
> 
> I dislike numbers greatly and yet I love them. It seems boring and nonsensical in a story(Now her hips were 50"! How would he know??!) unless outright explained, and it is fetishistic, but I do enjoy it every now and then. I don't think I used any numbers in Kisses(Save for breast size) but I might be wrong. I'd have to reread it.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by porny stories must be a bringdown.



I said I DO NOT think that porny stories must be a bringdown. Yet, clearly some of yours, have been a bring down to (some) people.



> I don't think that they must be dehumanizing, but the nature of pornography is such that it can be objectifying. Believe me, we writers do try to make the story engaging and powerful, and try to have different things in the story for sure. The money shot, the description of a fat person, is always going to be important and prevelant.



Here's and example of the kind of thing I'm talking about:
http://www.scarletletters.com/current/082703_pp_tb.html It's a story called "Flesh On A Woman" © 2003 by Tulsa Brown and is, despite its title, the opposite of objectifying (insofar as there is a great deal of focus on the characters emotions) and yet - horny as.



> *snip*
> I actually have heard of that book. Friend of mine loved it. I was never into the whole zombie thing though, haha. Also, what you're describing I have done before, but to a smaller scale. In writing fan fiction. I've written Star Wars fan fiction and some anime/manga fanfiction. Staying in character while giving new events is very important with those.
> 
> It is *incredibly difficult* if not impossible to write in someone else's shoes, especially if you don't like it. Write what ya know and all that jazz. When posing questions like that, I'd do it in the reader's forum. Mostly male, and hardly anyone from up in these forums comes down and chimes in. As has been said by the women in this thread, almost all the stories down there are anti size acceptance.
> 
> Almost all my paragraphs start with an I. Ewwww.



Pick something with DEEP characterisation - not Star Wars (no I'm not being snobby, Geaorge Lucas can't write dialogue for shit - ask Harrison Ford)!

And that it's "incredibly difficult" didn't stop you from trying to do it with this story of yours "Kisses"... I'm suggesting that if you want to be a better author / win over more readers, then you'd benefit from working on this angle.


----------



## joswitch

katorade said:


> And Jo, as much as we've had our very own squabbles, I will commend you on noticing that and finding it upsetting, which is a lot more than what others seem to think about the situation.



Ta. Trying to build some bridges. Not sure it's my forte, but.... 



> To go all the way back to the actual premise of this thread, because some of what Conrad wrote clicked in m brain, I'm gonna go ahead and have a problem with the idea that ALL FAs have this in-born preference for fat women. I think many of them are "learned" FAs.
> 
> Being a fat woman, it took me a long time to find beauty in my own body, or how anyone else could find it attractive. I now find my body to be beautiful in more ways than I could have imagined 10 years ago. Do I have to have a fetish for fat bodies to appreciate my own?
> 
> I have also been in relationships where I wasn't immediately physically drawn to the man, but over time his appearance became part of his overall character, and it became very attractive to me. For instance, I had a crush on a guy that had copious amounts of dark arm hair, and it initially grossed me out.
> 
> After a while, though, I found myself finding it an attractive trait on other men. It was not that it would turn me on sexually, but it was just a trait that my brain linked with a personality I found pleasant. Included in those many traits is _larger men_. I found myself appreciating larger guys after initially NOT being attracted to them, and now enjoy every aspect of them. Comfortable bellies, big strong arms, etc. I now seek out those traits in a man because I now know I like them, not because they immediately sexually drew me in.
> 
> THAT IS NOT A FREAKING FETISH, and I can't POSSIBLY be the only person, man or woman, that operates this way. There are most certainly men out there that did not initially have a "thing" for fat women, but may have fallen for a girl with more meat on her bones than he was typically used to. Out of those guys, there's likely a number of them that realized they weren't attracted to the fat, but there were a number of them that realized they ENJOYED the feeling of plush flesh or the look of a woman's curves or the abundant softness. Again, that is a learned appreciation, NOT a fetish.




While that's not the way it was for me with my FAness... Certainly some FAs have testified to exactly that.... (see the FA board)

And for me I've picked up extra, new attractive "things" over and above my basic sexuality with every woman that I've been in love with (and even from briefer affairs) - wearing red and black (yes, I know, WTF?), cute glasses, long tumbling dark hair, or red hair, very pale skin, dark tanned skin, brown eyes, green eyes, cobalt blue eyes, sensuous lips, a sarky sense of humour (I think that might have been an always, tho)... I could go on, but that'll do...


----------



## katorade

joswitch said:


> Ta. Trying to build some bridges. Not sure it's my forte, but....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While that's not the way it was for me with my FAness... Certainly some FAs have testified to exactly that.... (see the FA board)



No, certainly not the same for everyone. I just take exception to anyone saying that we alllllllll have fetishes because they can't reconcile with themselves that not everyone has the same urges they do.





> And for me I've picked up extra, new attractive "things" over and above my basic sexuality with every woman that I've been in love with (and even from briefer affairs) - wearing red and black (yes, I know, WTF?), *cute glasses, long tumbling dark hair,* or red hair, *very pale skin,* dark tanned skin, brown eyes, *green eyes*, cobalt blue eyes, sensuous lips, a *sarky sense of humour* (I think that might have been an always, tho)... I could go on, but that'll do...



Stop hittin' on me, Jo! LOL. I keed, I keed.


----------



## bdog

joswitch said:


> If you wanna give Mollycoddles the benefit of the doubt, go ahead. But those who are taking issue with her on this did not misconstrue what she wrote. If she didn't "mean" what we have understood her to mean, well then, she "miswrote".



I'll concede that it wasn't written that well. That being said, you could choose to believe she's a really really horrible person, or just give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that what she said could mean something else. Or maybe she quite didn't choose the right words. Or maybe she's ignorant of our her words might affect others. 

Generally speaking when I assume the worst about people it's what I find. Not because it's the truth, but because it's what I was looking for. And I think that happens quite often around here.

Life is karmic. Not in some great mystical sense, but in an ordinary psychological way. If someone makes you feel bad, and you don't process those emotions, they stay inside of you. And they long to be listened to, and they will look for ways to rise to the surface so they can be healed. And so people see in the world their own inner self. Our core psychological trauma is our karma... endlessly repeating itself until the day a person rises above it.

I have seen the enemy, and he is us. And when I googled that I came across this:
http://cheaphealthygood.blogspot.com/2009/01/i-have-seen-enemy-and-she-is-fabulous.html

My two cents. If you disagree that's fine... I'm not really looking to get into an argument. At the end of the day I just think that mean and hateful thoughts should be examined rather than judged.


----------



## joswitch

katorade said:


> No, certainly not the same for everyone. I just take exception to anyone saying that we alllllllll have fetishes because they can't reconcile with themselves that not everyone has the same urges they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop hittin' on me, Jo! LOL. I keed, I keed.



I Lol'd!  Anyhoo, I knowz you're taken n'all!


----------



## joswitch

bdog said:


> I'll concede that it wasn't written that well. That being said, you could choose to believe she's a really really horrible person, or just give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that what she said could mean something else. Or maybe she quite didn't choose the right words. Or maybe she's ignorant of our her words might affect others.
> 
> Generally speaking when I assume the worst about people it's what I find. Not because it's the truth, but because it's what I was looking for. And I think that happens quite often around here.
> 
> Life is karmic. Not in some great mystical sense, but in an ordinary psychological way. If someone makes you feel bad, and you don't process those emotions, they stay inside of you. And they long to be listened to, and they will look for ways to rise to the surface so they can be healed. And so people see in the world their own inner self. Our core psychological trauma is our karma... endlessly repeating itself until the day a person rises above it.
> 
> I have seen the enemy, and he is us. And when I googled that I came across this:
> http://cheaphealthygood.blogspot.com/2009/01/i-have-seen-enemy-and-she-is-fabulous.html
> 
> My two cents. If you disagree that's fine... I'm not really looking to get into an argument. At the end of the day I just think that mean and hateful thoughts should be examined rather than judged.



Gosh, well speaking of seeing your assumptions... I don't think Mollycoddles is a horrible / good / bad or otherwise person (insufficient data, commander) Nothing I said to Mollycoddles was mean or hateful.  I disagreed with her point, and her seeming to try and speak for ALL FAs... I then made my counter point, expressing my p.o.v / experience. Aaaaaaand.... that's it. End of. I don't feel any anger or hatred towards Mollycoddles, at all.


----------



## That Guy You Met Once

Has anyone seen the point of this thread lately? It's been missing for a few days now.


----------



## That Guy You Met Once

katorade said:


> I just take exception to anyone saying that we alllllllll have fetishes because they can't reconcile with themselves that not everyone has the same urges they do.



On page 4, I defined a fetish as something that's not generally thought of as sexual, but still gives you a unique sexual thrill.

By that definition, I think the vast majority of people have at least one.


----------



## bdog

joswitch said:


> Gosh, well speaking of seeing your assumptions... I don't think Mollycoddles is a horrible / good / bad or otherwise person (insufficient data, commander) Nothing I said to Mollycoddles was mean or hateful.  I disagreed with her point, and her seeming to try and speak for ALL FAs... I then made my counter point, expressing my p.o.v / experience. Aaaaaaand.... that's it. End of. I don't feel any anger or hatred towards Mollycoddles, at all.



Well your post seemed a bit snarky, bud. And I wasn't referring to you so much as this whole thread in general. But anyway, that's that.


----------



## katorade

Seventy-Seven said:


> On page 4, I defined a fetish as something that's not generally thought of as sexual, but still gives you a unique sexual thrill.
> 
> By that definition, I think the vast majority of people have at least one.



Yes, but just because you are attracted to fat people doesn't mean THAT'S the one. 

I didn't mean for that sentence to be construed that I was referring to all fetishes or all people. "We" is referring to FAs. If it reads better, feel free to add "fat" in front of fetishes, I can't go back and edit it now.


----------



## mollycoddles

joswitch said:


> And I say speak for yourself, bud.
> Do you go around telling gay folks that they don't really feel love for their partners, that instead they just have a "fetish"???
> 
> I'm an FA and I have been in love with, (and have love for, still) my BBW gfs (now exes) when we were dating. And it's more than a fetish, for me. A fetish or a kink is a bit of fun that can be had, or... not, an optional extra if you like. Being with a BBW is such a strong preference for me that I describe it as my orientation. Cos nothing has EVER felt so right (and not just in a "hot" way) to me as being with a BBW I love. And yes, you know what? it is romantic. yes, it MATTERS.... to me. Even if I never, ever date again - that I have loved, wholeheartedly and been loved in return, well maybe that'll be enough that when I hit the buffers at the end of the line, I'll die with a smile on my face.
> 
> And to ref. one of your later points, that I'm FA doesn't make me better than a guy who has a preference for thin girls.... Just different.
> 
> What makes me better than, ooooh millions of thin-pushing assholes / random abusive fucks / a vast media/politico/pharma conglomerate, is that I don't spend my time and resources trying to make women feel *miserable* so I can sell them some shit that will pretend (and probably fail) to make them thin(ner) whilst (frequently) fucking up their physical health and (mostly) trampling all over their self esteem. Yeah, I don't prey on other people's misery for my own $gain, nor shits and giggles. I'm better than THAT.



I'm sorry, I think that using the word "romanticize" was probably a mistake, since everyone seems to be focusing on that and assuming that I mean that FAs are incapable of love. In an earlier response to another poster, I tried to clarify a little about what I mean by the "romanticize" comment, so I'll just repeat that explanation here, I suppose: 

"It's perfectly possible for one to have a fetish and still feel love. It's just a matter of not letting your fetish overwhelm you to the point that you only stop seeing your partner as a complete human being and only see her as a means to indulging your esoteric little kink. By "romanticizing," I meant that a lot of FAs want to believe that the kink itself is somehow noble. For example, quite a few men in this community like to get indignant about modern media portrayals of thin women as desirable, claiming that they're "more enlightened" because they prefer larger women. The reality is that they're still asking women to conform to their specific desires -- whether that desire is for a woman to be thin or fat is pretty much immaterial. There's nothing wrong with having a fetish for a particular sort of person, but it's silly to pretend that having a fetish that runs counter to the dominant social zeitgeist makes you some sort of iconoclast."

I don't know if I'm explaining my take on this issue very well, but there ya go.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

joswitch said:


> Well, he is Darth Vader...
> 
> 
> 
> *PSSSSsch... CHRRRRrrr.... PSSSSsch.... ChRRRrrr....*
> "Er, Mr Vader, can you keep it down please? People are trying to read here."
> *You dare! Why I'll....*
> "Mr Vader, I'll take away your lenders card again!"
> *curses! you win this time..... psssssch.... chrrrrrr..... pssssch.... chrrrrrr...*



Let me re-iterate.....







It must be the big........gun 



Vader7476 said:


> I hope she doesn't take issue with this, but Mollycoddles is a woman and a lesbian aside from being a feminist.



Well now that you put it THAT way......


----------



## mollycoddles

katorade said:


> Uh, yes, thanks again for telling me what I've already said.
> 
> I HAVE taken it up with them, in this very thread! You sure you read it?
> 
> A giant LOL @ divine guidance. Let's not slap any robes and pope hats on the deities just yet, please. To sort of contradict his previous mention of what it says on the main boards, here's a quote from Conrad himself from another thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He also says...
> 
> 
> 
> And in his 2009 Bash speech he said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there's this:
> 
> 
> Guess which one he considers himself to be? Still not sure? There's this...
> 
> 
> Here's some more:
> 
> 
> 
> Shall I continue?



Aw, well, I stand corrected; I guess Conrad has made his own position on this topic clear. Still, actions speak louder than words and it doesn't change the fact the site is designed to encourage visitations from perverts what with its massive porn library and swathes of plugs for adults BBW sites. The site's content would argue that the porn aspect is integral to its mission and if Conrad has a problem with it being seen that way he may want to take a more hands-on approach to policing what gets posted here.



> So Conrad does not, indeed, believe fat appreciation is a fetish. Why he just tip-toes around that is beyond me, rather than making it clear what his beliefs are and what his WANTS for the FA community to be.



I suppose Conrad may want to make this a welcoming site for all people with an interest in fat, being they from the And while creating a one-stop-shop type site is an admirable idea, I think it may be time to admit that the needs and wants of the different visitors are incompatible. Like I said earlier, if this site were to sever its relationship with the pervert demographic, life wouldn't come to an end -- we'd just go elsewhere. But I don't see why you expect that the perverts will leave of their own accord when everything that they want is right here. I mean, if you leave trash in your kitchen, who should you blame when you get cockroaches?




> Is literature containing things like force feeding, and kidnapping, and rape, and degradation and humiliation supposed to be CELEBRATING fat? I say that because you allude to that being the "other" side of dimensions from size acceptance. Do you really think that's appreciation?



No. I do not think it's appreciation. Pornography is by its very nature sordid and seamy. Much of its appeal comes from the fact that it's taboo, which makes it very difficult to "clean up" and make acceptable. A lot of the subject matter that we see in wg porn, and in porn in general, is enticing because it is stuff that we would never see in real life and that, in many case, would literally horrify us if we actually saw it acted out. (For example. some women may entertain rape fantasies, but they would never actually want to be raped in real life.) Observer in his previous role as custodian of the porn library on this site did try to "clean up" stories, editing some of the darker stories to be more size positive. I understand the logic behind his changes -- I think he was trying to bring the library more in step with the stated size positive purpose of the site -- but it was a losing battle. And it's telling that many people were disappointed with the less nasty versions. As much as we like to think that the porn can be reconciled with the size positive aspects of the site, it can't. The site admins probably hoped that the porn would consist entirely of up-lifting and life-affirming tales about the beauty of larger women, but you can't expect that everyone's going to have prurient interests that conveniently align with your politics. 



> And with that, I honestly don't think the library should be abolished. I never said that. There certainly are stories there from writers like Caroline that aren't offensive. I'm simply addressing the stories and sub-forums that ARE offensive, to not just me, but to many, and why they were INVITED to be posted on a forum that is supposed to be a safe haven, not just for FAs, but for fat people.



Personally, I think that abolishing the library would be a safer approach, simply because any sort of pornography archive is eventually going to attract these elements. I suppose that if it were very heavily policed it could be restricted to writing that is genuinely uplifting rather than sordid. But such stories would be written for the purposes of politics first and pornography second. That's not a criticism, mind you; I'm just trying to say that it would be a different animal than the archive we have now, which is explicitly for pornography with no higher political or educational aims.



> Seriously, you don't _honestly_ think those two aspects of this site can peacefully co-exist, do you? That fat people should be comfortable with that which blatantly offends them and is the stuff of NIGHTMARES, and that FAs that prefer to live in a fantasy world should be confronted with real live actual fat people?



No, I do not believe that they can peacefully co-exist.


----------



## mollycoddles

Vader7476 said:


> I hope she doesn't take issue with this, but Mollycoddles is a woman and a lesbian aside from being a feminist.



No worries, it's an honest mistake. But it does go to show just how separate these forums are from the library boards, where I spend most of my time. I'd thought that this was common knowledge by now, but I guess I didn't realize how little interaction there is between the different demographics here. It does make me wonder whether a clean split might not be the best solution to this problem.


----------



## mollycoddles

joswitch said:


> I disagree that porny stories must be a bringdown. What could be a happier ending than everyone involved having a "happy ending" if you see what I mean. What of the capacity for sexuality, to heal, soothe, calm, arouse, fulfil, strengthen, satisfy and connect (among other things) physically, emotionally and spiritually.... think on that. It's often said that there are only really two human stories sex and death (I disagree) but within that endless variation. Why shouldn't porny stories be powerful and affecting over and above the money shot?



The answer to your last question is: because they are porny stories. They are written so that someone can get their rocks off. The things that arouse people are very often not the things that are politically expedient.




> Another idea - invite people (especially women) to order stories from you to spec. i.e. get them to outline the kinks / scenarios that THEY like and write it for / to them. When you're writing for _someone else's_ kinks it _forces_ you to put yourself in their shoes. And puts off the rush to the money shot, too...



Vader has actually solicited my input on several stories, asking what I'd like to see happen. Perhaps I'm not the right sort of woman, since my tastes aren't emotionally and spiritually connecting?


----------



## katorade

Thank you for your post, and I really do think that we both understand each other, regardless of which "side" we're on.


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> Vader, either your stories aren't a reflection of who you are, or they're a window into your consciousness. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> And as far as this being a "porn" site, again, I'll quote Conrad, even though you've already said you don't think his opinion matters....
> 
> 
> 
> This is also one of the Library Regulations:
> 
> 
> 
> So no, it's NOT about the porn.



It can be both. Should have clarified that last sentence better. If an author writes about a murder, I don't think that author is for murder. In the book he/she writes, it's possible to see the author's own thoughts though on certain issues. Neither are necessarily the case all the time. 

If you know I give his statements no merit, why quote them to me? And let me ask you a question. Conrad has said the stories are erotic literature. Do you honestly think they aren't for pornographic purposes? Do you honestly think no one goes into the library and masturbates to the stories there? Honestly Kate. Let's be candid.


----------



## Vader7476

joswitch said:


> I said I DO NOT think that porny stories must be a bringdown. Yet, clearly some of yours, have been a bring down to (some) people.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's and example of the kind of thing I'm talking about:
> http://www.scarletletters.com/current/082703_pp_tb.html It's a story called "Flesh On A Woman" © 2003 by Tulsa Brown and is, despite its title, the opposite of objectifying (insofar as there is a great deal of focus on the characters emotions) and yet - horny as.
> 
> 
> 
> Pick something with DEEP characterisation - not Star Wars (no I'm not being snobby, Geaorge Lucas can't write dialogue for shit - ask Harrison Ford)!
> 
> And that it's "incredibly difficult" didn't stop you from trying to do it with this story of yours "Kisses"... I'm suggesting that if you want to be a better author / win over more readers, then you'd benefit from working on this angle.



I know you said they don't have to be a bring down...but I was trying to say that I don't think they have to be a bring down either. 

Blech! That site looks terrible. It's all scrunched over to the side. I guess it doesn't like my browser. I skimmed it though. 

His dialogue isn't particularly strong, but the story of Anakin has lots of characterization. Especially if you start getting into the books. I'll spare you that though, hahaha. Come on, can you blame me for defending Star Wars? 

What was incredibly difficult was writing in someone else's shoes about a subject I don't like is what I was saying. Kisses was me exploring. Easier I would think, but you're right and I never meant to suggest that I don't branch out or do things to improve.


----------



## Fascinita

mollycoddles said:


> By "romanticizing," I meant that a lot of FAs want to believe that the kink itself is somehow noble. For example, quite a few men in this community like to get indignant about modern media portrayals of thin women as desirable, claiming that they're "more enlightened" because they prefer larger women. The reality is that they're still asking women to conform to their specific desires -- whether that desire is for a woman to be thin or fat is pretty much immaterial. There's nothing wrong with having a fetish for a particular sort of person, but it's silly to pretend that having a fetish that runs counter to the dominant social zeitgeist makes you some sort of iconoclast."



This is an ugly view of people who love fat people.

You won't find me coddling, Molly, anyone who simply surfs the other side of the thin-culture coin (viz. "requiring" a woman to be 60" here and 45" there). Ask around about that. But your cynical view that people who like fat ("a lot of FAs") must by definition be of the type that wants measurements before it wants people is only mentioned in your paragraph above to allow you to then claim that liking fat people is "a fetish."

And while I don't care what anyone calls it--preference or fetish--I do care what substance those definitions have in usage. It's clear to me that you preclude the possibility of fat people being desired under anything but guise of objectification--we are liked, according to you, for our fat alone. Only after laboring not to let the fetish overtake everything, you say, can anyone come to love a fat person.

Your view of fat people is dualist, separating bodies from minds without allowing for the possibility that fat people may be loved as wholes from day one. Because you appear to view people only as objects (going only from the logic of what you've written in this thread, not making claims about you as a person), without regard for fat people as wholes, you've come to the cynical (and flawed) conclusion that everyone is like you.

I'm curious, do you associate with actual fat people in "real life"? Do you have a fat girlfriend?


----------



## mollycoddles

Fascinita said:


> This is an ugly view of people who love fat people.
> 
> You won't find me coddling, Molly, anyone who simply surfs the other side of the thin-culture coin (viz. "requiring" a woman to be 60" here and 45" there). Ask around about that. But your cynical view that people who like fat ("a lot of FAs") must by definition be of the type that wants measurements before it wants people is only mentioned in your paragraph above to allow you to then claim that liking fat people is "a fetish."
> 
> And while I don't care what anyone calls it--preference or fetish--I do care what substance those definitions have in usage. It's clear to me that you preclude the possibility of fat people being desired under anything but guise of objectification--we are liked, according to you, for our fat alone. Only after laboring not to let the fetish overtake everything, you say, can anyone come to love a fat person.
> 
> Your view of fat people is dualist, separating bodies from minds without allowing for the possibility that fat people may be loved as wholes from day one. Because you appear to view people only as objects (going only from the logic of what you've written in this thread, not making claims about you as a person), without regard for fat people as wholes, you've come to the cynical (and flawed) conclusion that everyone is like you.
> 
> I'm curious, do you associate with actual fat people in "real life"? Do you have a fat girlfriend?



I don't think I said that fat people couldn't be loved. It's just as possible for someone with a fat fetish to love a fat partner for more than just their looks just as it's possible for a "normal" person to love a conventionally attractive woman for more than her outer appearance. My main point is that I think the main reason that people are constantly rehashing the "fetish vs preference" debate is because they want to think of this particular kink as something that elevates them above people with other kinks.

I do know some larger people in real life, but my girlfriend is rather svelte. I don't know what conclusions you want to draw from that, but there it is.


----------



## Fascinita

mollycoddles said:


> My main point is that I think the main reason that people are constantly rehashing the "fetish vs preference" debate is because they want to think of this particular kink as something that elevates them above people with other kinks.



I think this is a fear that many people with kinks appear to suffer from, that somehow others see them as sub-human or want to deny them their place in the sun.

Just as a reminder, we do exist in a culture that is both prurient and Puritanical. I don't know why you're making this an FA-specific problem.

I agree that it's silly to debate "preference vs. fetish" if all we're doing is trying to define a class of people who are abject (fetishists) and to beatify another ("good" FAs).

But even if you allow for that, it's still problematic that many (though by no mean all) of the most vocal "fetishists" on Dimensions define fat people _a priori_ as fetishes. The worst of it is that many argue just that point with real, live fat people, telling them, for instance, that sexual attraction to fat people doesn't exist out in the open, that those who declare their love for fat people openly only mean "in spite of your fat body," and worse. 

So it looks to me like at least some of the most vocal (in the recent debates) self-proclaimed fetishists use the word "fetish" to describe a forceful view of the world in which fat people are never more than secret objects of lust and disgust. They can't imagine a world in which they could choose not to be disgusted by fat people (even as they are drawn to fat people), a world in which they wouldn't have to be conflicted about liking something so taboo, they imagine that it's not possible for anyone else to behave other than they do. Then they proceed to defend their world views as the only correct views, at the same time that they clamor for acceptance under the guise of freedom of kink.

I get that what gets you off is what gets you off (rhetorical 'you'). I don't judge that, however "filthy" your desires are.  (Note, I'm using "filthy" in jest.)

But accept that you (again, rhetorical 'you') don't get to define what real fat people can or can't expect from the world.

There is a line between enjoying fantasies and clamoring to have the rest of the world play along with fantasies, just so the fantasist doesn't have to feel 'excluded.' We're supposed to care about the feelings of fat fetishists, but who cares about the feelings of fat people?




> I do know some larger people in real life, but my girlfriend is rather svelte. I don't know what conclusions you want to draw from that, but there it is.



Was just interested in seeing to what degree you're out in the open about your kink. Without going into a conversation at length, I wouldn't want to make up my mind. I guess it feels like too much of a minefield to go into it further, and so I'll leave it be. Thanks for being honest. I appreciate it.


----------



## mollycoddles

Fascinita said:


> I think this is a fear that many people with kinks appear to suffer from, that somehow others see them as sub-human or want to deny them their place in the sun.
> 
> Just as a reminder, we do exist in a culture that is both prurient and Puritanical. I don't know why you're making this an FA-specific problem.
> 
> I agree that it's silly to debate "preference vs. fetish" if all we're doing is trying to define a class of people who are abject (fetishists) and to beatify another ("good" FAs).
> 
> But even if you allow for that, it's still problematic that many (though by no mean all) of the most vocal "fetishists" on Dimensions define fat people _a priori_ as fetishes. The worst of it is that many argue just that point with real, live fat people, telling them, for instance, that sexual attraction to fat people doesn't exist out in the open, that those who declare their love for fat people openly only mean "in spite of your fat body," and worse.
> 
> So it looks to me like at least some of the most vocal (in the recent debates) self-proclaimed fetishists use the word "fetish" to describe a forceful view of the world in which fat people are never more than secret objects of lust and disgust. They can't imagine a world in which they could choose not to be disgusted by fat people (even as they are drawn to fat people), a world in which they wouldn't have to be conflicted about liking something so taboo, they imagine that it's not possible for anyone else to behave other than they do. Then they proceed to defend their world views as the only correct views, at the same time that they clamor for acceptance under the guise of freedom of kink.
> 
> I get that what gets you off is what gets you off (rhetorical 'you'). I don't judge that, however "filthy" your desires are.  (Note, I'm using "filthy" in jest.)
> 
> But accept that you (again, rhetorical 'you') don't get to define what real fat people can or can't expect from the world.
> 
> There is a line between enjoying fantasies and clamoring to have the rest of the world play along with fantasies, just so the fantasist doesn't have to feel 'excluded.' We're supposed to care about the feelings of fat fetishists, but who cares about the feelings of fat people?



Ah, I think I see what you're getting at. I've been approaching the "preference vs fetish" question from the perspective of an FA. I did not stop to think about whether a fat person might also have some reason to care about the difference in terminology. I can see why a fat person may prefer to be thought of as someone's "preference" or "type" rather than as someone's "fetish." Still, that still fits into what I was saying, that it's more to do with people's perceptions of language ( with a "fetish" being something dirty and perverted but a "preference" being something socially acceptable).

I've been against calling it a "preference" because I don't have much use for sparing the tender feelings of FAs who don't want to feel dirty. But maybe we should call it a "preference" to spare the feelings of fat people who don't like to feel that they're just being used for their bodies? (I hope that question didn't come across as sarcastic, I think that may be a genuine consideration. It's sometimes hard to convey tone in text!)


----------



## Fascinita

mollycoddles said:


> I've been against calling it a "preference" because I don't have much use for sparing the tender feelings of FAs who don't want to feel dirty. But maybe we should call it a "preference" to spare the feelings of fat people who don't like to feel that they're just being used for their bodies? (I hope that question didn't come across as sarcastic, I think that may be a genuine consideration. It's sometimes hard to convey tone in text!)



Thanks for thinking about this.

It's not about being wanted for more than just bodies. Sometimes, even fat people (*gasp*) want to be free to fool around without entering into romantic complications.

I don't care what anyone calls their desire for fat people--preference or fetish.

What I do care about is that people don't get away with talking as if fat people don't count as people, insisting on the "truth" of fat being something so absolutely reviled that no one can possibly love a fat person freely and openly, and that only those who make no bones about preferring to hide their desire for fat bodies know what the real score is because no one who is open about it can possibly mean it. 

That kind of talk doesn't hurt my own feelings--I used "feelings" above to mean something like "have consideration for our interests." But I do find it dangerous if it is left to stand without counter as "The Real Truth" about fat erotics. The really real truth is that one person's fantasy is just that--fantasy. And that person should understand its role as fantasy and not confuse it with the reality lived by actual fat people.

Peace.


----------



## Santaclear

bdog said:


> I've been a member of these forums and aware of dimensions for over a decade. There have been multiple periods where I didn't login for a year, and other periods where I'd spend hours a day here. I'm getting ready to cut back on my time here... I think others could use a break as well. If you don't like my suggestion it's probably a good sign that you should take it.



Thank you,my friend. You will be missed.


----------



## olwen

I'd say these last few posts between fascinita and mollycoddles are the very reason that "faterotica" and size acceptance should exist in the same place.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

Funny.....I have often time seen it said on the boards about BBW/BHMs lacking confidence.....yet when the admirers insist on seeing themselves as some kind of freak for their _preference_, how can someone be with a person like that and be confident?


----------



## mergirl

olwen said:


> I'd say these last few posts between fascinita and mollycoddles are the very reason that "faterotica" and size acceptance should exist in the same place.


"faterotica" yes. Porn with underaged protaganists ..nope. Porn that is abusive towards fat women i think is very ropey too.


----------



## mollycoddles

mergirl said:


> "faterotica" yes. Porn with underaged protaganists ..nope. Porn that is abusive towards fat women i think is very ropey too.



I don't think anyone here was arguing for underaged protagonists.


----------



## mergirl

mollycoddles said:


> I don't think anyone here was arguing for underaged protagonists.


yeah.. maby i'm getting mixed up with threads now..
Ok..Porn thats abusive towards fat women?? 
See i don't think thats compatable with size acceptance. I'm not sure you can call somewhere a 'size acceptance' site and at the same time have Stories where people are abusive towards fat women, specifically picking out their size as a point of bullying reference.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

mergirl said:


> yeah.. maby i'm getting mixed up with threads now..
> Ok..Porn thats abusive towards fat women??
> See i don't think thats compatable with size acceptance. I'm not sure you can call somewhere a 'size acceptance' site and at the same time have Stories where people are abusive towards fat women, specifically picking out their size as a point of bullying reference.



Vader has argued for underage protagonists seen in a sexual manner in another thread recently. Easy to see where you got that.....


----------



## fatgirlflyin

mollycoddles said:


> But I don't see why you expect that the perverts will leave of their own accord when everything that they want is right here. I mean, if you leave trash in your kitchen, who should you blame when you get cockroaches?



So when it comes to fat women and fat admirerers, who's the trash and who's the roaches?



mollycoddles said:


> I do know some larger people in real life, but my girlfriend is rather svelte. I don't know what conclusions you want to draw from that, but there it is.



Kinda like the guy that isn't racist because he's got a black friend?



mollycoddles said:


> Vader has actually solicited my input on several stories, asking what I'd like to see happen. Perhaps I'm not the right sort of woman, since my tastes aren't emotionally and spiritually connecting?



Depends on what exactly he's expecting you to provide by asking your opinions. You aren't a fat woman, you aren't in a relationship with a fat women, so pretty much all you can do is provide feedback from the role of the pervert. 


Nothing wrong with fat porn, there's nothing wrong with porn featuring humiliation. Whatever floats your boat. This isn't an SM site, its supposedly a fat acceptance/appreciation site and to read stuff like that is just very disappointing. Again, we as fat women can not come on to Dims and talk about having a need to lose weight or diet. I believe one reason for this is its supposed to be a safe haven from that kind of stuff, many of us have had diet talk crammed down our throats from a young age. Secondly the men that are here that are more concerned with getting their rocks off thinking about fat women (you know the ones who don't actually have relationships with them, but they see them on the internet) don't want to read about their fap material trying to lose weight. It kinda kills the hardon... 

So its great that the FA's interests are being protected. Its great that the interests of people who don't want to have more diet talk infiltrate their lives is being protected. Who's protecting the interests of the women here that don't want to hear how it just turns someone on to call a fat person a "filthy fucking pig"?


----------



## Jack Skellington

Fascinita said:


> This is an ugly view of people who love fat people.



There are obviously people here that just hate fat people and women in general. Those kind of stories are just ugly, violent, degrading and dehumanizing. In my opinion, they don't respect fat people or even are just sexually attracted to them. They erotisize the abuse and power over the objects they see as not deserving any kind of respect or human dignity.

I can honestly see why there is often such a divide, in particular, between male FAs and BBWs. Because there is such a predatory sub culture beneath the veneer. I can see why BBWs are often wary and suspicious of admirers. Unfortunately, it looks like, they have a reason to be.


----------



## olwen

No, I wasn't arguing for underage protagonists and I'm really not sure why it needs to be argued about. I like sexual extremes but I still have limits. What I meant was that if people who fetishize fat people actually interact with fat people and vice versa we can all maybe get to understanding each other and see real people and not just ideas of people. I probably should have just said that tho.


----------



## mollycoddles

mergirl said:


> yeah.. maby i'm getting mixed up with threads now..
> Ok..Porn thats abusive towards fat women??
> See i don't think thats compatable with size acceptance. I'm not sure you can call somewhere a 'size acceptance' site and at the same time have Stories where people are abusive towards fat women, specifically picking out their size as a point of bullying reference.



That's fair enough, but now we're just back to square one in this argument


----------



## mollycoddles

fatgirlflyin said:


> So when it comes to fat women and fat admirerers, who's the trash and who's the roaches?



It's not the best comparison, I admit. I was just trying to point out how it didn't make any sense to have a site full of the sort of thing that would attract fat admirers and then get upset that fat admirers showed up. I could have just as easily said that it was silly to have a garden full of flowers and then get angry that bees showed up. I didn't mean it as a slight against either fat women or fat admirers, it was just the first analogy that came to mind. 





> Kinda like the guy that isn't racist because he's got a black friend?



Fascinita asked if I knew any fat people in real life and if my girlfriend was fat, so I was just answering that question. If she hadn't asked, I wouldn't have brought my personal experience up at all.




> Depends on what exactly he's expecting you to provide by asking your opinions. You aren't a fat woman, you aren't in a relationship with a fat women, so pretty much all you can do is provide feedback from the role of the pervert.



That is true. I was too eager to jump in when Joswitch asked Vader to solicit womens' input and I didn't stop to think about what exactly Joswitch meant when she said "women." In retrospect, it's obvious that Joswitch meant asking for input from the sorts of women who would normally be depicted in these stories. My input would indeed not be really bring in that perspective. I apologize for that.




> Nothing wrong with fat porn, there's nothing wrong with porn featuring humiliation. Whatever floats your boat. This isn't an SM site, its supposedly a fat acceptance/appreciation site and to read stuff like that is just very disappointing. Again, we as fat women can not come on to Dims and talk about having a need to lose weight or diet. I believe one reason for this is its supposed to be a safe haven from that kind of stuff, many of us have had diet talk crammed down our throats from a young age. Secondly the men that are here that are more concerned with getting their rocks off thinking about fat women (you know the ones who don't actually have relationships with them, but they see them on the internet) don't want to read about their fap material trying to lose weight. It kinda kills the hardon...
> 
> So its great that the FA's interests are being protected. Its great that the interests of people who don't want to have more diet talk infiltrate their lives is being protected. Who's protecting the interests of the women here that don't want to hear how it just turns someone on to call a fat person a "filthy fucking pig"?



Well, that's why I said that the best solution may be to split off the porn bits from the SA bits. I'm skeptical that they can co-exist without contradicting each other.


----------



## saucywench

Jack Skellington said:


> There are obviously people here that just hate fat people and women in general. Those kind of stories are just ugly, violent, degrading and dehumanizing. In my opinion, they don't respect fat people or even are just sexually attracted to them. They erotisize the abuse and power over the objects they see as not deserving any kind of respect or human dignity.
> 
> I can honestly see why there is often such a divide, in particular, between male FAs and BBWs. Because there is such a predatory sub culture beneath the veneer. I can see why BBWs are often wary and suspicious of admirers. Unfortunately, it looks like, they have a reason to be.


Yes. Yes. I agree. Yes.

Yes. YES. I agree. Yes.


----------



## Dmitra

I just read this whole thread and feel like I've been in a huge bar fight! Where's the black eye emoticon? 

Seriously, I think this thread, along with How come since I gained weight, I have no male attention?, represent what happens when two or more people are communicating _past_ each other rather than _with_ each other. I liken it to sketching where it's more accurate when one is drawing from sight the object's actual lines, shading, etc. than when drawing from one's own mental image of the object.

In art both drawings are valid, of course, and even in light conversation. Yet, in a discussion/debate where tempers flare, where the only things we have to decipher meaning are plain words and little emoticons, it is important to See what the other(s) are saying, not what we think we might be seeing. And to count to 10 or 20 or 30 (or more) before submitting replies.

Ultimately we all take what we want from such collective repositories of discussion and lifestyle. Even one that seems so divided at times as Dimensions. There are always contradictions, things that half the readers may agree/disagree with. I don't think it'd be helpful to split Dims in two if only for the financial reasons, let alone the chance to interact with people who have alternate takes on this thing we call Reality.

Forgive me for pontificating but I'm feeling a little punched up at the moment (see beginning).


----------



## Vader7476

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Funny.....I have often time seen it said on the boards about BBW/BHMs lacking confidence.....yet when the admirers insist on seeing themselves as some kind of freak for their _preference_, how can someone be with a person like that and be confident?



Since when has ANYONE in here said that liking fat people makes you a freak? You're unbelievable. Even if you don't agree that preferring fat partners is a fetish, that's still one step away from us saying that fetishes are freakish, uncommon, or to be shunned. That's ridiculous and you know it.


----------



## Vader7476

mergirl said:


> yeah.. maby i'm getting mixed up with threads now..
> Ok..Porn thats abusive towards fat women??
> See i don't think thats compatable with size acceptance. I'm not sure you can call somewhere a 'size acceptance' site and at the same time have Stories where people are abusive towards fat women, specifically picking out their size as a point of bullying reference.



It has never been just a size acceptance site. Perhaps this is where the confusion is coming from. There is an admirer aspect, and always has been. Do not get a fat admirer confused with size acceptance. They're completely different. The site is for them and their sexuality as well. This is where the library comes from, and the paysite board, and the weight gain board.


----------



## Vader7476

fatgirlflyin said:


> So when it comes to fat women and fat admirerers, who's the trash and who's the roaches?
> 
> 
> 
> Kinda like the guy that isn't racist because he's got a black friend?
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what exactly he's expecting you to provide by asking your opinions. You aren't a fat woman, you aren't in a relationship with a fat women, so pretty much all you can do is provide feedback from the role of the pervert.
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with fat porn, there's nothing wrong with porn featuring humiliation. Whatever floats your boat. This isn't an SM site, its supposedly a fat acceptance/appreciation site and to read stuff like that is just very disappointing. Again, we as fat women can not come on to Dims and talk about having a need to lose weight or diet. I believe one reason for this is its supposed to be a safe haven from that kind of stuff, many of us have had diet talk crammed down our throats from a young age. Secondly the men that are here that are more concerned with getting their rocks off thinking about fat women (you know the ones who don't actually have relationships with them, but they see them on the internet) don't want to read about their fap material trying to lose weight. It kinda kills the hardon...
> 
> So its great that the FA's interests are being protected. Its great that the interests of people who don't want to have more diet talk infiltrate their lives is being protected. Who's protecting the interests of the women here that don't want to hear how it just turns someone on to call a fat person a "filthy fucking pig"?



You have many forums dedicated to you. We have forums dedicated to us as well. I think it should have been quite obvious that they're seperated for the very reason you just said, so you don't have to read things in the library.


----------



## Vader7476

Jack Skellington said:


> There are obviously people here that just hate fat people and women in general. Those kind of stories are just ugly, violent, degrading and dehumanizing. In my opinion, they don't respect fat people or even are just sexually attracted to them. They erotisize the abuse and power over the objects they see as not deserving any kind of respect or human dignity.
> 
> I can honestly see why there is often such a divide, in particular, between male FAs and BBWs. Because there is such a predatory sub culture beneath the veneer. I can see why BBWs are often wary and suspicious of admirers. Unfortunately, it looks like, they have a reason to be.



I don't hate fat people or women, and I dare speak for all the writers and say that's a load of crap.


----------



## Wagimawr

Vader7476 said:


> I don't hate fat people or women


But you write erotic stories about elements of hating fat people or women.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

mollycoddles said:


> It's not the best comparison, I admit. *I was just trying to point out how it didn't make any sense to have a site full of the sort of thing that would attract fat admirers and then get upset that fat admirers showed up. * I could have just as easily said that it was silly to have a garden full of flowers and then get angry that bees showed up. I didn't mean it as a slight against either fat women or fat admirers, it was just the first analogy that came to mind.



I wouldn't call some of the abusive fantasies I have read in that library the work of Fat Admirers. They are fat haters. Some people on this board don't have issues with true admirers or admiration. It's the hate filled trolls and assclowns that cause the discord. 
Why the fuck are they here or tolerated?



mollycoddles said:


> That is true. I was too eager to jump in when Joswitch asked Vader to solicit womens' input and I didn't stop to think about what exactly Joswitch meant when *she* said "women." In retrospect, it's obvious that Joswitch meant asking for input from the sorts of women who would normally be depicted in these stories. My input would indeed not be really bring in that perspective. I apologize for that.



Like someone misunderstood exactly who you are....you have done the same. Joswitch is male and he's into gaining. 



Vader7476 said:


> Since when has ANYONE in here said that liking fat people makes you a freak? You're unbelievable. Even if you don't agree that preferring fat partners is a fetish, that's still one step away from us saying that fetishes are freakish, uncommon, or to be shunned. That's ridiculous and you know it.



Lol, it's not liking fat people that makes someone a freak. However, if someone sexually gets off on abusing other people, gets off sexually on a partner farting and smelling and is just an asshole in general to other human beings, yeah, they're probably a freak.

I consider myself something of a freak in the other direction....but it takes one to know one 


Oh and you twisted my words again. You know I didn't call FAs freaks- I said if they feel like freaks....... read again. Calm down and breath first before you do though....then maybe your vision will clear enough for you to read the whole statement in it's entirety and glean from it what you were supposed to. However, I suspect we are back to you not giving a shit about anything other than your own agenda again....and twisting serves you well....but only if people actually believe you


----------



## Jack Skellington

Vader7476 said:


> I don't hate fat people or women, and I dare speak for all the writers and say that's a load of crap.



People like Fascinita and Katorade are nice and patient. I am neither of those things. I have neither the interest or the patience to debate you as you feably attempt to justify your bigotry. You've already gotten far more attention than you deserve and you will not be getting any more from me.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

Wagimawr said:


> But you write erotic stories about elements of hating fat people or women.



Why....it's just a FANTASY of degrading and hurting fat people....what's wrong with having that kind of desire and sharing it on a forum full of fat people?


----------



## Vader7476

Wagimawr said:


> But you write erotic stories about elements of hating fat people or women.



Yes, your point is? Do I really need to explain that a fictional story for entertainment in no way represents my actual thoughts? Or would you like to assert anyone that's written a story about murder is also for murder?


----------



## Vader7476

Jack Skellington said:


> People like Fascinita and Katorade are nice and patient. I am neither of those things. I have neither the interest or the patience to debate you as you feably attempt to justify your bigotry. You've already gotten far more attention than you deserve and you will not be getting any more from me.



Awww, poor baby. Bye bye now!


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

Vader7476 said:


> Yes, your point is? Do I really need to explain that a fictional story for entertainment in no way represents my actual thoughts? Or would you like to assert anyone that's written a story about murder is also for murder?




So when you write a story of a sexual element, you are in no way turned on by it?
When I write of a sexual act in my story, I imagine it actually happening in my mind's eye....I have even drawn upon personal experiences....just changing them up some. Lots of authors "write what they know"....or imagine. 
You don't do that?


----------



## Vader7476

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Lol, it's not liking fat people that makes someone a freak. However, if someone sexually gets off on abusing other people, gets off sexually on a partner farting and smelling and is just an asshole in general to other human beings, yeah, they're probably a freak.
> 
> I consider myself something of a freak in the other direction....but it takes one to know one
> 
> 
> Oh and you twisted my words again. You know I didn't call FAs freaks- I said if they feel like freaks....... read again. Calm down and breath first before you do though....then maybe your vision will clear enough for you to read the whole statement in it's entirety and glean from it what you were supposed to. However, I suspect we are back to you not giving a shit about anything other than your own agenda again....and twisting serves you well....but only if people actually believe you



Twisting your words again? More irony! And now you call people that do have fetishes a freak? You didn't say anything about feeling like freaks. You said they see themselves as freaks. Did you or did you not say that Fat Admirers see themselves as freaks? Did you or did you not? When has anyone in this thread said that they feel like a freak or see themselves as one. Go ahead, I'll wait. 

Until then I restate: No one in the thread, save you, has said fetishes are freakish, uncommon, or should be shunned.


----------



## Vader7476

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> So when you write a story of a sexual element, you are in no way turned on by it?
> When I write of a sexual act in my story, I imagine it actually happening in my mind's eye....I have even drawn upon personal experiences....just changing them up some. Lots of authors "write what they know"....or imagine.
> You don't do that?



Absolutely. Your point is?

Oh wait, I have to state something obvious, AGAIN. Fantasy isn't reality. If my girlfriend and I enjoy fat talk, or humiliation, or rape fantasies that's OKAY. That's different from degrading a fat person in real life out of disgust, or raping someone. Could you please take your own advice and think a little bit and cool down before you post GEF?


----------



## Jack Skellington

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Why....it's just a FANTASY of degrading and hurting fat people....what's wrong with having that kind of desire and sharing it on a forum full of fat people?



If a person were to write stories eroticising abusing Blacks, Jews, etc. and used similar abusive imagery and negative descriptions for them, people would be outradged and as well they should be. Very unlikly anyone would be defending that. But put fat women in them and we are not supposed to bat an eye. 

I'm still repelled that it turns out the story section was allowing underage stories for so long. 

I have to give props to Conrad for putting a stop to that.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

Vader7476 said:


> Twisting your words again? More irony! And now you call people that do have fetishes a freak? You didn't say anything about feeling like freaks. You said they see themselves as freaks. Did you or did you not say that Fat Admirers see themselves as freaks? Did you or did you not? When has anyone in this thread said that they feel like a freak or see themselves as one. Go ahead, I'll wait.
> 
> Until then I restate: No one in the thread, save you, has said fetishes are freakish, uncommon, or should be shunned.



I said if they insist on perceiving themselves as one ....how in hell is that saying someone is a freak? Oh it's convenient for you. You can't take criticism....so you think it's a "good tactic" to turn things around. Pssssttttt.....big hint. People are smarter than you give them credit for.....they know what you are doing.  :doh:

Gawd you write the the most hysterical, reaching, felonious, erroneous, melo-dramatic posts I have ever read. 

Get over yourself. Grow up. Accept that people don't like some of the stuff you write....and will criticize you for it. 

Also accept that people see your writing as a product of what you imagine and desire....especially those things of a sexual nature. 
Don't post it if you don't want people to see what your mind has conjured up.

I grow tired of you again......adieu. Wipe your mouth and stop glaring at your computer screen for pete's sake.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

Vader7476 said:


> Absolutely. Your point is?
> 
> Oh wait, I have to state something obvious, AGAIN. Fantasy isn't reality. If my girlfriend and I enjoy fat talk, or humiliation, or rape fantasies that's OKAY. That's different from degrading a fat person in real life out of disgust, or raping someone. Could you please take your own advice and think a little bit and cool down before you post GEF?



So you just have fantasies of degrading/humiliating fat people? Oh I see....that's not an indicator of what you write not belonging here.  

Christ......


----------



## Fascinita

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Why....it's just a FANTASY of degrading and hurting fat people....what's wrong with having that kind of desire and sharing it on a forum full of fat people?



I know that some fat people enjoy that kind of fantasy, too. And maybe it should be a question of what the majority wants, though I'm not sure what the true demographics are here on Dimensions. For now the powers-that-be here continue to give a wide a berth to fantasy writing and it looks like we have to co-exist. But as long we're co-existing, I don't see why all real fat people have to remain tacit and swallow their objections to what bothers about the voicing of those fantasies in stories and on the forums.

At risk of re-re-re-repeating myself: What bugs me about the way the writers of fat fantasy have been carrying out these debates is the assumptions that seem to come with their views and are expressed in tandem with demands for _carte blanche_ expression in these stories--the blurring between fantasy and reality that has it that fat people are "naturally" taboo because no one in "society" accepts us (since this is true in the fantasist's mind, it must "naturally" be true in reality); the unilaterally considered statements about the nature of desire for fat bodies (i.e., "anyone who tells a fat person that she is loved out in the open means 'in spite of the fat body' and anyone who *really* likes your body isn't going to be seen with you because you're just too taboo and rejected by 'society' " -- it's funny how the word "society" is used by these folks to draw a line between what is acceptable, as in "polite society," and what is beyond the pale, as in "filthy pigs"... if they only realized how prudish and Victorian that way of thinking sounds!); the belittling and diminishing of real experiences of fat love--not _in spite_ of the fat bodies, and "not _just_ for my fat body," but whole love for between whole people, fat, thin and in-between.

Luckily, I've already seen some people soften their stance on those issues, and it appears we're no longer being told that we fat folks are just guests here on the site that fetish built.

If people don't want their words/stories commented on, perhaps they should post them where they are absolutely protected from public view or comment. Otherwise they should be prepared to be met with criticism, not just praise. As of right now, it appears that the boards remain functionally democratic (with despotic administrative strokes here and there) where the expression of fantasy (and response to fantasy) is concerned--in both directions. For that, at least, we can be grateful... for now.


----------



## Vader7476

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I said if they insist on perceiving themselves as one ....how in hell is that saying someone is a freak? Oh it's convenient for you. You can't take criticism....so you think it's a "good tactic" to turn things around. Pssssttttt.....big hint. People are smarter than you give them credit for.....they know what you are doing.  :doh:
> 
> Gawd you write the the most hysterical, reaching, felonious, erroneous, melo-dramatic posts I have ever read.
> 
> Get over yourself. Grow up. Accept that people don't like some of the stuff you write....and will criticize you for it.
> 
> Also accept that people see your writing as a product of what you imagine and desire....especially those things of a sexual nature.
> Don't post it if you don't want people to see what your mind has conjured up.
> 
> I grow tired of you again......adieu. Wipe your mouth and stop glaring at your computer screen for pete's sake.



You said that fat admirers see themselves as freaks. That means that someone like me, thinks I'm a freak. I don't think that, and it's disgusting that you'd generalize like that anyway. But go ahead and defend your arrogant and insensitive remarks. 

Oh really? What am I doing then GEF? I'd love to know. 

Please, grow up? I've accepted the criticism, multiple times now that it's offensive and objectifying. Please learn to read and understand and comprehend, before you post things that sound so utterly ridiculous I often wonder if you're openly miscontstruing information just for a lark.

Bye again.


----------



## Vader7476

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> So you just have fantasies of degrading/humiliating fat people? Oh I see....that's not an indicator of what you write not belonging here.
> 
> Christ......



I like being humiliated, yes. 

The argument of belonging here is entirely seperate. Aww, what's that? You want to make shit up again? Oh, okay. I'll preemptively counter: Bring it up with Conrad, he lets this stuff on here. Almost as if I said this before...


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

Vader7476 said:


> I like being humiliated, yes.
> 
> The argument of belonging here is entirely seperate. Aww, what's that? You want to make shit up again? Oh, okay. I'll preemptively counter: Bring it up with Conrad, he lets this stuff on here. Almost as if I said this before...



OH wait, wait! Let ME play the twisting game now......

You blame Conrad for what YOU write.....

Wait again....that's not twisting it really...now is it? :doh:

Seems I'm nowhere as good at it as you are.....you must do it often


----------



## Fascinita

Vader7476 said:


> Fantasy isn't reality.



This is what you're saying now, but in the last thread where these issues came up--that blasted "Hotel New Orleans" thread--you made a number of claims that sounded a lot like you absolutely believe the stuff you write _actually_ represents the *real* naturally abject status of fat people. You also made a rather headstrong case for why fat folks had better get used to fantasy being the reality that drives Dimensions.

----

I won't bother to write more here, not wishing to enter into more Jolt-Cola induced, headache-inducing back-and-forths with Darth himself. 

But anyone wishing links to Vader's posts where he claims the "reality" about fat people not being considered acceptable by "society" and therefore serving almost exclusively as "fetish" fodder (his definition of fetish, not mine), *please drop me a PM and I'll be happy to forward these links to you.*


----------



## Vader7476

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> OH wait, wait! Let ME play the twisting game now......
> 
> You blame Conrad for what YOU write.....
> 
> Wait again....that's not twisting it really...now is it? :doh:
> 
> Seems I'm nowhere as good at it as you are.....you must do it often



So let me get this straight.

You: What you write doesn't belong here.
Me: Conrad lets stories like that on here, take it up with him.
You: You're saying you take no blame!

Seriously GEF? Seriously?

Hence: Misconstrue. 

Let me say it again, since it seems you genuinely don't understand my position. The open criticism of that story is all well and good. Hell, a lot of it I agree with. It's objectifying, it can be offensive, etc. Jumping from that, to saying that therefore I am a fat hating, misogynistic, chauvenistic, bigotted, asshole is an unfair attack on my character and has NO PLACE in a thread where I only tried to bring my input into what I thought a fetish was, a semantical argument.


----------



## fatgirlflyin

Why can't you understand that most people come here looking for acceptance, or a place where they are the preferred body type, and reading that stuff is a slap in the face? You say its entertainment, but I wonder just how many fat people actually find it entertaining? Not fas but real fat people living in fat bodies and dealing with your form of "entertainment" in their day to day lives.


Vader7476 said:


> Yes, your point is? Do I really need to explain that a fictional story for entertainment in no way represents my actual thoughts? Or would you like to assert anyone that's written a story about murder is also for murder?


----------



## Vader7476

Fascinita said:


> This is what you're saying now, but in the last thread where these issues came up--that blasted "Hotel New Orleans" thread--you made a number of claims that sounded a lot like you absolutely believe the stuff you write _actually_ represents the *real* naturally abject status of fat people. You also made a rather headstrong case for why fat folks had better get used to fantasy being the reality that drives Dimensions.
> 
> ----
> 
> I won't bother to write more here, not wishing to enter into more Jolt-Cola induced, headache-inducing back-and-forths with Darth himself.
> 
> But anyone wishing links to Vader's posts where he claims the "reality" about fat people not being considered acceptable by "society" and therefore serving almost exclusively as "fetish" fodder (his definition of fetish, not mine), *please drop me a PM and I'll be happy to forward these links to you.*



So claims I made sounded a certain way to you. I asked you last time to not think for me, and to not jump to conclusions for my sake. It seems that you wish to further do anything at all that attacks me rather than asking me to better write what I mean. 

I'd be interested in which posts you mean, so I can clarify. But it seems you'd rather preach to the choir. That is truely disgusting.


----------



## Vader7476

fatgirlflyin said:


> Why can't you understand that most people come here looking for acceptance, or a place where they are the preferred body type, and reading that stuff is a slap in the face? You say its entertainment, but I wonder just how many fat people actually find it entertaining? Not fas but real fat people living in fat bodies and dealing with your form of "entertainment" in their day to day lives.



I'm not sure if you read the entire thread. I wouldn't blame you if you didn't. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that I understand that a story such as the one I wrote is very offensive and vile to many of you wonderful ladies on this site. 

What I was saying is that the readers of the library are the target audience. They have responded in a positive way to the story. It did well with who I thought was going to read it. 

And as for real fat people, I think any fat person who enjoys that type of fiction will understand it for what it is. Any fat person that doesn't like erotic weight gain literature, won't.


----------



## fatgirlflyin

Point taken, we obviously are just coming from very different places. I don't begrudge you your right to write (ha!)whatever stories you like. I just hope you understand how damaging those words could be to for some people. It seems as though you understand that point, so I have to ask why of all the places available online, did you choose to post that specific story at dimensions? Why not post it where humiliation stories are more common?

QUOTE=Vader7476;1299263]I'm not sure if you read the entire thread. I wouldn't blame you if you didn't. I thought I had made it abundantly clear that I understand that a story such as the one I wrote is very offensive and vile to many of you wonderful ladies on this site. 

What I was saying is that the readers of the library are the target audience. They have responded in a positive way to the story. It did well with who I thought was going to read it. 

And as for real fat people, I think any fat person who enjoys that type of fiction will understand it for what it is. Any fat person that doesn't like erotic weight gain literature, won't.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Vader7476

fatgirlflyin said:


> Point taken, we obviously are just coming from very different places. I don't begrudge you your right to write (ha!)whatever stories you like. I just hope you understand how damaging those words could be to for some people. It seems as though you understand that point, so I have to ask why of all the places available online, did you choose to post that specific story at dimensions? Why not post it where humiliation stories are more common?



Your question is a good one, and I don't have a good answer for it. All I can say is that Dimension's Library is the largest collective of Weight Gain literature that I know. It gets the most readers, and every reader and writer I have ever talked to understands that they're not to be taken seriously. They're pornographic fantasy for most writers and readers. Some writers and readers don't see it that way, but all realize that stories such as this are fiction. With this in mind, the people that enjoy my art and stories are similar in mind to me, in that they enjoy weight gain. Since it's weight gain porn in my eyes, I added another pornographic element: Humiliation. In my eyes, I see that as if I had a weight gain story and focused a bit on a foot fetish. 

I'm not sure if you're aware, but fat humiliation is pretty darn popular! There are a good amount of sites (Models on here, humiliation sites, custom clip sites) that either focus on it, or have niches for it. I was trying to play up to that crowd a bit. It's not really a size acceptance piece. In knowing that, I tried to make the character that does humiliate(In her own mind) and objectify, psychotic to help soften the blow. It seems that failed massively. Live and learn.


----------



## Miss Vickie

Vader7476 said:


> I'm not sure if you're aware, but fat humiliation is pretty darn popular!



As a formerly fat woman, I can assure you that I'm VERY aware that fat humiliation is popular (or at least commonplace). That's the point that some of the women here were trying to make -- fat humiliation isn't fun for us and on a site that protects us from the evils of diet talk and WLS support, why is it okay for such talk, even in the guise of fiction, to exist? It's hurtful -- does that even matter?


----------



## Vader7476

Miss Vickie said:


> As a formerly fat woman, I can assure you that I'm VERY aware that fat humiliation is popular (or at least commonplace). That's the point that some of the women here were trying to make -- fat humiliation isn't fun for us and on a site that protects us from the evils of diet talk and WLS support, why is it okay for such talk, even in the guise of fiction, to exist? It's hurtful -- does that even matter?



Excuse my ignorance, but isn't there an entire board devoted to WLS? I don't go on it, but is support and information about it not allowed there? One wonders if this site is for size acceptance(Acceptance of all sizes) if it denounces smaller sizes. 

I answered this question before, but I'll make another statement. First and foremost, size acceptance isn't the only mission statement of this site. It is also for the admirer(And for us to explore our own sexuality). It has erotic literature on it that has always been fairly open to what it allows. Perhaps that's a contradiction, yes, but ultimately I am not in charge of what is allowed here. There are dark and offensive stories on this site, ones that objectify women(One might argue ANY porn objectifies men and women). If one takes issue, that should be taken up with the owner. 

Now, perhaps you'll say that I'm helping to perpetuate the hurt then. That's a fair criticism. I do have something personal to help defend myself there, but I'll leave that one to myself. The only other thing I can say is that it wasn't a story meant for you to read. The readers on this site don't take issue with that kind of thing. I put in a warning to help dissuade anyone such as yourself from reading it.


----------



## Fascinita

Vader7476 said:


> attack me rather than asking me to better write what I mean.



Noooo. We had a whole ten pages worth of discussion about it last week. Remember? And I did, in one of my last posts to you, put together a list of the posts that made your position clear about "unimportant" aspects of Dimensions (i.e., the "unimportant" aspects that concern people who are not here to entertain their "fetishes.")

Your response to that was simply to deny it, when the evidence of what you'd been saying was staring you in the face, in a long list that took me half an hour to compile. 

And there are many more of your posts that illustrate what I've been speaking about. Posts in which you claim that "Being attracted to fat bodies is a fetish..." and that "[f]at bodies aren't viewed as sexy by the majority of people... [so] that sad fact is what makes finding them sexy to be a fetish."

And, hey, how about you stop stamping your foot and losing your cool every time someone has something to say to you? Is it really necessary to use words like "disgusting" when you're referring to what another member of this forum has posted?


----------



## Vader7476

Fascinita said:


> Noooo. We had a whole ten pages worth of discussion about it last week. Remember? And I did, in one of my last posts to you, put together a list of the posts that made your position clear about "unimportant" aspects of Dimensions (i.e., the "unimportant" aspects that concern people who are not here to entertain their "fetishes.")
> 
> Your response to that was simply to deny it, when the evidence of what you'd been saying was staring you in the face, in a long list that took me half an hour to compile.
> 
> And there are many more of your posts that illustrate what I've been speaking about. Posts in which you claim that "Being attracted to fat bodies is a fetish..." and that "[f]at bodies aren't viewed as sexy by the majority of people... [so] that sad fact is what makes finding them sexy to be a fetish."
> 
> And, hey, how about you stop stamping your foot and losing your cool every time someone has something to say to you? Is it really necessary to use words like "disgusting" when you're referring to what another member of this forum has posted?



You said you'd post things I said in PM's to people that wished to read them. The people that would go and ask you to do that would ALREADY have negative thoughts about me. In giving them more fuel to their fire, you would only help to diminish what little they think of me already, and would not allow me the chance AT ALL to defend myself even a little, even nonsensically, even poorly. Yes, that IS disgusting. It's juvenile and childish to such a degree that you should know how morally bankrupt it sounds. 

I responded to your last post, very well, and explained that you cherry picked all of those quotes, out of context, and put them together to look as if they were one point about one argument when it was many posts about many topics. 

I do think preferring fat patners if a fetish. Being attracted to fat people, I never said was a fetish, nor did I say it was wrong. I'm sorry if I didn't explain that well. I also think commonality can influence what one defines as a fetish. 

The majority of the society in the US do not find most fat people sexually stimulating. That's just what I feel the zeitgeist is. That's what the mainstream view is. Perhaps you can deny it, I have seen no evidence contrary. That is not my feelings on whether or not that social stigma is true, correct, or right.


----------



## Fascinita

Here's what I said:



Fascinita said:


> But anyone wishing links to Vader's posts where he claims the "reality" about fat people not being considered acceptable by "society" and therefore serving almost exclusively as "fetish" fodder (his definition of fetish, not mine), *please drop me a PM and I'll be happy to forward these links to you.*



Here's what you think I said:



Vader7476 said:


> You said you'd post things I said in PM's to people that wished to read them.



You've never PM'd me, nor I you.

Please do your homework. Get your facts right.

Thanks.


----------



## deepreflection

Jack Skellington said:


> People like Fascinita and Katorade are nice and patient. I am neither of those things. I have neither the interest or the patience to debate you as you feably attempt to justify your bigotry. You've already gotten far more attention than you deserve and you will not be getting any more from me.



Hear hear, and rep to you for seeing what is the case. Some folks including Vader get off on the attention, no matter how it's achieved. In my opinion they run a game that works like this:
Post something baiting that aligns with an agenda.
Receive replies and attention.
Spin and side step issues and matters of discourse while prolonging the thread.
This smacks of the interplay most fat children have endured. Someone pushes their buttons, bullies, harasses, whatever you want to call it. The "bully" gets off on prolonging the exchange in part because it satisfies them.

At our age instead of picking on an issue that is immature but important to the object of their misplaced focus, bullies/trolls engage people about issues but under false pretenses. Nothing has changed since middle school/junior high. The issues are important but the engagement is not going anywhere and it never was a matter of debate or examination, for some.


----------



## mollycoddles

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I wouldn't call some of the abusive fantasies I have read in that library the work of Fat Admirers. They are fat haters. Some people on this board don't have issues with true admirers or admiration. It's the hate filled trolls and assclowns that cause the discord.
> Why the fuck are they here or tolerated?



Perhaps using the term "fat admirer" made it sound like I was only referring to a certain small segment of the porn-reading population of this site. I'm not sure how to say it better, maybe just "people who are sexually excited by fat?" I meant that this is a site that welcomes pornography about fat people and thus, naturally, people who are interested in fat pornography will gravitate here. Some of them prefer pornography that is darker and more disturbing and, in some cases, offensive. But as long as this site continues to accept that sort of pornography, people who like it will continue to come here. I guess you might say it's a feedback loop.

Also, surely you don't believe that every person who writes these stories that you disapprove of is a troll? That they write these stories specifically to stir up trouble and antagonize readers?



> Like someone misunderstood exactly who you are....you have done the same. Joswitch is male and he's into gaining.



Whoops! Then I apologize for making that mistake. No offense intended!


----------



## mollycoddles

deepreflection said:


> Hear hear, and rep to you for seeing what is the case. Some folks including Vader get off on the attention, no matter how it's achieved. In my opinion they run a game that works like this:
> Post something baiting that aligns with an agenda.
> Receive replies and attention.
> Spin and side step issues and matters of discourse while prolonging the thread.
> This smacks of the interplay most fat children have endured. Someone pushes their buttons, bullies, harasses, whatever you want to call it. The "bully" gets off on prolonging the exchange in part because it satisfies them.
> 
> At our age instead of picking on an issue that is immature but important to the object of their misplaced focus, bullies/trolls engage people about issues but under false pretenses. Nothing has changed since middle school/junior high. The issues are important but the engagement is not going anywhere and it never was a matter of debate or examination, for some.



Has it come to the point that we're going to declare someone a troll for expressing a contrary opinion?


----------



## Vader7476

Fascinita said:


> Here's what I said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's what you think I said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've never PM'd me, nor I you.
> 
> Please do your homework. Get your facts right.
> 
> Thanks.



My wording was a little sloppy, but what I meant was this: 

If anyone wants links to my posts, you'll provide them. That's what I think you said. That isn't correct?


----------



## Vader7476

deepreflection said:


> Hear hear, and rep to you for seeing what is the case. Some folks including Vader get off on the attention, no matter how it's achieved. In my opinion they run a game that works like this:
> Post something baiting that aligns with an agenda.
> Receive replies and attention.
> Spin and side step issues and matters of discourse while prolonging the thread.
> This smacks of the interplay most fat children have endured. Someone pushes their buttons, bullies, harasses, whatever you want to call it. The "bully" gets off on prolonging the exchange in part because it satisfies them.
> 
> At our age instead of picking on an issue that is immature but important to the object of their misplaced focus, bullies/trolls engage people about issues but under false pretenses. Nothing has changed since middle school/junior high. The issues are important but the engagement is not going anywhere and it never was a matter of debate or examination, for some.



My original post was chiming in on the topic at hand, defining fetish. I used definitions from multiple sources. How is that an agenda sir?


----------



## mollycoddles

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Funny.....I have often time seen it said on the boards about BBW/BHMs lacking confidence.....yet when the admirers insist on seeing themselves as some kind of freak for their _preference_, how can someone be with a person like that and be confident?



I'm sorry if my use of the term "fetish" gave you that impression. I only meant that I felt it was a more "honest" term for the feelings that FAs have. I understand why BBWs might not appreciate that term, but I didn't mean it to imply that FAs are monsters or anything.


----------



## mollycoddles

Wagimawr said:


> But you write erotic stories about elements of hating fat people or women.



There are many people who have sexual fantasies that they would not want to see acted out in real life. There are women who have rape fantasies, but who would not, of course, want to be raped in reality. There are men who have castration fantasies who would not, of course, want to be castrated in real life. Writing fat humiliation stories does not necessarily mean that one wants to see them acted out in real life.


----------



## katorade

When did it come in to play that people that participate on the "other" part of the forums aren't supposed to be reading or participating in the library? The library IS part of this site, there's no sign that says "Size Acceptance over here, Fat Appreciation over there". I thought the whole point, as written in what Conrad posted on the main boards, is that they're supposed to co-exist.

I will repeat that I, personally, do not have a problem with a library being a part of Dimensions. My issue is solely with the chunk of material posted that is offensive not only to the fat people that take exception to it, or the stance of Size Acceptance, but to the FAs that do NOT ascribe to the fetish aspects of _appreciating_ fat people. You do them a disservice when you say that that material is something involved _en masse_ in being an FA.


----------



## mollycoddles

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Why....it's just a FANTASY of degrading and hurting fat people....what's wrong with having that kind of desire and sharing it on a forum full of fat people?



I feel like we haven't made any progress at all in explaining why darker fantasies are continuously posted to this site


----------



## mollycoddles

Fascinita said:


> I know that some fat people enjoy that kind of fantasy, too. And maybe it should be a question of what the majority wants, though I'm not sure what the true demographics are here on Dimensions. For now the powers-that-be here continue to give a wide a berth to fantasy writing and it looks like we have to co-exist. But as long we're co-existing, I don't see why all real fat people have to remain tacit and swallow their objections to what bothers about the voicing of those fantasies in stories and on the forums.
> 
> At risk of re-re-re-repeating myself: What bugs me about the way the writers of fat fantasy have been carrying out these debates is the assumptions that seem to come with their views and are expressed in tandem with demands for _carte blanche_ expression in these stories--the blurring between fantasy and reality that has it that fat people are "naturally" taboo because no one in "society" accepts us (since this is true in the fantasist's mind, it must "naturally" be true in reality); the unilaterally considered statements about the nature of desire for fat bodies (i.e., "anyone who tells a fat person that she is loved out in the open means 'in spite of the fat body' and anyone who *really* likes your body isn't going to be seen with you because you're just too taboo and rejected by 'society' " -- it's funny how the word "society" is used by these folks to draw a line between what is acceptable, as in "polite society," and what is beyond the pale, as in "filthy pigs"... if they only realized how prudish and Victorian that way of thinking sounds!); the belittling and diminishing of real experiences of fat love--not _in spite_ of the fat bodies, and "not _just_ for my fat body," but whole love for between whole people, fat, thin and in-between.
> 
> Luckily, I've already seen some people soften their stance on those issues, and it appears we're no longer being told that we fat folks are just guests here on the site that fetish built.
> 
> If people don't want their words/stories commented on, perhaps they should post them where they are absolutely protected from public view or comment. Otherwise they should be prepared to be met with criticism, not just praise. As of right now, it appears that the boards remain functionally democratic (with despotic administrative strokes here and there) where the expression of fantasy (and response to fantasy) is concerned--in both directions. For that, at least, we can be grateful... for now.



I think you bring up some good points here. Down on the porn boards when we see story criticism it's generally from the perspective of the porn consumer -- so it mostly has to do with how "hot" someone finds the story to be. I would be curious to see more story crits from a feminist or size acceptance perspective. Maybe there should be a sub-forum or thread devoted to just that? (maybe there is and I've just missed it, I dunno) I don't know how popular such a thing would be, since i don't know how many of the size acceptance folks would want to wade through the library, but it would be interesting to get a clearer idea of what stories you would consider to have a place on this site. I also don't know if such a thing would help or hurt relations between our factions, but I do think it might be eye-opening.


----------



## Observer

Not all Weight Related fiction is the same. Some deals with themes that are popular with some while making others uncomfortable. However, to be overly selective in screening drawls howls of censorship. That is why four years ago we separated our archives into divisions. 

What distresses me is that the authors in the most popular of these archives are treated in discussions such as the current thread like they re non-persons. It makes me wonder if maybe the critics of WR fiction need a guided tour.

The general archive of realistic stories presently has 251 stories written by authors such as Swordfish, Samster, the Id and Maxout. None of them are pornographic by any standard.

Next door we have 106 extended length novellas by Starling, Maltese Falcon, Max Arden. And others. They have real plots and could easily be real people you and I might meet. The stories are high enough quality that they would be acceptable even in general public. 

Next in line are the 196 BHM tales, mostly written by women, with Undine, Big Beautiful Dreamer and Ichida taking the lead. 

Fantasy Science Fiction has 188, with Matt L, Irish Bard and others holding forth. In various alternate realities.

The total of these forums is around 750. The erotica archive has 201, the special interest archive for feeders stuffers and the like has 282  large. but in perspective still not dominant.

And then we have Extreme Special Interest  where the immobility and force feeding stories go. How may tales are there? Only 67.​The point? Taken as a whole, the WR fiction library is not the cesspool of exploitation and wank fodder that some seem to think. It actually has material to offer for many tastes. 

It is NOT a porn collection as that term is formally defined  although one section is admittedly sexual. That is the one word that I would disagree with in Mollycoddles assessment:

[quote[Observer in his previous role as custodian of the porn library on this site did try to "clean up" stories, editing some of the darker stories to be more size positive. I understand the logic behind his changes -- I think he was trying to bring the library more in step with the stated size positive purpose of the site. [qupte]

Actually I did much more than clean up darker elements. I encouraged new creativity, especially among authors with a realistic bent. And far from feeling that many people were disappointed with the less nasty versions. The readership records show that our readership quadrupled over the past four years as the base of our writers expanded.

Compared to the editorial controls and review on other WR fiction sites we have not only the largest collection and the most readers, I think we have the better writers. It saddens me to see those with a distaste for certain WR fiction sub-genres be so intolerant instead of simply finding and enjoying tales in line with their own taste.

As a curator I was charged with managing a collection for the benefit of everyone  and was cautioned in that responsibility not to be overly restrictive. Why? Because in managing the Pound Perfect Paradise site on AOL Hometown I wasnt very tolerant of the humiliation extreme gaining feeder type story. Conrad (as well as others) knew this (as did Mollycoddles, whose own site features teen drama written by authors who to some degree started there as teens.)

I am saddened that the library I hoped would address multiple interests still apparently generated such disdain in some quarters. It may not be perfect, but I truly think it deserves a little better reputation.

Perhaps we could start by not generalizing with terms such as porn and wank fodder?


----------



## Vader7476

mollycoddles said:


> I think you bring up some good points here. Down on the porn boards when we see story criticism it's generally from the perspective of the porn consumer -- so it mostly has to do with how "hot" someone finds the story to be. I would be curious to see more story crits from a feminist or size acceptance perspective. Maybe there should be a sub-forum or thread devoted to just that? (maybe there is and I've just missed it, I dunno) I don't know how popular such a thing would be, since i don't know how many of the size acceptance folks would want to wade through the library, but it would be interesting to get a clearer idea of what stories you would consider to have a place on this site. I also don't know if such a thing would help or hurt relations between our factions, but I do think it might be eye-opening.



I agree. I urge anyone in this thread, go to the library. There's a link for a story readers forum. Please, make a thread. Ask for a plot or story that is uplifting, that you want to read. Help us out a little. I'll gladly try and write a story that is about size acceptance as long as you give me input on how I can do that. I can't say I'll do it swiftly! Haha, but I will try.


----------



## mollycoddles

Observer said:


> Actually I did much more than “clean up” darker elements. I encouraged new creativity, especially among authors with a realistic bent. And far from feeling that “many people were disappointed with the less nasty versions.” The readership records show that our readership quadrupled over the past four years as the base of our writers expanded.
> 
> Compared to the editorial controls and review on other WR fiction sites we have not only the largest collection and the most readers, I think we have the better writers. It saddens me to see those with a distaste for certain WR fiction sub-genres be so intolerant instead of simply finding and enjoying tales in line with their own taste.
> 
> As a curator I was charged with managing a collection for the benefit of everyone &#8211; and was cautioned in that responsibility not to be overly restrictive. Why? Because in managing the Pound Perfect Paradise site on AOL Hometown I wasn’t very tolerant of the humiliation extreme gaining feeder type story. Conrad (as well as others) knew this (as did Mollycoddles, whose own site features teen drama written by authors who to some degree started there as teens.)
> 
> I am saddened that the library I hoped would address multiple interests still apparently generated such disdain in some quarters. It may not be perfect, but I truly think it deserves a little better reputation.
> 
> Perhaps we could start by not generalizing with terms such as “porn” and “wank fodder?”



Hi Observer, I'm sorry for mischaracterizing your edits. I should say that I was basing my impression that people preferred the 'nastier' versions on reactions to a limited number of stories (I forget which ones), so I should not have assumed that was always the case and nor I should not have implied that your role was merely that of a net nanny. Your work as curator was always top-notch and much appreciated, and I owe you an apology if I made it sound otherwise.

I also apologize for speaking of the library as one big morass. You're quite right in saying that there's a lot of variety in there, though I do think that most of them were written with pornographic intent; I think I'm just getting too cynical in my old age!


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> When did it come in to play that people that participate on the "other" part of the forums aren't supposed to be reading or participating in the library? The library IS part of this site, there's no sign that says "Size Acceptance over here, Fat Appreciation over there". I thought the whole point, as written in what Conrad posted on the main boards, is that they're supposed to co-exist.
> 
> I will repeat that I, personally, do not have a problem with a library being a part of Dimensions. My issue is solely with the chunk of material posted that is offensive not only to the fat people that take exception to it, or the stance of Size Acceptance, but to the FAs that do NOT ascribe to the fetish aspects of _appreciating_ fat people. You do them a disservice when you say that that material is something involved _en masse_ in being an FA.



No one said they aren't supposed to read or post there. But it does say it's erotic literature, and warns that you either like that type of stuff, or you don't. Certainly you see how that seperates us. Certainly you agree that many of the people in this thread do not go to the library often. 

I agree with your last paragraph, and I thought I agreed with it the multiple times you've stated it.


----------



## Jack Skellington

mollycoddles said:


> There are women who have rape fantasies, but who would not, of course, want to be raped in reality.



And you would hope they would have the decency not to post stories of such fantasies on support sites for people who have been raped or sexually abused. That is why many take issues to "fantasies" that abuse, humilate and degrade fat people on a size positive website. Because no matter what some have may claimed, Dims is not a porn site. 

On the top left of the page I see "Dimensions where big is beautiful." I feel this is clearly at odds to the stories where bbws are objects to be humiliated, abused and reviled.


----------



## katorade

Vader7476 said:


> No one said they aren't supposed to read or post there. But it does say it's erotic literature, and warns that you either like that type of stuff, or you don't. *Certainly you see how that seperates us. * Certainly you agree that many of the people in this thread do not go to the library often.
> 
> I agree with your last paragraph, and I thought I agreed with it the multiple times you've stated it.




No, I do not. There is nothing that says that because I am for size acceptance, that I can't enjoy erotic literature about fat people. I'm not a prude. I've watched a porno or 200 in my time. I've read sheets and sheets of erotic literature. I have engaged in actual erotic acts (oh my!). 

What I do not buy into is the fact that on THIS site, erotic literature containing material that is dehumanizing and demeaning to fat people should be embraced purely because it's erotic and about fat people. There is a LOT of erotic material that can actually be celebratory and embrace fat people, as has been pointed out.


----------



## Vader7476

Jack Skellington said:


> And you would hope they would have the decency not to post stories of such fantasies on support sites for people who have been raped or sexually abused. That is why many take issues to "fantasies" that abuse, humilate and degrade fat people on a size positive website. Because no matter what some have may claimed, Dims is not a porn site.
> 
> On the top left of the page I see "Dimensions where big is beautiful." I feel this is clearly at odds to the stories where bbws are objects to be humiliated, abused and reviled.



Maybe it's not a porn site, but it's got plenty of pornographic and sexual items on it.

And I'll say it again, we're allowed to post stories like that on here. If you object, object with the person that allows them. What would you like us writers to do?


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> No, I do not. There is nothing that says that because I am for size acceptance, that I can't enjoy erotic literature about fat people. I'm not a prude. I've watched a porno or 200 in my time. I've read sheets and sheets of erotic literature. I have engaged in actual erotic acts (oh my!).
> 
> What I do not buy into is the fact that on THIS site, erotic literature containing material that is dehumanizing and demeaning to fat people should be embraced purely because it's erotic and about fat people. There is a LOT of erotic material that can actually be celebratory and embrace fat people, as has been pointed out.



Because pornography, ultimately, is objectifying to the women and men that it focuses on. They're seen as sexual and for the sole purpose of the erotica. With that in mind, how can it be for acceptance when it's almost impossible for it to not dehumanize? Please explain how I, as an author, can reconcile that belief. Or is that belief of mine wrong? 

I will also mention that your stance excludes those that do like fat talk, of which there are many.


----------



## mollycoddles

Jack Skellington said:


> Because no matter what some have may claimed, Dims is not a porn site.



Then perhaps it should get rid of its porn archives. I think they may be giving people the wrong impression.


----------



## katorade

Jack Skellington said:


> *And you would hope they would have the decency not to post stories of such fantasies on support sites for people who have been raped or sexually abused. *That is why many take issues to "fantasies" that abuse, humilate and degrade fat people on a size positive website. Because no matter what some have may claimed, Dims is not a porn site.
> 
> On the top left of the page I see "Dimensions where big is beautiful." I feel this is clearly at odds to the stories where bbws are objects to be humiliated, abused and reviled.



This, a thousand times. I often wonder if the people objecting TO the people objecting simply don't understand the gravity of the suffering that many of the fat people of this site have been through, and that even reading a keyword subject line like "Abductions, Immobility, Flatulence, Force and Mechanical Feeding" under a heading of "special interests" leaves a bad enough taste in their mouth, WITHOUT having to read a single word of a story.

I cannot help the fact that I'm unsettled by the fact that someone may have a legitimate _interest _in something I'm either terrified of or humiliated by as a fat person CO-EXISTING on a site I'm supposed to see as a safe haven.


----------



## Ceres

well,why investigate on something like that..you like round women when others like carrot sticks...or walking corpses,because seen naked,a supeskinny woman is what looks like..anyway..enjoy your woman and who give a hoot about what others thinks?Ceres


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> This, a thousand times. I often wonder if the people objecting TO the people objecting simply don't understand the gravity of the suffering that many of the fat people of this site have been through, and that even reading a keyword subject line like "Abductions, Immobility, Flatulence, Force and Mechanical Feeding" under a heading of "special interests" leaves a bad enough taste in their mouth, WITHOUT having to read a single word of a story.
> 
> I cannot help the fact that I'm unsettled by the fact that someone may have a legitimate _interest _in something I'm either terrified of or humiliated by as a fat person CO-EXISTING on a site I'm supposed to see as a safe haven.



We've been over this. Size acceptance is not the only reason this site exists. I know we've been over this. We AGREED there was a dichotomy, a contradiction, and even Mollycoddles agreed with that point and thought that co-existing wasn't an option. We understand Kate, we really do.


----------



## katorade

Vader7476 said:


> Because pornography, ultimately, is objectifying to the women and men that it focuses on. They're seen as sexual and for the sole purpose of the erotica. With that in mind, how can it be for acceptance when it's almost impossible for it to not dehumanize? Please explain how I, as an author, can reconcile that belief. Or is that belief of mine wrong?
> 
> I will also mention that your stance excludes those that do like fat talk, of which there are many.



It is absolutely possible to NOT dehumanize or objectify people in erotic literature, and indeed the best stories are those that actually make you connect with the characters in the stories. What you manage to skip over, yet again, is not the fact that I take objection to the _erotic_ nature of the stories, but the demeaning, debasing, insulting material in some of them. 

I am not opposed to the subject of "fat talk", nor do I think that "fat talk" has to be humiliating, or the fact that even stories of humiliation exist. I am opposed that they are on THIS website. This website, in its entirety, is supposed to be a safe haven, not just one particular chunk of the discussion boards. That is why I don't visit websites like Curvage where they do not purport to be as such. That is why I have a problem with this site exclaiming that it IS, when clearly, it isn't _completely.

_More so, the fact that size acceptance should be spread evenly across this site doesn't mean that fat appreciation can't, either. It simply means that they should coincide with each other, NOT compete. I, myself, am an FA, both for my own body and for others, though I do not consider myself to find only fat bodies attractive. I am living proof that the two aspects can co-exist as one. There are plenty of other sites that don't ascribe to size acceptance as a credo and focus purely on fat appreciation in ALL of its forms, including the fetishes that purely objectify the fat body itself, and I simply don't subscribe to them because of it.

I think we both agree that this site needs to split in two if it's going to come to "this side" and "that side", but I do wholeheartedly believe that both sides can co-exist if they check their obvious differences at the door.


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> It is absolutely possible to NOT dehumanize or objectify people in erotic literature, and indeed the best stories are those that actually make you connect with the characters in the stories. What you manage to skip over, yet again, is not the fact that I take objection to the _erotic_ nature of the stories, but the demeaning, debasing, insulting material in some of them.
> 
> I am not opposed to the subject of "fat talk", nor do I think that "fat talk" has to be humiliating, or the fact that even stories of humiliation exist. I am opposed that they are on THIS website. This website, in its entirety, is supposed to be a safe haven, not just one particular chunk of the discussion boards. That is why I don't visit websites like Curvage where they do not purport to be as such. That is why I have a problem with this site exclaiming that it IS, when clearly, it isn't _completely._



Please name for me ten stories by at least 3 authors that you feel do not objectify people. Maybe that's too many. Can you name for me 3 stories by 3 authors that don't objectify men or women in your view? Take your time with it, I'll be going to bed, so this is my last post tonight. (Almost all the stories in the library do try to make you connect with the characters. I'm actually known for a lot of inner dialogue and thoughts and questions to the readers. Whether they are effective or not is a different issue, but that's not one that will ever go away) I also issued a request on making a thread in the library with how to better accomplish that goal. 

I don't skip over your point, again. I haven't skipped over it YET. I argue that while I don't agree or disagree with the statement, that's not an argument for you to make to ME.

I have a part in one story where there is fat talk. I think he might call the girl a piggy or something of that sort, and I think she says something about his man boobs. It sounded to me like that's something you take issue with. I was wrong on that point? Or is that not fat talk to you?

And, again, I agree with the supposed contradiction. Why do you keep telling me about it? 

Good night. I'll eagerly await your reply tomorrow.


----------



## mollycoddles

Ceres said:


> well,why investigate on something like that..you like round women when others like carrot sticks...or walking corpses,because seen naked,a supeskinny woman is what looks like..anyway..enjoy your woman and who give a hoot about what others thinks?Ceres



What on God's green earth are you babbling about?


----------



## mergirl

Observer said:


> However, to be overly selective in screening drawls howls of censorship. That is why four years ago we separated our archives into divisions.



But..the rest of Dimensions IS censored! For example aspects of 'not talking about weight loss'- Which is hugely offensive apparently. So, people who feel there is no other option for them than to have an operation are not allowed to talk about it YET people are allowed to utterly degrade fat women and its ..just ok!!! 
"But its a story..its a story"-Then perhaps some of the women who have had wls could post their 'stories' in the library.. this was they wont get censored. Fantastic!


----------



## mergirl

Vader7476 said:


> It has never been just a size acceptance site. Perhaps this is where the confusion is coming from. There is an admirer aspect, and always has been. Do not get a fat admirer confused with size acceptance. They're completely different. The site is for them and their sexuality as well. This is where the library comes from, and the paysite board, and the weight gain board.



This dichotomy is the reason i would never recomend any of my bbw friends come to dimensions. Which is a pity because there are some wonderful people here, however if they were to see the degrading material aimed at fat women it would really hurt them.


----------



## bdog

mergirl said:


> This dichotomy is the reason i would never recomend any of my bbw friends come to dimensions. Which is a pity because there are some wonderful people here, however if they were to see the degrading material aimed at fat women it would really hurt them.



Well maybe there could be a password protected section for erotic material so people don't accidentally stumble on to something they don't want to see. The stories and paysite stuff can go there. I don't know if it's pragmatic from an administrative standpoint, though.

People writing humiliation stories on the internet don't bother me. Someone saying even slightly negative about a fat woman in real life? That used to hurt me. Now it just annoys me and I'm vocal about that. 

Maybe your friends deserve more credit.. ?


----------



## mergirl

bdog said:


> Well maybe there could be a password protected section for erotic material so people don't accidentally stumble on to something they don't want to see. The stories and paysite stuff can go there. I don't know if it's pragmatic from an administrative standpoint, though.
> 
> People writing humiliation stories on the internet don't bother me. Someone saying even slightly negative about a fat woman in real life? That used to hurt me. Now it just annoys me and I'm vocal about that.
> 
> Maybe your friends deserve more credit.. ?


More credit? If someone already has a fragile ego and goes to a place that is supposedly where people who love fat people go, and reads that an alleged fa has written such debasing and abusive things about fat women i think they would be really wary about the rest of the site, its intentions and why these things are allowed. 
Some of my fat friends that i recomended dims too before i realised don't come here anyway because a lot of the stuff here they are just not into and find it too hard to wade through the crap to get to the good stuff. 
Vader pointed out something that i realise though, which means i can bow out of this argument. This is not a size acceptance site so there need not be any dichotomy. The abuse of fat women can be sexualized here. I just really hope people looking for fat acceptance don't come here because thats obviously not what here is for. Which is a pity.


----------



## Webmaster

mergirl said:


> More credit? If someone already has a fragile ego and goes to a place that is supposedly where people who love fat people go, and reads that an alleged fa has written such debasing and abusive things about fat women i think they would be really wary about the rest of the site, its intentions and why these things are allowed.
> Some of my fat friends that i recomended dims too before i realised don't come here anyway because a lot of the stuff here they are just not into and find it too hard to wade through the crap to get to the good stuff.
> Vader pointed out something that i realise though, which means i can bow out of this argument. This is not a size acceptance site so there need not be any dichotomy. The abuse of fat women can be sexualized here. I just really hope people looking for fat acceptance don't come here because thats obviously not what here is for. Which is a pity.



There were six men of Hindustan,
to learning much inclined,
Who went to see an elephant,
though all of them were blind,
That each by observation
might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant,
and happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
at once began to bawl,
"This mystery of an elephant
is very like a wall."

The second, feeling of the tusk,
cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an elephant
is very like a spear."

The third approached the elephant,
and happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
thus boldly up and spake,
"I see," quoth he,
"the elephant is very like a snake."

The fourth reached out an eager hand,
and felt above the knee,
"What this most wondrous beast
is like is very plain" said he,
"'Tis clear enough the elephant
is very like a tree."

The fifth who chanced to touch the ear
said, "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
deny the fact who can;
This marvel of an elephant
is very like a fan."

The sixth no sooner had begun
about the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
that fell within his scope;
"I see," said he, "the elephant
is very like a rope."

So six blind men of Hindustan
disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
exceeding stiff and strong;
Though each was partly in the right,
they all were in the wrong!


----------



## mergirl

Lmfao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## HereticFA

mollycoddles said:


> Then perhaps it should get rid of its porn archives. I think they may be giving people the wrong impression.


The archives you object to are, relatively speaking, a very small part of Dimensions. They roughly represent the time most people spend on sexuality in real life. What you are requesting is akin to requesting someone become totally asexual for some misguided goal of purity to better the community at large, kind of like the Shakers. (Who died off due to not breeding and their inability to solicit newcomers willing to abandon sexuality. But they did build a nice community, while it lasted.)


----------



## mergirl

HereticFA said:


> The archives you object to are, relatively speaking, a very small part of Dimensions. They roughly represent the time most people spend on sexuality in real life. What you are requesting is akin to requesting someone become totally asexual for some misguided goal of purity to better the community at large, kind of like the Shakers. (Who died off due to not breeding and their inability to solicit newcomers willing to abandon sexuality. But they did build a nice community, while it lasted.)


I dont think anyone is saying that fat and fa sexuality is to be disregarded. Most people like erotica and/or porn or at least talking about sex/sexuality. What some people are rejecting of and angry about are stories where the protaganist abuses and humiliates a fat woman.


----------



## HereticFA

katorade said:


> I cannot help the fact that I'm unsettled by the fact that someone may have a legitimate _interest _in something I'm either terrified of or humiliated by as a fat person CO-EXISTING on a site I'm supposed to see as a safe haven.



The material you find so objectionable was here when you joined. It's been here since the beginning in 1995 (or 1993? I was late to the site in 1996 or so.)

With other "Size" acceptance sites around the web (and several of them with the same posters as here on _Dimensions_), it's obvious you joined _Dimensions_ to try and get rid of material you find objectionable.

Hopefully Conrad considers the story archives a foundation of Dimensions. Without them, Dimensions would just be NAAFA, so diluted as to be of little significance. (But wonderfully egalitarian and asexual, you'd love it there.)


----------



## HereticFA

mergirl said:


> I dont think anyone is saying that fat and fa sexuality is to be disregarded. Most people like erotica and/or porn or at least talking about sex/sexuality. What some people are rejecting of and angry about are stories where the protaganist abuses and humiliates a fat woman.


No, what a lot of people are saying is that they have one approach to sexuality and they are seeing a different approach that they object to anyone else enjoying so they try to shut it down. That's sexual harassment.

While I object to most of the extreme stories happening in real life, it's perfectly OK for them to exist in a story. I see the stories a a fire break. Many of them explore the more obvious issues of extreme obesity with a variety of contrivances to work around the issues. I know of a couple of male FAs who admitted they had never considered those issues when fantasizing about extreme SSBBWs until they had read some of the stories.

Over the years, I've wondered how many "bad" FA/SSBBW relationships have been avoided by the points explored in these stories. (And "bad" in this case is simply where a boundryless FA supplied a willing and boundryless feedee with everything she requested until the point-of-no-return was crossed and significant problems develop.) I suspect it's a lot more than any of us realize.

Anything that gets people honestly thinking about boundaries (theirs or others) is a good thing.


----------



## Miss Vickie

Vader7476 said:


> Excuse my ignorance, but isn't there an entire board devoted to WLS? I don't go on it, but is support and information about it not allowed there?



Yes, there is a WLS forum, and no, support and information are not really allowed to be posted there. It's about the _*controversy*_ of WLS, we are told, and anything posted that is even remotely supportive of one's decision to have WLS is considered cheer leading, and is often deleted. But discussion that refers to surgeons as butchers and patients as unwilling sheeple is fine and dandy. Apparently diet talk, WLS talk, are enormously harmful to fat people, even when they are clearly marked as discussion of weight loss and weight loss surgery. But what you wrote, apparently, is okay.



> One wonders if this site is for size acceptance(Acceptance of all sizes) if it denounces smaller sizes.



Yeah, you'd think, wouldn't you?



> There are dark and offensive stories on this site, ones that objectify women(One might argue ANY porn objectifies men and women). If one takes issue, that should be taken up with the owner.



Hey, I don't really have a horse in the race but I'm just telling you, as a formerly fat and now fat-ish woman, how I felt reading your story. It was very hurtful, very very hurtful. It felt worse than most anything I've had said to/about me and I just cannot understand how that story could be supportive of fat people. I just can't wrap my brain around how just because someone is sexually attracted to a fat person (as in your story), that they can humiliate them and that makes it okay. To me that makes it WORSE. I expect that crap from the Howard Stern's of the world, but here? It just seems so... out of place. 



> Now, perhaps you'll say that I'm helping to perpetuate the hurt then. That's a fair criticism. I do have something personal to help defend myself there, but I'll leave that one to myself. The only other thing I can say is that it wasn't a story meant for you to read. The readers on this site don't take issue with that kind of thing. I put in a warning to help dissuade anyone such as yourself from reading it.



Yes, I do believe that you're perpetuating the hurt, and I suppose if you can justify it in your own mind, that's great. As for whether it was meant to be read or not, it's published here, is it not? Then it is meant to be read, warning or not, although I appreciate the warning. I'm no wilting flower, but your story made me angry and hurt me for the women who are looked at through those eyes.

I'm not saying anything about whether you should be censored or not. That's up to Conrad. I'm only saying how your story made me, and others, feel. If it were me, I'd want to avoid hurting others, particularly solely for entertainment value, but what do I know. *shrug*



Jack Skellington said:


> On the top left of the page I see "Dimensions where big is beautiful." I feel this is clearly at odds to the stories where bbws are objects to be humiliated, abused and reviled.



This. What Jack said. Again.



mergirl said:


> I dont think anyone is saying that fat and fa sexuality is to be disregarded. Most people like erotica and/or porn or at least talking about sex/sexuality. What some people are rejecting of and angry about are stories where the protaganist abuses and humiliates a fat woman.



Exactly. I expect that shit from movies like Shallow Hal, but here? At Dimensions? How is that even remotely within the guidelines of what we're supposed to be about?



HereticFA said:


> The material you find so objectionable was here when you joined. It's been here since the beginning in 1995 (or 1993? I was late to the site in 1996 or so.)
> 
> With other "Size" acceptance sites around the web (and several of them with the same posters as here on _Dimensions_), it's obvious you joined _Dimensions_ to try and get rid of material you find objectionable.
> 
> Hopefully Conrad considers the story archives a foundation of Dimensions. Without them, Dimensions would just be NAAFA, so diluted as to be of little significance. (But wonderfully egalitarian and asexual, you'd love it there.)



So, anyone who takes exception to the story and expresses concern wants to shut down the library? Are we not allowed to express our feelings about how a story makes us feel without adding insult to injury by being accused? I don't want the library shut down -- far from it. But I think I reserve the right to say how stories such as this one make me feel.



HereticFA said:


> Anything that gets people honestly thinking about boundaries (theirs or others) is a good thing.



I'm always happy to talk about boundaries and yes, you're right, it's good to talk about these things. BUT. How are accusations like yours, that Katorade joined Dimensions only to close the library, in any way conducive to open dialogue?


----------



## Fascinita

Can we talk about putting in some measures that might be helpful in both sides co-existing?

I dunno if the administration would be interested in implementing this, but how about putting the fiction that contains elements of abuse or hate toward fat people in a password-protected forum? Anyone who requested a password could access that fiction, then, without the rest of Dims users having to run into that fiction when they surf the library. It would be a way of having those who desire it "opt in" to those kinds of stories, without everyone else having to opt in by default.

A measure like that would be helpful, I think, in making it clear that we recognize and respect the line between fantasy and reality. Actively acknowledging the fantastic nature of those stories and establishing firm symbolic boundaries that must be respected would, I think, go a long way toward reassuring real fat people and their supporters that their interests are being protected, too. 

Let's not forget how these debates began: They began when some writers chafed at the idea of being "censored" out of depicting characters who were "under 18." To defend their need for uncensored "creative freedom," the most vocal among the writers claimed that Dimensions was a fat fetish site and therefore the interests of fat fetishists should come first.

At heart, this is what I believe is at stake in this controversy, and what offends fat people and their supporters: the idea that their realities should count less here, while the fantasies of a few are allowed to flourish and be represented nearly unchecked. This is threatening to fat people, naturally, because it appears to create an atmosphere in which fantasy supersedes reality.

By emphasizing the nature of _fantasy as fantasy_ in drawing a clearer line between it and the reality that gets discussed elsewhere on these boards, we could also help create an atmosphere in which fantasists themselves might be less likely to claim that the products of their erotic imaginations reflect the ultimate truth about fat people and about desire for fat bodies.

Just an idea.


----------



## Jack Skellington

Fascinita said:


> I dunno if the administration would be interested in implementing this, but how about putting the fiction that contains elements of abuse or hate toward fat people in a password-protected forum?



I think that just sweeps the issue under the rug. When the problem is that there are stories of fat hate on a size positive site in the first place. Sort of like I mentioned earlier, switch fat woman with something like black and the hateful language used to describe them with the "N word" and you have stories that fall into the catagory of hate speech. Because this sort of thing is not fat erotica. It's erotica for fat haters at the expense of fat people.

Maybe it's time Dims faced up to the problem, like it did with the underage stories, instead of just ignoring it.


----------



## Fascinita

Jack Skellington said:


> I think that just sweeps the issue under the rug. When the problem is that there are stories of fat hate on a size positive site in the first place. Sort of like I mentioned earlier, switch fat woman with something like black and the hateful language used to describe them with the "N word" and you have stories that fall into the catagory of hate speech. Because this sort of thing is not fat erotica. It's erotica for fat haters at the expense of fat people.
> 
> Maybe it's time Dims faced up to the problem, like it did with the underage stories, instead of just ignoring it.



Jack, what do you make of the fact that, for some fat people, that kind of erotica is appealing?

Personally, I'm totally with you on finding that kind of hateful language absolutely offensive. Maybe the answer _is_ to have absolutely no tolerance for it on a website that purports to be about fat acceptance.

I think, on the other hand, that Dimensions isn't quite a site entirely for fat acceptance, in reality--though it has the potential to be. It's a heady mix of sexuality and idealism, one in which we have to contend with the realities of negative attitudes about fat when they come crawling into the house, so to speak. Sometimes those negative attitudes come into Dimensions with the fat people themselves who hope to find acceptance here. The idea that fat is somehow debased and debasing isn't something every fat person is rid of, not even every fat person who wants to feel positively about fat. And we know the legions of thinner people who downright find fat disgusting.

In putting a firm stop to those who objectify fat in disgust at it, we have to be careful not to also clamp down on the fat people who are still trying to work out negative feelings about fat. That, I think, is a legitimate use for these stories in a place that purports to be a safe house for fat people.

What I'm saying, in essence, is that we should absolutely make sure the fat haters know we don't want what they're peddling, while we should still allow those among us who have a legitimate need to work out their fat sexuality to express that here. They would just have to do it in a way that acknowledges the need to be considerate of those of us who don't wish to be called "fat pigs."

I'm speaking out of practicality. I'd much rather live in a world in which no one called another person denigrating names. I think we should have zero tolerance for that in our real interactions with people. Which is why I think it may be helpful, so long as some among us see a use for those _fantasies_ and they are to be allowed here, to emphasize that their private fantasies are _fantasies_ and must not be allowed to actively intrude into the realities of others and so disturb their peace of mind.


----------



## Jack Skellington

Fascinita said:


> Jack, what do you make of the fact that, for some fat people, that kind of erotica is appealing?



I'm not a psychiatrist and can only speculate. 

Why do people do what they do? Why do people stay in abusive and or toxic relationships? Maybe the feel they don't deserve better. 

We are in a culture that by and large degrades fat people, especially fat women. You have people who lived their lives feeling less than. Unfortunately there are those who haven't gotten respect from society, co-workers or even friends and family. There are those that maybe feel they deserve it or are in such need of affirmation they seek out attention no matter how negative it is. 

That's why I think stories of such extreme fat hatred, stories that abuse and dehumanize are nothing but cruel exploitation. Stories which are in direct odds with the Dim's big is beautiful slogan. If people want to engage in stories that revile and degrade fat people, no doubt there are plenty of other places for it. 

Observer mentioned previously in this thread that the extreme stories make up a very small portion of the archive. So removing them would hardly close down the story section and I don't see anyone asking for that. The section would actually more than likely gain more far content and support if the stories that are clearly fat hatred were removed.


----------



## Webmaster

mergirl said:


> Lmfao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Good. Also, we'll need a complete list of your sexual fantasies so that it can be determined which ones are acceptable and which ones you ought to be disavowed of.


----------



## Jack Skellington

Webmaster said:


> Good. Also, we'll need a complete list of your sexual fantasies so that it can be determined which ones are acceptable and which ones you ought to be disavowed of.



You've already stated underage stories are unacceptable, which I applaud. Along with pedophilia, I also sincerely doubt you would allow stories of racism, anti-semitism and homophobia. So there are fantasies which are clearly unacceptable. 

But it's also the context which makes a story unacceptable. Like I mentioned, you don't put stories of rape fantasies on websites for people who have been sexually abused. Same as it makes no sense to have stories of fat hatred on a size positive site.


----------



## TraciJo67

Webmaster said:


> Good. Also, we'll need a complete list of your sexual fantasies so that it can be determined which ones are acceptable and which ones you ought to be disavowed of.



Conrad, I think that a point is being missed here, especially among all of the voices clamoring to be heard. What I'm seeing from Fascinita and from Jack, though --- to me, they are asking valid, logical questions. I know that extreme fat "humiliation" porn exists here, because people have told me that it does. I don't search it out, and I would never do so, because I know in advance that it would disturb me. I cannot separate who I am from what I believe those stories represent. And you may recall that I was banned from the weight board for quite some time because I reacted angrily and indignantly to someone who posted a very extreme, very graphic and violent fantasy. I get that you want Dims to be about an expression of fantasy in whatever form that may take; I can respect and even admire that you seem loathe to censor much of anything -- including some things that I know you must personally disagree with. 

Is Dimensions about Size Acceptance? Is it about Big = Beautiful? Can these principles coexist with graphic stories about women being piggies, being force fed until they explode, being humiliated in every way possible (even in plain speech) by men who proclaim an attraction to them? I get why you posted the fable about the blind men and the elephant. I'm just not at all sure that it's applicable to what is being asked in this thread. Many of us do have our eyes as wide open as yours are, clearly see the elephant in the room, and wish to label it what it is rather than what we're being told it is.


----------



## mollycoddles

bdog said:


> Well maybe there could be a password protected section for erotic material so people don't accidentally stumble on to something they don't want to see. The stories and paysite stuff can go there. I don't know if it's pragmatic from an administrative standpoint, though.
> 
> People writing humiliation stories on the internet don't bother me. Someone saying even slightly negative about a fat woman in real life? That used to hurt me. Now it just annoys me and I'm vocal about that.
> 
> Maybe your friends deserve more credit.. ?



I don't really see how that would solve the problems that some people in this thread have with the porn, though. They've said that they don't object to the existence of this sort of porn, just its presence on a site the purports to be size positive. If that porn were password locked, it would still be here -- just more of a "dirty little secret" than it is now. The people who like those stories, the ones whom some here have termed "fat haters," would still come here, except that now they'd be lurking invisibly in the shadows. I would think that people bothered by that the so-called fat haters are here reading this material would not be comfortable with the idea that they're still here, underground.

Also, if the solution to this problem is to keep the objectionable porn here but hide it from the eyes of the SA community...well, there are already different forums dedicated to these different topics so that people who don't want to see certain material don't have to. I'm not sure a secret password system would be much of an improvement.

I'm not against the idea, mind you, I just don't think it really addresses the issues that people have brought up here.


----------



## mollycoddles

HereticFA said:


> The archives you object to are, relatively speaking, a very small part of Dimensions. They roughly represent the time most people spend on sexuality in real life. What you are requesting is akin to requesting someone become totally asexual for some misguided goal of purity to better the community at large, kind of like the Shakers. (Who died off due to not breeding and their inability to solicit newcomers willing to abandon sexuality. But they did build a nice community, while it lasted.)



Really? Well, golly gee jeepers, tell us more, Mr. Wizard. Maybe you should read the thread before telling me what I'm advocating.


----------



## mollycoddles

Jack Skellington said:


> I'm not a psychiatrist and can only speculate.
> 
> Why do people do what they do? Why do people stay in abusive and or toxic relationships? Maybe the feel they don't deserve better.
> 
> We are in a culture that by and large degrades fat people, especially fat women. You have people who lived their lives feeling less than. Unfortunately there are those who haven't gotten respect from society, co-workers or even friends and family. There are those that maybe feel they deserve it or are in such need of affirmation they seek out attention no matter how negative it is.
> 
> That's why I think stories of such extreme fat hatred, stories that abuse and dehumanize are nothing but cruel exploitation. Stories which are in direct odds with the Dim's big is beautiful slogan. If people want to engage in stories that revile and degrade fat people, no doubt there are plenty of other places for it.
> 
> Observer mentioned previously in this thread that the extreme stories make up a very small portion of the archive. So removing them would hardly close down the story section and I don't see anyone asking for that. The section would actually more than likely gain more far content and support if the stories that are clearly fat hatred were removed.



Jack, it's not fair to say that every large person who enjoys these stories is self-loathing any more than you can say that every man/woman who enjoys being a sub in the bedroom is self-loathing. Lots of people enjoy humiliation -- even outside of the fat community -- simply because they enjoy being dominated or being they enjoy the taboo of it. There's more at work here than just "Oh, they must hate themselves."


----------



## joswitch

Vader7476 said:


> Your question is a good one, and I don't have a good answer for it. All I can say is that Dimension's Library is the largest collective of Weight Gain literature that I know. *It gets the most readers*s,



Now, here's the rub, Vader. A lot of folks here are asking you - and writers like you - to forgo your chance at "the most readers" and post this humiliating / violent stuff elsewhere. And they're asking you to do this - 'cos this stuff, even the description of it thereof - is TRIGGERING feelings somewhat akin to flashbacks / post traumatic stress. Please try to understand that just 'cos some people (including yes, maybe, some fat women) may find these stories erotic there's a bigger picture to be considered here which is - 

"What is the effect I am having on (most of) the women I profess to admire and desire? - by publishing these minority appeal stories where they are so prominently displayed? "

And the answer is: you are HORRIFYING many of those women. You are driving some of those women away. You are convincing some of those women that all FAs are secretly evil... 

You have a CHOICE to make in the effect you have on the world around you, and it's YOUR choice - do NOT try to abegnate that responsibility by hiding behind Conrad / what is permitted / what can be got away with... Just 'cos you CAN do it - does not mean that it's the right thing to do.

You have a choice to make.....You could chose to delete that story off DIMS.... What you chose will let people here know what you consider more important, in the scheme of things...




> I'm not sure if you're aware, but fat humiliation is pretty darn popular! There are a good amount of sites (Models on here, humiliation sites, custom clip sites) that either focus on it, or have niches for it. I was trying to play up to that crowd a bit.



Perhaps post this stuff where that crowd is more concentrated, then? You've already name checked a number of the relevant sites.... A lot of them "do what they say on the tin" - despite the fact that they may contain some size acceptance content - their emphasis is clearly sexual / fetish....


----------



## Fascinita

mollycoddles said:


> I don't really see how that would solve the problems that some people in this thread have with the porn, though. They've said that they don't object to the existence of this sort of porn, just its presence on a site the purports to be size positive. If that porn were password locked, it would still be here -- just more of a *"dirty little secret"* than it is now. The people who like those stories, the ones whom some here have termed "fat haters," would still come here, except that now they'd be lurking invisibly in the shadows. I would think that people bothered by that the so-called fat haters are here reading this material would not be comfortable with the idea that they're still here, underground.



I'm not sure it has to be a "dirty little secret." You, yourself, have made a case for what people "enjoy in the bedroom," implying that certain stuff goes on in primarily behind closed doors. 

It doesn't take much of a leap of imagination to conjecture that if it's stuff people enjoy privately, perhaps having it out where everyone can see--including those who don't want to see it--is not the Great Idea that some "fetishists" seem to think it is (using that in quotes to acknowledge that the meaning, whether negative or positive, is highly arbitrarily decided). You can make the argument that no one _forces_ anyone to see anything, and yet it was because someone glanced at the library and happened to see the title of a story in passing that the lid has flown off this topic. 

What's more, in clamoring for more openness for those stories, you're also essentially clamoring for more tolerance for the fat-negative attitudes portrayed in those stories, out in the rest of Dimensions. You've said that Dimensions advertises itself openly as a place where fat fetish is welcomed and thus it attracts fetishists in droves, and yet you seem to fail to see the connection between encouraging the open existence of fat-negative stories and encouraging those attitudes to be expressed here in the open.

Not everyone wants to share in the fantasies. In fact, it's because some people don't want to have those fantasies foisted on them that we're having this debate at all. To say that the site has a "dirty little secret," as though it were something that ALL here were interested in sharing in but are somehow too ashamed to admit to, misses the point.

As I see it, this is about drawing *firmer, more respectful boundaries* that will help both camps co-exist in the long term. No need to bring ideas of shame or degradation into it. It's simply that there's a set of people who enjoy certain fantasies, and a second set that finds those offensive. No one is saying you shouldn't enjoy those fantasies. It's just that when you enjoy them in public, there seems to be something more political at stake than simply whether you should be allowed to enjoy them or not. People who enjoy BDSM aren't allowed to have sex in public parks--nor is anyone else for that matter. There is a point at which the argument for openness falls short. If it belongs in the bedroom, why should the world be forced to watch? 

Short of splitting the website into two entities, what other than password protecting a private, "bedroom-y" or BDSM-club-y kind of space would you propose?



> Also, if the solution to this problem is to keep the objectionable porn here but hide it from the eyes of the SA community...well, there are already different forums dedicated to these different topics so that people who don't want to see certain material don't have to.



Yes, but out in those different forums, no one gets away with talking about fat people as "filthy pigs."

PS - Good discussion, Molly. :happy:


----------



## joswitch

mollycoddles said:


> Jack, it's not fair to say that every large person who enjoys these stories is self-loathing any more than you can say that every man/woman who enjoys being a sub in the bedroom is self-loathing. Lots of people enjoy humiliation -- even outside of the fat community -- simply because they enjoy being dominated or being they enjoy the taboo of it. There's more at work here than just "Oh, they must hate themselves."



Right, that is so - further, one, not uncommon reaction to a past negative experience(s) is to internalise and eroticize it as a kink... that applies to some of my kinks.... :blush: that's part of how humans work / deal with some negative feelings...

BUT that response is not universal, not for all people, nor even for all negatives experienced by one person.... So it's blinkered to assume that these issues will have been so diffused or diverted for everybody....

AND while many folks love a bit of BDSM :blush: safe and sanely between consenting adults, with clear boundaries and safe words and trust, there is I suspect, at least as many people who don't have that kink - for whom - it just LOOKS LIKE VIOLENCE /abuse... and as some people have argued here:

1) just having it here detracts from DIMS safe-place feel
2) if it must be here, 'cos it's a very particular taste, that FREAKS many people out - surely it should be much less in your face?


----------



## joswitch

Vader7476 said:


> Oh wait, I have to state something obvious, AGAIN. Fantasy isn't reality. If my girlfriend and I enjoy fat talk, or humiliation, or rape fantasies that's OKAY. That's different from degrading a fat person in real life out of disgust, or raping someone.



Now - here's THE key point.
I presume / I hope that you first establish with your gf that these things are in fact a kink / a turn on of HERS too. You wouldn't just jump into that "cold" with a new gf on a first date? Right?? Right????

Well, DIMS is very, very public. So you have NO idea as to the proclivities of the "audience" here. You're on "first-date" terms.


----------



## Vader7476

joswitch said:


> Now, here's the rub, Vader. A lot of folks here are asking you - and writers like you - to forgo your chance at "the most readers" and post this humiliating / violent stuff elsewhere. And they're asking you to do this - 'cos this stuff, even the description of it thereof - is TRIGGERING feelings somewhat akin to flashbacks / post traumatic stress. Please try to understand that just 'cos some people (including yes, maybe, some fat women) may find these stories erotic there's a bigger picture to be considered here which is -
> 
> "What is the effect I am having on (most of) the women I profess to admire and desire? - by publishing these minority appeal stories where they are so prominently displayed? "
> 
> And the answer is: you are HORRIFYING many of those women. You are driving some of those women away. You are convincing some of those women that all FAs are secretly evil...
> 
> You have a CHOICE to make in the effect you have on the world around you, and it's YOUR choice - do NOT try to abegnate that responsibility by hiding behind Conrad / what is permitted / what can be got away with... Just 'cos you CAN do it - does not mean that it's the right thing to do.
> 
> You have a choice to make.....You could chose to delete that story off DIMS.... What you chose will let people here know what you consider more important, in the scheme of things...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps post this stuff where that crowd is more concentrated, then? You've already name checked a number of the relevant sites.... A lot of them "do what they say on the tin" - despite the fact that they may contain some size acceptance content - their emphasis is clearly sexual / fetish....



And what I'm saying is that the site isn't just for the SA crowd. You are all making the readers and writers SECOND CLASS in doing so. What we want matters too.

I post stories that people want to read. The writers on this site and the readers of the library(Not the people in this thread that hate most of the library and spend hardly any time at all on it) have given me no issue at all with anything I've written or said to them. 

I submit a main purpose of this site is sexuality and the exploration of it. It's got pornographic content on it. As a writer, I want my work to be viewed by the most people. This site has that. To tell me to move somewhere else FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT is against my own thoughts, wishes, and clearly close minded.


----------



## Vader7476

joswitch said:


> Now - here's THE key point.
> I presume / I hope that you first establish with your gf that these things are in fact a kink / a turn on of HERS too. You wouldn't just jump into that "cold" with a new gf on a first date? Right?? Right????
> 
> Well, DIMS is very, very public. So you have NO idea as to the proclivities of the "audience" here. You're on "first-date" terms.



I've been here since 1999. I've written and drawn since before 2004. I've gotten no negative feedback from the readers(Where it was posted). The people up here on the Main Board, who don't like the library or visit it often have issues with the story. It wasn't written for them.


----------



## katorade

HereticFA said:


> The material you find so objectionable was here when you joined. It's been here since the beginning in 1995 (or 1993? I was late to the site in 1996 or so.)
> 
> With other "Size" acceptance sites around the web (and several of them with the same posters as here on _Dimensions_), it's obvious you joined _Dimensions_ to try and get rid of material you find objectionable.
> 
> Hopefully Conrad considers the story archives a foundation of Dimensions. Without them, Dimensions would just be NAAFA, so diluted as to be of little significance. (But wonderfully egalitarian and asexual, you'd love it there.)



Yes, I've been on this site for well over a year and just now decided that I want to go on a crusade. You've been a member of this site for four years and have a fraction of the posts I do. I am an active participant of this community and have friends here. 

I'm not on a personal mission, and I'm not the only one that views this issue as a problem, though I have absolutely no qualms with vocalizing it. If I was the only person that found this issue objectionable, then I would most likely keep it to myself. There are other issues on this board that I find my own personal problems with, but I don't bring them up because I know I'm in the minority and it wouldn't be fruitful or worth my time. As it is, though, I'm not alone.

I have spent a lot of my time here trying to HELP people and share in my own experiences, so don't you dare try to postulate any reason as to why I'm here when you don't know me from Adam.


----------



## joswitch

katorade said:


> This, a thousand times. _I often wonder if the people objecting TO the people objecting simply don't understand the gravity of the suffering that many of the fat people of this site have been through, and that even reading a keyword subject line like "*Abductions, Immobility, Flatulence, Force and Mechanical Feeding"* under a heading of "special interests" leaves a bad enough taste in their mouth, WITHOUT having to read a single word of a story._
> 
> I cannot help the fact that I'm unsettled by the fact that someone may have a legitimate _interest _in something I'm either terrified of or humiliated by as a fat person CO-EXISTING on a site I'm supposed to see as a safe haven.



Right. At the very least some sensitivity should be shown... If these sections stay then these descriptive bits could be re-jigged.... So for instance the WLS board has this description "_We're against WLS. If you must talk about it, do it here._"

In the interests of balance I'd like to suggest that any of the special interest archive(s) that offend some fat people bear this or similar description -

_"*We're against abusive language or violence against people, including (and especially) fat people*. Some people have fantasies that include such. If you have a fantasy that includes this, and must talk about it, do it here."_

The existing descriptive subtitling - bolded in Kaorade's quote above- (which in and of itself contains "trigger" words) to only be visible if someone has actually clicked on the link to that subboard.

I think that a description line like this^ suggested draws a clear, bold line between fantasy and reality - and makes a direct statement as to what one of DIMS purported RL aims are - namely ending the abuse of fat people.
I think this fulfils the "line drawing" that Fascinita's calling for, but rather than pushing it "underground" as a passworded board would do, makes it clear which side of the fence FAs and DIMS sit on in REAL LIFE.

How about it Conrad? Observer?


----------



## mollycoddles

Fascinita said:


> I'm not sure it has to be a "dirty little secret." You, yourself, have made a case for what people "enjoy in the bedroom," implying that certain stuff goes on in primarily behind closed doors.
> 
> It doesn't take much of a leap of imagination to conjecture that if it's stuff people enjoy privately, perhaps flaunting it in everyone's faces--including those who don't want to hear about it--is not the Great Idea that "fetishists" seem to think it is (using that in quotes to acknowledge that the meaning, whether negative or positive, is highly arbitrarily decided).
> 
> Not everyone wants to share in the fantasies. In fact, it's because some people don't want to have those fantasies foisted on them that we're having this debate at all. To say that the site has a "dirty little secret," as though it were something that ALL here were interested in sharing in but are somehow too ashamed to admit to, misses the point.
> 
> As I see it, this is about drawing firmer boundaries that will help both camps co-exist. No need to bring ideas of shame or degradation into it. It's simply that there's a set of people who enjoy certain fantasies, and a second set that finds those offensive. No one is saying you shouldn't enjoy those fantasies. It's just that when you enjoy them in public, there seems to be something more political at stake than simply whether you should be allowed to enjoy them or not. People who enjoy BDSM aren't allowed to have sex in public parks--nor is anyone else for that matter. There is a point at which the argument for openness falls short. If it belongs in the bedroom, why should the world be forced to watch?
> 
> Short of splitting the website into two entities, what other than password protecting a private, "bedroom-y" or BDSM-club-y kind of space would you propose?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but out in those different forums, no one gets away with talking about fat people as "filthy pigs."
> 
> PS - Good discussion, Molly. :happy:



"Dirty little secret" was probably the wrong phrase to use if it implied that some BBWs were secretly interested in this porn but pretending not to be. My main concern was that pushing the porn underground wouldn't actually remove the offensive material from the site and that many BBWs were worried that tolerating that material on a supposed size positive site sent the wrong message.

Again, I certainly don't have a problem with the porn being here, above ground or under. Speaking as part of the porn contingent, I don't see a problem on our end with putting the porn content behind a password wall. My impression was that part of the problem was that such content attracted a bad element, who make the BBWs on this site uncomfortable, and that a password wall wouldn't discourage that element from coming here and continuing to exert an influence even in the above-ground forums, so to speak. But if the only concern is that BBWs might accidentally be exposed to the objectionable writing itself, then a private porn forum may be a workable solution.


----------



## joswitch

Vader7476 said:


> And what I'm saying is that the site isn't just for the SA crowd. You are all making the readers and writers SECOND CLASS in doing so. What we want matters too.
> 
> I post stories that people want to read. The writers on this site and the readers of the library(Not the people in this thread that hate most of the library and spend hardly any time at all on it) have given me no issue at all with anything I've written or said to them.
> 
> I submit a main purpose of this site is sexuality and the exploration of it. It's got pornographic content on it. As a writer, I want my work to be viewed by the most people. This site has that. To tell me to move somewhere else FOR YOUR OWN BENEFIT is against my own thoughts, wishes, and clearly close minded.



And what you're missing STILL! is that this is not about "this board" or "that board" or "this crowd" or "that crowd" - it's about the change that you want to see in the world. 

The web is no longer small potatoes - there's a very strong argument for it as the collective conciousness of humanity (well a hell of a lot of it).

Words have power.
Authors have power.
Change the mythos.
Change the world.
What do you want to see happen in the world?
Pick a side.
Darth.


----------



## Vader7476

mollycoddles said:


> "Dirty little secret" was probably the wrong phrase to use if it implied that some BBWs were secretly interested in this porn but pretending not to be. My main concern was that pushing the porn underground wouldn't actually remove the offensive material from the site and that many BBWs were worried that tolerating that material on a supposed size positive site sent the wrong message.
> 
> Again, I certainly don't have a problem with the porn being here, above ground or under. Speaking as part of the porn contingent, I don't see a problem on our end with putting the porn content behind a password wall. My impression was that part of the problem was that such content attracted a bad element, who make the BBWs on this site uncomfortable, and that a password wall wouldn't discourage that element from coming here and continuing to exert an influence even in the above-ground forums, so to speak. But if the only concern is that BBWs might accidentally be exposed to the objectionable writing itself, then a private porn forum may be a workable solution.



How would one get the password though? Maybe if a document was e-signed, suggesting they acknowledge the type of material found on the porn side of the site. Although I do think that a bit cumbersome.


----------



## Vader7476

joswitch said:


> And what you're missing STILL! is that this is not about "this board" or "that board" or "this crowd" or "that crowd" - it's about the change that you want to see in the world.
> 
> The web is no longer small potatoes - there's a very strong argument for it as the collective conciousness of humanity (well a hell of a lot of it).
> 
> Words have power.
> Authors have power.
> Change the mythos.
> Change the world.
> What do you want to see happen in the world?
> Pick a side.
> Darth.



I want a FREE world, where I can say WHATEVER I wish. I love freedom of speech.


----------



## joswitch

Vader7476 said:


> I want a FREE world, where I can say WHATEVER I wish. I love freedom of speech.



F'sure.

And freedom to say what you want is power.

And with great power comes great responsibilty, young padawan.


----------



## Vader7476

joswitch said:


> F'sure.
> 
> And freedom to say what you want is power.
> 
> And with great power comes great responsibilty, young padawan.



Absolutely. I'm fine with the backlash from the SA people here. I still want to be able to write and post stories like that here if I wish to. 

I think we've come to an agreement.


----------



## mollycoddles

Vader7476 said:


> How would one get the password though? Maybe if a document was e-signed, suggesting they acknowledge the type of material found on the porn side of the site. Although I do think that a bit cumbersome.



It is a bit weird. I don't know if that means you'd have to check a box stating that you'd like access to the porn archives when you sign up? I don't particularly see why it's preferable, since it's sort of an "out of sight, out of mind" solution that doesn't address the underlying issues. I don't object to it, but, if I were a BBW, I think I would find it a bit creepy to think that there was a large secret stash of objectionable porn here.


----------



## joswitch

Vader7476 said:


> Absolutely. I'm fine with the backlash from the SA people here. I still want to be able to write and post stories like that here if I wish to.
> 
> I think we've come to an agreement.



No.

I think you've shown us all what you care about most.
I think you've picked your side.
The side of not-giving-a-crap-who-you-might-hurt as long as you get "yours".
The dark side.
Darth.


----------



## katorade

Vader7476 said:


> I've been here since 1999. I've written and drawn since before 2004. I've gotten no negative feedback from the readers(Where it was posted). The people up here on the Main Board, who don't like the library or visit it often have issues with the story. *It wasn't written for them.*



There's a problem with your logic. When you post a story here, it is visible to all patrons of this site. It doesn't matter _who_ you wrote it for, it is available to everyone, and there IS NO clear boundary of where people are supposed to stop, they are to find that out for themselves. When you post a story here, it IS posted here for EVERYONE. New, old, daily patrons, passers-by, everyone. That is the beauty of a public forum. Because YOU do not venture on to the main boards yourself does not invalidate the reasons other people here do, nor does it mean that why you're here has a heftier bearing.

I don't believe that when this site was created, the general idea of things was to dissect the community, nor did anyone say "alright, all you people that mill around on the main boards, just uh...just uhhhh...don't go downstairs in the library. You won't like it, you'll be better off." That would just be openly saying they know the material is objectionable!

As it is, a rift has naturally evolved as many patrons of the main boards might either not venture to the library out of disinterest for the reason they are here, or they HAVE looked through some and haven't liked what they've seen. 

In kind, many readers and authors of the libraries have absolutely no interest in size acceptance so they have no reason to go to the main boards, or they browse them and feel attacked for their own points of view.

My entire point is that obviously there is something WRONG here that has created this divide, and it does absolutely nothing for the "mission statement" of bringing FAs together with the fat people that are the objects of their affections. A lot of those problems get addressed, a lot of them are still hotly under debate, and one of them is in this thread.


----------



## Vader7476

joswitch said:


> No.
> 
> I think you've shown us all what you care about most.
> I think you've picked your side.
> The side of not-giving-a-crap-who-you-might-hurt as long as you get "yours".
> The dark side.
> Darth.



It is not a right for one to have their feelings not hurt. I'm sorry, but freedom of speech says nothing about feelings. This is a problem in America. Whatever happened to not liking what someone says but defending the right to say it? 

Haha, but hey, I'm Darth Vader...did you really expect something different?


----------



## katorade

Yeah, again, Dimensions =/= America.


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> There's a problem with your logic. When you post a story here, it is visible to all patrons of this site. It doesn't matter _who_ you wrote it for, it is available to everyone, and there IS NO clear boundary of where people are supposed to stop, they are to find that out for themselves. When you post a story here, it IS posted here for EVERYONE. New, old, daily patrons, passers-by, everyone. That is the beauty of a public forum. Because YOU do not venture on to the main boards yourself does not invalidate the reasons other people here do, nor does it mean that why you're here has a heftier bearing.
> 
> I don't believe that when this site was created, the general idea of things was to dissect the community, nor did anyone say "alright, all you people that mill around on the main boards, just uh...just uhhhh...don't go downstairs in the library. You won't like it, you'll be better off." That would just be openly saying they know the material is objectionable!
> 
> As it is, a rift has naturally evolved as many patrons of the main boards might either not venture to the library out of disinterest for the reason they are here, or they HAVE looked through some and haven't liked what they've seen.
> 
> In kind, many readers and authors of the libraries have absolutely no interest in size acceptance so they have no reason to go to the main boards, or they browse them and feel attacked for their own points of view.
> 
> My entire point is that obviously there is something WRONG here that has created this divide, and it does absolutely nothing for the "mission statement" of bringing FAs together with the fat people that are the objects of their affections. A lot of those problems get addressed, a lot of them are still hotly under debate, and one of them is in this thread.



It is visible to all, but the people that read the stories in the forum on a regular basis and the writers who post are who makes up the library. That's a fact. It is for them, that stories get written. Not for the SA crowd that openly hates most of the stories in there and HAVE since its inception, who barely if ever go to the forum, and do nothing to help writers be more fat positive. Those, my brothers and sisters, are who I care about.


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> Yeah, again, Dimensions =/= America.



Is that Sherlock Holmes over there? 

I know this. What I said now, perhaps ten times, is that Conrad does let the stuff on the site. He has not pulled my story yet. Perhaps he will. Until then, it may go against your views and wishes, but I'm still allowed to have posted it. If you don't like, sorry, but I was free to do so.


----------



## joswitch

Vader7476 said:


> It is not a right for one to have their feelings not hurt. I'm sorry, but freedom of speech says nothing about feelings. This is a problem in America. Whatever happened to not liking what someone says but defending the right to say it?
> 
> Haha, but hey, I'm Darth Vader...did you really expect something different?



You'll notice I'm not advocating for you to be censored.
I'm advocating for you to grow a concience.
And some empathy.

I try to avoid expectations on the whole, they may obscure what's really happening. 
And often lead to disappointment.
Besides, ill expectations eliminate the possibility of redemption.
Darth.


----------



## joswitch

Vader7476 said:


> Is that Sherlock Holmes over there?
> 
> I know this. What I said now, perhaps ten times, is that Conrad does let the stuff on the site. He has not pulled my story yet. Perhaps he will. Until then, it may go against your views and wishes, but I'm still allowed to have posted it. If you don't like, sorry, but I was free to do so.



Stop hiding behind Conrad.
You and ONLY you are responsible for your creations.


----------



## Vader7476

joswitch said:


> You'll notice I'm not advocating for you to be censored.
> I'm advocating for you to grow a concience.
> And some empathy.
> 
> I try to avoid expectations on the whole, they may obscure what's really happening.
> And often lead to disappointment.
> Besides, ill expectations eliminate the possibility of redemption.
> Darth.



But you are. You're advocating that I censor myself for your(Plural, not necessarily you either) benefit. Have I misunderstood you? 

I have plenty of empathy. More than I care to get in to. What of the empathy of those readers that find a story like Kisses sexy, and appealing to them, who only want some solace on Dims that other people have similar thoughts and that they're okay? What of them? Are we to be tossed under the bus because your side doesn't like our side, when the site owner has made a niche where we can explore ourselves safely? Why is YOUR side, continually, the only side that matters at all?


----------



## joswitch

Fascinita said:


> I'm not sure it has to be a "dirty little secret." You, yourself, have made a case for what people "enjoy in the bedroom," implying that certain stuff goes on in primarily behind closed doors.
> 
> It doesn't take much of a leap of imagination to conjecture that if it's stuff people enjoy privately, perhaps having it out where everyone can see--including those who don't want to see it--is not the Great Idea that some "fetishists" seem to think it is (using that in quotes to acknowledge that the meaning, whether negative or positive, is highly arbitrarily decided). You can make the argument that no one _forces_ anyone to see anything, and yet it was because someone glanced at the library and happened to see the title of a story in passing that the lid has flown off this topic.
> 
> What's more, in clamoring for more openness for those stories, you're also essentially clamoring for more tolerance for the fat-negative attitudes portrayed in those stories, out in the rest of Dimensions. You've said that Dimensions advertises itself openly as a place where fat fetish is welcomed and thus it attracts fetishists in droves, and yet you seem to fail to see the connection between encouraging the open existence of fat-negative stories and encouraging those attitudes to be expressed here in the open.
> 
> Not everyone wants to share in the fantasies. In fact, it's because some people don't want to have those fantasies foisted on them that we're having this debate at all. To say that the site has a "dirty little secret," as though it were something that ALL here were interested in sharing in but are somehow too ashamed to admit to, misses the point.
> 
> As I see it, this is about drawing *firmer, more respectful boundaries* that will help both camps co-exist in the long term. No need to bring ideas of shame or degradation into it. It's simply that there's a set of people who enjoy certain fantasies, and a second set that finds those offensive. No one is saying you shouldn't enjoy those fantasies. It's just that when you enjoy them in public, there seems to be something more political at stake than simply whether you should be allowed to enjoy them or not. People who enjoy BDSM aren't allowed to have sex in public parks--nor is anyone else for that matter. There is a point at which the argument for openness falls short. If it belongs in the bedroom, why should the world be forced to watch?
> 
> *snip*
> 
> PS - Good discussion, Molly. :happy:



I broadly agree with ^this!


----------



## Vader7476

joswitch said:


> Stop hiding behind Conrad.
> You and ONLY you are responsible for your creations.



Never said otherwise, but the argument is that as an SA site, the story shouldn't exist. Stop telling me that Conrad allowing it doesn't matter.


----------



## katorade

joswitch said:


> You'll notice I'm not advocating for you to be censored.
> I'm advocating for you to grow a concience.
> And some empathy.
> 
> I try to avoid expectations on the whole, they may obscure what's really happening.
> And often lead to disappointment.
> Besides, ill expectations eliminate the possibility of redemption.
> Darth.



Good luck waiting for that piddly little john boat to set sail, Jo. Crack as many bottles of Brut on its hull as you want, that ship is staying firmly in port.


Oh, and Conrad, I'm glad you see this issue as fun and fancy free enough that it's now story-time and that you've used it to take completely unrelated potshots at Mergirl, as usual. Why not actually address the people that are directly asking you questions rather than attack ones making observations? 

I have asked you plenty of questions in this thread and not ONCE have you even bothered to "look me in the eye", so to speak, and answer them, nor have you bothered to answer the blatant question that's so obviously up for debate in a huge chunk of this thread. You've been as vague as a poorly translated fortune cookie, so please, clarify. Does size acceptance actually matter on this site, or is it just a comforting ruse?

I, personally, would also like to know how much donated money this site gets from people that are here for the size acceptance aspect vs. people here for the "porn".


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> Good luck waiting for that piddly little john boat to set sail, Jo. Crack as many bottles of Brut on its hull as you want, that ship is staying firmly in port.
> 
> 
> Oh, and Conrad, I'm glad you see this issue as fun and fancy free enough that it's now story-time and that you've used it to take completely unrelated potshots at Mergirl, as usual. Why not actually address the people that are directly asking you questions rather than attack ones making observations?
> 
> I have asked you plenty of questions in this thread and not ONCE have you even bothered to "look me in the eye", so to speak, and answer them, nor have you bothered to answer the blatant question that's so obviously up for debate in a huge chunk of this thread. You've been as vague as a poorly translated fortune cookie, so please, clarify. Does size acceptance actually matter on this site, or is it just a comforting ruse?



Probably because he sees what I see: Neither you nor I make as many concessions as we should. We're hostile, demanding, and almost assaulting. I ask you this: I have agreed with you on some of your points. Why have you agreed with me on none? I find it hard to believe that over the course of two long threads you've agreed with absolutely nothing that I've said, that nothing I said had any merit or standing at all?

As such, it appears to me you won't stop until you get your way. That holds true for me. Why would he, who probably has heard this thing a million times, waste his time on us?


----------



## joswitch

Vader7476 said:


> But you are. You're advocating that I censor myself for your(Plural, not necessarily you either) benefit. Have I misunderstood you?



Yep. You have misunderstood. When you empathise with someone else's feelings, truly, it doesn't feel like you are self censoring. You just cease to want to do those things that cause that person pain. In no way are you cutting off your "wants". Your wants have changed.



> I have plenty of empathy. More than I care to get in to. What of the empathy of those readers that find a story like Kisses sexy, and appealing to them, who only want some solace on Dims that other people have similar thoughts and that they're okay? What of them? Are we to be tossed under the bus because your side doesn't like our side, when the site owner has made a niche where we can explore ourselves safely? Why is YOUR side, continually, the only side that matters at all?



Oh please stop trying to make out like folks into these kinks are some kind of endangered species with a vanishing habitat! You are not the orang utan, nor are you the bird of paradise, nor the white rhino. Specialised and harried. You are the pigeon, you are the brown rat, you are the fox. Adaptable and ubiquitous. Do I really have to direct you back to your OWN post in which you listed a whole shitload of sites where you can post this stuff??

Note: these animals are not a "slur" on you. I'm merely contrasting species with broader or narrower survival strategies... You will not that I avoided the use of the awesome cockroach, that most superlative survivor, because of it's popular negative connotations....


----------



## mollycoddles

joswitch said:


> You are the pigeon, you are the brown rat, you are the fox. Adaptable and ubiquitous.



I feel like I should take offense at this, since people in this thread keep leaping on all my analogies, but I understand the spirit in which this was intended.

Also, I rather like this image.


----------



## mollycoddles

katorade said:


> Oh, and Conrad, I'm glad you see this issue as fun and fancy free enough that it's now story-time and that you've used it to take completely unrelated potshots at Mergirl, as usual. Why not actually address the people that are directly asking you questions rather than attack ones making observations?
> 
> I have asked you plenty of questions in this thread and not ONCE have you even bothered to "look me in the eye", so to speak, and answer them, nor have you bothered to answer the blatant question that's so obviously up for debate in a huge chunk of this thread. You've been as vague as a poorly translated fortune cookie, so please, clarify. Does size acceptance actually matter on this site, or is it just a comforting ruse?



Maybe he's got another delightful poem for us?


----------



## Vader7476

joswitch said:


> Yep. You have misunderstood. When you empathise with someone else's feelings, truly, it doesn't feel like you are self censoring. You just cease to want to do those things that cause that person pain. In no way are you cutting off your "wants". Your wants have changed.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please stop trying to make out like folks into these kinks are some kind of endangered species with a vanishing habitat! You are not the orang utan, nor are you the bird of paradise, nor the white rhino. Specialised and harried. You are the pigeon, you are the brown rat, you are the fox. Adaptable and ubiquitous. Do I really have to direct you back to your OWN post in which you listed a whole shitload of sites where you can post this stuff??



I do empathise with their feelings, and understand it, maybe more than you think and maybe more than you can know. I STILL want to write and read stories like that. 

Of the sites mentioned, a good chunk no longer exist. The ones that do, I either post on(Such as DA) or they don't have the amount of readers that this site does. That absolutely matters to me. And yes, if stories continued to get deleted, we will be extinct. We did have about 2,000 stories on this site. Because of a rule change, that number has gotten to what Observer has stated, about 1,000. That happened recently, last month was it? If another rule comes, that will dwindle those stories down further. There is an absolute threat to the writers and readers on this forum, one we all acknowledge. We've seen it happen before, and we'll see it again. I think it will be a shame if that ever occurs. Observer, who was in charge of the Library, thinks the only discourse for us at the moment is to erase the library altogether(And then restarting it from scratch). That's probably something you didn't know. I'm trying to talk him out of that thinking.


----------



## joswitch

mollycoddles said:


> I feel like I should take offense at this, since people in this thread keep leaping on all my analogies, but I understand the spirit in which this was intended.
> 
> Also, I rather like this image.



Well, thanks... i did put an edit in to explain my intent...
Oh and btw no offence taken that you (apparently) mistook me for a chick earlier... especially as: 
a) I made the same vice-versa mistake with you earlier still (and if you didn't catch my apology - sorry! my bad!) 
and 
b) I take zero offence at being mistaken for a woman, (for all that I'd've thought my avatar was kinda unequivocal?) actually in some ways it's a compliment.


----------



## katorade

Vader7476 said:


> Probably because he sees what I see: Neither you nor I make as many concessions as we should. We're hostile, demanding, and almost assaulting. I ask you this: I have agreed with you on some of your points. Why have you agreed with me on none? I find it hard to believe that over the course of two long threads you've agreed with absolutely nothing that I've said, that nothing I said had any merit or standing at all?
> 
> As such, it appears to me you won't stop until you get your way. That holds true for me. Why would he, who probably has heard this thing a million times, waste his time on us?



I have agreed with you, you were just to hell bent on me being up your ass that you thought _I_ was seeking _you_ out to do something about the issue. I completely agree with you that the issue is something that needs to be taken up with Conrad, and I have, for pages now. You, sonny, are just an example in my eyes, not the martyr I'm burning at the stake that you keep suggesting.

And you're right. I'm not going to stop until he either addresses the situation, or completely sweeps it under the rug. Either action will speak volumes for his character, good or bad, and a lot of silent eyes are watching this thread wanting to know if they should stay or should they go.

The outcome of this to me isn't really all that personal. If my side "loses", then I will not stomp my feet and throw a hissy fit about being censored and trodden upon, I will merely leave. Will I be sad? Yes, because I had hopes that this community could actually make a positive difference in people's lives, fat or not, and I have made a decent amount of friends here and value everything they have to say. 

But I won't regret leaving a place that champions a fantasy life over actual people. Not for a hot second.


----------



## joswitch

Vader7476 said:


> I do empathise with their feelings, and understand it, maybe more than you think and maybe more than you can know. I STILL want to write and read stories like that.



Really? So. Begin!



> Of the sites mentioned, a good chunk no longer exist. The ones that do, I either post on(Such as DA) or they don't have the amount of readers that this site does. That absolutely matters to me. And yes, if stories continued to get deleted, we will be extinct. We did have about 2,000 stories on this site. Because of a rule change, that number has gotten to what Observer has stated, about 1,000. That happened recently, last month was it? If another rule comes, that will dwindle those stories down further. There is an absolute threat to the writers and readers on this forum, one we all acknowledge. We've seen it happen before, and we'll see it again. I think it will be a shame if that ever occurs. Observer, who was in charge of the Library, thinks the only discourse for us at the moment is to erase the library altogether(And then restarting it from scratch). That's probably something you didn't know. I'm trying to talk him out of that thinking.



On the one hand, it won't be the burning of the library of Alexandria.... 

On the other hand I PM'd my compromise suggestion to Conrad... (posted earlier, I don't think anyone noticed it tho') so for the record I'm not myself advocating an authoritarian crackdown.... as we have discussed above.
Maybe I should PM it to Observer too...


----------



## katorade

mollycoddles said:


> Maybe he's got another delightful poem for us?



LOL.

There once was a man from Nantucket...


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> I have agreed with you, you were just to hell bent on me being up your ass that you thought _I_ was seeking _you_ out to do something about the issue. I completely agree with you that the issue is something that needs to be taken up with Conrad, and I have, for pages now. You, sonny, are just an example in my eyes, not the martyr I'm burning at the stake that you keep suggesting.
> 
> And you're right. I'm not going to stop until he either addresses the situation, or completely sweeps it under the rug. Either action will speak volumes for his character, good or bad, and a lot of silent eyes are watching this thread wanting to know if they should stay or should they go.
> 
> The outcome of this to me isn't really all that personal. If my side "loses", then I will not stomp my feet and throw a hissy fit about being censored and trodden upon, I will merely leave. Will I be sad? Yes, because I had hopes that this community could actually make a positive difference in people's lives, fat or not, and I have made a decent amount of friends here and value everything they have to say.
> 
> But I won't regret leaving a place that champions a fantasy life over actual people. Not for a hot second.



Fair enough Grandma , but a lot of your posts directed mainly at me, and a few did ask me to do something about it(I'm also kind of sad if that's the only thing you agree with me on). 

I also take issue with this notion that I'll be throwing a hissy fit if my side loses. In fact, I only see one outcome to this: Your side winning.


----------



## joswitch

katorade said:


> LOL.
> 
> There once was a man from Nantucket...



Who went to sea in a bucket...


----------



## mollycoddles

joswitch said:


> Who went to sea in a bucket...



YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG!


----------



## Vader7476

joswitch said:


> Really? So. Begin!
> 
> 
> 
> On the one hand, it won't be the burning of the library of Alexandria....
> 
> On the other hand I PM'd my compromise suggestion to Conrad... (posted earlier, I don't think anyone noticed it tho') so for the record I'm not myself advocating an authoritarian crackdown.... as we have discussed above.
> Maybe I should PM it to Observer too...



I do not give merit to personal feelings or stories in debate. They are of the weakest most faulty logic, and are not evidence for a side. So no, I opt out of telling you personal stories. For starters, a few of them I have sworn an oath to myself that I would take them to the grave.

No, I never meant to the suggest that the stories here are the height and haute of literacy. But I think it would totally undermine every author and reader here, destroying countless tales that we grew up with, loved, adored and cherished, that helped us grow comfortable with our own fetish, preference, and sexuality. It does a disservice to the old and new.

Is this the password solution?


----------



## joswitch

Vader7476 said:


> I do not give merit to personal feelings or stories in debate. They are of the weakest most faulty logic, and are not evidence for a side. So no, I opt out of telling you personal stories. For starters, a few of them I have sworn an oath to myself that I would take them to the grave.



what? I thought you meant non-abusive stories?!??



> No, I never meant to the suggest that the stories here are the height and haute of literacy. But I think it would totally undermine every author and reader here, destroying countless tales that we grew up with, loved, adored and cherished, that helped us grow comfortable with our own fetish, preference, and sexuality. It does a disservice to the old and new.



File. Save As.



> Is this the password solution?



No. A "change of description compromise", scroll back through my posts and see!


----------



## mollycoddles

joswitch said:


> No. A "change of description compromise", scroll back through my posts and see!



I'm having trouble finding it (this thread is 13 pages long now, after all!). Could you copy and paste it here again? I'd like to know what this entails.


----------



## joswitch

mollycoddles said:


> I'm having trouble finding it (this thread is 13 pages long now, after all!). Could you copy and paste it here again? I'd like to know what this entails.



link diddy link.
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1299762&postcount=275
and only cos it's you and you asked so nice n'all Molly


----------



## katorade

Vader7476 said:


> Fair enough Grandma , but a lot of your posts directed mainly at me, and a few did ask me to do something about it(I'm also kind of sad if that's the only thing you agree with me on).
> 
> I also take issue with this notion that I'll be throwing a hissy fit if my side loses. In fact, I only see one outcome to this: Your side winning.



No, I really only asked you why you posted them here. Your answer that "because you're allowed to" just doesn't account for personal responsibility, and wasn't exactly the answer I was looking for, but it was the only one you were willing to offer, outside of the fact that there's a higher readership. I suppose that will have to do, though it pains me that you regard that so highly when it's easily remedied by telling someone where they could find more of your works. 

It's simply a matter of trying to put myself in your shoes and finding that I would do things completely differently. I apologize for calling you any names in the heat of the moment, as that's truly uncalled for and childish on my part, but I still cannot agree with pretty much anything you stand for. Que sera, sera. Do I think this means we can't co-exist? No. I would gladly leave my assumptions and objections of your character at the door and listen to what you'd have to say if you left that which hurts me outside as well. That's how differences are put aside.

I was also not referring to you when I said I wouldn't throw a hissy fit. I literally meant just that. That if I were to leave, it would be with my dignity firmly intact. Nowhere did I say "not like that _other _guy!", so don't take it that way. I really would prefer to resolve this issue like actual adults that can come to an understanding, not see anyone dragged away kicking and screaming.


----------



## Vader7476

joswitch said:


> what? I thought you meant non-abusive stories?!??
> 
> 
> 
> File. Save As.
> 
> 
> 
> No. A "change of description compromise", scroll back through my posts and see!



No, I meant that while I empathize, I still want to read the offensive stories. 

To 2,000 stories?

I skimmed the last three. You have a post number?


----------



## mollycoddles

joswitch said:


> link diddy link.
> http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1299762&postcount=275
> and only cos it's you and you asked so nice n'all Molly



That seems acceptable to me. Would that satisfy the SA folks?


----------



## Vader7476

joswitch said:


> link diddy link.
> http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1299762&postcount=275
> and only cos it's you and you asked so nice n'all Molly



Oooh, okay. I'm fine with that solution, but I thought the problem was them being here in the first place.


----------



## katorade

As an aside, what is with the fear of destruction? Not a single person here has said anything about wanting stories destroyed, just that I and others feel like they don't have a place on this website while it's purporting itself to be something that the subject matter of those stories clearly negates. Why can't the authors just repost them on a more fitting website and say "this story has moved to blahblahblah.com"? Certainly people know how to follow a link. Certainly if people like the stories enough, they will follow them to another site and build a readership there. 

My problem is NOT with the stories being in existance. My problem is with the allowance of objectionable material here, found objectionable by people that have just as much right as any other user here, while censorship of other interests that may be as equally objectionable to others is all but rampant. My problem is the utter lack of equality and the blatant lying to our faces about why we SHOULD be here.


----------



## joswitch

mollycoddles said:


> That seems acceptable to me. Would that satisfy the SA folks?



I don't know. Katorade, Fascinita, Jack Sk't'n... care to comment on that compromise suggestion of mine? which attempts to balance out things with the way WLS talk is flagged here....

Cut. Paste.

Quote:
_*Originally Posted by katorade * 
This, a thousand times. I often wonder if the people objecting TO the people objecting simply don't understand the gravity of the suffering that many of the fat people of this site have been through, and that even reading a keyword subject line like "*Abductions, Immobility, Flatulence, Force and Mechanical Feeding*" under a heading of "special interests" leaves a bad enough taste in their mouth, WITHOUT having to read a single word of a story.

I cannot help the fact that I'm unsettled by the fact that someone may have a legitimate interest in something I'm either terrified of or humiliated by as a fat person CO-EXISTING on a site I'm supposed to see as a safe haven._

----------

Right. At the very least some sensitivity should be shown... If these sections stay then these descriptive bits could be re-jigged.... So for instance the WLS board has this description "We're against WLS. If you must talk about it, do it here."

In the interests of balance I'd like to suggest that any of the special interest archive(s) that offend some fat people bear this or similar description -

"We're against abusive language or violence against people, including (and especially) fat people. Some people have fantasies that include such. If you have a fantasy that includes this, and must talk about it, do it here."

The existing descriptive subtitling - bolded in Kaorade's quote above- (which in and of itself contains "trigger" words) to only be visible if someone has actually clicked on the link to that subboard.

I think that a description line like this^ suggested draws a clear, bold line between fantasy and reality - and makes a direct statement as to what one of DIMS purported RL aims are - namely ending the abuse of fat people.
I think this fulfils the "line drawing" that Fascinita's calling for, but rather than pushing it "underground" as a passworded board would do, makes it clear which side of the fence FAs and DIMS sit on in REAL LIFE.

How about it Conrad? Observer?


----------



## Tad

katorade said:


> When you post a story here, it is visible to all patrons of this site. It doesn't matter _who_ you wrote it for, it is available to everyone, and there IS NO clear boundary of where people are supposed to stop, they are to find that out for themselves.



I've not been following this thread for many pages, so I hadn't realized that it had evolved into a discussion of the library. And I have a couple of the guys on ignore, which makes following the argument pretty challenging. 

However I have a specific question, regarding the quote above: Would re-arranging the library such that:

- some portions (i.e. sub-boards) of it were clearly labeled as 'fat fetish' or 'porn' or 'fat fetish porn' some other suitable label, (but others might be labelled more along the lines of 'romance,' 'fat erotica' and such-like); and

- there was no universal 'recent additions' sub-board (i.e. everything first appeared on a dedicated sub-board), and

- all stories had to be posted by moderators (so that to submit a story it first went to the moderators somehow, then they'd permit it or post it or something) 

be sufficient, from your point of view, for segregating that sort of material?
 
I'm wondering because I'm chewing through some thoughts, not yet ready to fully discuss, on suggesting/requesting changes to the library, but I wonder if what I'm thinking of would be adequate from the point of view of some others.


----------



## mollycoddles

katorade said:


> As an aside, what is with the fear of destruction? Not a single person here has said anything about wanting stories destroyed, just that I and others feel like they don't have a place on this website while it's purporting itself to be something that the subject matter of those stories clearly negates. Why can't the authors just repost them on a more fitting website and say "this story has moved to blahblahblah.com"? Certainly people know how to follow a link. Certainly if people like the stories enough, they will follow them to another site and build a readership there.



I think the fear is that they will be wiped without warning. When the new age rule went into effect, about half the stories on the board disappeared without warning. Some of these are available elsewhere, some aren't. Some of my stories -- which aren't elsewhere on the web -- were among the casualties; I didn't know they were gone until another reader informed me and, if I didn't have copies on my own hard drive, those stories could be lost. I'm not against a slow migration, but moving all the stories to different sites before deletion would take a little while.

I don't think you were advocating a sudden deletion, but knowing how new rules have been handled in the past I think some of us are worried about a repeat.


----------



## joswitch

Tad said:


> I've not been following this thread for many pages, so I hadn't realized that it had evolved into a discussion of the library. And I have a couple of the guys on ignore, which makes following the argument pretty challenging.
> 
> However I have a specific question, regarding the quote above: Would re-arranging the library such that:
> 
> - some portions (i.e. sub-boards) of it were clearly labeled as 'fat fetish' or 'porn' or 'fat fetish porn' some other suitable label, (but others might be labelled more along the lines of 'romance,' 'fat erotica' and such-like); and
> 
> *- there was no universal 'recent additions' sub-board (i.e. everything first appeared on a dedicated sub-board), and
> 
> - all stories had to be posted by moderators (so that to submit a story it first went to the moderators somehow, then they'd permit it or post it or something)
> *
> be sufficient, from your point of view, for segregating that sort of material?
> 
> I'm wondering because I'm chewing through some thoughts, not yet ready to fully discuss, on suggesting/requesting changes to the library, but I wonder if what I'm thinking of would be adequate from the point of view of some others.



Bolded are good ideas I think.


----------



## mollycoddles

Tad said:


> I've not been following this thread for many pages, so I hadn't realized that it had evolved into a discussion of the library. And I have a couple of the guys on ignore, which makes following the argument pretty challenging.
> 
> However I have a specific question, regarding the quote above: Would re-arranging the library such that:
> 
> - some portions (i.e. sub-boards) of it were clearly labeled as 'fat fetish' or 'porn' or 'fat fetish porn' some other suitable label, (but others might be labelled more along the lines of 'romance,' 'fat erotica' and such-like); and
> 
> - there was no universal 'recent additions' sub-board (i.e. everything first appeared on a dedicated sub-board), and
> 
> - all stories had to be posted by moderators (so that to submit a story it first went to the moderators somehow, then they'd permit it or post it or something)
> 
> be sufficient, from your point of view, for segregating that sort of material?
> 
> I'm wondering because I'm chewing through some thoughts, not yet ready to fully discuss, on suggesting/requesting changes to the library, but I wonder if what I'm thinking of would be adequate from the point of view of some others.



Hey, Tad, you suck!!!! 

(Now I'm hoping that I'm one of the blocked people he can't see.....)


----------



## katorade

joswitch said:


> I don't know. Katorade, Fascinita, Jack Sk't'n... care to comment on that compromise suggestion of mine? which attempts to balance out things with the way WLS talk is flagged here....



For me, the only way that's going to work is if all areas of discussion were allowed on Dimensions and that the censorship was abated. The same problem would still stand. The whole discussion about the material being allowed as existing as a way for FAs to work through their fantasies and sexuality...why then are others not afforded the same rights when wanting to work through their realities because they are seen as offensive or objectionable?

Whether or not, then, these boards would fit in with the definition of Size Acceptance (one I really don't think is realistic to begin with) currently in place, well...that's a whole other debate.


----------



## Tad

mollycoddles said:


> Hey, Tad, you suck!!!!
> 
> (Now I'm hoping that I'm one of the blocked people he can't see.....)



No you are not one of the 'guys' I have blocked.....and you might notice _I quoted you_! 

I guess I should have addressed the question more specifically: Katorade, would you consider that adequate? Or is any set up where someone could access such stories without obtaining special permission be objectionable to you? (just wanting to know, not invested in the answer being one way or another).


----------



## luvhips

Who cares, every man must have a fetish. Some like legs some like boobs you get the idea. Call it what you want we all have it.


----------



## joswitch

katorade said:


> For me, the only way that's going to work is if all areas of discussion were allowed on Dimensions and that the censorship was abated. The same problem would still stand. The whole discussion about the material being allowed as existing as a way for FAs to work through their fantasies and sexuality...why then are others not afforded the same rights when wanting to work through their realities because they are seen as offensive or objectionable?



So you mean an end to censorship in the WLS / diet board, I take it? (with exception being made to prevent WLS clinics / diet schills advertising in there) ... I didn't know that was censored until this thread, btw...

If so, yeah. Balance. That seems entirely reasonable.


----------



## katorade

mollycoddles said:


> I think the fear is that they will be wiped without warning. When the new age rule went into effect, about half the stories on the board disappeared without warning. Some of these are available elsewhere, some aren't. Some of my stories -- which aren't elsewhere on the web -- were among the casualties; I didn't know they were gone until another reader informed me and, if I didn't have copies on my own hard drive, those stories could be lost. I'm not against a slow migration, but moving all the stories to different sites before deletion would take a little while.
> 
> I don't think you were advocating a sudden deletion, but knowing how new rules have been handled in the past I think some of us are worried about a repeat.



I whole-heartedly agree, and was actually appalled, that immediately wiping them without warning was uncalled for, and probably a knee-jerk reaction. I honestly do feel bad for authors who had stories wiped who have no back-ups and that their material was lost for good, and that they weren't given any warning whatsoever so they could make the necessary arrangements like moving the stories or backing them up on their own computer if they chose to edit them and republish, especially those who weren't "guilty" and just suffered a widespread judgement call. I'm not calling out for a veritable book burning, and I realize that change takes time, so I would hope any action would be carried out responsibly and with considerations for both parties.


----------



## mollycoddles

luvhips said:


> Who cares, every man must have a fetish. Some like legs some like boobs you get the idea. Call it what you want we all have it.



We've moved on from there, man; get with the times.


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> No, I really only asked you why you posted them here. Your answer that "because you're allowed to" just doesn't account for personal responsibility, and wasn't exactly the answer I was looking for, but it was the only one you were willing to offer, outside of the fact that there's a higher readership. I suppose that will have to do, though it pains me that you regard that so highly when it's easily remedied by telling someone where they could find more of your works.
> 
> It's simply a matter of trying to put myself in your shoes and finding that I would do things completely differently. I apologize for calling you any names in the heat of the moment, as that's truly uncalled for and childish on my part, but I still cannot agree with pretty much anything you stand for. Que sera, sera. Do I think this means we can't co-exist? No. I would gladly leave my assumptions and objections of your character at the door and listen to what you'd have to say if you left that which hurts me outside as well. That's how differences are put aside.
> 
> I was also not referring to you when I said I wouldn't throw a hissy fit. I literally meant just that. That if I were to leave, it would be with my dignity firmly intact. Nowhere did I say "not like that _other _guy!", so don't take it that way. I really would prefer to resolve this issue like actual adults that can come to an understanding, not see anyone dragged away kicking and screaming.



Aside from those reasons, I also post stories here because I have friends here. Mollycoddles and I have known each other for years, and have talked to each other a lot since 2004. I met ID, Wetsoben, PeachFan(Billyjoe sometimes he goes by, not sure what his handle is on this site), etc. I met ElroyCohen here, whose stories and insight I enjoy thoroughly(He's of the belief that the stories here can be viewed without your pants down and lotion on the desk) and have been complimented here by MaxoutFA, a writer whose work I admire and look up to(And some of the stuff he hasn't posted here, you guys would go ape shit on!). I also post because a lot of fat admirers need a place where it's okay for them to have their fantasies, regardless of what they are. I pretty much grew up here. I've been on here since 1999 or a little before that(Maybe 1997), when the forum didn't exist and an entirely different chat engine was on. When anything at all went for stories, and anything was accepted. I'm 25 now. I want to give back to the stories and authors that helped me get through a difficult learning experience about who I am as a person, that regardless of what I end up liking, fat people, gay, whatever, that those feelings are natural. The writers helped ME do that, not the SA people. In this thread, they've done nothing but reaffirm that belief of mine. A bit sappy(And I don't think in a discussion it has much merit) but that is a bit more than me just saying this site has a high reader base.

You don't need to apologize for your statements to me, but I appreciate it and reciprocate by apologizing for any of my remarks made in a similar vein to you. If I may ask a favor, it would be to ask your boyfriend(I think that was your boyfriend, I'm pretty sure you told me it was) to let you handle yourself, and not take issue and attack me. I understand where he's coming from, but it makes it so I have trouble taking him and you seriously sometimes. 

Kate, we are of entirely different beliefs. You find certain literature in the library offenisive, and detrimental to the size acceptance message. I find it endearing for those same reasons and love that it's on the site because of that. I like that it lets a reader, who is unsure of him or her self, be able to find pleasure in something that they shouldn't. As a writer, as an artist, I LOVE that my story got you guys emotional and thinking. As a human, I didn't want anyone to feel that sort of hate or disgust vicariously or personally. (To clarify, as purely an art piece it was successful that so many ellicited a response, but that response was not one that I really would have liked) That is me, being as candid as I can about my story, and not of the library in general. I would like to co-exist, but I don't know how you and I, or the SA and Library can do this. I'm more than willing to put our differences aside, and talk about absolutely anything. I need to stand by my morals though, so I will not delete my story to do so. If you can set that aside and not put it against me, sure we can discuss anything you want. You're a strong woman, and perhaps I shouldn't assume, but I think it's your own personal moral to say the story would need to go for you to begin discussion with me. 

As such, I can only reach out my hand and ask agree to disagree.


----------



## katorade

joswitch said:


> So you mean an end to censorship in the WLS / diet board, I take it? (with exception being made to prevent WLS clinics / diet schills advertising in there) ... I didn't know that was censored until this thread, btw...
> 
> If so, yeah. Balance. That seems entirely reasonable.



Not just there, but forum-wide. People have posts deleted or get warning points for things that are anti-size acceptance all over the place. On the other hand, I think the report button is wayyyyyy overused. Cutting out a lot of the censorship of this board inevitably means that it's just not going to be the safe haven a lot of people want it to be and have known it to be in the past. 

I can't really say that it would be "better" that way or even more beneficial. Hell, it might turn into a veritable battlefield, so I don't know...I just don't think covering my eyes for me makes the monsters go away, you know?


----------



## joswitch

Vader7476 said:


> *snip*
> 
> You don't need to apologize for your statements to me, but I appreciate it and reciprocate by apologizing for any of my remarks made in a similar vein to you. If I may ask a favor, it would be to ask your boyfriend(I think that was your boyfriend, I'm pretty sure you told me it was) to let you handle yourself, and not take issue and attack me. I understand where he's coming from, but it makes it so I have trouble taking him and you seriously sometimes.
> 
> *snip*



Errr... you're not talking about me are you????
'cos Katorade was *joking*! with the "stop hitting on me" thing...
I am not her bf.

Clue - We're on different continents.


----------



## Vader7476

Tad said:


> I've not been following this thread for many pages, so I hadn't realized that it had evolved into a discussion of the library. And I have a couple of the guys on ignore, which makes following the argument pretty challenging.
> 
> However I have a specific question, regarding the quote above: Would re-arranging the library such that:
> 
> - some portions (i.e. sub-boards) of it were clearly labeled as 'fat fetish' or 'porn' or 'fat fetish porn' some other suitable label, (but others might be labelled more along the lines of 'romance,' 'fat erotica' and such-like); and
> 
> - there was no universal 'recent additions' sub-board (i.e. everything first appeared on a dedicated sub-board), and
> 
> - all stories had to be posted by moderators (so that to submit a story it first went to the moderators somehow, then they'd permit it or post it or something)
> 
> be sufficient, from your point of view, for segregating that sort of material?
> 
> I'm wondering because I'm chewing through some thoughts, not yet ready to fully discuss, on suggesting/requesting changes to the library, but I wonder if what I'm thinking of would be adequate from the point of view of some others.



I have a sneaking suspicion I might be one of the ones you have ignored. 

There are only three moderators, and Observer is the most active. That might take too long for them. I wish to be a mod of that forum, because they're incredibly backed up, but I think that would only worsen that problem.


----------



## Vader7476

joswitch said:


> Errr... you're not talking about me are you????
> 'cos Katorade was *joking*! with the "stop hitting on me" thing...
> I am not her bf.
> 
> Clue - We're on different continents.



No, not you. Deepreflection I believe was his name.


----------



## joswitch

katorade said:


> Not just there, but forum-wide. People have posts deleted or get warning points for things that are anti-size acceptance all over the place. On the other hand, I think the report button is wayyyyyy overused. Cutting out a lot of the censorship of this board inevitably means that it's just not going to be the safe haven a lot of people want it to be and have known it to be in the past.



I guess I'm *pro* censorship of posts that are *anti*-size acceptance.
Otherwise DIMS would very rapidly turn into a haven for fat-hating trolls and/or a magnet for people pushing their latest diet "success" under guise of personal testimony... And let's face it there's LOADS and LOADS of places for that stuff already...



> I can't really say that it would be "better" that way or even more beneficial. Hell, it might turn into a veritable battlefield, so I don't know...I just don't think covering my eyes for me makes the monsters go away, you know?



Ok. Sounds like the compromise I suggested wouldn't suffice for you.
Like I said, bridge building may not in fact be my forte...


----------



## katorade

Vader7476 said:


> (shortened for length, not cherry-picking material) I also post because a lot of fat admirers need a place where it's okay for them to have their fantasies, regardless of what they are.



I understand that. I do, and it's not THAT that I take exception to. I take exception to the fact that it IS okay, regardless of what they are, HERE. Here, where there is a community of people that are seeking a haven _away_ from the very subjects of a lot of those stories, and that they are indeed more than just someone's fantasy. You have just as much right to be upset at people calling "you guys" sleazeballs and fantasists and nasty and unrealistic and inhumane scum, since you're here under just as false a guise as we are. It is not OUR fault that we take offense to each other, it's purely natural.



> You don't need to apologize for your statements to me, but I appreciate it and reciprocate by apologizing for any of my remarks made in a similar vein to you. If I may ask a favor, it would be to ask your boyfriend(I think that was your boyfriend, I'm pretty sure you told me it was) to let you handle yourself, and not take issue and attack me. I understand where he's coming from, but it makes it so I have trouble taking him and you seriously sometimes.



If you're speaking of deepreflection, yes, he is my boyfriend. I can't, however, beseech him to cease and desist. I never asked him to jump in to begin with, he did so of his own accord. He's upset for his own reasons, not for me, and I can't fault him that. Believe me, he knows better than anyone that I'm capable of handling my own and that I'm not a fan of any "knight in shining armor" jumping in to protect me when I didn't call for it. Anything he has to say in this thread is from his own feelings on the subject, not his feelings for me.



> Kate, we are of entirely different beliefs. You find certain literature in the library offenisive, and detrimental to the size acceptance message. I find it endearing for those same reasons and love that it's on the site because of that. I like that it lets a reader, who is unsure of him or her self, be able to find pleasure in something that they shouldn't. As a writer, as an artist, I LOVE that my story got you guys emotional and thinking. As a human, I didn't want anyone to feel that sort of hate or disgust vicariously or personally. (To clarify, as purely an art piece it was successful that so many ellicited a response, but that response was not one that I really would have liked) That is me, being as candid as I can about my story, and not of the library in general. I would like to co-exist, but I don't know how you and I, or the SA and Library can do this. I'm more than willing to put our differences aside, and talk about absolutely anything. I need to stand by my morals though, so I will not delete my story to do so. If you can set that aside and not put it against me, sure we can discuss anything you want. You're a strong woman, and perhaps I shouldn't assume, but I think it's your own personal moral to say the story would need to go for you to begin discussion with me.
> 
> As such, I can only reach out my hand and ask agree to disagree.



To clarify further, it's detrimental to the message of size acceptance that this forum ascribes to. Like I mentioned earlier, I have my own problems with things on this site that I just keep to myself because it's a minority view. This one, though, is so blatantly hypocritical, that I can't in good conscious just sit here with my mouth shut. Just as you're glad that your story has raised a lot of emotion and thought, I can only hope that this thread has done the same for a lot of members of this site that previously just let the hypocrisy roll off their backs. I hope YOU can see it, too, not just people that are not library participants, as you have just as much right to be upset.


----------



## katorade

joswitch said:


> I guess I'm *pro* censorship of posts that are *anti*-size acceptance.
> Otherwise DIMS would very rapidly turn into a haven for fat-hating trolls and/or a magnet for people pushing their latest diet "success" under guise of personal testimony... And let's face it there's LOADS and LOADS of places for that stuff already...
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Sounds like the compromise I suggested wouldn't suffice for you.
> Like I said, bridge building may not in fact be my forte...



Of course I think picking off trolls is necessary, but I'm talking about quelling the voices of fat people that actually take exception to their own circumstances. I don't think that just because someone finds that WLS is right for them, that they immediately think it's the answer for everyone. In fact, in actually discussing it with those people, I KNOW that's not what they think. The same goes for a lot of "anti-fat" discussion that is so seemingly evil.


----------



## Vader7476

katorade said:


> I understand that. I do, and it's not THAT that I take exception to. I take exception to the fact that it IS okay, regardless of what they are, HERE. Here, where there is a community of people that are seeking a haven _away_ from the very subjects of a lot of those stories, and that they are indeed more than just someone's fantasy. You have just as much right to be upset at people calling "you guys" sleazeballs and fantasists and nasty and unrealistic and inhumane scum, since you're here under just as false a guise as we are. It is not OUR fault that we take offense to each other, it's purely natural.



I know you take exception that the library, and most of what it is seems counterintuative to the SA message, and is at odds with this site's supposed mission statement. I always thought that the mission statement, and parts of the site gave us a little piece of the pie though is all I was trying to ever say.





katorade said:


> If you're speaking of deepreflection, yes, he is my boyfriend. I can't, however, beseech him to cease and desist. I never asked him to jump in to begin with, he did so of his own accord. He's upset for his own reasons, not for me, and I can't fault him that. Believe me, he knows better than anyone that I'm capable of handling my own and that I'm not a fan of any "knight in shining armor" jumping in to protect me when I didn't call for it. Anything he has to say in this thread is from his own feelings on the subject, not his feelings for me.



Oh, believe me, I know all that perhaps too well! I just thought it had to be said that when he hops in very heated, and attacks me(He's batting 1.000 on that so far!) each time I debate you, he does you a disservice. 





katorade said:


> To clarify further, it's detrimental to the message of size acceptance that this forum ascribes to. Like I mentioned earlier, I have my own problems with things on this site that I just keep to myself because it's a minority view. This one, though, is so blatantly hypocritical, that I can't in good conscious just sit here with my mouth shut. Just as you're glad that your story has raised a lot of emotion and thought, I can only hope that this thread has done the same for a lot of members of this site that previously just let the hypocrisy roll off their backs. I hope YOU can see it, too, not just people that are not library participants, as you have just as much right to be upset.



Well now you've piqued my interest. I won't debate anything you say, and perhaps you'd like to PM me to keep that private(On my own word I will not repost) but it's interesting to me.

It is hypocritical, I agree. If I had to make a guess, I think Conrad knows that men and women think differently, and wants to appeal to anyone who is fat or likes fat people. He's probably trying his best to appease everyone, and I sort of feel bad that as the owner, he's always going to have to put up with everyone's personal view of how this site should be. I wonder, at what point, did he stop listening or if he did?


----------



## mergirl

Webmaster said:


> Good. Also, we'll need a complete list of your sexual fantasies so that it can be determined which ones are acceptable and which ones you ought to be disavowed of.


Yes good. I thought your poem in response to what i had written was very funny. Cheers for making me laugh.
Ok. I'm not sure if you are getting it actually. Its not what people are fantasizing about, its that on what 'could' be considered as a size acceptance site there is material which is abusive to fat women. 
What is this site? Your vision of this site? Do you believe it is a size acceptance site to some extent? Is it equally for fat people as it is for Fa's? 
If you do invision this as a place where fat people can be comfortable and where size acceptance is of paramount importance then someone saying "She is a fat pig and i hope she dies of a heart attack" is just NOT condusive with that. 
Whether it is someone's fantasy or not. I am open minded and there are a lot of sexualities and fantasies here that i dont subscribe to or that don't turn me on but that doesn't mean they offend me. 
Fair enough.. if this is not a size acceptance site and is predominantly a place for Fa's then there is no conflict or disonance. As an Fa though i have to say i think its abhorrent to allow what is disgustingly abusive to fat women on a 'size acceptance site'. Whatever floats your boat though..
To answer your question:
3 sums
plumbers
wearing nothing but highheels
Cock sucking..
the usual lesbian stuff!


----------



## Fascinita

mollycoddles said:


> My impression was that part of the problem was that such content attracted a bad element, who make the BBWs on this site uncomfortable, and that a password wall wouldn't discourage that element from coming here and continuing to exert an influence even in the above-ground forums, so to speak. But if the only concern is that BBWs might accidentally be exposed to the objectionable writing itself, then a private porn forum may be a workable solution.



I think what would be important is to make it clear that Dimensions discourages fantasy foisted uninvitedly on people who have no interest in fantasy.

If that were made clear, I bet you'd see fewer complaints of people being approached like objects strictly here to help someone else get off, just for starters.

Let the perverts come. After all, some of our best friends are perverts.  But make it clear that they must be respectful of others.


----------



## Jack Skellington

joswitch said:


> I don't know. Katorade, Fascinita, Jack Sk't'n... care to comment on that compromise suggestion of mine? which attempts to balance out things with the way WLS talk is flagged here....



It would certainly better than what is in place now but it is like a band-aid over a much deeper issue. 



mergirl said:


> If you do invision this as a place where fat people can be comfortable and where size acceptance is of paramount importance then someone saying "She is a fat pig and i hope she dies of a heart attack" is just NOT condusive with that.



This, the fat hatred like that is depicted in the stories discussed in this thread are the antithesis of "big is beautiful" and fat people deserve dignity and respect. Consider that on the main page of Dims right now a article is linked debating if fat people should be protected under hate laws. If they were many of the extreme stories here would fall under hate speech.

And again I would like to bring up the subject that has not been addressed. Dims is not an anything goes website in regards to what has been described as erotica/porn/fantasies whatever. There are fantasies which are already considered clearly off limits, like pedophilia. I also don't believe stories that included incest, racism, homophobia or anti-semitism would be allowed. If they are, I stand corrected. But I don't see that as the case. 

There, and at the risk of repeating my self yet again, is also the context of the stories. It would be cruel to have stories of rape fantasies on sexual abuse support sites. It would be cruel to have castration fantasies on sites for survivors of testicular cancer. And in my opinion, it is cruel to have stories which abuse and dehumanize fat people on a size positive site. If this site in reality isn't truly a size positive one, then again my mistake. Some clarification would be appreciated.


----------



## mergirl

Jack Skellington said:


> It would certainly better than what is in place now but it is like a band-aid over a much deeper issue.
> 
> 
> 
> This, the fat hatred like that is depicted in the stories discussed in this thread are the antithesis of "big is beautiful" and fat people deserve dignity and respect. Consider that on the main page of Dims right now a article is linked debating if fat people should be protected under hate laws. If they were many of the extreme stories here would fall under hate speech.
> 
> And again I would like to bring up the subject that has not been addressed. Dims is not an anything goes website in regards to what has been described as erotica/porn/fantasies whatever. There are fantasies which are already considered clearly off limits, like pedophilia. I also don't believe stories that included incest, racism, homophobia or anti-semitism would be allowed. If they are, I stand corrected. But I don't see that as the case.
> 
> There, and at the risk of repeating my self yet again, is also the context of the stories. It would be cruel to have stories of rape fantasies on sexual abuse support sites. It would be cruel to have castration fantasies on sites for survivors of testicular cancer. And in my opinion, it is cruel to have stories which abuse and dehumanize fat people on a size positive site. If this site in reality isn't truly a size positive one, then again my mistake. Some clarification would be appreciated.


yes. yes. yes. THIS exactly!


----------



## Fascinita

Vader7476 said:


> I'm sorry, but freedom of speech says nothing about feelings. This is a problem in America. Whatever happened to not liking what someone says but defending the right to say it?





katorade said:


> Yeah, again, Dimensions =/= America.





Vader7476 said:


> I know this.



Oh, you _know_ this is not "America!" 

I'm curious, then, what's the point of bringing in the topic of "America" in a spiel about censorship on a privately owned website?

Another badly worded idea, maybe?

Take your time. You'll understand how it works soon.


----------



## Fascinita

Jo, it would be a start, I think. I'd personally be most comfortable seeing stories that feature hate and digust aimed at fat protagonists not allowed here at all. 

But I do think some fat folks enjoy those stories for their own reason, and I don't feel comfortable taking those away from them. Again, the analogy is one of "if it belongs in the bedroom, why bring it out to the park where everyone has to see you?"

I think the most important thing is to make it clear that certain attitudes don't fly in the reality of Dimensions and that fantasy has to remain fantasy.

(Notwithstanding the chest beating of certain dark lords, there are many who care about liberty of kink in the SA contingent. As well, it's clear that Conrad at this time values freedom of fantasy too highly to seriously consider banishing these stories altogether. So I think it's only practical that, whatever (if anything) is to be done by the administration, it's along the lines of something like you propose, or the password suggestion.)

Oh, and "Who told his best friend he should tuck it." 




joswitch said:


> I don't know. Katorade, Fascinita, Jack Sk't'n... care to comment on that compromise suggestion of mine? which attempts to balance out things with the way WLS talk is flagged here....
> 
> Cut. Paste.
> 
> Quote:
> _*Originally Posted by katorade *
> This, a thousand times. I often wonder if the people objecting TO the people objecting simply don't understand the gravity of the suffering that many of the fat people of this site have been through, and that even reading a keyword subject line like "*Abductions, Immobility, Flatulence, Force and Mechanical Feeding*" under a heading of "special interests" leaves a bad enough taste in their mouth, WITHOUT having to read a single word of a story.
> 
> I cannot help the fact that I'm unsettled by the fact that someone may have a legitimate interest in something I'm either terrified of or humiliated by as a fat person CO-EXISTING on a site I'm supposed to see as a safe haven._
> 
> ----------
> 
> Right. At the very least some sensitivity should be shown... If these sections stay then these descriptive bits could be re-jigged.... So for instance the WLS board has this description "We're against WLS. If you must talk about it, do it here."
> 
> In the interests of balance I'd like to suggest that any of the special interest archive(s) that offend some fat people bear this or similar description -
> 
> "We're against abusive language or violence against people, including (and especially) fat people. Some people have fantasies that include such. If you have a fantasy that includes this, and must talk about it, do it here."
> 
> The existing descriptive subtitling - bolded in Kaorade's quote above- (which in and of itself contains "trigger" words) to only be visible if someone has actually clicked on the link to that subboard.
> 
> I think that a description line like this^ suggested draws a clear, bold line between fantasy and reality - and makes a direct statement as to what one of DIMS purported RL aims are - namely ending the abuse of fat people.
> I think this fulfils the "line drawing" that Fascinita's calling for, but rather than pushing it "underground" as a passworded board would do, makes it clear which side of the fence FAs and DIMS sit on in REAL LIFE.
> 
> How about it Conrad? Observer?


----------



## fatgirlflyin

Webmaster said:


> Good. Also, we'll need a complete list of your sexual fantasies so that it can be determined which ones are acceptable and which ones you ought to be disavowed of.



maybe I've missed something but I haven't seen anyone say that Vader should not be allowed to have his fantasies. I've seen people share with him the fact that that particular fantasy being given a voice here, a place that's supposed to be safe for fat people, hurts. 

I've got rape fantasies, and I love to be choked when I'm near the point of orgasm but I wouldn't go into a rape or domestic violence support forum and voice those fantasies there. That would be hurtful to lots of people, and quite frankly me getting my rocks off just isn't as important as not hurting people. Even if I dont know them.


----------



## fatgirlflyin

mollycoddles said:


> Also, if the solution to this problem is to keep the objectionable porn here but hide it from the eyes of the SA community...well, there are already different forums dedicated to these different topics so that people who don't want to see certain material don't have to. I'm not sure a secret password system would be much of an improvement.
> 
> I'm not against the idea, mind you, I just don't think it really addresses the issues that people have brought up here.



I don't think the library should go away, and do believe it serves its purpose here. I've tried reading stories there as I enjoy a good one every now and again. What I do think should happen is that there should be guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable. Again I'm going to point out that there are certain subjects that are not allowed to be discussed out here on the other boards, even politics (unless they are fat politics) are taboo. So why not just apply some guidelines to the library? Why not just say that stories that feature fat hatred aren't allowed? Goes back to the question that asks who this site is really for.


----------



## fatgirlflyin

mollycoddles said:


> I feel like I should take offense at this, since people in this thread keep leaping on all my analogies, but I understand the spirit in which this was intended.
> 
> Also, I rather like this image.




 You have to admit that you have made some really bad choices in analogies. FWIW even though I disagree with most of what you have shared here, I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue.


----------



## HereticFA

Webmaster said:


> There were six men of Hindustan,
> to learning much inclined,
> Who went to see an elephant,
> though all of them were blind,
> That each by observation
> might satisfy his mind.
> 
> <stuff snipped>
> 
> So six blind men of Hindustan
> disputed loud and long,
> Each in his own opinion
> exceeding stiff and strong;
> Though each was partly in the right,
> they all were in the wrong!


I tried to rep you for this this morning. I realized the applicability of this poem to the Fat Acceptance community nearly two decades ago. I doubted many would understand (or might even take offense) so I never cited it.


----------



## Vader7476

Fascinita said:


> Oh, you _know_ this is not "America!"
> 
> I'm curious, then, what's the point of bringing in the topic of "America" in a spiel about censorship on a privately owned website?
> 
> Another badly worded idea, maybe?
> 
> Take your time. You'll understand how it works soon.



It wasn't that this site is America, it was the broader point I was after. I think Joswitch understood exactly what I was saying there. Taking offense to something isn't in and of itself an argument, and it's kind of a problem to use it as a defense when the statement(Or in this case story) is allowed.


----------



## HereticFA

mergirl said:


> I dont think anyone is saying that fat and fa sexuality is to be disregarded. Most people like erotica and/or porn or at least talking about sex/sexuality. What some people are rejecting of and angry about are stories where the protaganist abuses and humiliates a fat woman.


Again, you (and they) are saying the what doesn't appeal to the majority should be split off. That's sexual discrimination. As long as it's legal (and Conrad et. al.  don't object), a lot of people here should learn to practice the tolerance they purportedly want others to practice.


----------



## TraciJo67

HereticFA said:


> Again, you (and they) are saying the what doesn't appeal to the majority should be split off. That's sexual discrimination. As long as it's legal (and Conrad et. al. don't object), a lot of people here should learn to practice the tolerance they purportedly want others to practice.



Just so I have this right:

You expect others -- specifically, women & more specifically, the fat women that many FA's claim to adore -- to tolerate stories about humiliation, force feeding, dominance, rape, verbal abuse. Because, as you've said, to refuse to tolerate them would be akin to ... sexual discrimination? 

HereticFA, the discussion point that I'd like to see addressed here is how such material can possibly go hand-in-hand with fat admiration. Because the stories alluded to here ... seem more about hatred than anything else.


----------



## mollycoddles

fatgirlflyin said:


> You have to admit that you have made some really bad choices in analogies. FWIW even though I disagree with most of what you have shared here, I appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue.



Aw, I like my analogies :/


----------



## Vader7476

TraciJo67 said:


> Just so I have this right:
> 
> You expect others -- specifically, women & more specifically, the fat women that many FA's claim to adore -- to tolerate stories about humiliation, force feeding, dominance, rape, verbal abuse. Because, as you've said, to refuse to tolerate them would be akin to ... sexual discrimination?
> 
> HereticFA, the discussion point that I'd like to see addressed here is how such material can possibly go hand-in-hand with fat admiration. Because the stories alluded to here ... seem more about hatred than anything else.



This has been touched on, and I see it like this: What you're speaking for is the Size Acceptance community. That's all well and good, but the other people on this site, also have a voice. We see fat talk, force feeding, and humiliation as acceptable kinks inside the weight gain fetish, or at the very least the need for as little censorship as possible.


----------



## HereticFA

Miss Vickie said:


> So, anyone who takes exception to the story and expresses concern wants to shut down the library? Are we not allowed to express our feelings about how a story makes us feel without adding insult to injury by being accused? I don't want the library shut down -- far from it. But I think I reserve the right to say how stories such as this one make me feel.


With active, ongoing discussions among several very outspoken posters here about splitting Dimensions in two (in a divide and conquer kind of way), it comes across as much more than expressive musings about stories a few people have found objectionable.

This is akin to me joining Fat!So and after a year, objecting to the name of the 'zine and requesting it to be changed because it's what my abusers would punctuate their punches to my stomach once or twice a week on my bus ride to school. (Actually it IS the reason I never subscribed. It will always be a toxic word to me.)



Miss Vickie said:


> I'm always happy to talk about boundaries and yes, you're right, it's good to talk about these things. BUT. How are accusations like yours, that Katorade joined Dimensions only to close the library, in any way conducive to open dialogue?


It's like Katorade moving into a neighborhood adjoining an airport and a year later, trying to get the airport closed due to all the noise. It looks silly, if not like there was an ulterior motive all along.


----------



## HereticFA

mollycoddles said:


> Really? Well, golly gee jeepers, tell us more, Mr. Wizard. Maybe you should read the thread before telling me what I'm advocating.


Well gee whiz Mollydolly, I thought I quoted it in my post:



mollycoddles said:


> Then perhaps it should get rid of its porn archives. I think they may be giving people the wrong impression.


Hmm, maybe you should be less ambiguous in your post?


----------



## mollycoddles

HereticFA said:


> Well gee whiz Mollydolly, I thought I quoted it in my post:
> 
> 
> Hmm, maybe you should be less ambiguous in your post?




Ok I will be less ambiguous. I think that the library is an abomination and should be closed immediately, and all the stories shot out of cannons.


----------



## Vader7476

mollycoddles said:


> Ok I will be less ambiguous. I think that the library is an abomination and should be closed immediately, and all the stories shot out of cannons.



Haha, ya old coot!


----------



## HereticFA

katorade said:


> Yes, I've been on this site for well over a year and just now decided that I want to go on a crusade. You've been a member of this site for four years and have a fraction of the posts I do. I am an active participant of this community and have friends here.


Actually, you're about nine years off. I've been posting to Dimensions for about thirteen years. The Dimensions website has been through four (maybe five?) iterations, each previously one having crashed and very few of the posts were recovered. (It's a shame so much is gone. There were thousands of legendary threads lost to the great bit bucket in the sky.) The most recent "rebirth" was about four years ago, which is when I _re-_joined. Apparently you count the number of posts as if they carry some significance. Maybe I should start my "hundred posts a day" campaign for three months where I just post a six to ten word sentence that fits in to the theme of the thread. 



katorade said:


> I'm not on a personal mission, and I'm not the only one that views this issue as a problem, though I have absolutely no qualms with vocalizing it. If I was the only person that found this issue objectionable, then I would most likely keep it to myself. There are other issues on this board that I find my own personal problems with, but I don't bring them up because I know I'm in the minority and it wouldn't be fruitful or worth my time. As it is, though, I'm not alone.


A I responded to another post, it's as if you moved in next to an airport and a year later started complaining about the noise. You should have checked out the neighborhood before you moved in and expended your emotional labor in the place.

The one thing I do wonder about is with the eight to ten or so who post objections to the stories (and maybe a silent dozen behind the scenes), I wonder how many hundred (or thousand?) frequent the stories? That info might give more proportionality to the issue.



katorade said:


> I have spent a lot of my time here trying to HELP people and share in my own experiences, so don't you dare try to postulate any reason as to why I'm here when you don't know me from Adam.


I only know your publicly posted statements. That's where I drew my inferences. (And I'll postulate 'em as I see 'em.)


----------



## HereticFA

mollycoddles said:


> Ok I will be less ambiguous. I think that the library is an abomination and should be closed immediately, and all the stories shot out of cannons.


Only if they're on a USB thumb drive in your pocket. :happy:


----------



## Vader7476

I want to thank everyone in this thread for taking time out of your day to talk to me, and help me understand your point of view. 

Kate: As always, it's rocky, but a pleasure none the less. Thank you.

Joswitch: You were very polite and thoughtful, and I appreciate the Star Wars references. I think although we disagree, we completley understand each other. 

Fascinita: I think you still are going to reply to what I said, and I regret I will not be able to respond back. I hope I made my position to you clear this time.

Vespertine, Miss Vickie, Mergirl, Fatgirlflyin: I appreciate your input greatly, and am sorry you got exposed to the story in the manner in which you did. Your openness was very touching, and I thank you for it. 

Jon Blaze: I think we finally got on the same page. 

GEF and everyone else I have missed, thanks for the time.

I think I've gotten absolutely everything I can from this thread, and I am officially finished with it. It was quite enjoyable for me, but I'm off to other things. I'm sorry, but I must leave this thread in its place in history, and regret that I won't be posting anymore in it. May the force be with you. Dang that's corny!  Hehehe, bye all! :bow:


----------



## Observer

vadar7476 said:


> Observer, who was in charge of the Library, thinks the only discourse for us at the moment is to erase the library altogether (And then restarting it from scratch). That's probably something you didn't know. I'm trying to talk him out of that thinking.



Huh?

I've never said or proposed any such thing. And I think you mean recourse, not discourse.

What I have pointed out is that the html format of the Weight Room, where the older and most controversial underage and objectifying tales are located, does not lend itself to the classification and editing techniques of the newer VB forums. 

That is why many such tales remained there for so long (and some still could be). As has been noted by HereticFA originally (15 years ago) there were no controls on what was posted. In 2002 the first rules were established, in 2006 I helped tighten them and we eliminated a number of stories as a result while universally screening new ones. 

As also has been noted we never allowed pedophilia, racism, homophobia and several other things - even when it wasn't formally codified. We did, however, have a nuanced approach to "underage" characters. This has now been eliminated due to concerns that any such flexibility could be construed as sexualization of minors. That decision cost the VB library just under 300 threads (not 1000!), some of which in time may be updated and restored. The Weight Room collection cannot be so readily sorted and remains to be addressed.

This could possibly be where the misunderstanding comes. I have said that the best way to handle the Weight Room collection (only) in quick fashion would be to:

1) suppress it in its entirety
2) have a team migrate non-controversial stories to the vb forum with the balance to a holding area
3) establish a protocol for handling those which need to be revised or deleted​
This applies to the WR collection only - not the entire library!

On a related note, I once again object to the generalized characterization of our entire collection as "pornography." The legal (and commonly accepted) definition of hard core pornography according to Miller vs California is depiction of the ultimate sex acts and related actions, including "masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals." Soft-core pornography involves depictions of nudity and limited and simulated sexual conduct." Only stories in the erotica forum meet this standard.

Can, as Joswitch suggests, the Erotica Forum and possibly the Special Interest and Extreme Special interest forums be password encoded and masqued from casual access? If our Webmaster so decides I believe so easily - I've even advocated this in the past. But this betrays my own biases and perceptions -as has been noted many people feel this makes tose who would frequent such "adult" forums second class members of the community.


----------



## HereticFA

TraciJo67 said:


> Just so I have this right:
> 
> You expect others -- specifically, women & more specifically, the fat women that many FA's claim to adore -- to tolerate stories about humiliation, force feeding, dominance, rape, verbal abuse. Because, as you've said, to refuse to tolerate them would be akin to ... sexual discrimination?
> 
> HereticFA, the discussion point that I'd like to see addressed here is how such material can possibly go hand-in-hand with fat admiration. Because the stories alluded to here ... seem more about hatred than anything else.


In a word: yes.

I've observed when a male FA is unable to develop a relationship with a BBW in his formative teen years he will have increasingly dramatic fantasies. The result of those fantasies are spread throughout the stories archive.

While I do not have an interest in the stuff you are citing, I know of others who do but would never actually engage in any of that behavior. Once the stuff you are currently objecting to is gone, I know you (and others) will be validated and go on to get rid of the rest of the stuff that violates your sense of propriety, which is the stuff I'm interested in.

How many of the women supposedly so incensed at the stories have actually been unwillingly force fed? How many are just experiencing transference with the stories due to ongoing, unresolved food issues? They should work through those issues with a professional therapist and not rely on faceless posters on a website to reinforce their aversion.

Sensitivity is a two way street. If FAs are expected to be sensitive to the needs of BBWs, then BBWs should be sensitive to the needs of FAs. The stories are already at the bottom of the _Forums_ page (the basement). Now a few complainers want them out of the website (house) entirely. I'd hope the response would be "tough". Otherwise the _Plus Size Paysite_ board, the rest of the stories and activism related posts will be next.


----------



## mollycoddles

HereticFA said:


> In a word: yes.
> 
> I've observed when a male FA is unable to develop a relationship with a BBW in his formative teen years he will have increasingly dramatic fantasies. The result of those fantasies are spread throughout the stories archive.
> 
> While I do not have an interest in the stuff you are citing, I know of others who do but would never actually engage in any of that behavior. Once the stuff you are currently objecting to is gone, I know you (and others) will be validated and go on to get rid of the rest of the stuff that violates your sense of propriety, which is the stuff I'm interested in.
> 
> How many of the women supposedly so incensed at the stories have actually been unwillingly force fed? How many are just experiencing transference with the stories due to ongoing, unresolved food issues? They should work through those issues with a professional therapist and not rely on faceless posters on a website to reinforce their aversion.
> 
> Sensitivity is a two way street. If FAs are expected to be sensitive to the needs of BBWs, then BBWs should be sensitive to the needs of FAs. The stories are already at the bottom of the _Forums_ page (the basement). Now a few complainers want them out of the website (house) entirely. I'd hope the response would be "tough". Otherwise the _Plus Size Paysite_ board, the rest of the stories and activism related posts will be next.



Boo hoo hoo


----------



## stan_der_man

You do have a point K...

Amusing, yes. But still, mildly so.


----------



## katorade

HereticFA said:


> In a word: yes.
> 
> I've observed when a male FA is unable to develop a relationship with a BBW in his formative teen years he will have increasingly dramatic fantasies. The result of those fantasies are spread throughout the stories archive.
> 
> While I do not have an interest in the stuff you are citing, I know of others who do but would never actually engage in any of that behavior. Once the stuff you are currently objecting to is gone, I know you (and others) will be validated and go on to get rid of the rest of the stuff that violates your sense of propriety, which is the stuff I'm interested in.
> 
> How many of the women supposedly so incensed at the stories have actually been unwillingly force fed? How many are just experiencing transference with the stories due to ongoing, unresolved food issues? They should work through those issues with a professional therapist and not rely on faceless posters on a website to reinforce their aversion.
> 
> Sensitivity is a two way street. If FAs are expected to be sensitive to the needs of BBWs, then BBWs should be sensitive to the needs of FAs. The stories are already at the bottom of the _Forums_ page (the basement). Now a few complainers want them out of the website (house) entirely. I'd hope the response would be "tough". Otherwise the _Plus Size Paysite_ board, the rest of the stories and activism related posts will be next.



Haaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha! Yeah, pal. Whatever you say! WE'RE the ones that need to work out our issues with therapists, not the people that have repressed violent fantasies because of a lack of social interaction. Uh huh.


----------



## stan_der_man

Dimensions is the website where big is beautiful...







We know this because it says so right on top!


----------



## LoveBHMS

TraciJo67 said:


> Just so I have this right:
> 
> *You expect others -- specifically, women & more specifically, the fat women that many FA's claim to adore -- to tolerate stories about humiliation, force feeding, dominance, rape, verbal abuse. Because, as you've said, to refuse to tolerate them would be akin to ... sexual discrimination? *
> 
> HereticFA, the discussion point that I'd like to see addressed here is how such material can possibly go hand-in-hand with fat admiration. Because the stories alluded to here ... seem more about hatred than anything else.



Yes.

Just because some women (or men) find those stories or their subjects to be disturbing does not mean everyone feels that way. Some people are turned on by that. Since you frequent the Weight Board, I'm sure you realize that:

1. Some people like being fat and derive sexual pleasure from it.

2. Some people want to get fatter or have a partner get fatter and derive sexual pleasure either from that actually happening or fantasizing about it.

3. Some people derive sexual pleasure from the results of fat or weight gain. That is why there are an infinite number of paysite sets about chair breaking, being out of breath from a short amount of exertion, inability to fit into small places, etc. Those kinks are not just for the FA, sometimes the subject likes them too. 

I have a friend with whom I share several of these stories that have male gainers/feedees. We both enjoy the some extreme ones. They're not just about me saying "fat guys are hot" but equally about him saying that being a fat guy is hot. You are missing that a lot of these stories are targeted at not only FAs but also fat people who get off on fantasies of immobility, force feeding and other extreme things.

This is exactly like the discussion about those extreme fat cartoons. Some women find them degrading but some find them exciting because they get turned on imagining themselves in the position of being extremely large.


----------



## HereticFA

mollycoddles said:


> Boo hoo hoo


Thanks for demonstrating your usual level of empathy and understanding, and making my point.


----------



## HereticFA

katorade said:


> Haaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha! Yeah, pal. Whatever you say! WE'RE the ones that need to work out our issues with therapists, not the people that have repressed violent fantasies because of a lack of social interaction. Uh huh.


That's pretty rich coming from one of the bully brigade.


----------



## TraciJo67

HereticFA said:


> In a word: yes.
> 
> I've observed when a male FA is unable to develop a relationship with a BBW in his formative teen years he will have increasingly dramatic fantasies. The result of those fantasies are spread throughout the stories archive.
> 
> While I do not have an interest in the stuff you are citing, I know of others who do but would never actually engage in any of that behavior. Once the stuff you are currently objecting to is gone, I know you (and others) will be validated and go on to get rid of the rest of the stuff that violates your sense of propriety, which is the stuff I'm interested in.
> 
> How many of the women supposedly so incensed at the stories have actually been unwillingly force fed? How many are just experiencing transference with the stories due to ongoing, unresolved food issues? They should work through those issues with a professional therapist and not rely on faceless posters on a website to reinforce their aversion.
> 
> Sensitivity is a two way street. If FAs are expected to be sensitive to the needs of BBWs, then BBWs should be sensitive to the needs of FAs. The stories are already at the bottom of the _Forums_ page (the basement). Now a few complainers want them out of the website (house) entirely. I'd hope the response would be "tough". Otherwise the _Plus Size Paysite_ board, the rest of the stories and activism related posts will be next.



Actually, I'm not proposing that we get rid of them. As I mentioned earlier, I don't seek them out. I know that the stories are there, and in truth, I see that they are categorized in such a way that there's very little possibility of just stumbling cluelessly into them. There are descriptors for each thread, letting the reader know that what's enclosed includes "force feeding" or "violence" or "domination", etc. Don't like? Don't look. 

My beef is with the notion that Dims is a size-acceptance site, because clearly, it's not. I don't know if this is or was Conrad's vision for Dimensions; he hasn't answered my questions (and perhaps he already has, elsewhere, at some other time; if so, I haven't seen it). I will say this: I'd heartily recommend Dims to a friend who's looking for a bit of fun. I wouldn't, in a million years, tell a BBW who is struggling with self-acceptance to give Dims a shot. 

All of that aside, though: HereticFA, I think you have a very skewed sense of the term 'sensitivity'. If I wanted to share "fantasies" about chopping off manly appendages and then feeding them to the hapless victim (all the while insulting him for being a man -- and for good measure, verbally and physically humiliating him for being fat, helpless, and <snip snip> sexless) ... how tolerant do you think you'd feel about that? You may tell me that it's my right to share this fantasy, and you may suggest that others who don't like it don't have to read it. But would it influence your opinion of me, and by extension, your opinion of the intent/purpose of Dims? Would you feel that your presence here was less than welcoming? I will say this: At times, visiting Dims seems more hostile and threatening than I ever felt, all 300 pounds of me, strolling down the street and seeing ahead a large group of construction workers on a smoke break.


----------



## HereticFA

TraciJo67 said:


> Actually, I'm not proposing that we get rid of them. As I mentioned earlier, I don't seek them out. I know that the stories are there, and in truth, I see that they are categorized in such a way that there's very little possibility of just stumbling cluelessly into them. There are descriptors for each thread, letting the reader know that what's enclosed includes "force feeding" or "violence" or "domination", etc. Don't like? Don't look.


And that's the only approach I've seen that's mature and gives equal balance to everyone's interests.



TraciJo67 said:


> My beef is with the notion that Dims is a size-acceptance site, because clearly, it's not. I don't know if this is or was Conrad's vision for Dimensions; he hasn't answered my questions (and perhaps he already has, elsewhere, at some other time; if so, I haven't seen it). I will say this: I'd heartily recommend Dims to a friend who's looking for a bit of fun. I wouldn't, in a million years, tell a BBW who is struggling with self-acceptance to give Dims a shot.


You would have to know much more about the history of the Fat Acceptance movement to understand how Dimensions, the online presence of the _NAAFA Fat Admirer SIG_ newsletter, wound up as a defacto Fat Acceptance website. How newcomers tried to transition it to a size acceptance website, and now how a dozen of them are unhappy it didn't make the change to suit them and their mis-perception of Dimensions nature.



TraciJo67 said:


> All of that aside, though: HereticFA, I think you have a very skewed sense of the term 'sensitivity'. If I wanted to share "fantasies" about chopping off manly appendages and then feeding them to the hapless victim (all the while insulting him for being a man -- and for good measure, verbally and physically humiliating him for being fat, helpless, and <snip snip> sexless) ... how tolerant do you think you'd feel about that? You may tell me that it's my right to share this fantasy, and you may suggest that others who don't like it don't have to read it. But would it influence your opinion of me, and by extension, your opinion of the intent/purpose of Dims? Would you feel that your presence here was less than welcoming? I will say this: At times, visiting Dims seems more hostile and threatening than I ever felt, all 300 pounds of me, strolling down the street and seeing ahead a large group of construction workers on a smoke break.


Interesting you should choose that analogy since it exactly fits what I see being done here. A small group of very outspoken women who want to eventually wipe out anything that appeals to a male FAs fantasies. Starting with working to eliminate the stuff that appeals to the smallest number of FAs, then working their way down the story chain and other website sections until no stories or other elements of interest to FAs (and probably few FAs) are left. Snip, snip, snip. I see a pretty good match with your analogy.

It is your right to have a fantasy about an "FA free" Dimensions website. It's not your right to work towards that goal via small, incremental changes.


----------



## HereticFA

I don't have the time to surf around Dimensions like I used to a decade ago. I haven't kept up with the stories section. Can some of you point to two or three of the stories you object to the most?


----------



## Tad

HereticFA said:


> It is your right to have a fantasy about an "FA free" Dimensions website. It's not your right to work towards that goal via small, incremental changes.



Actually, I cannot see how it would not be their right? 

You don't have to like it, the powers that be don't have to accept it, but why on earth should they not have the right to try and do that? 

ETA: of course, you have equal right to try and resist those changes.....but please not by trying to shut down and silence those who you don't agree with.

By the way, I don't think you need a big complicated history of the size acceptance movement to understand where Dims is now. I think the real key part is that the web boards and chat room originated on the BBWQT site, which was a BBW-centric size acceptance site. At that time Dimensions did not have much interactive/social content (it was still mostly an extension of the print edition). When the BBWQT site was about to die from its own success due to rising bandwidth fees, Conrad offered to support the boards and chat rooms at Dimensions, and kept "BBWQT" (aka Dani, the woman who had created the BBWQT site) on as web master of those portions of the site. She kept them running, up until the time when she dropped out of touch suddenly and entirely. At which point (with some difficulty, as he didn't have all the admin passwords!) he took over the actual running of these portions of the site. Since then he's migrated to new software, etc.

So a BBW-centric, size acceptance, social forum got grafted onto an FA-centric, Fat-admiration web site. It has not always been a "you got peanut butter in my chocolate" blending....but overall it has managed to muddle along for what, about a dozen years now?

This odd graft has always created some underlying tensions, I'm not quite sure why those are coming to a boil right now, but the fundamental issues have been around at least since the graft (and to a lesser degree were present on both the BBWQT and Dimensions sites even before then, I think)


----------



## Fascinita

HereticFA said:


> It is your right to have a fantasy about an "FA free" Dimensions website. It's not your right to work towards that goal via small, incremental changes.



This seems a bit out of touch to me. What on earth makes you think anyone wants an "FA free" Dimensions website?

It looks almost like the one fantasizing around that idea is _you_.

Nobody has said they wanted that. Nobody.

And as for the "right" to work toward positive change, who put you in charge of distributing "rights"?

None of it makes sense, so I can't say anything more constructive than this.

----

Thanks, Tad, for providing some context. It's helpful.


----------



## Webmaster

Tad said:


> ..
> By the way, I don't think you need a big complicated history of the size acceptance movement to understand where Dims is now. ...



That is a fairly accurate representation. I will have to say, however, that Dani's original site was hardly only BBW-centric. In many respects, Dani's content was considerably more extreme than what I put onto Dimensions. Still, Dani's contributions were manifold and her sudden disappearance certainly was a big loss. For a blast from the past, check the original merger announcement.


----------



## Miss Vickie

HereticFA said:


> With active, ongoing discussions among several very outspoken posters here about splitting Dimensions in two (in a divide and conquer kind of way), it comes across as much more than expressive musings about stories a few people have found objectionable.



I guess I've missed the part where anyone is trying to divide Dimensions in half or destroy it in any way. Like you, I've been a member here for a long time, and like you I want it to flourish. I think that overall, Dimensions is a positive force for size acceptance (as imperfect as it is) and I want it to be as good as it can be. I haven't gleaned anything from anyone's posts that they want the library to disappear. I'm serious, Heretic. Can you show me the posts in question? I've been busy so maybe I've missed them?



> This is akin to me joining Fat!So and after a year, objecting to the name of the 'zine and requesting it to be changed because it's what my abusers would punctuate their punches to my stomach once or twice a week on my bus ride to school. (Actually it IS the reason I never subscribed. It will always be a toxic word to me.)



Or, more aptly, I think, it could be like you joining Fat!So? and after being a contributing member notice something that disturbs you and respectfully bringing it to people's attention. Whether someone has been a member for a day, a month, or a year, I think that if they respectfully bring an issue to the forefront of people's attention, it's a good thing. Frankly, I'm glad the stories are being talked about, as disturbing as they are. It shocks me that people who love fat women would say such horrible things about them. Despite my nearly 45 years on the planet, I seem to have a lot of naivete and being informed of stuff like this, while painful, helps me better understand where people are coming from (and sadly, what they're capable of at least thinking about). Even though I don't understand it at all, I'm glad to know about it.

Personally? I think that if we really are a place where "big is beautiful", and we want to protect fat people from harm (to the extent that diet talk and positively focused WLS talk isn't allowed) then why the HELL is it okay that stories like this are published on this site??? To me, reading a story where a fat woman is insulted and harmed is far more painful than reading about someone else's positive results with WLS or dieting. And I say this as a fat woman who has experienced all manner of hurt because of my size. I have been called a fat bitch, I have been told that I'd never find a man because of my size, I have been denied dates with guys who felt they were too good for me because I was fat. I've been that fat woman, screamed at. It's VERY painful and I can't understand how it can possibly belong here, but I don't have a vote in this.

Yes, asking for stuff like that not to be posted here would be censorship, but it's also censorship to tell me that I can't discuss my WLS journey, or tell Donni that she can't expect support for losing weight which she feels she needs to have a happy life. Censorship is part of life and our membership on this site and while it pisses me off to be told what I can and can't talk about, I realize that this is Conrad's place and we abide by his rules. But don't expect me to understand, then, why stories such as Vader's are allowed when I feel that they do far far far far *far *more harm than me telling my little story EVER could.



Vader7476 said:


> Vespertine, Miss Vickie, Mergirl, Fatgirlflyin: I appreciate your input greatly, and am sorry you got exposed to the story in the manner in which you did. Your openness was very touching, and I thank you for it.



Thanks for listening to my concerns. I don't expect you to understand, or change how you write, but I appreciate you listening to us.

Like I've said before, this isn't an issue that's keeping me up at night, but I think it's good that we talk about it. I don't want the library to be locked, or cease to exist, or for FA's to feel they can't share their love of fat women. But I'm not sure a no holds barred approach to the library is such a positive thing for fat women.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing

I was fed to immobility by teletubbies last night. 

Thank you story forum!


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

mollycoddles said:


> Jack, it's not fair to say that every large person who enjoys these stories is self-loathing any more than you can say that every man/woman who enjoys being a sub in the bedroom is self-loathing. Lots of people enjoy humiliation -- even outside of the fat community -- simply because they enjoy being dominated or being they enjoy the taboo of it. There's more at work here than just "Oh, they must hate themselves."



That's the trick for me though....and why I don't really have "empathy" for those that wish to express disturbing fantasies. I don't share my deepest turn-ons here....because it might disturb people too much. I am aware of that....and hope to share/submit stories that people can enjoy....in a nice way....not just a sexual way. Stories that allow fat people to be seen in a sexual....dare I say normal?...way just like the rest of the world. 

I just hinted at a darker desire in one story....a male poster was bothered by it and said so. I understood.....and still understand....some kink/desires....and even fantasy bothers some people. Being mindful of where I'm posting it seems rational. If I had to write something darker, I can do that just for me.....and share it with others privately that I think might enjoy it. (I have had authors do this with me....stories that turned me on....but I can still squirm over the nastier aspect of it....while being hot over it.) I could also find a site for the darker fantasies, post it a hell of a lot more anonymously than I do so here, and perhaps even have a big following. Who knows? Since I haven't searched for another place to post them....I accept what is offered here....and try to be conscientious/considerate of my audience. 

I don't know exactly.....I'm not arguing over fantasy or desire.....I'm just with the others that say "WHY POST IT HERE AS A REPRESENTATION OF WHAT IS "OKAY" TO DO OR THINK ABOUT PEOPLE THAT JUST HAPPEN TO BE FAT/FIT A PHYSICAL PREFERENCE?". 
Fat people are obviously going to balk.....just like you said "duh, you come here where FAs are so accept it". 
Well, it also needs to be accepted that not everyone wants to be represented by misogyny, bad smells/farting or abusive stories.....including my own.


----------



## Wagimawr

Webmaster said:


> For a blast from the past, check the original merger announcement.





> One thing you won't find here is whining and backstabbing


LOLing HARD at this one.


----------



## TraciJo67

katorade said:


> LOL. Seriously. El Oh El. If only you knew, chippy.
> 
> Your stories are fiction. Not reality. They should stay that way. What I'm talking about is your inability to realize that if you were indeed for fat appreciation, you wouldn't be using the dehumanization of fat people to ENTICE anyone as a sexually appealing part of a _story_.
> 
> That's right _fatties_, feel free to think there's some group of people out there that are out to love and defend you, and we'll continuously bury your heads in the sand with uplifting stories about how cake makes your nipples perky and telling you that losing a single pound isn't necessary. Meanwhile the rest of us out here in reality realize that nobody likes fat people _for realz, _and any attempts you might make to actually say otherwise will just be chucked down the drain and either danced around or completely avoided by the powers that be. Silly fat people, thinking they're like the rest of us.
> 
> Thanks for clearing it up! I can seeeeeee the light now!
> 
> I can not explain how troubled _I_ am that _I_ had to outright state that just now.
> 
> I wonder how far back into the veritable fat dark ages this board would be thrust if the actual community just up and left out of disgust.



This. A gazillionty times, this. Reading it makes me feel all kinds of empathetic, sad, hopeful, and just a tiny bit more exhausted than I already am. Because I get what you're saying, Katorade ... I really, really do, and like you, connect with how darkly ironic it is that you felt the need to spell it out in stark, connect-the-freakin'-dots A-B-C terms and yet STILL you weren't understood. 

Earlier, another woman told me that yes, oh yes ... I should just sit back like a good girl, shut my trap, and allow people their "fantasies" of force feeding terrified, squealing "piggies" into submission and not only that ... I should accept that because a fringe element finds such imagery sexually enticing, that means it's not harmful or degrading to women. I suppose that I should feel grateful that the motivation behind the humiliation is an attraction to the fat, rather than repulsion? Coz Lord knows, it wouldn't FEEL the same to the target ... right? 

As I mentioned, I'm not really advocating that the stories be removed but not because I care to protect the interest of people for whom humiliation/degradation of others floats their sexual boats. Mostly because it's just easier to ignore it, and for me, this is an entertaining message board ... not Fat Mecca. So long as the attitudes and the mindset stays in the assigned areas, that is. I really loathe seeing it leaking out into the forums where the vast majority of us -- those, in other words, who do not find anything at all erotic or amusing about humiliation -- must see it. To respond to it = automatic assignation to the "harpie" and "shrew" and "humorless" club, to which I am not only a member but ... well


----------



## katorade

HereticFA said:


> That's pretty rich coming from one of the bully brigade.



Hey, I'm not the one that painted my fellow FAs in a light that made them sound like socially retarded degenerates. 

Part of the reason this issue upsets me as much as it does is because I respect a lot of the FAs here enough to expect a modicum of compassion out of them rather than say, "oh, it's okay, they all grew up in the dark in mom and dad's basement, so they just don't know how to act."

Also, your slippery slope theory is in your head. Nobody here has said anything about the "goals" you think we want to achieve. Not a one.


----------



## stan_der_man

You know what I always wonder K... At what point does freedom of fantasy become pursuit of perversion?


And yes, perhaps... a little bit more than mildly so...


----------



## stan_der_man

Tad said:


> ...
> By the way, I don't think you need a big complicated history of the size acceptance movement to understand where Dims is now.
> ...



Didn't Dimensions used to have a forum for artists to display their work. Whatever happened to that? Isn't that something that should be highlighted here as well, besides "The Library"?


----------



## mollycoddles

I think it's amusing that HereticFA is so concerned with people wanting the entire library deleted, because I think that I was the only person actually making that suggestion (And I'm part of the porn brigade) simply because I was trying to think of a way to solve the tension between our factions. I thought that we were actually all making some progress toward at least understanding where people on both sides were coming from but now we get this:



HereticFA said:


> Interesting you should choose that analogy since it exactly fits what I see being done here. A small group of very outspoken women who want to eventually wipe out anything that appeals to a male FAs fantasies. Starting with working to eliminate the stuff that appeals to the smallest number of FAs, then working their way down the story chain and other website sections until no stories or other elements of interest to FAs (and probably few FAs) are left. Snip, snip, snip. I see a pretty good match with your analogy.
> 
> It is your right to have a fantasy about an "FA free" Dimensions website. It's not your right to work towards that goal via small, incremental changes.



Boo hoo hoo It is soooooooo hard being a man on the Internet! All those mean feminazis are saying mean stuff! Oh, whatsoever will I do? I better not give an inch or they'll take a mile! Boo hooooo hooooo removing porn stories from a website is EXACTLY like being castrated.


----------



## LoveBHMS

> Earlier, another woman told me that yes, oh yes ... I should just sit back like a good girl, shut my trap, and allow people their "fantasies" of force feeding terrified, squealing "piggies" into submission and not only that ... I should accept that because a fringe element finds such imagery sexually enticing, that means it's not harmful or degrading to women. I suppose that I should feel grateful that the motivation behind the humiliation is an attraction to the fat, rather than repulsion? *Coz Lord knows, it wouldn't FEEL the same to the target ... right? *



Yes, right.

I have a good real life friend from these boards who is a dominant feeder. He loves being called names relating to his weight, loves being teased for being unable to do things because of his size, and loves fantasizing about very extreme weight gain situations. He really loves it, gets off it like crazy. And I'm sorry that some people on this board are not understanding the difference between something done in a sexual context for sexual satisfaction and something done outside of that contact. 

If you were to ask many of the feedees and gainers on this site, I'm sure they'd say there is all the difference in the world between a random stranger calling you a fat pig and a fetish partner where you have love, trust, and a history together calling you a fat pig and asking if you've split any seams on your shirts recently. And neither would I call a random man a fat pig for my own enjoyment or even suppose a BHM likes being fat. I would never even ask a guy who was not a hard core fetishist what he ate on a given day, whereas with my above mentioned friend, he'll text me from a business dinner to regale me with lists of what he's eaten. 

Different. Context.


----------



## GTAFA

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Indeed
> Lots of those stories in the library don't really involve how a real women would think.....just how they should serve some purpose/desire. [snip...]
> I like it when the fetishists stick to the library myself.......



Dimensions is such a broad community (excuse the unintentional puns), that you get an entirely different community reading stories than in this kind of interactive forum. The skillset to engage in conversation here is somewhat different, and the things that irritate people --or what's understood as politically correct for that specific milieu-- are very different in each place. When one steps across the frontier from one forum into another, one isn't just engaging different topics, but different populations with different ideas of what's tolerable. 

One of the intriguing things about this forum is the way identity gets negotiated. Some of us are completely anonymous, others are splendidly public in their identification. When fantasies are brought forward, some are reticent about who they are, as they spill their dreams out for all to see, a curious mix of private secrecy and public disclosure. It's rather contradictory, but then life is full of contrafictions,....haha i made that mis-spelling accidentally but it FITS. Contradictions or contrafictions? same thing really, at least in this place.

That collision of communities is very American. Perhaps it's democracy in action.


----------



## TraciJo67

LoveBHMS said:


> Yes, right.
> 
> I have a good real life friend from these boards who is a dominant feeder. He loves being called names relating to his weight, loves being teased for being unable to do things because of his size, and loves fantasizing about very extreme weight gain situations. He really loves it, gets off it like crazy. And I'm sorry that some people on this board are not understanding the difference between something done in a sexual context for sexual satisfaction and something done outside of that contact.
> 
> If you were to ask many of the feedees and gainers on this site, I'm sure they'd say there is all the difference in the world between a random stranger calling you a fat pig and a fetish partner where you have love, trust, and a history together calling you a fat pig and asking if you've split any seams on your shirts recently. And neither would I call a random man a fat pig for my own enjoyment or even suppose a BHM likes being fat. I would never even ask a guy who was not a hard core fetishist what he ate on a given day, whereas with my above mentioned friend, he'll text me from a business dinner to regale me with lists of what he's eaten.
> 
> Different. Context.




LoveBHMS, the stories that I'm referring to aren't cozy little intimate nuggets of tenderness between two lovers, hence the examples you've shared above are not, at all, applicable. I've acknowledged that I haven't read any of the stories marked as 'extreme' but I will eat my shoe while kissing your a$$ and begging your pardon if you look through the hodge-podge and CANNOT find a story that's all about humiliating the holy bejeezus out of a fat woman in word and in deed. I may not have read them, but I've seen the topic headings and I've heard more than I ever wanted to hear about what lies in wait for those with stomach enough to read 'em.


----------



## LoveBHMS

Ok but again you're missing the point. 

I'm not talking about tender little nuggets...my friend and I go all out into name calling, humiliation, teasing, ridicule and all the other things you talk about. I'm not referring to affectionate poking of love handles. The difference is simply the fact that we get each others sexuality and connect on a very deep level because of it.

And my point is that he enjoys it, and i'm sure whether or not some people are comfortable with this fact, many female feedee/gainer types enjoy it too. I'm willing to guess that the most disturbing of stories are at some point read by women who fantasize about being the objects of all that humiliation because it turns them on.


----------



## Carrie

The problem with this board, as usual, is all the uppity wimmin-folk, with their voices and their votes and their knee-length pantaloons....


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> And I'm sorry that some people on this board are not understanding the difference between something done in a sexual context for sexual satisfaction and something done outside of that contact.



I think most people get it.

What I think they also get is that no one would go do what gets them off in a sexual context out in a public park, where everyone _has_ to see it.

So people have been proposing that, in order to co-exist, perhaps it's a good idea to put the stuff that not everyone is comfortable witnessing in a virtual space that's less out in the open. 

Or at the least to draw firmer lines between the "bedroom" and the "living room" on Dimensions, by tagging certain content (see joswitch's posts for suggestions for tagging) and by making it clear that fat-hate will not tolerated in the reality of the boards.

This discussion has moved on from the misguided idea that this is about some prudish confusion of sexual fantasy with reality. In fact, what the "SA brigade" has been calling for is stronger boundaries between fantasy and reality, just because when fantasy is allowed to intrude into the daily reality of discussions here, it can cause some real annoyances and hurts to real fat people. We've all heard about the proverbial horndog who just has to ask the woman he just met on the boards whether she plans on eating until she explodes.


----------



## GTAFA

What a whimsical and poetic turn of phrase, for a place where we get none of that whimsy in person. Can't hear dere voices. Can't rightly see dere pantaloons. 

No wonder there's a culture clash underway. Clashing pantaloons? Maybe it's a matter of colour schemes.


----------



## LoveBHMS

> No sense beating around the bush. What we have here are, for the most part, heavy duty weight gain stories. They are not very politically correct and you either love this sort of fiction or you don't. All the stories were found on the web, on bulletin boards or emailed to us. Authors' names were included whenever we could find them (if you know of a story credit that we've missed, please let us know). We'll keep posting new stories as we find/receive them. Make sure to also check out the stories section in our forums. Please note: we will not be accepting stories featuring under-aged protagonists.



The above is the introduction to the "Library" section you'd find not on the forums but if you click on the "Stories" tab on the top of this page. I'm not sure how much more clear it could be that there is or potentially is some material that you may not like.

As far as that proverbial horndog...this is Dimensions. He may send that PM to a hundred women to find one or two who might get super aroused at listing all the things she ate that day or is planning on eating or says she ate but didn't but secretly fantasizes about it. I realize it's annoying but it's the same as getting a wolf whistle going past a construction site or winked at in a bar; it might be wrong but considering the venue it's going to happen.


----------



## RobitusinZ

Hey, can someone do a quick recap of what the heck is getting talked about in this thread so newbs can jump in?

Man, I was gonna be like, "Preference for me! *raises hand*" but it sounds like someone read a bad D/s story and shat out their Cocoa Puffs.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing

Carrie said:


> The problem with this board, as usual, is all the uppity wimmin-folk, with their voices and their votes and their knee-length pantaloons....



As long as you all don't get in the way of me stories with my imaginary ladies, I'm good.


----------



## GTAFA

Fascinita said:


> This discussion has moved on from the misguided idea that this is about some prudish confusion of sexual fantasy with reality. In fact, what the "SA brigade" has been calling for is stronger boundaries between fantasy and reality, just because when fantasy is allowed to intrude into the daily reality of discussions here, it can cause some real annoyances and hurts to real fat people. We've all heard about the proverbial horndog who just has to ask the woman he just met on the boards whether she plans on eating until she explodes.




*Well said!

*I would add, I think the burden of proof should rest with those who venture into new communities. When I visit Iran I surely am out of line if i profane their sacred spaces or laugh at their local customs. Remember when Lucy Riccardo was arrested in Cuba, and told Ricky "they're all foreigners!" When in Rome do as the Romans do. When in doubt about what the Romans do, keep quiet.

Does this mean that there are explicit rules for each place? i don't think so. But it does mean that when in doubt, tread carefully. Posting to Dimensions is a privilege, not a right, and people need to remember that.


----------



## mergirl

Carrie said:


> The problem with this board, as usual, is all the uppity wimmin-folk, with their voices and their votes and their knee-length pantaloons....


If i WAS actually drinking something i would have spat it all over myself.. ha Pantaloons!


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> The above is the introduction to the "Library" section you'd find not on the forums but if you click on the "Stories" tab on the top of this page. I'm not sure how much more clear it could be that there is or potentially is some material that you may not like.



See, for me what's missing from that salvo is precisely a nod to the sensitivity of the issue for the fat "objects of desire" that roam these halls for realz.

If you're going to tell me, "If you don't like it, tough luck, fatty!" it just rings a little different than "We here at Dimensions take Size Acceptance seriously and are against fat-hate and fat-phobia. If you must express fantasies about those, please do it here and make sure the fat-hate and fat-phobia remain contained here."

One is an admonition that the fat people had better get used to the way things are. The other is a pro-active statement on behalf of fat people, even as it allows that some people do enjoy what they enjoy.

Yeah?


----------



## Observer

To answer Stan, the Fine Arts Forum still exists and is part of the Library. It is located here. 

Some of the "art" is great, some is corny, some will be regarded as extreme. As a community member I can freely say and acknowledge that. As a curator my opinions were never an issue. It was my job to simply make it available, not to judge except where contributions violated the same guidelines we use for the paysite board.

This is the same approach that the library has always had. Back in the pre-VB forum days I made a practice ten years ago of publishing my stories on the main board rather than the weight board because I didn't want them associated with the extreme feederism/immobility tales found there. But then the html library was created and we all came together. What I learned was that Conrad wanted all the writers to "just get along" and I assented.

As HereticFA has noted seemingly "anything went" in those days and eventually it had to be reined in. If the merger with Dani's site in 1997 was a factor I can't say - it wasn't until 2000 that I moved all the Pound Perfect Paradise tales into Dimensions. But I can say that none were ever called exploitative, pornographic or pedophilic, even though a number in involved teen age characters. 

Why did I write such stories? Because, as has been noted, those are the formative years and over on AOL hometown teens were half the audience. I wanted to portray younger BBWs positively and young FAs as just normal guys with a preference. I didn't appreciate such tales being lumped together with broad brush accusations of their having been written primarily as wank fodder etc. Nevertheless the rule change decision has been accepted and my stories have been moved to a new home - even as "where did the story of X" questions pop up in other venues. 

That of course is the point. Different authors wrote WR fiction for different purposes. Conrad from the outset said that some stories here would not be regarded as "politically correct" - and its his site, his rules. PPP was much more constrained - but the exposure and traffic was probably 5% of what is here. That's why I, and other writers, came here. 

What we built was a supermarket of stories for different tastes - and just as some think my works are too formula and PC I at times felt theirs were too extreme. But I came to learn that we had various classes of readers as well as writers, and by labeling each story I thought we had reached a happy balance. 

Apparently Valhalla was not as calm as it seemed. I can only say that looking back we did as well as we could with the resources we had.


----------



## LoveBHMS

Fascinita said:


> See, for me what's missing from that salvo is precisely a nod to the sensitivity of the issue for the fat "objects of desire."
> 
> If you're going to tell me, "If you don't like it, tough luck, fatty!" it just rings a little different than "We here at Dimensions take Size Acceptance seriously and are against fat-hate and fat-phobia. If you must express fantasies about those, please do it here and make sure the fat-hate and fat-phobia remain contained here."
> 
> One is an admonition that the fat people had better get used to the way things are. The other is a pro-active statement on behalf of fat people, even as it allows that some people do enjoy what they enjoy.
> 
> Yeah?



I merely reposted what is already written on the Stories page. You said there needs to be a firewall of some sort between "bedroom" and "other places" and to me that statement lets somebody know what they might be in for if they chose to continue reading. It's not expressing hatred or phobia, it's just some individuals having a particular turn-on.

Furthermore, even within that page, the stories are tagged if they contain scat, extreme weight gain, transgeneder situations, or even if they contain slight weight gain or romance so somebody searching for a vanilla Harlequin romance sort of story knows where it's safe to look.


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> You said there needs to be a firewall of some sort between "bedroom" and "other places"



Yes. By making it clear that fantasy that expresses fat-hate and fat-phobia needs to stay _fantasy_ and should not be foisted onto unwilling participants willy-nilly, we'd be building such a "firewall." 

Though it would obviously make it even easier for certain people to navigate the library without having to accidentally be upset by extreme content, that's not the main purpose of the "firewall" as we've been discussing it.

The "firewall" is _not_ to keep fatties out of the places that might offend their "tender natures," as obviously at least some fatties like that kind of fantasy. 

The "firewall" would be to make sure that _all_--including those who view this site as a "fetish site" and don't understand or don't care for the other kinds of activities that go on here--understand that the interests of fat people are taken seriously here and so eventually to foster a kinder climate for _all_ the fats, including those who don't want to participate in fetish or fantasy.


----------



## LoveBHMS

Fascinita said:


> Yes. By making it clear that fantasy that expresses fat-hate and fat-phobia needs to stay _fantasy_ and should not be foisted onto unwilling participants willy-nilly, we'd be building such a "firewall."
> 
> Though it would obviously make it even easier for certain people to navigate the library without having to accidentally be upset by extreme content, that's not the main purpose of the "firewall" as we've been discussing it.
> 
> The "firewall" is _not_ to keep fatties out of the places that might offend their "tender natures," as obviously at least some fatties like that kind of fantasy.
> 
> The "firewall" would be to make sure that _all_--including those who view this site as a "fetish site" and don't understand or don't care for the other kinds of activities that go on here--*understand that the interests of fat people are taken seriously here *and so eventually to foster a kinder climate for _all_ the fats, including those who don't want to participate in fetish or fantasy.



And so are the interests of FAs and fetishists.

Nobody has to participate in anything, but it's not hard to read the tags on the various forums that note they are either for "size acceptance issues" or "erotic weight gain" or "Paysite". It never ceases to amaze me just how many avowed non-fetish posters seem to make a very regular habit of reading the Weight Board and subtly and _just inside the rules_ ridicule certain posts. Or in some cases figure out how to mention things they've read on the Weight Board in other forums just to talk about how disturbing they are.


----------



## Jack Skellington

LoveBHMS said:


> It's not expressing hatred or phobia, it's just some individuals having a particular turn-on.



There's no way to sugar coat it, when fat people are depicted as objects to be abused and reviled, that is the very definition of fat hatred. It is the very antithesis that big is beautiful and fat people deserve to treated with respected and dignity.

A simple disclaimer like something like this 

"We here at Dimensions take Size Acceptance seriously and are against fat-hate and fat-phobia. If you must express fantasies about those, please do it here and make sure the fat-hate and fat-phobia remain contained here."

acknowledges that those types of stories go against size acceptance but still leaves the stories there for people who may enjoy that type of material.


----------



## Observer

Actually scat is one of the things we kept out of the VB collection and very little is found in the html collection.

But the point is well taken - we have Conrad's warning up front, category heading on the forums and summaries at the top of each story. I personally wouldn't care if Conrad chose to further restrict access but I don't think he wants to. When do we stop trying to protect people from their own lack of perceptiveness?


----------



## TraciJo67

Fascinita said:


> See, for me what's missing from that salvo is precisely a nod to the sensitivity of the issue for the fat "objects of desire" that roam these halls for realz.
> 
> If you're going to tell me, "If you don't like it, tough luck, fatty!" it just rings a little different than "We here at Dimensions take Size Acceptance seriously and are against fat-hate and fat-phobia. If you must express fantasies about those, please do it here and make sure the fat-hate and fat-phobia remain contained here."
> 
> One is an admonition that the fat people had better get used to the way things are. The other is a pro-active statement on behalf of fat people, even as it allows that some people do enjoy what they enjoy.
> 
> Yeah?



Yes. This. Thank you - I struggled to express something even remotely as succint.

I just wanted to add:

LoveBHMS,

Perusing some size-acceptance newspiece online and seeing, "Can't you put down the doughnut, you fat pig?" in the comments section, vs. seeing some 'fantasy' story where the "FA" says, "Eat another doughnut, you fat pig" doesn't really seem at all different, to me. What bothers me is, as you said, the context. Why is it acceptable ... here? At a site where our webmaster has said is, in fact, about size acceptance?

Again, if the behaviors and the attitudes stayed in the library, I wouldn't know it. I wouldn't feel provoked by it. Problem is, time and again, I see far more objectification than what is comfortable ... to me (although I do acknowledge that on the message boards, it is rarely extreme ... usually quite a bit more subtle than that). I get that you and I are different people, LoveBHMS. I can acknowledge that your sexuality is OK - to you, and within the confines of the consenting relationships that you have. My sexuality would, in turn, likely bore the buzzing bejeezus out of you. That's OK with me, as well. In either event, wouldn't it be better to contain the really, really provocative stuff -- the humiliation, the degradation, the clueless objectification -- to one place? My druthers: Under lock and frickin' key, but I'd be more than willing to settle for ... in the library. We're both women. Why can't you understand that to some of us, our feelings of being turned off to the point of outraged disgust at being treated/viewed as little more than malleable chunks of flesh to be worked at the bidding of a lusty, profane protagonist are every bit as genuine and real as your acceptance of same?


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> And so are the interests of FAs and fetishists.
> 
> Nobody has to participate in anything, but it's not hard to read the tags on the various forums that note they are either for "size acceptance issues" or "erotic weight gain" or "Paysite". It never ceases to amaze me just how many avowed non-fetish posters seem to make a very regular habit of reading the Weight Board and subtly and _just inside the rules_ ridicule certain posts. Or in some cases figure out how to mention things they've read on the Weight Board in other forums just to talk about how disturbing they are.



Well, how does it protect the interests of FAs and fetishists to say "If you don't like it, tough luck, fatty"?

Whereas to say explicitly "We want the fantasy that goes on here to stay here and not to be foisted unsolicitedly on real fat participants on other parts of the board" does not hurt the interests of fetishists even as it does protect the interests of fat people not into fetish.

I mean, what is it you're afraid of? Of not having the whole of Dimensions as a fantasy playground? I'm not sure I understand what's so offensive to you about drawing a clearer line between fantasy and reality, so long as fantasy still retains a place. 

It sounds to me like you're failing to understand the very real problems of acting as if there really should not be any boundaries between fantasy and reality. If a bunch of fat people asking you to be a little neighborly about your fantasies truly offends you, I guess I can't believe that you do have the best interests of fat people at heart in real terms. 

In truth, I think it's less upsetting than that. I think you're just scared it means that your "right" to enjoy what you enjoy is being challenged. And that couldn't be further from the truth, as far as I'm concerned. For the reasons why, see above.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> And so are the interests of FAs and fetishists.
> 
> Nobody has to participate in anything, but it's not hard to read the tags on the various forums that note they are either for "size acceptance issues" or "erotic weight gain" or "Paysite". It never ceases to amaze me just how many avowed non-fetish posters seem to make a very regular habit of reading the Weight Board and subtly and _just inside the rules_ ridicule certain posts. Or in some cases figure out how to mention things they've read on the Weight Board in other forums just to talk about how disturbing they are.



That's all well and dandy if that was the only way people viewed the boards. I, personally, am confronted daily with even TITLES I find either insulting or fantastically ridiculous just because I use "New Posts" to browse the forums. I don't say anything about every single one of them because I AM aware that they are on here, and always have been. 

What I find annoying about it all is that not only are we expected to just be happy-go-lucky about fat all the time and be super positive, but that we're expected to wear blinders to be able to achieve that on here. 

So what you're saying is that the fat "appreciation" that goes on here is actually going to be less respectful and more demeaning than treatment I get from *NON*-FAs in my own personal reality, say...at the grocery store, because I'm not the type of fat person OR FA that isn't down with humiliation?

Does that seem ridiculous to anyone else, or is it just me?


----------



## Jack Skellington

Observer said:


> When do we stop trying to protect people from their own lack of perceptiveness?



When do people finally grasp it is the context that is found offensive? I have politely and paitently explained *over and over * that context is offensive. 



Jack Skellington said:


> There, and at the risk of repeating my self yet again, is also the context of the stories. It would be cruel to have stories of rape fantasies on sexual abuse support sites. It would be cruel to have castration fantasies on sites for survivors of testicular cancer. And in my opinion, it is cruel to have stories which abuse and dehumanize fat people on a size positive site.



The disclaimer now is basically if you don't like it, too bad. A little sensitively, considering the extreme levels of fat hatred in the stories in question, like change in wording to the disclaimer that Joswitch and Fascinita have been suggesting goes a long way to clearing up the discrepancy of fat hatred contained in the stories with Dim's philosophy of big is beautiful.


----------



## Fascinita

Observer said:


> When do we stop trying to protect people from their own lack of perceptiveness?



If this is how you feel about fat people being offended at running across some fat-hating sentiment on Dimensions, Observer, I might suggest that this needs to be spelled out upfront when people join Dimensions. (Yes, I know I'm talking to you, and that it's "Conrad's house," but I'm addressing your ideology as part of the admins here.)

Why not say to any fat person who's about to join, for example, that "we will not protect you from your own lack of perceptiveness"?

I think the answer's obvious.

And I'm not sure that it helps to think of the real needs of a sector of the population at Dimensions--have you heard at all about the number of people who get approached by strangers with requests for "stats," or about the people who get told they need to gain weight or that their shapes are wrong... all of this unsolicited?--in terms that are so dismissive.


----------



## katorade

Fascinita said:


> Well, how does it protect the interests of FAs and fetishists to say "If you don't like it, tough luck, fatty"?
> 
> Whereas to say explicitly "We want the fantasy that goes on here to stay here and not to be foisted unsolicitedly on real fat participants on other parts of the board" does not hurt the interests of fetishists even as it does protect the interests of fat people not into fetish.
> 
> I mean, what is it you're afraid of? Of not having the whole of Dimensions as a fantasy playground? I'm not sure I understand what's so offensive to you about drawing a clearer line between fantasy and reality, so long as fantasy still retains a place.
> 
> It sounds to me like you're failing to understand the very real problems of acting as if there really should not be any boundaries between fantasy and reality. If a bunch of fat people asking you to be a little neighborly about your fantasies truly offends you, I guess I can't believe that you do have the best interests of fat people at heart in real terms.
> 
> In truth, I think it's less upsetting than that. I think you're just scared it means that your "right" to enjoy what you enjoy is being challenged. And that couldn't be further from the truth, as far as I'm concerned. For the reasons why, see above.



Case in point, the very original topic of this thread, whether or not fat people...that includes the fat people on here for size acceptance...are a FETISH, is posted on the MAIN DISCUSSION BOARD, the MAIN board of the so-called "other" side of the forums. How is that not being confronted??


----------



## Webmaster

Wagimawr said:


> LOLing HARD at this one.



Well, that was the status as of 1997, before Web 2.0.


----------



## LoveBHMS

To the best of my knowlege, any and all Weight Gain fiction is contained in the library. So isn't the site already where you want it?

Any discussion of erotic weight gain is contained not only on the Weight Board but in a protected forum, with a sticky that explains what's on that forum. 

I mean to me it's the difference between whether or not you sell Penthouse at the 7-11 and whether or not it's ok to sell magazines depicting amputee fetishes or other extreme things at an adult bookstore. Once i go to the adult bookstore, i'm opening myself up to the fact I may see things that bother me. I can't go to the clerk and explain that aging is difficult for females in Western Society so can they please not carry MILF related videos or magazines like "Fifty Plus". Once I've made the choice to go to the adult bookstore, i'm doing so with the understanding that they're carrying stuff for audiences beyond me.


----------



## TraciJo67

LoveBHMS said:


> To the best of my knowlege, any and all Weight Gain fiction is contained in the library. So isn't the site already where you want it?
> 
> Any discussion of erotic weight gain is contained not only on the Weight Board but in a protected forum, with a sticky that explains what's on that forum.
> 
> I mean to me it's the difference between whether or not you sell Penthouse at the 7-11 and whether or not it's ok to sell magazines depicting amputee fetishes or other extreme things at an adult bookstore. Once i go to the adult bookstore, i'm opening myself up to the fact I may see things that bother me. I can't go to the clerk and explain that aging is difficult for females in Western Society so can they please not carry MILF related videos or magazines like "Fifty Plus". Once I've made the choice to go to the adult bookstore, i'm doing so with the understanding that they're carrying stuff for audiences beyond me.



I bet that you'd feel differently if you walked into Barnes & Noble and found yourself confronted with hardcore fringe publications, because your expectations would far different. To me, I guess it boils down to expectations. I didn't expect to find fat hatred here. Sanctioned fat hatred, at that. Let's not fool ourselves, please. Much of what is currently in the library is as far from "fat admiration" or the literary expression of "big as beautiful" as it can possibly be. Ok, now I know it's here. Have known, in fact, for quite some time. My expectations had to change, and I have to admit, it's disappointing. Dims could be about so, so much more. There is already so much good here. How could I possibly refer a friend, someone I know who is struggling, perhaps lacking in self-esteem, needing to feel that she's OK _just as she is _, to a place like this?


----------



## LoveBHMS

Yeah but see I don't think anyone who reads or masturbates to those stories hates fat people. It's like saying you *must* hate women if you get off on Bondage and Discipline stories.

I don't think it in any way is relevent to fat hatred or fat phobia if you happen to get off on certain stories. Having a rape fantasy is not really wanting to get raped. While I can see that rape fantasy stories are not going to be linked to, say, NOW's website, I would expect to see them in adult bookstores.

Plenty of fat people are reading and getting off on those stories. Maybe, just maybe fantasizing about being the object of humiliation or degradation is a turn on to some people of various sizes. And the thing is it's not *promoting* that line of thinking because believe me, anyone who's into this stuff came here looking for it, they did not suddenly become sexed up at the thought of being on the business end of a tube feeding.


----------



## Tad

Ive read stories (or more often parts of stories) in the library which seem to show fat hatred. Well actually a spectrum of negative emotions associated with fat. I dont like that, I find them disturbing, I dont like the tone that gives the library, I dont like that they may attract to Dimensions people who enjoy looking at fat that way. I do not like them, Sam-I-Am, even after sampling them.

My issue with saying what should or should not be here is that I know lots of generally reasonable, thoughtful, people on here who would tell me to butt out if I ventured to opine on all sorts of subjects (and believe it or not I do keep my trap shut around a lot of topics). I know, in part, because it has happened around various topics over the years, and the point was generally well made: I dont know what X feels like, so to offer my opinion or prescription for X is presumptuous and condescending. X could be racial discrimination, back pain caused by large breasts, dealing with an alcoholic parent, sexual harassment, or many other topics.

I dont generally find humiliation, coercion, or any sort of forcing someone to do anything to be erotic, appealing, vaguely positive. But I dont know what it is like to have try and cope with having those generally negative emotions as part of ones sexuality. To me it does not look like associating any of those feelings with fat is anything like size acceptance or fat admiration, but Im not the one struggling to reconcile such things in my head. I dont know what it feels like, I dont know how many hours, days, and months of time someone may have put into dealing with the situation. Maybe to someone who does feel that way, it does make sense somehow.

Im pretty dubious about it, but I know how much Dimensions means to me, and Id hate to deny that to someone else simply _because I dont understand what it is like_.


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> Yeah but see I don't think anyone who reads or masturbates to those stories hates fat people. It's like saying you *must* hate women if you get off on Bondage and Discipline stories.
> 
> I don't think it in any way is relevent to fat hatred or fat phobia if you happen to get off on certain stories. Having a rape fantasy is not really wanting to get raped. While I can see that rape fantasy stories are not going to be linked to, say, NOW's website, I would expect to see them in adult bookstores.
> 
> Plenty of fat people are reading and getting off on those stories. Maybe, just maybe fantasizing about being the object of humiliation or degradation is a turn on to some people of various sizes. And the thing is it's not *promoting* that line of thinking because believe me, anyone who's into this stuff came here looking for it, they did not suddenly become sexed up at the thought of being on the business end of a tube feeding.




Again, we've already covered this ground--about supposed "prudes" (I don't think you've used this word, but it's one that comes up a lot) not wanting to see that there's a difference between reality and fantasy--earlier in this thread.

What's at stake is not that people find fantasies offensive (some do and some don't), but that _in a climate where fat people are actively expected to deal tacitly with the open existence of those fantasies_--a climate that privileges freedom of fantasy without the balance of real concerns--the fantasies can tend to have a real impact on real fat people here to interact with the community at large and not necessarily to enjoy a fat fetish.

To discourage the idea that some of the fantasy readers (and others) bring here about their image of Dimensions as a "fetish site" where fetish rules and fat people are expected to comply and be silent, this site could take a pro-active stance against negative ideas of fat being expressed openly on the public areas of this site not devoted to fantasy, and so begin to create a climate that was more constructive for actual fat people. 

People aren't allowed to be called "fat pigs" in the open at Dimensions, but there sure are a lot of creepy behaviors that seem to depart from an assumption that _all_ fat people are here to be fetishized and that we all enjoy being treated like easily accessible objects of lust in our every interaction. By making it clear _pro-actively_ that Dimensions has the interests of its _real_ fat participants at heart--and not only the interests of fantasists--this site could go a long way in making it a friendlier place for fatties.

The other thing that tagging the content better might accomplish is that fewer people who did want to enjoy some of the library's resources would have to fear feeling upset when they open the wrong story by accident. The library itself contains stories of all ilks, not just fat fetish stories. I'm not sure I see why everyone should have to go in there prepared to run into the most extreme graphic stuff, when all they want is to enjoy some fat-positive erotica. So really, I can see some better tagging and segregating measures ending up for the better where ALL (not just fetishists) are concerned in the library.


----------



## LoveBHMS

> *People aren't allowed to be called "fat pigs" in the open at Dimensions,* but there sure are a lot of creepy behaviors that seem to depart from an assumption that all fat people are here to be fetishized and that we all enjoy being treated like easily accessible objects of lust in our every interaction. By making it clear that Dimensions has the interests of fat people at heart--and not only the interests of fantasists--this site could go a long way in making it a friendlier place for fatties.



No, but there are some people who enjoy it...even ask for it. I don't imagine for a second that all fat guys enjoy the name calling and teasing that my partners ask for and even encourage. The fact that I come here and read fictional accounts about men gaining weight or being really fat does not translate to how i treat fat men in real life. So in summation:

1. Some men get super turned on at being called a fat pig.

2. Some of those men post here. I've met 2 in real life and had personal encounters with them that a lot of people would find weird or gross or just downright.

3. I dont' make any even semi logical leap from the fact that a very very very small subsection of Dims are straight males who get off on being fed and name called and the idea that all fat people should be mistreated. Those two concepts are in no way connected.


----------



## Fascinita

Tad said:


> I’d hate to deny that to someone else simply _because I don’t understand what it is like_.



We haven't been talking about denying access to Dimensions to anyone simply because we don't understand their fantasies. At least I haven't been.

The way I see it, we've been talkin--at least as of the last ten pages or so--about drawing a firmer line between fantasy and reality, if we are to co-exist, so that some people don't get told "deal with it," while others are free to then view and behave at Dimensions as though it were exclusively a "fetish site" where the "pervy" has more right to be here than the non-"pervy". 

Exactly that claim has been by several "fetishists" in this thread. And the mere existence of this thread on the MB is offensive to some people who clearly don't enjoy being talked and debated about as "fetishes" and having that point argued to their face, even when they are vocally against it. 

There is a blurring of fantasy and reality that occurs when people don't think they have to be respectful of the voices of others and simply come to expect, even demand, that those others must acquiesce because the needs for unchecked expression of fantasy supersede those of real people. The way I see it, your fantasy's fine and dandy, as long as it doesn't creep into and start to dictate my reality.


----------



## LoveBHMS

And to go back to my bookstore example. Let's say I go to the bookstore because I want to find a magnificant coffee table book on horseracing. I want beautiful pictures of rolling hills in Kentucky, cute pictures of mares and foals and full color shots of the winners' circles at the Breeders Cup.

So I go to the store. I find the Sports Section and I go to the shelf labeled horse racing. I can get a pretty good idea from looking at pictures and jackets and titles where I'm going to find what i'm looking for. Now if I come upon a book titled "Behind the Scenes: What Really Happens in the Jockey World" I should hazard a guess that it's not full of pictures of Big Brown with a bed of roses on his neck. If i pick up the book and see chapter titles like "Barfing and Blow--How We Make Weight" or "What it's like to break your ribs" I should further guess that i'm not looking at a book that's going to show the splendid side of racing. If I keep reading and get angered at tales of mistreatment of horses or upset that unscrupulous agents get cocaine for their clients to help them stay thin, I can't THEN go to the store manager and complain that I came in to find a NICE book about racing and why does their store not cater to racing fans? After all...the sign says "Sports Section" and here I am shopping for a nice book about sports.

The fact is, the store does cater to me. There are likely plenty of the type of book I want. But it also caters to others and to whom a search for books about the world of horse racing might mean something altogether different.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> And to go back to my bookstore example. Let's say I go to the bookstore because I want to find a magnificant coffee table book on horseracing. I want beautiful pictures of rolling hills in Kentucky, cute pictures of mares and foals and full color shots of the winners' circles at the Breeders Cup.
> 
> So I go to the store. I find the Sports Section and I go to the shelf labeled horse racing. I can get a pretty good idea from looking at pictures and jackets and titles where I'm going to find what i'm looking for. Now if I come upon a book titled "Behind the Scenes: What Really Happens in the Jockey World" I should hazard a guess that it's not full of pictures of Big Brown with a bed of roses on his neck. If i pick up the book and see chapter titles like "Barfing and Blow--How We Make Weight" or "What it's like to break your ribs" I should further guess that i'm not looking at a book that's going to show the splendid side of racing. If I keep reading and get angered at tales of mistreatment of horses or upset that unscrupulous agents get cocaine for their clients to help them stay thin, I can't THEN go to the store manager and complain that I came in to find a NICE book about racing and why does their store not cater to racing fans? After all...the sign says "Sports Section" and here I am shopping for a nice book about sports.
> 
> The fact is, the store does cater to me. There are likely plenty of the type of book I want. But it also caters to others and to whom a search for books about the world of horse racing might mean something altogether different.



And yet, when you do happen across it, and you get angry, you don't want to go out and do something about what you just found objectionable? Regardless of the fact that it's been done that way for years and nobody's complained _yet_?


----------



## joswitch

mollycoddles said:


> YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG!



I'm so sorry! *sobs*


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> 3. I dont' make any even semi logical leap from the fact that a very very very small subsection of Dims are straight males who get off on being fed and name called and the idea that all fat people should be mistreated. Those two concepts are in no way connected.



Well, that's you. But if you check this thread and the "Hotel New Orleans" thread (they are lengthy, but we can't have this discussion unless you familiarize yourself with what's been said, because I don't have the time to keep rehashing this), you'll see that a number of vocal writers and readers have made very loud noises about Dimensions being a "fetish site" where the non-fetish content is "unimportant" and that they should therefore have free reign to write and read what they want, as they want, when they want.

I think this is not a case of fetishists wanting to preserve the "right" to have their stories here, but of so much freedom having been allotted to fantasy, that we've lost touch with reality. Drawing boundaries isn't such a bad thing, you know? In the rush not to censor fantasy, do we have to give run of everything to fantasy? I think we're all better served if we make it clear that we allow fantasy, but that reality is valued, too.


----------



## joswitch

katorade said:


> Of course I think picking off trolls is necessary, but I'm talking about quelling the voices of *fat people that actually take exception to their own circumstances.* I don't think that just because someone finds that WLS is right for them, that they immediately think it's the answer for everyone. In fact, in actually discussing it with those people, I KNOW that's not what they think. The same goes for a lot of "anti-fat" discussion that is so seemingly evil.



Yes, I see what you're getting at. I disagree. Because sites dedicated to "changing fat people's own circumstances" as you put it, which from the context of your post I take to mean "seek to make fat people thinner" are not thin on the ground (pun intended). They are legion! Lo! they stand rank on serried rank! 

E.g.s I ran a couple of google searches:
Results 1 - 10 of about *1,310,000* for I am thinking of weight loss surgery. (0.33 seconds) 
Results 1 - 10 of about *1,720,000* for I am unhappy being fat. (0.34 seconds) 
Results 1 - 10 of about* 27,000,000* for I want to be thin. (0.09 seconds) 

This is the tsunami of thin-orientation that's rolling around out there on the interwebz that sites like DIMS only avoid drowning under by heavy fat-positive censorship. Let's imagine that only one tenth of one percent (0.1%) of folks who "want to be thin" turned up here to post their p.ov. - either under their own steam or as schills for diets/pills/WLS - that's probably going to be in the TENS of THOUSANDS. Fat positivity / size acceptance voices would be utterly lost in the resulting crescendo.

So, yeah, when it comes down to it I vote for - as Mergirl puts it - "Happy, happy la-la land" (at least to an extent) because it needs to exist somewhere, if the still nascent ideas of fat positivity / size acceptance (no, they are not exactly the same, although there is an overlap) are ever to flourish.

So I disagree with you on this point.
But to re-iterate, I support your and other folks complaint that maybe DIMS isn't living up to it's "Happy Happy La-La Land" mission statement by uncritically hosting stories here which feature abuse / violence at their core. So I still vote for the change of subtitling. To draw a line between fantasy and reality. To re-iterate that DIMS is AGAINST RL abuse of fat folks. To show some sensitivity.

I do understand that this will probably not make anyone really happy. But maybe it'll help most people a bit?


----------



## joswitch

Webmaster said:


> That is a fairly accurate representation. I will have to say, however, that Dani's original site was hardly only BBW-centric. In many respects, Dani's content was considerably more extreme than what I put onto Dimensions. Still, Dani's contributions were manifold and her sudden disappearance certainly was a big loss. For a blast from the past, check the original merger announcement.



Folks kept asking for Conrad's "mission statement" and there it is - straight out of that link:

_"So this is our plan: we want *Dimensions Online to be the biggest and best website for BBWs and their admirers, period. No matter what aspect of size acceptance appeals to you, we'll offer it. We'll continue to offer news, articles, hot stories and fiction, pictures, special features, morphs, fashion, bulletin boards, chat rooms, and lots more.* And we have experts such as fashion editor Sandie Sabo, master story teller Wilson Barbers, and size acceptance researchers/experts such as Karl Niedershuh. One thing you won't find here is whining and backstabbing, and we'll never (ab)use this site to launch yet another new splinter group.... ;-)"_


----------



## joswitch

fa_man_stan said:


> You know what I always wonder K... At what point does freedom of fantasy become pursuit of perversion?



Nice alliteration, Stan!
But
Nothing wrong with "pursuit of perversion" Stan, between mutually consenting adults. It takes all sorts to make a world. Hell, I shan't post some of *my* more visceral reactions to what most people consider to be "normal" lifestyles! 
But again,
Yes, perhaps perversions could take more of a back seat on the site (see my posts upthread)
And no - being FA - is not a "perversion".


----------



## LoveBHMS

Fascinita said:


> Well, that's you. But if you check this thread and the "Hotel New Orleans" thread (they are lengthy, but we can't have this discussion unless you familiarize yourself with what's been said, because I don't have the time to keep rehashing this), you'll see that a number of vocal writers and readers have made very loud noises about Dimensions being a "fetish site" where the non-fetish content is "unimportant" and that they should therefore have free reign to write and read what they want, as they want, when they want.
> 
> I think this is not a case of fetishists wanting to preserve the "right" to have their stories here, but of so much freedom having been allotted to fantasy, that we've lost touch with reality. Drawing boundaries isn't such a bad thing, you know? In the rush not to censor fantasy, do we have to give run of everything to fantasy? I think we're all better served if we make it clear that we allow fantasy, but that reality is valued, too.



I just happen to think the boundaries are already there. I mean was the posted disclaimer at the top page of the libary not enough? This is an adult site....that fact right there imparts a certain sense that there is some content that is generally agreed should be limited to adults only. The library thread is clearly marked, as are the individual threads *within* the library. 

I'm just not sure what extra firewall or layer of protection you're looking for. The Weight Board is seperate, the Paysite Board is seperate. Every forum has a sticky that directs a web surfer to read and understand the rules of that forum. I mean it seems like you're basically angry that there is some content on here that some fat people might find objectionable. Well that's true of most venues, particularly restricted ones.

I could make the argument that the presence of the Food Board is more offensive than anything else. I mean does it not just lay truth to the cliche that all fat people care about is eating? What if a troll happened upon here and said "OMG, those fatties even have a whole forum devoted to FOOD and they post pictures of what they ate that night." Why should we assume that fat people care so much about food that food needs a devoted forum?


----------



## joswitch

LoveBHMS said:


> Yes, right.
> 
> I have a good real life friend from these boards who is a dominant feeder. He loves being called names relating to his weight, loves being teased for being unable to do things because of his size, and loves fantasizing about very extreme weight gain situations. He really loves it, gets off it like crazy. And I'm sorry that some people on this board are not understanding the difference between something done in a sexual context for sexual satisfaction and something done outside of that contact.
> 
> If you were to ask many of the feedees and gainers on this site, I'm sure they'd say there is all the difference in the world between a random stranger calling you a fat pig and a fetish partner where you have love, trust, and a history together calling you a fat pig and asking if you've split any seams on your shirts recently. And neither would I call a random man a fat pig for my own enjoyment or even suppose a BHM likes being fat. I would never even ask a guy who was not a hard core fetishist what he ate on a given day, whereas with my above mentioned friend, he'll text me from a business dinner to regale me with lists of what he's eaten.
> 
> Different. Context.



Ding! Ding!
Exactly - and what me (and Fascinita I think) are arguing for is a clearer line drawn between the different contexts existing on the sites. With clear statements of the RL "policy" that DIMS is trying to promote, besides the "hey this is fantasy, in here"...


----------



## joswitch

Carrie said:


> The problem with this board, as usual, is all the uppity wimmin-folk, with their voices and their votes and their knee-length pantaloons....



I likes uppity wimmins! (not so much the pantaloons tho'!)


----------



## katorade

joswitch said:


> Yes, I see what you're getting at. I disagree. Because sites dedicated to "changing fat people's own circumstances" as you put it, *which from the context of your post I take to mean "seek to make fat people thinner"* are not thin on the ground (pun intended). They are legion! Lo! they stand rank on serried rank!



No, Jo. That's not what I meant at all.


----------



## joswitch

Fascinita said:


> See, for me what's missing from that salvo is precisely a nod to the sensitivity of the issue for the fat "objects of desire" that roam these halls for realz.
> 
> If you're going to tell me, "If you don't like it, tough luck, fatty!" it just rings a little different than "*We here at Dimensions take Size Acceptance seriously and are against fat-hate and fat-phobia. If you must express fantasies about those, please do it here and make sure the fat-hate and fat-phobia remain contained here*."
> 
> One is an admonition that the fat people had better get used to the way things are. *The other is a pro-active statement on behalf of fat people, even as it allows that some people do enjoy what they enjoy.*
> 
> Yeah?



Yay! we agree! *does a happy dance* *hugsu* We should start a club!


----------



## saucywench

fa_man_stan said:


> You know what I always wonder K... At what point does freedom of fantasy become pursuit of perversion?


How about...

When you cause REAL harm to REAL people?

When you damage the psyche and willingly and intentionally shorten the lifespan of those you profess to love? When that's what REALLY gets you off.

When your fantasies (read: reality) dictate every aspect of your life?

When you procure another to fatten up and brainwash even before you can dispose of the existing one(s)?

When you're in deep, deep denial of all of the above, and more. I'd say that qualifies.


----------



## Jack Skellington

LoveBHMS said:


> I just happen to think the boundaries are already there.



The disclaimer in the story section obviously isn't sufficient. There isn't a clear boundary in the discrepancy of Dim's big is beautiful mantra with the fat hatred contained in the stories in question. The boundary is also not there if someone is exposed to the stories, whether they want to or not, just by using the forum's new threads function. If someone doesn't want to be exposed to stories of fat hatred and does not go into the story section and yet is still exposed to the content just by using something like the new threads function, again * the boundary is clearly not there*.


----------



## mollycoddles

People keep asking about the site's mission statement for good reason. Some of the BBWs see this as a "safe haven" for larger people, a place where they can come and congregate and be free of the sort of harassment and objectification that they may be subject to elsewhere on the web; if that's what the site is meant for, then the presence of said pornography here is in direct contradiction of the site's stated purpose. The pro-pornography faction sees this as first and foremost an adult site, dedicated to all aspects of sexual gratification based on size; thus, to them, disturbing or dark pornography is par for the course and something that well has a place on this site.

Right now, as many people in this thread have noted, the site is kind of an uncomfortable alliance between our two groups and it isn't clear exactly who's in the right.

From that mission statement and from Conrad's own statements in this thread, it seems clear that this site really is intended to cater to both groups. (I think people on both sides have claimed to be the "original" purpose for the site and accused the other side of being johnny-come-latelys.) This means...well, I don't know what it means now. For one thing, neither side has the right to claim "firsties" and kick the other out (although, before anyone gets on me for that, I don't think anyone was actually seriously advocating that). I guess Conrad really does hope that we can co-exist peacefully.

But to do that, we do need to compromise. I think a lot of FAs here are bristling at the idea of labeling or removing porn because it's been implied several times in this thread, although probably not outright stated, that folks who enjoy darker fantasies are monsters in real life. So we're feeling a little miffed about that and probably getting too defensive. But FAs also need to recognize that a lot of these darker fantasies are not just offensive but apparently actually threatening to some BBWs. Although I'm not a BBW, as a woman, I can appreciate how sickening it is to be confronted with something like that in a place where you believed you would be free from such material. It's BBWs should recognize that FAs have been posting that sort of porn in the past because they don't recognize this site as a "safe haven" in the same way that you do. We've been seeing it as primarily an adult site, so I think many of us are just confused at the objections and feel as if they're being blamed for doing something that they were told was entirely appropriate for Dimensions. 

I think it's in our mutual interest to make this a site where no one feels like they're unwelcome.Ultimately, it sounds like several BBWs have suggested that simply labeling darker stories in a way that makes it explicitly clear that this site doesn't endorse or condone the sort of behavior depicted in real life would be sufficient. I don't think that any FA should have any objection to that small concession, and anyone crying censorship at that should really stop to think about what it means. 

Also, please, fellow FAs, don't cry about how your rights are being infringed by porn being censored. The truth is that there are plenty of other sites that host the exact same material, and we could easily migrate over to any of them without losing a beat. No one is telling us that we shouldn't have our porn. The question is just whether we should have it HERE.


----------



## LillyBBBW

I disagree. When people are uncomfortable with something I don't think mission statements and other such things are going to make it any better. People will still find reasons to complain and find fault just like the other 30 or so times this issue has been brought up on the boards. The debate goes on and on despite some very stationary facts that are plain to the naked eye. This site is nearly 5 years old and the porn, photos, paysite, stories, gainers, cartoons, gifs, slapstick or whatever else is found objectionable here is not going to be curtailed. Five years from now this will continue to be a safe haven for those things and the people who enjoy them. After all this time it should be plainly evident and it has even been stated, how many other ways does it need to be described before people will finally settle down and see it for what it is? It's not going to change anyone's feelings or comfort level no matter how often it's spelled out. We can all find things here we don't like but this place is made up of the people who exist here, all of them. It means you have to sit down next to porn addicts, church goers, mouth breathers, stay at home moms, furries, social commentators, people who like flickering cheap art or whoever else finds a reason to stick around.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

GTAFA said:


> Dimensions is such a broad community (excuse the unintentional puns), that you get an entirely different community reading stories than in this kind of interactive forum. The skillset to engage in conversation here is somewhat different, and the things that irritate people --or what's understood as politically correct for that specific milieu-- are very different in each place. When one steps across the frontier from one forum into another, one isn't just engaging different topics, but different populations with different ideas of what's tolerable.
> 
> One of the intriguing things about this forum is the way identity gets negotiated. Some of us are completely anonymous, others are splendidly public in their identification. When fantasies are brought forward, some are reticent about who they are, as they spill their dreams out for all to see, a curious mix of private secrecy and public disclosure. It's rather contradictory, but then life is full of contrafictions,....haha i made that mis-spelling accidentally but it FITS. Contradictions or contrafictions? same thing really, at least in this place.
> 
> That collision of communities is very American. Perhaps it's democracy in action.


You have to forgive me.....I just have no clue what that has to do what the part of my post that you quoted. :blink:



BothGunsBlazing said:


> As long as you all don't get in the way of me stories with my imaginary ladies, I'm good.



Just make sure they are ladies and not children and everything will be dandy  



LillyBBBW said:


> I disagree. When people are uncomfortable with something I don't think mission statements and other such things are going to make it any better. People will still find reasons to complain and find fault just like the other 30 or so times this issue has been brought up on the boards. The debate goes on and on despite some very stationary facts that are plain to the naked eye. This site is nearly 5 years old and the porn, photos, paysite, stories, gainers, cartoons, gifs, slapstick or whatever else is found objectionable here is not going to be curtailed. Five years from now this will continue to be a safe haven for those things and the people who enjoy them. After all this time it should be plainly evident and it has even been stated, how many other ways does it need to be described before people will finally settle down and see it for what it is? It's not going to change anyone's feelings or comfort level no matter how often it's spelled out. We can all find things here we don't like but this place is made up of the people who exist here, all of them. It means you have to sit down next to porn addicts, church goers, mouth breathers, stay at home moms, furries, social commentators, people who like flickering cheap art or whoever else finds a reason to stick around.



"He's Just Not That Into You" .....Dimensions style


----------



## HereticFA

Tad said:


> HereticFA said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your right to have a fantasy about an "FA free" Dimensions website. It's not your right to work towards that goal via small, incremental changes.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I cannot see how it would not be their right?
> 
> You don't have to like it, the powers that be don't have to accept it, but why on earth should they not have the right to try and do that?
> 
> ETA: of course, you have equal right to try and resist those changes.....but please not by trying to shut down and silence those who you don't agree with.
Click to expand...

I fully disagree with your view on the basis it is discriminatory, akin to all other types of discrimination. You just validated every bigot that ever lived and ever will live.

Many, if not most FAs found the 'fetish' label offensive. The effort to delabel FAism as a fetish started long ago (including establishing a Usenet FA newsgroup outside of the 'fetish' related heirarchy) and here we are again over a decade later and it's returned. People with an agenda label FAs as fetishists to separate and culturally isolate us from themselves. If words have power they also illustrate an ongoing agenda.

There is an active process of trying to shut down opposing viewpoints by the eight to twelve usual suspects here. But for some strange reason I'm not supposed to do the same? Can you explain the balance in that?


----------



## GTAFA

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> You have to forgive me.....I just have no clue what that has to do what the part of my post that you quoted. :blink:



Hopefully this clarification will be helpful. You said "Indeed
Lots of those stories in the library don't really involve how a real women would think.....just how they should serve some purpose/desire. [snip...]
I like it when the fetishists stick to the library myself......."

Your agenda as you read & interact is different from that of the readers of those stories. I make no judgments, just point out a kind of cultural divide. You post messages here expecting a reply. The stories speak to people, but aren't actively seeking conversation. Stories and the values they stand for are entirely abstract. It's fascinating that you point out how real women aren't like the story women. Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but you're figuratively from Venus, and these guys are from Mars, and no wonder there's a disconnect.


----------



## Jack Skellington

LillyBBBW said:


> People will still find reasons to complain



And I think that is a positive thing. 

It shows people really do care for the site and the community here. If people don't complain things can't change or improve. Sometimes they would be right and sometimes they will be wrong. But bringing up an issue they care about shows to me, again, they care about the site and the community here. 

These complaints can also bring about real positive change and improvements. Like the addition of the SSBBW health forum and the GLBT one, for examples. Not to mention, if Mossy had not complained there would still be underage stories here and let's not sugar coat it, when people as young as 12 are mentioned it crosses from merely underage to pedophilia.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

Why don't we start with quoting my WHOLE post instead of twice mashing snippets together if we are analyzing it  



Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Indeed
> 
> Getting it and giving a shit are two distinctly different things.
> 
> 
> 
> I always find it amusing when some males pretend to be women here so they can "teach" or show the real women how we SHOULD behave....
> 
> Lots of those stories in the library don't really involve how a real women would think.....just how they should serve some purpose/desire.
> 
> Funny, I write stories and like to "engage" my male/female characters in dialogue/thought processes that revolve around each other's desires and impressions.
> Some of the male authors I have read here apparently don't view a woman's thoughts or impressions as a part of the sexual experience. If the body or act itself is all that matters to them, perhaps THEY are fetishists.
> The guys on here that actually engage with the real women, reading their thoughts......I tend to think they might be something more.
> 
> *This is the whole paragraph....it was all part of one train of thought. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like it when the fetishists stick to the library myself.......
> 
> *This part was about a poster in particular.....as you can see from the quotes of other posters that were in my original post. *
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know about Stan but I have read way more than I care to. Are you off on some crusade to defend "art" again? Acting offended that people don't read all the stories? How soon to you switch again to being angry at those that actually read some but just don't like them?
> 
> Can't get your cake and eat it, too. No matter how hard you stomp your foot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This. I regret my time helping to edit.....even though I console myself by the thought of how much ugliness I did manage to shear out of some of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent question
> 
> 
> 
> Lol, he gets mad when people don't read it either. He seems to enjoy being angry.
> 
> Please....let him go back to the library.......








That was my original point......that if some male authors don't understand the working of the female mind or sexuality....and hence, how can their portrayals be accurate if they don't even bother to at least speculate on such a thing? Why should this be accepted as a representation of a real woman? 

Are you saying that all men see woman as objects during sex? I disagree. 

Oh yeah....it's just all fantasy again. No need to make anything realistic. 
I always found it amusing whenever Observer would tell me to make some of those stories I was editing "realistic". In my mind, that meant deleting it. 





GTAFA said:


> Hopefully this clarification will be helpful. You said "Indeed
> Lots of those stories in the library don't really involve how a real women would think.....just how they should serve some purpose/desire. [snip...]
> I like it when the fetishists stick to the library myself......."
> 
> Your agenda as you read & interact is different from that of the readers of those stories. I make no judgments, just point out a kind of cultural divide. You post messages here expecting a reply. The stories speak to people, but aren't actively seeking conversation. Stories and the values they stand for are entirely abstract. It's fascinating that you point out how real women aren't like the story women. Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but you're figuratively from Venus, and these guys are from Mars, and no wonder there's a disconnect.


----------



## stan_der_man

Ok... I get the idea that this is Conrad's website. He can do with it what he pleases. He is also "The Decider" (as Dubya once so eloquently phrased it...) and that it is within Conrad's prerogative to highlight the type of "literature" he enjoys reading. I also get the idea that what my be "morally objectionable" to one person isn't necessarily objectionable to another. Personally, I also believe in the notion "to each their own" so I don't necessarily have a problem with the stories themselves. I also get the idea that not all of these writings are necessarily wank fodder. No doubt there are those who print out these stories, cozy up in their arm chair by the fire place with pipe in hand, a warm little puppy curled up on their laps, and spend many enjoyable evenings reading these stories. Perhaps sometime in the near future because of the efforts of Conrad, "Observer" and other like-minded individuals who promote such writings, there will be those who collect hard bound volumes of this type of "literature" and place these books lovingly into mahogany cabinets and create their own personal collections for generations to enjoy. But what I don't get is this... Conrad and "Observer" strike me as being relatively intelligent people. I'm sure they are well aware that (as this thread and many others have highlighted...) many people here in Dimensions are offended and disgusted by a good portion of these stories. Dare I say, the majority of people here are offended and disgusted by many of these stories. (Don't make me do another poll... I will...  )

My question is this: Whatever happened to the notion of discretion? You know, the concept of displaying something like "The Library" in a discrete manner because many find it's contents to be offensive? I'm talking about creating one link for "The Library" and having the more descriptive sub-directories one level down, so the contents of "The Library" aren't displayed in such an obtrusive manner on the front page of the forums. Is this such an unreasonable notion knowing that a good portion of the people who frequent the forums find the contents of "The Library" offensive? Even from a web designing perspective, the subcategories of "The Library" are disproportionately represented on the front page of the forums. There are 13 links for "The Library", a forum which only has an approximate total of 5000 hits, where there is only one link for "The Paysite", or "The Lounge" each of which has hundreds of thousands of hits. "The Lounge" which has nearly half a million hits would certainly be a board worthy of more subcategories... a "games" category perhaps...? Who knows... Maybe being a bit more discrete in how "The Library" is presented will help "the two communities" coexist? (paraphrasing an above statement on the groups for and against the contents of "The Library"...)

Just a thought...



And BTW... For those who base their point of debate on the amount of stories that I or other critics have have read... I've read enough stories to be fully aware of what is in "The Library"... I commend your attempts at upping the readership numbers of "The Library"...


----------



## joswitch

Tad said:


> I
> 
> I dont generally find humiliation, coercion, or any sort of forcing someone to do anything to be erotic, appealing, vaguely positive. But I dont know what it is like to have try and cope with having those generally negative emotions as part of ones sexuality. To me it does not look like associating any of those feelings with fat is anything like size acceptance or fat admiration, but Im not the one struggling to reconcile such things in my head. I dont know what it feels like, I dont know how many hours, days, and months of time someone may have put into dealing with the situation. Maybe to someone who does feel that way, it does make sense somehow.
> 
> Im pretty dubious about it, but I know how much Dimensions means to me, and Id hate to deny that to someone else simply _because I dont understand what it is like_.



Kinks* very rarely make "sense". *Sometimes* though, they can be your subconcious' way of making you safe in the face of past negative experience. It's harder for that to persist as a damaging memory if it... kinda gets you off...:blush:

*I don't consider FA to be a "kink".


----------



## James

Fascinita said:


> A human being is never a fetish. A fetish is an _object_ without which it's not possible to feel sexually aroused or gratified. Fat is a quality of human beings, sometimes present in accumulations on certain parts of the body. No one can rightly separate the fat from the human without some trick of the imagination, some fetishization. But fat _people_ of themselves are never fetishes, and neither is an attraction to fat _people_ fetishistic.
> 
> If you have a preference for certain shapes or colors or heights or whatever in human beings--if those are the qualities you're attracted to in a human being--then you have a _preference_.
> 
> If your attraction is to fat legs alone, or to fat bellies, or to rolls, or to bony ribs that poke you when you hug a person, or whatever, then you're _fetishizing_ parts of human bodies--that is, treating parts of bodies as fetish objects.
> 
> So unless you're in the group of people who separate parts or qualities of bodies from whole human beings, singling out a part or quality as the _exclusive_ locus of your attraction without regard for the person as person, you don't have a fetish.
> 
> No one who says it's inherently "kinky" (as in sexual kink) to be attracted to fat people is speaking lucidly. What they mean is that they're aware it's not socially acceptable to like fat people, and that they've formed a taboo about fatness, maybe that they feel secretive about liking fat, or that they enjoy fat's current subversive "nature". That's not the same thing as having a fat fetish, unless they enjoy their taboo so intensely that they eventually begin to fetishize fat as an object of desire.
> 
> Repeat: Fat people are not fetishes. Only objects--or aspects, or parts of bodies treated as objects--can be fetishes. There are many fat people here who are not here to be treated as objects, who bring their own desires regardless of the desires of fetishists. This site may address aspects of fetish, but the participation and agency of whole, living human beings who happen to be fat--people who belong here as much as any fetishist--makes this site much more than a "fetish site."
> 
> Thank you for not reducing me to my fat bits. I am more than wallpaper.



Very wise stuff indeed! I'd like to add my agreement to the list (and I've got to 'spread rep around' first too...)

What do you think about the notion of attraction to fat people being an 'orientation'? I tend to use that term as a description when questioned about my sexual turn ons. 'Orientation', as a word, is traditionally associated with gender sexuality but for many FAs, I think its applicable as they would be no more sexually attracted to a thin body than they would a member of the same/opposite gender (if straight or gay respectively).


----------



## katorade

James said:


> Very wise stuff indeed! I'd like to add my agreement to the list (and I've got to 'spread rep around' first too...)
> 
> What do you think about the notion of attraction to fat people being an 'orientation'? I tend to use that term as a description when questioned about my sexual turn ons. 'Orientation', as a word, is traditionally associated with gender sexuality but for many FAs, I think its applicable as they would be no more sexually attracted to a thin body than they would a member of the same/opposite gender (if straight or gay respectively).



My biggest issue with calling it an orientation is that it doesn't include people that may not necessarily just be attracted to fat people. I know of more than a few people here that fit that description.


----------



## James

katorade said:


> My biggest issue with calling it an orientation is that it doesn't include people that may not necessarily just be attracted to fat people. I know of more than a few people here that fit that description.



Right... yes.

So it might be considered along a continuum from Orientation, to preference, to tolerance... but a calling it a fetish is incorrect. I think that gradation makes sense.


----------



## Observer

> if Mossy had not complained there would still be underage stories here and let's not sugar coat it, when people as young as 12 are mentioned it crosses from merely underage to pedophilia.



No one will deny Mossy the credit for having started all this. It was her method - a broad brush attack thread in the Lounge rather than using the "report" function that dismayed some. And she could have cited what she was referring to more clearly - an overlooked reference that was buried in one sentence of the fourth chapter of one story. The fourteen year old age reference (not 12 btw) was changed immediately once found. No one has argued that it should be otherwise.

The "underage" vs "pedophilia" matter is another thing. Pedophilia is sexual involvement by someone over 18 with partner more than five years his/her junior who is under 18. To the best of my knowledge there has never been such a story here; we have rejected several teacher/student seduction plot lines that were submitted. 

The "underage" stories that have been deleted primarily involve teenagers, primarily high schoolers, interacting on a non-sexual level with other teen agers in what I have called "high school soap operas." The plot lines could (and sometimes were) lifted from any number of situation comedies on television. Mollycoddles and her associated writers were probably the most prolific in this genre. However Matt L, myself and others had some as well. 

So why was the change made? The argument was presented, and ultimately prevailed, was that even having references to the appearance of someone in terms of their weight and or size in the context of a site such as Dimensions is innately sexualizing and that this is not right for <18 protagonists. Pedophilia, and for that matter pornography, was not even the contention.

The fact, as HereticFA and others have noted. is that the collection in 2009 represents fifteen years of contributions of stories written in various styles for different sub-genres. Not until 2002 was age even considered and in 2006 we codified a nuanced approach that served us well until the recent firestorm. But we really haven't lost half the collection as some seem to feel. We have lost perhaps 10% - and even those tales are available elsewhere.

The protagonist abuse (size acceptance vs freedom of fantasy) is another but totally different matter. Conrad has endured so much grief over the years defending the extremes of the latter that I have to give him credit for defending his convictions. I think that I administered oversight of those areas responsibly and fairly but he can attest that I did so from awareness of the his intentions rather than personal fandom. Frankly I'm not sure such stories are his cup of tea either - its for him I believe a matter of principle. 

What I do like about this thread is that we seem to be ratcheting down some of the rhetoric and are to a degree moving from an attack and defense posture to articulation and discussion of the real issues.


----------



## TraciJo67

Observer said:


> No one will deny Mossy the credit for having started all this. It was her method - a broad brush attack thread in the Lounge rather than using the "report" function that dismayed some.



Why? No, seriously - why question her method? 

Also, from links provided by other people, including some who have heartily defended the underage stories in the library, it was and perhaps is quite a bit more extensive than you're reporting here, Observer.


----------



## stan_der_man

TraciJo67 said:


> Why? No, seriously - why question her method?
> ...



Agreed... And of course it was years of asking nicely which finally got us a FA/FFA and BBW board.


----------



## mergirl

Observer said:


> No one will deny Mossy the credit for having started all this. It was her method - a broad brush attack thread in the Lounge rather than using the "report" function that dismayed some. And she could have cited what she was referring to more clearly - an overlooked reference that was buried in one sentence of the fourth chapter of one story. The fourteen year old age reference (not 12 btw) was changed immediately once found. No one has argued that it should be otherwise.
> 
> .



Maby you should wait till she is here to defend herself before you criticize her. I think regarding the severity of what was happening i think it was right that everyone knew and that it wasn't just swept under the big dims carpet, which you don't just trip up over you walk into.


----------



## mollycoddles

Were there really a lot of pedophilia stories in the library before the cull? I'll admit that I haven't read every story that was in there, but I don't remember ever seeing any. Like Observer said, most of the stories that have been removed were high school soap operas, featuring protagonists often 16 or 17 years old. It's well within Conrad's right to ban those sorts of stores -- and I can certainly understand that, from a legal perspective, he might want to do so just to be sure he's covering his butt (No offense) -- but it seems a little disingenuous to claim that those were pedophilic in nature.

Also, it sounds from the discussion that some people object to labeling a desire for a fat partner as a "kink." I can understand the objection to the word "fetish" (although I still rather like it), but kink seems like a harmless, fun word. What's the problem? Is it too close in meaning to fetish?


----------



## Jack Skellington

Observer said:


> No one will deny Mossy the credit for having started all this. It was her method - a broad brush attack thread in the Lounge rather than using the "report" function that dismayed some. .



Mossy wouldn't even had to have done this "broad brush attack" as you call it if you had done your job in the first place in kept that kind of content out of the library. It also worries/concerns me that you continued to defend the content even after the complaints and reports flooded in. Do I even have to get into again how you splitted hairs on what you personally considered "underage" even after the mounting evidence that you were wrong and the library's own rules forbids the use of minors? 

Not to mention what could be considered child porn is illegal to the best of my knowledge. That kind of content might fly under the radar on other less reputable sites than Dims. But a high profile fat acceptance like Dims could have gotten into a hell of a lot of trouble hosting that kind of content.


----------



## LoveBHMS

Jack Skellington said:


> Mossy wouldn't even had to have done this "broad brush attack" as you call it if you had done your job in the first place in kept that kind of content out of the library. It also worries/concerns me that you continued to defend the content even after the complaints and reports flooded in. Do I even have to get into again how you splitted hairs on what you personally considered "underage" even after the mounting evidence that you were wrong and the library's own rules forbids the use of minors?
> 
> Not to mention what could be considered child porn is illegal to the best of my knowledge. That kind of content might fly under the radar on other less reputable sites than Dims. But a high profile fat acceptance like Dims could have gotten into a hell of a lot of trouble hosting that kind of content.



Are you kidding me?

How *dare you* equate a pornographic story about a 16 year old with child pornography? That is just so ridiculously wrong I can't believe you'd even go there.

Child pornography would never even contain a protagonist over the age of puberty, much less a high schooler. Throwing around the term "child porn" is just inflamatory and wrong and not even close to representing what some of those stories were about.

Younger people "star" in adult entertainment all the time. Any MILF/Older woman porn will have stories about high schooler seduced by the friend's hot mom or a "Hot For Teacher" scenario featuring a repressed female teacher and studly male student or a "naughty schoolgirl" type in plaid kilt and kneesocks and a mean English teacher who gave her a bad grade.

For many people, the first positive feelings of sexuality occured around that time period in their lives. There are an infinite number of first crushes that can be traced back to the 12-16 year age group. THAT is what these stories cater to and it's so so so far away from being child pornography it's laughable to compare the two.

You know why that's called "adult entertainment"? Cause it's for adults. Just like Dims. Your very first clue should have been the fact that you have to be 18 to register. I don't know of any site on the internet where you'd have to be 18 to talk about sales at Torrid or worrying about fitting into an airline seat. Dims is an adult site because there are some things here of a sexual nature and if you did not like those things when you showed up you should have taken note of the 18 and over rule and surfed right back out knowing things here might be objectionable.

The mere fact of YOU and others are "disturbed" by this stuff does not make it, by nature, "disturbing".


----------



## Sugar

LoveBHMS said:


> Are you kidding me?
> 
> How *dare you* equate a pornographic story about a 16 year old with child pornography? That is just so ridiculously wrong I can't believe you'd even go there.
> 
> Child pornography would never even contain a protagonist over the age of puberty, much less a high schooler. Throwing around the term "child porn" is just inflamatory and wrong and not even close to representing what some of those stories were about.
> 
> Younger people "star" in adult entertainment all the time. Any MILF/Older woman porn will have stories about high schooler seduced by the friend's hot mom or a "Hot For Teacher" scenario featuring a repressed female teacher and studly male student or a "naughty schoolgirl" type in plaid kilt and kneesocks and a mean English teacher who gave her a bad grade.
> 
> For many people, the first positive feelings of sexuality occured around that time period in their lives. There are an infinite number of first crushes that can be traced back to the 12-16 year age group. THAT is what these stories cater to and it's so so so far away from being child pornography it's laughable to compare the two.
> 
> You know why that's called "adult entertainment"? Cause it's for adults. Just like Dims. Your very first clue should have been the fact that you have to be 18 to register. I don't know of any site on the internet where you'd have to be 18 to talk about sales at Torrid or worrying about fitting into an airline seat. Dims is an adult site because there are some things here of a sexual nature and if you did not like those things when you showed up you should have taken note of the 18 and over rule and surfed right back out knowing things here might be objectionable.
> 
> The mere fact of YOU and others are "disturbed" by this stuff does not make it, by nature, "disturbing".



Are you on glue?

Just because it's "adult entertainment" does not mean that anyone under the age of 18 should be used as part of that entertainment...that is called exploitation. All those videos one can get online of "hot young girls"...are one of two things. 18 or older women who have signed legal documents proving age or child porn. 

In addition, while true a story is not "child pornography" it's still inappropriate. The rules are clear on story admissions. Observer did not follow those rules. I'm not sure what's confusing about this. At what point will people own the fact that a story with under-aged (under 18) characters was posted and that story had sexual themes. This broke the rules. 

What is concerning here is that this debate is still going on and people are still thinking that just because it's a character on in a story that it's OK to jerk off to under-aged CHILDREN.

Maybe this will clear some things up for those who don't get it...

National Center for Missing or Exploited Children


----------



## DarkSol

LoveBHMS said:


> Are you kidding me?
> 
> How *dare you* equate a pornographic story about a 16 year old with child pornography? That is just so ridiculously wrong I can't believe you'd even go there.
> 
> Child pornography would never even contain a protagonist over the age of puberty, much less a high schooler. Throwing around the term "child porn" is just inflamatory and wrong and not even close to representing what some of those stories were about.
> 
> Younger people "star" in adult entertainment all the time. Any MILF/Older woman porn will have stories about high schooler seduced by the friend's hot mom or a "Hot For Teacher" scenario featuring a repressed female teacher and studly male student or a "naughty schoolgirl" type in plaid kilt and kneesocks and a mean English teacher who gave her a bad grade.
> 
> For many people, the first positive feelings of sexuality occured around that time period in their lives. There are an infinite number of first crushes that can be traced back to the 12-16 year age group. THAT is what these stories cater to and it's so so so far away from being child pornography it's laughable to compare the two.
> 
> You know why that's called "adult entertainment"? Cause it's for adults. Just like Dims. Your very first clue should have been the fact that you have to be 18 to register. I don't know of any site on the internet where you'd have to be 18 to talk about sales at Torrid or worrying about fitting into an airline seat. Dims is an adult site because there are some things here of a sexual nature and if you did not like those things when you showed up you should have taken note of the 18 and over rule and surfed right back out knowing things here might be objectionable.
> 
> The mere fact of YOU and others are "disturbed" by this stuff does not make it, by nature, "disturbing".



Let's see what the US Code would say child pornography is...

§ 2256. Definitions for chapter

For the purposes of this chapter, the term
(1) *minor means any person under the age of eighteen years;*
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), *sexually explicit conduct means actual or simulated*
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;​ *(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) of this section, sexually explicit conduct means 
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or​ (iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;​*​
(3) producing means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;
(4) organization means a person other than an individual;
(5) visual depiction includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;
(6) computer has the meaning given that term in section 1030 of this title;
(7) custody or control includes temporary supervision over or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally obtained;
(8) child pornography means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.​(9) identifiable minor
(A) means a person
(i)
(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and​ (ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the persons face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and​ (B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.​(10) graphic, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted; and
(11) the term indistinguishable used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.

The chapter of the US Code: Title 18, Part I, Chapter 110 that the definition is referring to is about: SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN.


----------



## LoveBHMS

> child pornography means any *visual depiction*, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where



No stories on this site even have visuals, so seriously...stop. Nothing on this site is child porn and trying to equate a bunch of weight gain fiction with child pornography is just not appropriate.

Nobody *really* objects to these things because a "high school" protaganist slipped in someplace, the whole purpose here is for people to grandstand about yet one area on Dims that isn't properly catering to them.


----------



## DarkSol

LoveBHMS said:


> No stories on this site even have visuals, so seriously...stop. Nothing on this site is child porn and trying to equate a bunch of weight gain fiction with child pornography is just not appropriate.
> 
> Nobody *really* objects to these things because a "high school" protaganist slipped in someplace, the whole purpose here is for people to grandstand about yet one area on Dims that isn't properly catering to them.



Yep, glad you decided to focus on the unbolded parts and decided to ignore the whole part where it stated that a minor is any person under the age of eighteen. But that's okay, because apparently anyone who finds the subject matter reprehensible is just "grandstanding" and doesn't really have some sense of morals. 

And it definitely sounds that people object to it. Hell, I object to it, and I hardly ever post.


----------



## James

Even though that legislation seems to imply that sexualization of minors in the form of a story is within the bounds of the law as it stands, can't we agree that its distasteful, inappropriate and morally grey enough to choose for it to be no part of dimensions?

Actually, I think we *have *decided that and all the content that could possibly fall into that category has now been identified and removed. Rules are no longer ambiguous and there is no further leeway for misinterpretation (willful or otherwise). I don't think that could be any more clear or final. 

Must we continue to tear each other down over who did what and when? Its gone now (and rightly so in my opinion). We could sit around trading insults and attacks ad infinitum but I suspect that since this appears to be a morality issue rather than a clear legal issue, I for one, would like to focus on interacting with Dimensions in a constructive manner, discussing adult topics relating to fat sexuality and fat acceptance amongst adult peers.


----------



## Isa

What everyone that supports such stories keeps ignoring is that it only takes the suggestion of illegal activities for the proper authorities to start an investigation. It doesn't matter what the legal outcome is, people can and have been driven to bankruptcy defending themselves against charges of all types. That alone should be enough to keep anything that would fall under the guise of child porn far away from the dimension universe.


----------



## MisticalMisty

LoveBHMS said:


> Yes.
> 
> Just because some women (or men) find those stories or their subjects to be disturbing does not mean everyone feels that way. Some people are turned on by that. Since you frequent the Weight Board, I'm sure you realize that:
> 
> 1. Some people like being fat and derive sexual pleasure from it.
> 
> 2. Some people want to get fatter or have a partner get fatter and derive sexual pleasure either from that actually happening or fantasizing about it.
> 
> 3. Some people derive sexual pleasure from the results of fat or weight gain. That is why there are an infinite number of paysite sets about chair breaking, being out of breath from a short amount of exertion, inability to fit into small places, etc. Those kinks are not just for the FA, sometimes the subject likes them too.
> 
> I have a friend with whom I share several of these stories that have male gainers/feedees. We both enjoy the some extreme ones. They're not just about me saying "fat guys are hot" but equally about him saying that being a fat guy is hot. You are missing that a lot of these stories are targeted at not only FAs but also fat people who get off on fantasies of immobility, force feeding and other extreme things.
> 
> This is exactly like the discussion about those extreme fat cartoons. Some women find them degrading but some find them exciting because they get turned on imagining themselves in the position of being extremely large.


This. 

I'm a confident fat girl that has in the past enjoyed humiliation play.

The stories are labeled with the content. If someone is uncomfortable with it, it's really easy to close the window or choose another story.


----------



## mollycoddles

This whole argument is getting ridiculous. I'm beginning to suspect that, contrary to what I thought at the beginning of this thread, there's a certain faction here who just want to paint anyone who enjoys erotica as some sort of perverted maniac.


----------



## mollycoddles

Isa said:


> What everyone that supports such stories keeps ignoring is that it only takes the suggestion of illegal activities for the proper authorities to start an investigation. It doesn't matter what the legal outcome is, people can and have been driven to bankruptcy defending themselves against charges of all types. That alone should be enough to keep anything that would fall under the guise of child porn far away from the dimension universe.



This is true. Like I said, I certainly see the logic of the decision and I don't argue with it. I don't think there's anything unseemly going on with the library here, but Conrad has good reason to try and avoid even the appearance of anything questionable. What saddens me is that so many people in this thread are equating anything legally underage with pedophilia. Regardless of your feelings on sexual stories involving mature teens, you surely must realize that it isn't the same thing as pedophilia? 

I'm just saying that, um, you realize we're not child molesters, right? Because the way people are talking in this thread now, it sounds like you think we are.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

mollycoddles said:


> This is true. Like I said, I certainly see the logic of the decision and I don't argue with it. I don't think there's anything unseemly going on with the library here, but Conrad has good reason to try and avoid even the appearance of anything questionable. What saddens me is that so many people in this thread are equating anything legally underage with pedophilia. Regardless of your feelings on sexual stories involving mature teens, you surely must realize that it isn't the same thing as pedophilia?
> 
> I'm just saying that, um, you realize we're not child molesters, right? Because the way people are talking in this thread now, it sounds like you think we are.




Please define pedophilia?

I do cast a weary eye on people that start talking about sex with young girls/boys as a groovy, easy, okay type of thing. 

It would be stupid of me or any mother not to.......

P.S. I never read anything that made me think of you as a pedo, Molly, for the record. Just saying, don't get defensive if people don't like pedos.....they are hated for very good reason.


----------



## mollycoddles

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Please define pedophilia?
> 
> I do cast a weary eye on people that start talking about sex with young girls/boys as a groovy, easy, okay type of thing.
> 
> It would be stupid of me or any mother not to.......
> 
> P.S. I never read anything that made me think of you as a pedo, Molly, for the record. Just saying, don't get defensive if people don't like pedos.....they are hated for very good reason.



I think pedophilia refers to a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children.

While I agree that we have the age of consent set at age 18 for very good reasons, the idea that people may find post-pubescent teens sexually attractive isn't revolting or morally offensive in the same way that pedophilia is. I mean, the reason that most people find teens attractive is because they have all their adult bits and NOT because they look like small children.

I understand why Dimensions has decided on this new stricter rule, but I just want to point out that even the folks arguing against it aren't arguing for pedophile stories. It may be splitting hairs to you, but I just want to make that clear!


----------



## cinnamitch

Isa said:


> What everyone that supports such stories keeps ignoring is that it only takes the suggestion of illegal activities for the proper authorities to start an investigation. It doesn't matter what the legal outcome is, people can and have been driven to bankruptcy defending themselves against charges of all types. That alone should be enough to keep anything that would fall under the guise of child porn far away from the dimension universe.



BINGO, very well said


----------



## Observer

> pedophilia refers to a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children



True. It certainly includes that, but at least in California it also includes post-pubesecent minors involved with persons five years older than themselves. 

I think we all can agree that the stories which were pulled were not and are not in any way pedophilic. Neither were they pornographic. As Tracijo has noted I wrote some of them as much as twelve years ago. My stories in this genre are not sexual in any manner - not even a kiss. They are more akin to Hardy Boys Nancy Drew stuff. The underage work of Mollycoddles and her associates was a tad more intimate but were still rther tame by ny standasrd measure.

Also, the idea that I was not enforcing the underage rules is totally incorrect - even GEF, who served as one of our editors, has contradicted that charge. Had I been doing something wrong Conrad would have canned my butt or at least corrected me rather than me resigning as I did. I'm still under pressure to resume my old duties. 

For the record, we had guidelines (which were publicly published and were being followed) which allowed limited inclusion of post-pubescent teenagers in stories in non-sexual roles. This was a nuanced approach based on the nature of the collection and he readership as it existed when I came along. The rule was then changed and I was the one who dutifully oversaw much of the suppression of the stories.


----------



## Isa

mollycoddles said:


> snip
> I'm just saying that, um, you realize we're not child molesters, right? Because the way people are talking in this thread now, it sounds like you think we are.




I have no idea what to think anymore. Let's just say that there are a number of screen names, if I ever see being interviewed by Chris Hansen, I will not be surprised.


----------



## fatgirlflyin

LoveBHMS said:


> For many people, the first positive feelings of sexuality occured around that time period in their lives. There are an infinite number of first crushes that can be traced back to the 12-16 year age group. THAT is what these stories cater to and it's so so so far away from being child pornography it's laughable to compare the two.



And if that age group were allowed to be members and participate here then that would be a different story. They aren't though and Dims is considered an adult site so IMO the stories featuring people under the age of 18 were inappropriate.


----------



## fatgirlflyin

mollycoddles said:


> This is true. Like I said, I certainly see the logic of the decision and I don't argue with it. I don't think there's anything unseemly going on with the library here, but Conrad has good reason to try and avoid even the appearance of anything questionable. What saddens me is that so many people in this thread are equating anything legally underage with pedophilia. Regardless of your feelings on sexual stories involving mature teens, you surely must realize that it isn't the same thing as pedophilia?
> 
> I'm just saying that, um, you realize we're not child molesters, right? Because the way people are talking in this thread now, it sounds like you think we are.



Can't speak for Isa, but I know that I wasn't suggesting that anyone was a child molester. However, I didn't beleive the stories to be appropriate for this forum. People under the age of 18 are not allowed to participate in Dims so they theoretically are not here to benefit from them. With that said, it only stands to reason that the stories were written for adults, stories about minors written for the enjoyment of adults. Honestly that didn't sit well with me.


----------



## mollycoddles

Isa said:


> I have no idea what to think anymore. Let's just say that there are a number of screen names, if I ever see being interviewed by Chris Hansen, I will not be surprised.



Yeah, you know what, I don't know why I even bothered trying to make a point. You go believe what you want.


----------



## LoveBHMS

I don't think they *really* believe that the Fiction area is really a bunch of kiddie porn.

What a vocal minority on this board wants is to eliminate a good deal of the sexual content on Dims because they don't like it and it does not fit in with their idea of what this place is supposed to be. They think it's anti-fat and *totally ignore the fact that some fat people are reading and enjoying it.* Some fat people get off on name calling and humilation and other stuff that makes fat people and thin people really uneasy. 

First it was underaged, then it moved to "name calling" and "humilation" themes really being anti-fat and thus not appropriate. I'm sure next it will be something else until the only stories that will get by the though police around here will be Harlequin romaces type tales that just happen to feature a SSBBW and a sensitive, wealthy, buff man who bathes her in rose petals and candlelight and romance.


----------



## mergirl

Isa said:


> What everyone that supports such stories keeps ignoring is that it only takes the suggestion of illegal activities for the proper authorities to start an investigation. It doesn't matter what the legal outcome is, people can and have been driven to bankruptcy defending themselves against charges of all types. That alone should be enough to keep anything that would fall under the guise of child porn far away from the dimension universe.


This is why it was so hurriedly removed. The powers that be obviously knew they existed before, but when a stink was made they had to be seen to be doing something. The authorities don't come down so hard on the abuse of women so these stories are allowed to stay.


----------



## TraciJo67

LoveBHMS said:


> I don't think they *really* believe that the Fiction area is really a bunch of kiddie porn.
> 
> What a vocal minority on this board wants is to eliminate a good deal of the sexual content on Dims because they don't like it and it does not fit in with their idea of what this place is supposed to be. They think it's anti-fat and *totally ignore the fact that some fat people are reading and enjoying it.* Some fat people get off on name calling and humilation and other stuff that makes fat people and thin people really uneasy.
> 
> First it was underaged, then it moved to "name calling" and "humilation" themes really being anti-fat and thus not appropriate. I'm sure next it will be something else until the only stories that will get by the though police around here will be Harlequin romaces type tales that just happen to feature a SSBBW and a sensitive, wealthy, buff man who bathes her in rose petals and candlelight and romance.



I don't think that you really believe this, either. But hey -- nice pot shots, kudos on painting those of us who are offended by humiliation and stories that sexualize children as nothing more than prudish prudes of prudery. 

You know what, I don't *care* about what gets you off. I. Don't. Care. Consenting adults, yada yada, blah. At the same time, I'd rather not be confronted by it, either. To me, it is no different than being the hostage observer of two people going at it on a city bus. 

Want to humiliate a fatty? Call him a piggy, make oinking noises, stuff him until he bursts? Great! Kudos on the edge play -- must mean that [the general] you're a fascinating, complex person! No bland vanilla for [the general] you! Want to share that fantasy with mainstream society -- or better yet, a board that celebrates size acceptance? Be prepared for criticism. 

I'd love to see a show of hands on the number of fat people who get off on humiliation, more specifically, verbal abuse about their size. Verbal abuse not coming from a trusted lover, but from a stranger who abducts them against their will and force feeds them until nigh upon explosion. Because THESE ARE stories that are in the library. I'm willing to bet that it's a very, very, VERY miniscule percentage, LoveBHMS. And hey -- let 'em have it! But how about we keep it locked away from the 99.9% (you know, the rest of us) who consider it extremely offensive and anything BUT sexually enticing? Note: I said LOCKED AWAY, not REMOVED. I happen to agree with Fascinita's suggestions as a practical matter. Up to me, I'd remove them entirely -- but I know it's NOT up to me, nor is it ever going to be, and practically speaking, I may as well advocate that we remove the people who annoy me as ask that the library be whisked clean of anti-fat 'literature'. On that same PRACTICAL note, though ... why not at least consider what Fascinita is suggesting? Who would it harm?


----------



## exile in thighville

LoveBHMS said:


> I don't think they *really* believe that the Fiction area is really a bunch of kiddie porn.
> 
> What a vocal minority on this board wants is to eliminate a good deal of the sexual content on Dims because they don't like it and it does not fit in with their idea of what this place is supposed to be. They think it's anti-fat and *totally ignore the fact that some fat people are reading and enjoying it.* Some fat people get off on name calling and humilation and other stuff that makes fat people and thin people really uneasy.
> 
> First it was underaged, then it moved to "name calling" and "humilation" themes really being anti-fat and thus not appropriate. I'm sure next it will be something else until the only stories that will get by the though police around here will be Harlequin romaces type tales that just happen to feature a SSBBW and a sensitive, wealthy, buff man who bathes her in rose petals and candlelight and romance.



basically. it's a partial-birth abortion crusade.


----------



## LoveBHMS

> You know what, I don't *care* about what gets you off. I. Don't. Care. Consenting adults, yada yada, blah. At the same time, I'd rather not be confronted by it, either. To me, it is no different than being the hostage observer of two people going at it on a city bus.
> 
> Want to humiliate a fatty? Call him a piggy, make oinking noises, stuff him until he bursts? Great! Kudos on the edge play -- must mean that [the general] you're a fascinating, complex person! No bland vanilla for [the general] you! Want to share that fantasy with mainstream society -- or better yet, a board that celebrates size acceptance? Be prepared for criticism.



No, I don't think it makes me edgey, fascinating, or complex. As I've said repeatedly, what sexuality you have says nothing about what kind of a person you are. It has nothing to do with personality. I'd guess that everyone I know IRL who's into this stuff are people you'd pass on the street and not look twice.

Nobody is suggesting sharing it with mainstream society, and having it on a website that is limited to adults and tagged very clearly and put on its own forum is more than enough of a firewall between the normal, average, everyday people who just happen to get off on things you find distasteful and the "rest of society".



> I'd love to see a show of hands on the number of fat people who get off on humiliation, more specifically, verbal abuse about their size. Verbal abuse not coming from a trusted lover, but from a stranger who abducts them against their will and force feeds them until nigh upon explosion.



Would you really? Because I wouldn't. It's none of my business. People's sexuality should matter to 1. Themselves and 2. Somebody they might have sex with. That's it. Just because you find it off putting doesn't mean some people don't masturbate every night thinking about it. And candidly? The fat people who get off on it have every right to celebrate their sexuality and have it acknowleged on a fat-positive website. 

People like Misty who posted upthread about enjoying humiliation should not come here of all places and be told "oh, we need to lock you away out of site from the rest of this board because your sexuality might be offensive." That is the antithesis of being fat positive. This seems no different from mainstream Bondage/Discipline porn where a woman is called a nasty slut or a whore. Some women find it an affront to feminism and some orgasm from the very thought of it.

As far as the "stranger vs. trusted love one" angle---come on. How many articles on "How to Spice up your Marriage" have you seen in mainstream magazines suggesting couples roll play about picking each other up in bars? Sorry but that's downright common. So what if some SSBBW might get off on a rape fantasy where she's gangbanged by a bunch of men calling her names. That is her right to read it, get off on it, and not be told by the thought police of Dims that others need extreme caution to stay away from the things she likes.


----------



## stubblygoodness7

TraciJo67 said:


> I'd love to see a show of hands on the number of fat people who get off on humiliation, more specifically, verbal abuse about their size. Verbal abuse not coming from a trusted lover, but from a stranger who abducts them against their will and force feeds them until nigh upon explosion. Because THESE ARE stories that are in the library. I'm willing to bet that it's a very, very, VERY miniscule percentage, LoveBHMS. And hey -- let 'em have it! But how about we keep it locked away from the 99.9% (you know, the rest of us) who consider it extremely offensive and anything BUT sexually enticing? Note: I said LOCKED AWAY, not REMOVED. I happen to agree with Fascinita's suggestions as a practical matter. Up to me, I'd remove them entirely -- but I know it's NOT up to me, nor is it ever going to be, and practically speaking, I may as well advocate that we remove the people who annoy me as ask that the library be whisked clean of anti-fat 'literature'. On that same PRACTICAL note, though ... why not at least consider what Fascinita is suggesting? Who would it harm?



I do not reply here often, and this kind of response is probably why. 

Fat people are not all one thing or another. I am a person first and fat second. More like third. Probably fourth or fifth or sixth. I think that is completely lost here sometimes, where people are looked at as fat first, then we just MIGHT get to other things that define them as people.

Guess what? People, all people, get off on humiliation, on being dominated, and all other permutations of that. In fact, I do. And it's not because I feel shitty about myself, it's because that's what I like. Rape is one of the most common fantasies for women, so I'm not exactly alone in this.

You think that's weird? You think my and other's penchant for being called names is wrong and should be LOCKED AWAY so your sensibilities aren't offended? Guess what? Most people think FAs are weird. Most people think that getting aroused by someone OUR SIZE are disgusting.

The fact that this community of people who know what it is like to be looked at as weird or gross or different are SO close minded is just baffling to me sometimes. It seems that some people's sensitivities only extend as long as it will protect them and their lifestyle, and then they feel free to denigrate anyone outside their safe little sphere.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

mollycoddles said:


> I think pedophilia refers to a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children.
> 
> While I agree that we have the age of consent set at age 18 for very good reasons, the idea that people may find post-pubescent teens sexually attractive isn't revolting or morally offensive in the same way that pedophilia is. I mean, the reason that most people find teens attractive is because they have all their adult bits and NOT because they look like small children.
> 
> I understand why Dimensions has decided on this new stricter rule, but I just want to point out that even the folks arguing against it aren't arguing for pedophile stories. It may be splitting hairs to you, but I just want to make that clear!



It's clear to me that you're not. I even appreciate your input and how you have handled yourself here. 

Though at least a few of the others did argue to keep the underage protagonists in a sexualized manner stories up and going, if not in this one then in another quite recent thread, and they did so very vehemently.


----------



## stan_der_man

The simple fact that anybody would engage in a tit-for-tat, point by point argument in favor of stories that could reasonably be construed as pedophilia speaks volumes on their position of the subject.

Again, whatever happened to the notion of discretion let alone common sense.


----------



## Fascinita

James said:


> Even though that legislation seems to imply that sexualization of minors in the form of a story is within the bounds of the law as it stands, can't we agree that its distasteful, inappropriate and morally grey enough to choose for it to be no part of dimensions



I'd like to echo this sentiment.

In addition, to point all concerned to the case of Karen Fletcher. As recently as last year, the Feds tried to make a test case out of Fletcher, who ran a "text only" pornography website that portrayed the graphic sexual abuse of children. The case was brought against her under obscenity charges, not specifically child pornography laws. Fletcher eventually pled guilty to avoid going through the trial.

Though it seems unlikely that a jury would find "text only" adult content "obscene" (this obviously depends on the jury, and the virtual availability of the Internet everywhere makes it so that any jurisdiction might be able to bring charges against someone doing business thousands of miles away), that does not mean that there is judicial precedent that excludes such content definitively from being prosecuted by the Feds under obscenity laws. 

The test is whether a jury would find material obscene, and if the government gets it in its proverbial head to test the obscenity of some material through the judicial system, there is no law prohibiting that categorically. The Supreme Court has found that the First Amendment does not protect "obscene speech," as I assume everyone here knows.


----------



## Observer

fa_man_stan said:


> The simple fact that anybody would engage in a tit-for-tat, point by point argument in favor of stories that could reasonably be construed as pedophilia speaks volumes on their position of the subject.
> 
> Again, whatever happened to the notion of discretion let alone common sense.



And the simple fact that you would make such a post is evidence of the truism rhat some people are utterly unable and unwilling to listen to ANYTHING, no matter how reasonable it is, that intereferes with their preconcieved notions. Argumentation in the face of such bias, not matter how eminently reasonable only serves to dig the proponents deeper into a perceived hole.

That, not merit, legal considerations or anything in at least the majority of the stories themselve, is why Conrad had to change the rules. And that "being tarred unfairly by a broad stroke brush" approach is what bothers many of the authors. 

We have all seen quoted here the definitions of pedophilia and pornography. We all agree that the stories didn't meet the criteria of either - so why do some keep talking as though they did? Do they have some vengeful desire to just beat up on authors of that genre? I don't think so. 

It does indeed speak volumes about the real agenda of the advocates - having won a victory in the name "protecting the children" they can then achieve their real objective, dictating other rules as well.


----------



## Tad

Observer said:


> We have all seen quoted here the definitions of pedophilia and pornography. We all agree that the stories didn't meet the criteria of either -



Well, I'd be willing to accept that this may well have been true of most of what was removed, people have found at least a few examples --either on the web boards before removals, or still in the html library-- which I think many people would at least consider possibly meeting those definitions.

I get that nobody has really vetted the old HTML library in detail, and nobody is volunteering to take the time to do so in short order. Given that some reasonably nasty stuff would appear to be in there, I certainly think removing the links to it for now, until it can be gone through (or just given up on) would be appropriate.

I know you tried to enlist a bunch of people to help migrate stories from the old library in the past. I flaked on you after two stories, because I just couldn't face working on the other three from my initial assignment. That is a pretty small sample size, but my gut instinct is that the old library is probably not worth saving in its entirety (even for people who like fat erotic stories), although who would actually go through it and figure out what was worth saving, I don't know.

With regard to the web boards, I know you tried to make sure all stories were checked by the moderators, and to put in place a reasonable and nuanced approach screening them*. But you are human, and can miss things, and can make errors in judgment. I suspect it would be useful for the tone of this debate to admit that, whatever the intent at various times, there were probably mistakes made now and then*.

* I consider accepting one of my stories one of those mistakes, in hindsight. It had characters who first meet at the beginning of high school, but don't become a couple, or so much as kiss, until college. It had all the sexual sizzle of an Archie comic IMO.....but _in the context of Dimensions_ it probably sexualizes those young characters, just by having them appear here. I don't regret the story, I do regret posting it here. A lot of the other mistakes may have been of the same nature, stories which one-by-one, in a vacuum, may not odious (well, to most people), but when posted here, especially when there are a lot of them, puts under aged sexuality into play.


----------



## exile in thighville

Jack Skellington said:


> Mossy wouldn't even had to have done this "broad brush attack" as you call it if you had done your job in the first place in kept that kind of content out of the library.



1. there was no rule "in the first place" - conrad changed the rule after mossy's freakburst

2. he wrote the content

3. which as you can see above is still breeding pedophiles on dimensions as we panickedly type

but more importantly

4. you don't know pedophilia from a hole in the ground and should probably stick close to your operating system's "family filter"


----------



## Fascinita

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> It's clear to me that you're not. I even appreciate your input and how you have handled yourself here.



I'll second this. And I'll add that I'm sorry to see some use this thread as an opportunity to openly indulge in finger pointing without taking the time to understand the discussion that has gone on before.

It seems to me we had covered a number of points and seemed to be making some good progress. Then a handful of posts were made that virtually "rewound" the whole discussion back to the beginning, when it was still a matter of name-calling and holier-than-thou finger pointing.

I wish the folks who want to rush to stir the pot without stopping to reflect would check their prejudice at the door. At the very least, familiarize yourself with what's been said.

And I wish that those who are able to do so would please ignore the hairy pot-stirrings that go on and only lead to further misunderstandings.

There are many issues being conflated here, and many accusations being flung. For those who have made positive contributions to this thread that have gone beyond the destructive, self-indulgent finger pointing that can tend to go on, I urge you to stay calm and consider re-joining the constructive dialogue and ignoring the mud-slinging.

1) It's not illegal to publish text portraying minors in sexual situations, though it may be morally objectionable depending on the setting and though no web site is under any obligation to publish that (or any) content.

2) Merely reading or writing or publishing stories does not make anyone a monster. "Monster" status requires actually acting to harm children.

3) None of this means that the government won't make a case against a person who merely writes or publishes stories. The test for legal protection under the First Amendment is "obscenity," and what's "obscene" varies by jurisdiction. The government has made recent test cases of internet websites--both visual and "text only"--to try to establish the obscenity of some graphic depictions.

4) We've been talking about fat fetishes and fat abuse. That the "child porn" issue creeps in at all is related to the root discussion about what should and shouldn't be allowed in the library. Let's not use this as an opportunity to paint anyone who likes fat fetishes as a questionable human being.

5) Having said that, the "fetish contingent" needs to understand that there are people on this site who don't want to be exposed to fat fantasy everywhere they go, unwittingly or not. If we want to co-exist, perhaps some measures that draw a firm line between reality and fantasy would drive home the need for mutual respect, and put a stop to the tug-o-war between extremes from either side. Especially the claim by the fantasy folks that Dimensions is "primarily" or "first" or "only" a fetish/fantasy site and that everyone else is "unimportant" or "secondary," chafe the sensibilities of a lot of fat folks--myself included.

6) As well, I think the "SA contingent" has been calling for a strengthening, in vocal terms, of Conrad's commitment to SA. A site which purports to be about SA but on which an actual person of size has to tread with care because they've been told "you don't like it, deal with it" about the existence of fantasy (fantasy which can include some very anti-SA sentiments) is at odds with its own mission to be a safe haven for those seeking SA.


----------



## exile in thighville

James said:


> can't we agree that its distasteful, inappropriate and morally grey enough to choose for it to be no part of dimensions?



there is nothing gray here, it's two black and white things:

1. even if you play the what-if fear game all day, you can't do anything illegal or immoral to fictional characters on a page

2. conrad does not want these fictional characters on his site


----------



## exile in thighville

the beauty of the whole thing is that i was the same age as the characters in said stories when i discovered and first jacked off to them but it was illegal for me to be doing that because dimensions is 18+, though people are claiming it would be illegal for me to jack off to them now.

if i wrote one myself at 14, would i be arrested for using it for pleasure still at 20? people worry about the most absurd things.


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> there is nothing gray here, it's two black and white things



Tell me, Dan, how do you define "obscene"?

Finer minds than yours (or mine  )have beaten their heads against the impossibility of defining it. The best we've been able to come up with is that "obscene" varies from place to place.

Know what I mean, jelly bean?


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> 1. there was no rule "in the first place" - conrad changed the rule after mossy's freakburst



Yes, there was a rule "in the first place." There was a rule that prohibited portraying protagonists "under 18" in sexual depictions and prohibited portraying pre-pubescents at all if *any* sexuality was being portrayed. The exact wording could probably be found by reviewing Mossy's thread and the thread for the "Academy" story, where I quoted the rule as it existed several times.

The rule was then _tightened_ to exclude portrayals of any protagonist "under 18," I believe.

But, YES, there *was* a rule in place and some people felt it had been broken when the "Academy" story was published depicting 14 yos and beyond.


----------



## exile in thighville

Fascinita said:


> Tell me, Dan, how do you define "obscene"?
> 
> Finer minds than yours (or mine  )have beaten their heads against the impossibility of defining it. The best we've been able to come up with is that "obscene" varies from place to place.
> 
> Know what I mean, jelly bean?



do i need to define it? one of the stupidest laws of our time that remains in existence is based around one man's call for arbitrary vagueness.

here's a better question: what can be bad about a so-called "obscenity" that you can't define elsewhere on the books as harmful and deserving of punishment?

that it offends people? that they're forced to look at it? i'm not being rhetorical, something that cannot be defined should not be a law and should be replaced with specific examples of yes and nos that fall under other charges as they are brought to the courts' attention.


----------



## mollycoddles

exile in thighville said:


> 1. there was no rule "in the first place" - conrad changed the rule after mossy's freakburst
> 
> 2. he wrote the content
> 
> 3. which as you can see above is still breeding pedophiles on dimensions as we panickedly type
> 
> but more importantly
> 
> 4. you don't know pedophilia from a hole in the ground and should probably stick close to your operating system's "family filter"



Hey Exile, I just wanted to give you a thumbs up on your sig. I'm glad someone else noticed how out of place that bowing Chinese emoticon is.

That's unrelated to this conversation, however.


----------



## exile in thighville

Fascinita said:


> Yes, there was a rule "in the first place." There was a rule that prohibited portraying protagonists "under 18" in sexual depictions and prohibited portraying pre-pubescents at all if *any* sexuality was being portrayed. The exact wording could probably be found by reviewing Mossy's thread and the thread for the "Academy" story, where I quoted the rule as it existed several times.
> 
> The rule was then _tightened_ to exclude portrayals of any protagonist "under 18," I believe.
> 
> But, YES, there *was* a rule in place and some people felt it had been broken when the "Academy" story was published depicting 14 yos and beyond.



any rules put into place _after _the 150 or so underage stories that have resided on dimensions for at least a decade were unenforced and by treating them as moot led to understandable confusion.


----------



## Fascinita

mollycoddles said:


> Hey Exile, I just wanted to give you a thumbs up on your sig. I'm glad someone else noticed how out of place that bowing Chinese emoticon is.
> 
> That's unrelated to this conversation, however.



For the record, molly, since maybe you're not on the rest of the boards as often as I am, some of the "liberal hysterics" that Dan doesn't like have actually objected to that emoticon in the past. So the hypocrisy he wants to point out actually just speaks to his failure to do his research. No biggie. It can happen to anyone. But if Dan is sincere, he should probably complain to the Dims authorities directly, instead of using the existence of that emoticon as a way to attack people he doesn't like.

Word.


----------



## exile in thighville

mollycoddles said:


> Hey Exile, I just wanted to give you a thumbs up on your sig. I'm glad someone else noticed how out of place that bowing Chinese emoticon is.
> 
> That's unrelated to this conversation, however.



someone has to take out the trash around here

(i've loved your stories for years, by the way. but being as they sexualize high schoolers you might wanna leave town before the board cops shake you down)


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> any rules put into place _after _the 150 or so underage stories that have resided on dimensions for at least a decade were unenforced and by treating them as moot led to understandable confusion.



You mean the "no one under 18, absolutely" rule?

Because you do recognize that there were _some_ rules that were formerly regarded as having been sufficient, right?

That some stories went uncensored is a different problem, however. I'll grant you that.


----------



## exile in thighville

Fascinita said:


> But if Dan is sincere, he should probably complain to the Dims authorities directly, instead of using the existence of that emoticon as a way to attack people he doesn't like.



i only care about important issues like defending underage sex stories.


----------



## exile in thighville

Fascinita said:


> Because you do recognize that there were _some_ rules that were formerly regarded as having been sufficient, right



the ones that prevented me from accessing the site as a 13 year old or the ones that prevent me from accessing the underage stories as a 24 year old? don't get vague on me now.


----------



## exile in thighville

personally, i don't expect conrad or even the mods to babysit everything about this huge, huge place at all, but then i'm not the one hunting for witches.

if people used the ignore function like they should - or their own built-in ignore function - they wouldn't have to babysit at all.


----------



## exile in thighville

exile in thighville said:


> the ones that prevented me from accessing the site as a 13 year old or the ones that prevent me from accessing the underage stories as a 24 year old? don't get vague on me now.



wait, you mean the ones flagging exposed nipples and buttcracks on a porn board. yes, they are very efficient at what they do.


----------



## mollycoddles

Fascinita said:


> I'll second this. And I'll add that I'm sorry to see some use this thread as an opportunity to openly indulge in finger pointing without taking the time to understand the discussion that has gone on before.
> 
> It seems to me we had covered a number of points and seemed to be making some good progress. Then a handful of posts were made that virtually "rewound" the whole discussion back to the beginning, when it was still a matter of name-calling and holier-than-thou finger pointing.
> 
> I wish the folks who want to rush to stir the pot without stopping to reflect would check their prejudice at the door. At the very least, familiarize yourself with what's been said.
> 
> And I wish that those who are able to do so would please ignore the hairy pot-stirrings that go on and only lead to further misunderstandings.
> 
> There are many issues being conflated here, and many accusations being flung. For those who have made positive contributions to this thread that have gone beyond the destructive, self-indulgent finger pointing that can tend to go on, I urge you to stay calm and consider re-joining the constructive dialogue and ignoring the mud-slinging.
> 
> 1) It's not illegal to publish text portraying minors in sexual situations, though it may be morally objectionable depending on the setting and though no web site is under any obligation to publish that (or any) content.
> 
> 2) Merely reading or writing or publishing stories does not make anyone a monster. "Monster" status requires actually acting to harm children.
> 
> 3) None of this means that the government won't make a case against a person who merely writes or publishes stories. The test for legal protection under the First Amendment is "obscenity," and what's "obscene" varies by jurisdiction. The government has made recent test cases of internet websites--both visual and "text only"--to try to establish the obscenity of some graphic depictions.
> 
> 4) We've been talking about fat fetishes and fat abuse. That the "child porn" issue creeps in at all is related to the root discussion about what should and shouldn't be allowed in the library. Let's not use this as an opportunity to paint anyone who likes fat fetishes as a questionable human being.
> 
> 5) Having said that, the "fetish contingent" needs to understand that there are people on this site who don't want to be exposed to fat fantasy everywhere they go, unwittingly or not. If we want to co-exist, perhaps some measures that draw a firm line between reality and fantasy would drive home the need for mutual respect, and put a stop to the tug-o-war between extremes from either side. Especially the claim by the fantasy folks that Dimensions is "primarily" or "first" or "only" a fetish/fantasy site and that everyone else is "unimportant" or "secondary," chafe the sensibilities of a lot of fat folks--myself included.
> 
> 6) As well, I think the "SA contingent" has been calling for a strengthening, in vocal terms, of Conrad's commitment to SA. A site which purports to be about SA but on which an actual person of size has to tread with care because they've been told "you don't like it, deal with it" about the existence of fantasy (fantasy which can include some very anti-SA sentiments) is at odds with its own mission to be a safe haven for those seeking SA.



Well said! Thanks for this. I urge everyone who's just come to the thread recently to read Fascinita's summary; I think she does a great job here of explaining the issues raised by both sides and some of the proposed solutions we've come up with. Tensions are especially high here now because child porn has been brought up, and nobody likes to think that they're being accused of trafficking in that. But let's not let this overshadow some of the good debate we've had so far.


----------



## mollycoddles

Fascinita said:


> For the record, molly, since maybe you're not on the rest of the boards as often as I am, some of the "liberal hysterics" that Dan doesn't like have actually objected to that emoticon in the past. So the hypocrisy he wants to point out actually just speaks to his failure to do his research. No biggie. It can happen to anyone. But if Dan is sincere, he should probably complain to the Dims authorities directly, instead of using the existence of that emoticon as a way to attack people he doesn't like.
> 
> Word.



I'm not on these boards too often, so I must have missed those conversations. No worries! 

I hope I didn't just derail this thread into a whole different can of worms!


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> do i need to define it? one of the stupidest laws of our time that remains in existence is based around one man's call for arbitrary vagueness.



If you don't like the law of the land, maybe Dimensions is not the best place to put in a test case against it. The last time I checked--pardon the snark--no Supreme Court Justice was a member here.

It's clear that for you it's a "stupid law," but let's be clear also, that a lot of people here and elsewhere don't feel that's so. 

And just because you have a problem with the way the law is doesn't mean that you're doing anything noble, or even anything ultimately effective, by denigrating the more moderate people here--MANY OF WHOM HAVE SAID THAT THEY WANT FANTASY TO CO-EXIST with SA.

Why bring the "child porn" debate back into this?* This is a discussion about internal Dimensions politics and how to co-exist.* This is not the appropriate place for railing against limitations on the First Amendment.

Let's be clear that your problem is with the law as it stands now, that you wish "obscene" wasn't a consideration at all, and--here's the kicker--that you think there is something you can do to remedy the Constitution by flailing at individuals here on Dimensions.

In fact, what you appear to want, is to silence people who disagree with you.

I may not disagree with you that it's a stupid law, but that's not going to keep me from pointing out that it's ridiculous and futile to excoriate anyone here for whom it's not as clearcut as it is for you. 

Take it up with Sonia Sotomayor.


----------



## mollycoddles

exile in thighville said:


> (i've loved your stories for years, by the way. but being as they sexualize high schoolers you might wanna leave town before the board cops shake you down)



Aw, thanks for the kind words!


----------



## exile in thighville

DarkSol said:


> Let's see what the US Code would say child pornography is...
> 
> § 2256. Definitions for chapter
> 
> For the purposes of this chapter, the term
> (1) *minor means any person under the age of eighteen years;*
> (2)
> (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), *sexually explicit conduct means actual or simulated*
> (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
> (ii) bestiality;
> (iii) masturbation;
> (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
> (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;​ *(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) of this section, sexually explicit conduct means
> (i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
> (ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
> (I) bestiality;
> (II) masturbation; or
> (III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or​ (iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;​*​
> (3) producing means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;
> (4) organization means a person other than an individual;
> (5) visual depiction includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;
> (6) computer has the meaning given that term in section 1030 of this title;
> (7) custody or control includes temporary supervision over or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally obtained;
> (8) child pornography means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where
> (A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
> (B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
> (C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.​(9) identifiable minor
> (A) means a person
> (i)
> (I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
> (II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and​ (ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the persons face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and​ (B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.​(10) graphic, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted; and
> (11) the term indistinguishable used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.
> 
> The chapter of the US Code: Title 18, Part I, Chapter 110 that the definition is referring to is about: SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND OTHER ABUSE OF CHILDREN.



i'm glad to see this looked up and gladder that it proves my point. there are no visual depictions being argued over here, nor were there ever any on dims to my knowledge.

computer-generated pictures of child pornography where no minor was harmed however, though listed as illegal here, do fall under my logic and i do believe they should be legal because nothing you can draw should be allowed to land you in jail. but i have no interest in defending this because yeah, pretty much only pedophiles would use those i reckon, and i'm not actually out to help the pedophiles. underage stories have uses for non-pedophiles i can happily say, being a non-pedophile myself who uses them. so those are a battle i do choose to take up.


----------



## exile in thighville

Fascinita said:


> If you don't like the law of the land, maybe Dimensions is not the best place to put in a test case against it. The last time I checked--pardon the snark--no Supreme Court Justice was a member here.
> 
> It's clear that for you it's a "stupid law," but let's be clear also, that a lot of people here and elsewhere don't feel that's so.
> 
> And just because you have a problem with the way the law is doesn't mean that you're doing anything noble, or even anything ultimately effective, by denigrating the more moderate people here.
> 
> Let's be clear that your problem is with the law as it stands now, that you wish "obscene" wasn't a consideration at all, and--here's the kicker--that you think there is something you can do to remedy the Constitution by flailing at individuals here on Dimensions.
> 
> In fact, what you appear to want, is to silence people who disagree with you.
> 
> I may not disagree with you that it's a stupid law, but that's not going to keep me from pointing out that it's ridiculous and futile to excoriate anyone here for whom it's not as clearcut as it is for you.
> 
> Take it up with Sonia Sotomayor.



you didn't answer my question about the 'obscenity' category. the people who who feel it is an important law should probably fight to have the court take the steps to define it better, so that they can have in writing what they like about it. i disagree with any law that can be used as just any wild-card out depending on who's presiding. if people can't define something that they feel offends them strongly enough to be made illegal, they shouldn't have been able to write it into law. 

deliberating the obscene from the pornographic will never be popular or important to this country so it remains on the books where countless other outmoded ones have been repealed. i mean i could've pointed you to texas sodomy laws and said "that's the breaks, kid" until a few years ago.


----------



## Wild Zero

Real talk: I know for certain one of the stories in the weight room and reposted on the story board was written by an underage protagonist (like 14 when he wrote it and had it posted on Dims). It's a cool story brought to you by bro inc I'm happy to tell next time I'm at a bash.


----------



## exile in thighville

ha! a whole other can of worms is that i _do _applaud dims' not-so-enforced 18+ policy for directing youngins here rather than let's say, a forum designed for teens to talk sex and read stories their own age, those of which mostly don't exist because they_ would_ be crawling with pedos. better to have a curious kid here falling asleep to our overwrought morality discussions (and not-actually-that-explicit tween stories which are apparently sometimes written by tweens) than that.


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> deliberating the obscene from the pornographic will never be popular or important to this country so it remains on the books where countless other outmoded ones have been repealed. i mean i could've pointed you to texas sodomy laws and said "that's the breaks, kid" until a few years ago.



OK, but is this a battle that has to be fought here? Ultimately, many people feel differently than you *everywhere*... This is a question of middle America having to reckon with the limits of liberty and the boundaries put up against transgression.

We're already talking about a website where the owner has decreed "no one under 18" in reality OR in fantasy.

Ultimately, then, what's the point of fighting these battles at this pitch on Dims? Can't you address this board in light of this being an issue MUCH LARGER than as seen on Dims? By flailing at people individually--people with whom you might be discussing this _as an issue_--you appear to be making this about blaming one or two folks for the sins of an entire nation. I'm not sure you couldn't win much more support for your cause by being clearer and more directly on-issue, and not conflating personal attacks with your moral objection against the status quo. 

Plus, I know you like confrontation and so do I at times. But your raising Cain here about the child porn thing ends up getting in the way of a productive conversation we've been having about fantasy, reality, SA, and fetish.


----------



## Fascinita

Wild Zero said:


> Real talk: I know for certain one of the stories in the weight room and reposted on the story board was *written by an underage protagonist* (like 14 when he wrote it and had it posted on Dims). It's a cool story brought to you by bro inc I'm happy to tell next time I'm at a bash.



How can a protagonist write a story? 

Ok. Ok. I get it.


----------



## exile in thighville

Fascinita said:


> OK, but is this a battle that has to be fought here? Ultimately, many people feel differently than you *everywhere*... This is a question of middle America having to reckon with the limits of liberty and the boundaries put up against transgression.
> 
> We're already talking about a website where the owner has decreed "no one under 18" in reality OR in fantasy.
> 
> Ultimately, then, what's the point of fighting these battles at this pitch on Dims? Can't you address this board in light of this being an issue MUCH LARGER than as seen on Dims? By flailing at people individually--people with whom you might be discussing this _as an issue_--you appear to be making this about blaming one or two folks for the sins of an entire nation. I'm not sure you couldn't win much more support for your cause by being clearer and more directly on-issue, and not conflating personal attacks with your moral objection against the status quo.
> 
> Plus, I know you like confrontation and so do I at times. But your raising Cain here about the child porn thing ends up getting in the way of a productive conversation we've been having about fantasy, reality, SA, and fetish.



my very first post today that you took to task acknowledged "conrad does not want this here" and i said this "is in black and white." you replied by how i feel about obscenity laws and now you're saying i'm 'flailing' at you by answering? instead of perceiving strong debate as a means to attack, just have the discussion or don't.

for what it's worth, i agreed with all of your bullet points except for the one that's the crux of the entire Problem With Dimensions, that some people feel size acceptance is negated by fantasy stories and that other people who might even do more for size acceptance than some of the loudest protestors enjoy them and don't find the two mutually exclusive, and that none of these people actually own said ambivalent website nor can force he who does into selecting a consistent camp.


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> someone has to take out the trash around here





exile in thighville said:


> i only care about important issues like defending underage sex stories.





exile in thighville said:


> personally, i don't expect conrad or even the mods to *babysit* everything about this huge, huge place at all, but then i'm not the one hunting for witches.
> 
> if people used the ignore function like they should - or their own built-in ignore function - they wouldn't have to babysit at all.





exile in thighville said:


> my very first post today that you took to task acknowledged "conrad does not want this here" and i said this "is in black and white." you replied by how i feel about obscenity laws and now you're saying i'm 'flailing' at you by answering? instead of perceiving strong debate as a means to attack, just have the discussion or don't.



You've been talking about "taking out the trash" and "babysitting" anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Maybe that isn't flailing. And you haven't flailed at me personally in this thread. But you do carry on about this issue in a way that is confrontational in the extreme.

Having said that let me acknowledge that you've been mostly *fair*--if *OT*--in your debate with me today.




> for what it's worth, i agreed with all of your bullet points except for the one that's the crux of the entire Problem With Dimensions, that some people feel size acceptance is negated by fantasy stories and that other people who might even do more for size acceptance than some of the loudest protestors don't find the two mutually exclusive, and that none of these people actually own said ambivalent website nor can force he who does into selecting a consistent camp.



Well, you should read the rest of the discussion.

We aren't talking about SA being negated by fantasy stories, but about drawing boundaries between stories (that we are aware will continue to exist on Dimensions) AND the reality-based forums, so that both fantasy and reality can *co-exist*. It's disingenuous to say that people who don't want to be confronted with a Dimensions-wide attitude of "if you don't like it, it's your problem" are really just prudes or "witch hunters."

No one's talking about forcing Conrad to do anything. This is a discussion between participants here on the merits of drawing firmer boundaries between fantasy and reality so that, for instance, fat people who come here for fat acceptance might not have to see a discussion titled "Is Liking Fat People a Preference or a Fetish" on the Main Board of this site. If you don't get why that might be objectionable to fat people who respect themselves, you haven't thought it through completely, I think. There is NO case being made against fetish, ONLY against the notion that fetish belongs outside of the bedroom, purporting to represent some reality that fat people and those who admire them inhabit whether they like it or not. When fantasy begins to be viewed as the "truth" that defines fat and fat desire, there's a problem. 

Obviously, what Conrad does is up to him.


----------



## Observer

Tad said:


> Well, I'd be willing to accept that this may well have been true of most of what was removed, people have found at least a few examples --either on the web boards before removals, or still in the html library-- which I think many people would at least consider possibly meeting those definitions.
> 
> I get that nobody has really vetted the old HTML library in detail, and nobody is volunteering to take the time to do so in short order. Given that some reasonably nasty stuff would appear to be in there, I certainly think removing the links to it for now, until it can be gone through (or just given up on) would be appropriate.
> 
> I know you tried to enlist a bunch of people to help migrate stories from the old library in the past. I flaked on you after two stories, because I just couldn't face working on the other three from my initial assignment. That is a pretty small sample size, but my gut instinct is that the old library is probably not worth saving in its entirety (even for people who like fat erotic stories), although who would actually go through it and figure out what was worth saving, I don't know.
> 
> With regard to the web boards, I know you tried to make sure all stories were checked by the moderators, and to put in place a reasonable and nuanced approach screening them*. But you are human, and can miss things, and can make errors in judgment. I suspect it would be useful for the tone of this debate to admit that, whatever the intent at various times, there were probably mistakes made now and then*.
> 
> * I consider accepting one of my stories one of those mistakes, in hindsight. It had characters who first meet at the beginning of high school, but don't become a couple, or so much as kiss, until college. It had all the sexual sizzle of an Archie comic IMO.....but _in the context of Dimensions_ it probably sexualizes those young characters, just by having them appear here. I don't regret the story, I do regret posting it here. A lot of the other mistakes may have been of the same nature, stories which one-by-one, in a vacuum, may not odious (well, to most people), but when posted here, especially when there are a lot of them, puts under aged sexuality into play.



Thank you Tad. You have very accurately described the terrain as I found it and how we tried to deal with it. 

Please do not feel badly about having "flaked out" on the migration efforts. GEF and a half dozen other crashed as well - and that was with us saying "if you find something that should just be deleted, just say so." Still we deleted close to eighty for various reasons. 

Did we miss things? More accurately with over 1000 tales in the html library we never got to some sections in detail. We had the VB forums and new material as our priority. But we had set up a spreadsheet that included the entire html library and at least glanced at the most likely suspects. The problem is that review was done in the context of the old nuanced rules. 

The issue now is not really the underage protagonists with their soap operas. Those stories have other homes with no one calling them or their authors names. The current topic, as Fascinita notes, is what is to be done with the more extreme fantasies. 

They are clearly labeled as to what they are and, as one poster noted, their clearly labeled archives are at the very bottom of the forum stack. I admit to having done that as part of a balancing act. I knew they were potentially offensive to many for reasons that have been enunciated here but was still charged with maximizing "freedom of fantasy." 

For reasons of his own Conrad has defended this inclusion for nearly twenty years as a matter of policy. That is why those who say they're not trying to change things by objecting to them are being a bit disingenuous. The thing the critics don't know is the basis of my own willingness to even deal with such stories.

The exchange was based on the realistic addressing of underage reality on this site. We do have a lot of underage viewers for whom a number of the stories were the target audiuence. Many of these were authored by writers who themselves were teenagers at the time of composition. They may not have been eligible to be community members and post themselves but they were/are still in our midst and reading thse posts.

I agree that the under age stories involved, yours included, had all the sexual sizzle of the Archie comics, but that's not a bad thing. It was FA/BBW literature for teens with generally happy outcomes. They dealt wth issues such as classmate taunts, overbearing parents, and being the nest you could be despite obstacles. And some were silly revenge plots and stuckage scenes.

It has been remarked that I must have felt rather deeply to quit as curator when such stories came under such vicious attack because of one screening error. This is true. I resigned because I knew that the accusations were so loud no one was going to listen to what I viewed as reason. So I helped pull the stories and insure they, and their authors if needed, had safe homes.


----------



## mergirl

Observer said:


> I knew they were potentially offensive to many for reasons that have been enunciated here but was still charged with maximizing "freedom of fantasy."
> 
> For reasons of his own Conrad has defended this inclusion for nearly twenty years as a matter of policy. That is why those who say they're not trying to change things by objecting to them are being a bit disingenuous. The thing the critics don't know is the basis of my own willingness to even deal with such stories.


It would be interesting to hear Conrads own reasons. He hasn't actually said.

ooh and look the bowing guy is not rasist anymore!! :bow:
The times they are a changin...


----------



## LoveBHMS

I'm serious about this.

Why is it OK for posters to post pictures of relatives that are underaged. Why can anyone who wants to post pictures of themselves with kids, grandkids, or other minors? If you have to be 18 to post here, shouldn't you have to be 18 to decide if you want your picture here or not?

Beyond that, why is it ok, and even encouraged for some to post pictures of _themselves_ as minors? Any number of posts on the "Post Pictures of your Skinniest and Fattest" self contain posts where a picture is clearly of somebody under 18, either by being obvious on site or the poster saying "Here is me in 9th grade". Why are those OK when we can all guess that somebody, somewhere is jerking off to them?


----------



## Paquito

You'd think you wouldn't have to tell a forum of *adults* to not sexualize minors.

But just to make it really clear, *don't sexualize minors.*

If you want you're protagonist to have a younger sibling, child, random kid on the street, then that's one thing. But don't write a story about how little 9th grade Becky being force fed for sexual pleasure.

Kthnxbai.


----------



## joswitch

James said:


> Even though that legislation seems to imply that sexualization of minors in the form of a story is within the bounds of the law as it stands, can't we agree that its distasteful, inappropriate and morally grey enough to choose for it to be no part of dimensions?
> 
> Actually, I think we *have *decided that and all the content that could possibly fall into that category has now been identified and removed. Rules are no longer ambiguous and there is no further leeway for misinterpretation (willful or otherwise). I don't think that could be any more clear or final.
> 
> Must we continue to tear each other down over who did what and when? Its gone now (and rightly so in my opinion). We could sit around trading insults and attacks ad infinitum but I suspect that since this appears to be a morality issue rather than a clear legal issue, I for one, would like to focus on interacting with Dimensions in a constructive manner, discussing adult topics relating to fat sexuality and fat acceptance amongst adult peers.



Seconded. The age of characters in stories issue is done and dealt with. (good result - IMO). Time to move on, yeah? People? Please?


----------



## Sugar

LoveBHMS said:


> I'm serious about this.
> 
> Why is it OK for posters to post pictures of relatives that are underaged. Why can anyone who wants to post pictures of themselves with kids, grandkids, or other minors? If you have to be 18 to post here, shouldn't you have to be 18 to decide if you want your picture here or not?
> 
> Beyond that, why is it ok, and even encouraged for some to post pictures of _themselves_ as minors? Any number of posts on the "Post Pictures of your Skinniest and Fattest" self contain posts where a picture is clearly of somebody under 18, either by being obvious on site or the poster saying "Here is me in 9th grade". Why are those OK when we can all guess that somebody, somewhere is jerking off to them?



Intent. 

It's one thing for a person to share pictures from their past, it's another to write a story for the soul purpose of "erotica" where the main character is a child (under 18).

Example A is about sharing your life with your internet friends and whatnot.

Example B is about exploiting a minor (even a fake one) for sexual gratification. 

I'd seriously like to know why you wouldn't understand that. I'm not trying to be flippant.


----------



## joswitch

LoveBHMS said:


> I'm serious about this.
> 
> Why is it OK for posters to post pictures of relatives that are underaged. Why can anyone who wants to post pictures of themselves with kids, grandkids, or other minors? If you have to be 18 to post here, shouldn't you have to be 18 to decide if you want your picture here or not?
> 
> Beyond that, why is it ok, and even encouraged for some to post pictures of _themselves_ as minors? Any number of posts on the "Post Pictures of your Skinniest and Fattest" self contain posts where a picture is clearly of somebody under 18, either by being obvious on site or the poster saying "Here is me in 9th grade". Why are those OK when we can all guess that somebody, somewhere is jerking off to them?



That is actually a fair point. Not the jerking off bit, but the why post those pics on an 18+ forum bit. Never understood that myself.... Some people have a pic of themselves (I assume) as a kid, as their avatar... seems a little screwy ... no I'm not saying it's the same thing as the stories... just seems a lil' "off" to me....


----------



## LoveBHMS

I'm not trying to be flippant either.

If you are banned from posting here if you are under the age of 18, why should somebody else be able to post a picture of you?

Have we really devolved this discussion to the point where a fake minor gets more consideration than a real one? Because the minors in WG fiction stories are made up...they don't exist. The minors in pictures posted by anyone who "just wants to share with their internet friends" are real.

A picture of anyone younger than 18 is a picture of a minor, right? So why is that allowed? Especially when somebody posts two or more pictures that depict an obvious weight gain---say "here is me in my junior class picture" and "here is me now, 140 pounds heavier". I really don't see why it would be OK to post pictures of an actual minor and his or her weight gain but not write a story about a pretend, and probably a minor of nebulous age.


----------



## Fascinita

Hey, look! New bowing emoticon!

:bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow:

And more!

:finger:


----------



## Paquito

:finger:

this will be used very, _very_ often by yours truly.


----------



## Fascinita

free2beme04 said:


> :finger:
> 
> this will be used very, _very_ often by yours truly.



Yeah. Way to go, boards!


----------



## Sugar

LoveBHMS said:


> I'm not trying to be flippant either.
> 
> If you are banned from posting here if you are under the age of 18, why should somebody else be able to post a picture of you?
> 
> Have we really devolved this discussion to the point where a fake minor gets more consideration than a real one? Because the minors in WG fiction stories are made up...they don't exist. The minors in pictures posted by anyone who "just wants to share with their internet friends" are real.
> 
> A picture of anyone younger than 18 is a picture of a minor, right? So why is that allowed? Especially when somebody posts two or more pictures that depict an obvious weight gain---say "here is me in my junior class picture" and "here is me now, 140 pounds heavier". I really don't see why it would be OK to post pictures of an actual minor and his or her weight gain but not write a story about a pretend, and probably a minor of nebulous age.



I see your point, but I still think somehow it goes back to intent. I can post a pic of myself in chat and if someone chooses to click on it and save it I have no control over that. I didn't post it for a jizz fest, but unsavory actions are rampant in a place where we are celebrating something that is a real turn on to a majority of the members. 

In a story that's purely about erotic things where the main characters are under aged (and not a day before their 17th birthday) it would seem that the intent is to gain pleasure from an under aged character. Taboo is a turn on to many...when you draw a line in the sand though it can get washed away pretty quickly.


----------



## LoveBHMS

Well if we're really going to split hairs, this is an adult site. ANY content should be of adults, not minors.

That should mean no posting pictures of children or grandchildren or nieces or nephews or friends who are under 18. I am not interested in intent; the bottom line is if this is an adult site, where you must be 18 or over to determine if you want to post here, it should be forbidden to post pictures of minors.

My way is not even a line in the sand---I've never seen an adult publication along the lines of Penthouse or Hustler to allow anyone to include a photograph of a child. Many single moms model for these publications, yet none include pictures of their kids in photo sets.

I recall a Paysite set that caused a huge dustup merely because the woman posed in a child's bedroom. Every Paysite I have seen notes on the front page that it requires proof of anyone posing to be an adult--yet a set with an adult posed on a young person's BED caused a problem.

If a Big Cutie can't have a site until she is 18, why can anyone post a picture of themselves at the age of 16?


----------



## Santaclear

LoveBHMS said:


> Well if we're really going to split hairs, this is an adult site. ANY content should be of adults, not minors.
> That should mean no posting pictures of children or grandchildren or nieces or nephews or friends who are under 18. I am not interested in intent; the bottom line is if this is an adult site, where you must be 18 or over to determine if you want to post here, it should be forbidden to post pictures of minors.
> My way is not even a line in the sand---I've never seen an adult publication along the lines of Penthouse or Hustler to allow anyone to include a photograph of a child. Many single moms model for these publications, yet none include pictures of their kids in photo sets.
> I recall a Paysite set that caused a huge dustup merely because the woman posed in a child's bedroom. Every Paysite I have seen notes on the front page that it requires proof of anyone posing to be an adult--yet a set with an adult posed on a young person's BED caused a problem.
> If a Big Cutie can't have a site until she is 18, why can anyone post a picture of themselves at the age of 16?



You really care that some posters post pics of their kids or grandkids, etc? I highly doubt it.

Try to get Paysite people to include minors in their photo sets then. Good luck.


----------



## LoveBHMS

Well I do care about it. 

I honestly think nobody under the age of 18 should have a photograph posted on an adult website (which this is) without his or her consent. I've always been uncomfortable with posts of teenaged or younger children who might not want their likenesses on this site.


----------



## Santaclear

It excites you, doesn't it? :eat2:


----------



## LoveBHMS

No, it bothers me for the reasons I stated.

I don't think there should be pictures on this site of anyone under the age of 18. End of.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

Lol, can some of the arguments here get any more bitter or ridiculous? 

Crikey....


----------



## tonynyc

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Lol, can some of the arguments here get any more bitter or ridiculous?
> 
> Crikey....



Well we can always chew the fat over the thickness of Barbie's ankles....


----------



## Sugar

tonynyc said:


> Well we can always chew the fat over the thickness of Barbie's ankles....



Take your foot fetish to a foot fetish board.


----------



## Santaclear

LoveBHMS said:


> No, it bothers me for the reasons I stated.
> 
> I don't think there should be pictures on this site of anyone under the age of 18. End of.



So what would you like to see done about this?


----------



## mollycoddles

Santaclear said:


> It excites you, doesn't it? :eat2:




LovesBHMS has brought up a legitimate point. Your ridiculous accusations aren't helping things.


----------



## Observer

> But don't write a story about how little 9th grade Becky being force fed for sexual pleasure.



Absolutely! 

What the editors and writers are puzzled by is the impression that such stories were ever acceptable in the Library, or that anyone would want or defend them. 

As I recall we once did find a handful that had slipped into the Weight Room. They were marked for deletion upon discovery. s far as I know we never had such a tale in the forums - although a couple were submitted.

Perhaps an introduction to typical teen age WR fiction themes is in order.

The typical teen soap opera goes like this - Jane feels awkward about having gained a few extra pounds until she meets Mike, a nascent FA getting in touch with his preferences. She gets by her reservations and he gets past his shyness and the two start going steady to the chagrin/relief (take your choice) of their parents. 


Then there is the cheerleader scenario - based on the movie. The airheaded stereotypical cheer leaders give everyone grief, especially the fat girls, until their waistlines get sabotaged by stealth or magic, putting them onto the same playing field as the rest of the student body. Meanwhile the plump plain Janes they've given grief to wind up dating members of the football team.

Or the Little Lotta super heroines. Mary acquires abilities to solve crimes and destroy local super-villains as a result of circumstances that cause her to become Balloon Girl or Tamara Thunderthighs, who with their secret cadre of fellow students who know their identity do the stuff teen superheroes do.

One of the more extensive series we had involved the adventures of a championship team of water polo players at a high school, They were the role models for their campus and the pride of the community.

Stories such as the above were the common under age protagonist stories we're talking about -not forcefeeding of nine year olds (or any other age). The problem is that it is feared by some that such tales, although not themselves sexual in content, represent sexualization in the context of the Dimensions environment. 

So now they're gone, reposted elsewhere. But they weren't pedophilia or pornography - and it would be appreciated by our writers that those who never read them would please quit insinuating that they were.


----------



## Paquito

mollycoddles said:


> LovesBHMS has brought up a legitimate point. Your ridiculous accusations aren't helping things.





Santaclear said:


> So what would you like to see done about this?



Santaclear has posted a legitimate response to LoveBHMS. As long as posters bring actual responses to threads, a little humor isn't going to kill anybody.


----------



## exile in thighville

Fascinita said:


> You've been talking about "taking out the trash" and "babysitting" anyone who doesn't agree with you.



i don't think you read my posts so much as plug buzzwords from them into your own. i debate people who don't agree with me, unfortunately. "babysitting" refers to the babies here who report posts that don't say things they like. if you think that's me...


----------



## exile in thighville

free2beme04 said:


> But don't write a story about how little 9th grade Becky being force fed for sexual pleasure.



i suppose it would bother you less if the feeding was consensual HEEHEE


----------



## exile in thighville

Fascinita said:


> ONLY against the notion that fetish belongs outside of the bedroom, purporting to represent some reality that fat people and those who admire them inhabit whether they like it or not. When fantasy begins to be viewed as the "truth" that defines fat and fat desire, there's a problem



except we fetishists don't really care what you think and this is as much as if not more a fetish forum than a size acceptance forum - really, what "size acceptance" work has been done here in 365 days? lots of bitching about subway ads and what action? lots of infighting among our own ranks, witch hunts, fat _admirers_ being told they're the problem, sexist, whatever. and in the case of this discussion, the fetishists.

here is who's to blame for the lack of size acceptance respect, and non-community friends will vouch: the fatties who get upset and vengeful over every little fucking criticism that comes their way, making actual worthwhile protests harder and harder for the outside world to take seriously. 

*stop looking for people among your own community to blame.* if you think the fantasizers are the problem, by all means shield your ass from the loathers.


----------



## Paquito

exile in thighville said:


> i suppose it would bother you less if the feeding was consensual HEEHEE



you're a tricky bitch, you know that? :bow:


----------



## bdog

Fascinita said:


> Tell me, Dan, how do you define "obscene"?



I'm not Dan, unfortunately, but I think it's obscene that I can't even follow this thread without investing 2 hours a day here.


----------



## exile in thighville

nugget of wisdom from Noted Source of Derision curvage:



> There is something that is, to me, wholly repugnant about demanding acceptance. Tolerance is great, and is nothing more than uninvolved parties not giving a flying fuck about you and, at the very least, keeping their criticisms to themselves. Acceptance is different, acceptance is being an asshole about your quirks, it's telling the world, "I'm here, I'm <insert thing here>, and if you don't embrace me for what makes me different, you're worse than a thousand Hitlers."


----------



## Observer

Don't we have enough of our own commontary here already without bringing in comments from other sites such as Curvage?


----------



## exile in thighville

truth hurts


----------



## bdog

exile in thighville said:


> nugget of wisdom from Noted Source of Derision curvage:



That quote is a logical fallacy.. denouncing the whole of [size] acceptance based on the poor behavior of some of it's constituents. 

BUT ANYWAYZ...

The funny thing about this whole reality vs fantasy debate is that in my own life the "reality" of size acceptance happens in the workplace, at family gatherings, in front of a mirror, in a court room, with new acquaintances, old friends, on a date, in a clothing store, and so on. The fantasy is encroaching on reality? Well, ok, maybe it's time to turn off the computer? Not trying to be rude... or right... just a thought.

Dan's quote did bring up a good point in it's own weird way, which is that the people clamoring the most are actually just irking other people more than helping the "cause". 

People can attack all the fappers in the erotic archive all you want... but you know China's Great Wall didn't really protect itself from poverty within. 

fuck... where's my bowing chinaman icon???


----------



## sweet&fat

Fascinita said:


> Hey, look! New bowing emoticon!
> 
> :bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow:
> 
> And more!
> 
> :finger:



thank god- I always thought it was nuts that no one here ever mentioned the ridiculous "asian" bowing one. WTF?


----------



## mollycoddles

sweet&fat said:


> thank god- I always thought it was nuts that no one here ever mentioned the ridiculous "asian" bowing one. WTF?



hahahah I like your custom title


----------



## exile in thighville

bdog said:


> Dan's quote did bring up a good point in it's own weird way, which is that the people clamoring the most are actually just irking other people more than helping the "cause".



yeah, that's all i meant with it. i'm pretty obviously one of the assholes clamoring for 'acceptance'.


----------



## bdog

sweet&fat said:


> thank god- I always thought it was nuts that no one here ever mentioned the ridiculous "asian" bowing one. WTF?



I always thought it was playful and I imagined a loud 'gong' sound going along with it. Whenever I said something that sounded moderately profound I used it to make fun of myself. 

BECAUSE I'M RACIST AND I THINK ORIENTALS ARE FUNNY AND I WANT TO DO THINGS THAT HURT THEM.


----------



## sweet&fat

bdog said:


> I always thought it was playful and I imagined a loud 'gong' sound going along with it. Whenever I said something that sounded moderately profound I used it to make fun of myself.
> 
> BECAUSE I'M RACIST AND I THINK ORIENTALS ARE FUNNY AND I WANT TO DO THINGS THAT HURT THEM.



This stuff writes itself after a while, no? :bow:


----------



## mergirl

sweet&fat said:


> thank god- I always thought it was nuts that no one here ever mentioned the ridiculous "asian" bowing one. WTF?


Haha.. we did a LOT!! Dan even had it as his sig for a while. I think i mentioned it after my first week here...hmm the new icon doesn't say "Ahh indeed" to me it says "I am trying to touch my toes" :bow: (Which frankly i find offensive to people who cant! )


----------



## exile in thighville

"orientals" haha


----------



## Tad

Sugar said:


> Intent.
> 
> It's one thing for a person to share pictures from their past, it's another to write a story for the soul purpose of "erotica" where the main character is a child (under 18).
> 
> Example A is about sharing your life with your internet friends and whatnot.
> 
> Example B is about exploiting a minor (even a fake one) for sexual gratification.
> 
> I'd seriously like to know why you wouldn't understand that. I'm not trying to be flippant.



You are making one huge assumption here: that all stories written with characters under 18 were written for the purpose of erotica. Some may have been, but some were essentially coming of age stories* (written to explore what it means to grow up as a fat admirer or as a fat person) or just slice-of-life or memories**. I never read most, so I couldn't tell you the ratio--just saying not all were written with erotic intent or content. (what people read into them is a different matter, and is why I support the current move to ban all under 18 characters).

* by way of reference, did you ever read Judy Blume growing up? Her book "Blubber" would certainly be on topic for a lot of people, exploring as it does growing up as a fat girl. But given the decision that Dimensions is fundamentally an adult site, having it or a functional equivalent here would be inappropriate, and of course against the new age rule.

** Note that if you write a post on other boards about going to the beach when you were sixteen, and even post a picture of yourself at the beach at that age, it is allowed. If you would like to write a story based on that event (say where you come up with the great retort for the person who heckled you), it would not be allowed.


----------



## exile in thighville

it's much worse for an innocently-intended picture of a real adolescent to go around the net than it is for someone to jack off to an underage story. in the former case, a real-life minor's privacy is being hijacked and exploited. neither is a particularly impeachable offense though.


----------



## LoveBHMS

> As well, I think the "SA contingent" has been calling for a strengthening, in vocal terms, of Conrad's commitment to SA. A site which purports to be about SA but on which an actual person of size has to tread with care because they've been told "you don't like it, deal with it" about the existence of fantasy (fantasy which can include some very anti-SA sentiments) is at odds with its own mission to be a safe haven for those seeking SA.



You're now wanting the person who started this site, who actually invented the term "BBW" and who has maintained this site for years at what i'm guessing is not a huge profit (if any at all--and maybe a loss) to strengthen his committment to SA? Really?

EVERYBODY is told about _fantasy "you don't like it, don't read it", this is not just about fat people and once again I love how the people we're really supposed to cater to are those sad and emotionally bedraggled fat women who reach the Dimensions shore, praying to have found a safe haven only to actully see the word "fetish" in print. Maybe as an FA I think more highly of fat people, but I don't see them all as perennially miserable creatures in need of having a place in the world that's been bubble wrapped and visually sanitized for them. Plenty of people come to this site looking for erotica, community, FA issues rather than fat people issues, or any number of other things. And even for the safe haven seekers, I'm willing to give them some credit that if they register for an adult site, they're not going to shriek and gasp in horror because a thread on the Main Board has the word fetish in it._


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> i don't think you read my posts so much as plug buzzwords from them into your own. i debate people who don't agree with me, unfortunately. "babysitting" refers to the babies here who report posts that don't say things they like. if you think that's me...



Well, I'm not into debating style. If you really think it comes down to a difference of styles, I dunno what to tell you. I do think the ideological differences are worth debating without name-calling and foot-stamping. 

It's clear that those tactics are not a good substitute for actually listening and responding. But I can sit here and wish that things didn't turn into such a free-for-all and that people remained calm and reasonable, and in the end you and I both know that one very good reason people fight is because fighting is entertaining.

I just hope that when we decide to give in to the mud-slinging and smarmy smokescreens and he-said-she-saids, that we don't confuse that with actual, meaningful debate.

:bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::bow::goodbye:


----------



## TraciJo67

LoveBHMS said:


> who actually invented the term "BBW"



Oh. My.

lololololololol

lullz

From Wikipedia: "Big Beautiful Woman" (commonly abbreviated as BBW) is a neologism most frequently used in the context of affirmation of or sexual attraction to women who are above average weight. The terms "Big Beautiful Women" and "BBW" were coined by Carole Shaw in 1979, when she launched BBW Magazine, a fashion and lifestyle magazine for plus-size women.[1]


----------



## Observer

Historical accuracy: Carol Shaw, founder of BBW Magazine, originally coined and copyrighted the BBW acronym, not Conrad. 

However, by virtue of of his company having purchased the magazine later on he is the current legal owner of the trademark. 

_eta: I see Traci just confirmed this, which is fine. 

Hero worship? I'm sure he doesn't want it - but there is certainly no way of measuring the depth of his commitment over the years and he deserves optimal respect. _


----------



## TraciJo67

Observer said:


> Historical accuracy: Carol Shaw, founder of BBW Magazine, originally coined and copyrighted the BBW acronym, not Conrad.
> 
> However, by virtue of of his company having purchased the magazine later on he is the current legal owner of the trademark.
> :



Legal owner of the trademark? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> except we fetishists don't really care what you think and this is as much as if not more a fetish forum than a size acceptance forum



Well, maybe this is clear to you, but I think there's a whole bunch of people who disagree, thankfully.

You don't get that it's an issue that's coming to a head precisely because people are finally catching on that what has tried to pass itself off as "fat acceptance" may really be just the butt-side of fat phobia?

Allow me to coin a new term: fat-ambivalent.

It's old-fashioned and deeply rooted, and it deserves to be called out for what it is.

I get that there are some who are perfectly in love with fat and who are just gutsy enough to want to mine the borderline of fat hate for a way to reclaim fat.

But that opens a lot of cans of worms that have to be handled with skill. Maybe telling everyone to get used to the level of ambivalence you're comfortable with is not the most skillful or sensitive or reasonable way to go. 

OK, sport. Unless you have something new and juicy you think I should know, shall you and I adjourn?


----------



## Webmaster

Here's the fact: Carole Shaw first used the term for BBW Magazine in 79. I later bought the trademarks BBW and Big Beautiful Woman when I took over BBW Magazine and published it for another four or five years after the prior publisher closed it down. Carole strictly enforced her trademarks. I felt they had become pretty much public domain and so I never enforced the trademarks. Trademarks are very complex anyway. I am just happy that the term exists and that it is widely used. 



TraciJo67 said:


> Oh. My.
> 
> lololololololol
> 
> lullz
> 
> From Wikipedia: "Big Beautiful Woman" (commonly abbreviated as BBW) is a neologism most frequently used in the context of affirmation of or sexual attraction to women who are above average weight. The terms "Big Beautiful Women" and "BBW" were coined by Carole Shaw in 1979, when she launched BBW Magazine, a fashion and lifestyle magazine for plus-size women.[1]


----------



## TraciJo67

Webmaster said:


> Here's the fact: Carole Shaw first used the term for BBW Magazine in 79. I later bought the trademarks BBW and Big Beautiful Woman when I took over BBW Magazine and published it for another four or five years after the prior publisher closed it down. Carole strictly enforced her trademarks. I felt they had become pretty much public domain and so I never enforced the trademarks. Trademarks are very complex anyway. I am just happy that the term exists and that it is widely used.



I am aware of that, Conrad. Wikipedia links it, as well.

I'm just incredulous that this is being used as the basis for a debating point in the first place.


----------



## Observer

Yes, owner of the Magazine and the BBW trademark. 

If you go to the Power of Plus blog on the BBW Magazine website, found here, you will find that he is still making signed editorial contributions as recently as this year.

_eta: I wasn't using it as a debating point but in response to your remark about "hero worship." Its one thing to disagree with someone but when they have Conrad's track record they deserve for people to be aware of it. I know you are, but some reading this may not be._


----------



## Fascinita

sweet&fat said:


> thank god- I always thought it was nuts that no one here ever mentioned the ridiculous "asian" bowing one. WTF?



Some peeps mentioned it sporadically, but nothing was ever done. Apparently it took exile using it to take a potshot at certain "liberal hysterics" to actually get movement on it.

Thus I'm not sure if it means we're more or less liberal than before. :blink:

Either way, I'm glad for the new one.

:bow:


----------



## TraciJo67

Fascinita said:


> Some peeps mentioned it sporadically, but nothing was ever done. Apparently it took exile using it to take a potshot at certain "liberal hysterics" to actually get movement on it.
> 
> Thus I'm not sure if it means we're more or less liberal than before. :blink:
> 
> Either way, I'm glad for the new one.
> 
> :bow:



Yes, I see that his sig line is "teaching us a lesson" on how best to use the word "******", now.


----------



## Fascinita

bdog said:


> I'm not Dan, unfortunately, but I think it's obscene that I can't even follow this thread without investing 2 hours a day here.



But you wannoo, right? Amirite?  It's a juicy thread, ain't it? :bow:

(If this is your way of saying I should be get back to work, bdog... Why, you! Ok, yes, in a minute.)


----------



## GTAFA

One of the reasons this conversation is happening (and it's such a broad conversation, both in this thread and in the broader sense, that i think a few of us aren't sure what it's about anymore) is related to the tendency you find in digital media to break down boundaries and divisions. Whereas print magazines and institutions constituted in buildings with charters and rules, tend to have clear definitions and boundaries between them and those who are excluded, that doesn't work so well if you're just a click away from those whom you might exclude.

And this goes both ways. Whichever side of the "fence" you are on, it's really not much of a fence anymore. Boundaries and disciplinary divisions are largely historical fictions, when one can easily go across that frontier. That lack of clear boundaries open conversations to the kind of conflicts you see here. One can't easily say whether it's good or bad; it just is.

The very term size acceptance is therefore conflated with discussions that used to be separate (suppose i paraphrase them as "i want respect" and "i want gratification"), as well as all sorts of discussions that are not quite so political (such as of "what is beauty", or "what do you like to eat"). For better or worse, they can all be parts of the same subject. When you segregate populations in buildings and separate print magazines, the boundaries are more real; but even then, they are just metaphors. Once everyone is on the internet --not even the same site, please note --a person sitting at their laptop or desktop or other device can click click click wherever they want to go. 

Boundaries? they don't exist anymore.


----------



## Webmaster

Fascinita said:


> Some peeps mentioned it sporadically, but nothing was ever done. Apparently it took exile using it to take a potshot at certain "liberal hysterics" to actually get movement on it.
> 
> Thus I'm not sure if it means we're more or less liberal than before. :blink:
> 
> Either way, I'm glad for the new one.
> 
> :bow:



Well, that was one of those times-they-are-a-changin sort of things. No one ever directly approached me on it. I sporadically add/subtract/change smilies and emoticons per request or suggestion, and while the polite bow smilie was used by many, I can see that it was perhaps a bit out of date. So the replacement now offers a nice rendition of Garth and Wayne's "we're not worthy!"


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> nugget of wisdom from Noted Source of Derision curvage:



Tolerance for _everybody_ finding their place in the sun = GREAT! 

Tolerance for strong-arming and manipulation in the name of something you know I want for the sake of you getting what you want = SUCKAGE.

I don't have to have acceptance, but then don't offer "acceptance" and turn around and demand "tolerance" and tell me to get lost when I complain that _you_'re not being very tolerant of me--all the while telling me I'm not tolerant enough. 

That isn't fostering tolerance. It's hoodwinking followed by strong-arming followed by smoke-screening.

[All refs to 'you' are rhetorical.]


----------



## Fascinita

Webmaster said:


> Well, that was one of those times-they-are-a-changin sort of things. No one ever directly approached me on it. I sporadically add/subtract/change smilies and emoticons per request or suggestion, and while the polite bow smilie was used by many, I can see that it was perhaps a bit out of date. So the replacement now offers a nice rendition of Garth and Wayne's "we're not worthy!"



Glad you changed it. :bow:

Can I ask, what was the thinking behind the "giving the finger" emoticon? It seems... I dunno. Isn't it going to stir up animosity? I thought we were trying to get away from that?


----------



## Santaclear

Santaclear said:


> It excites you, doesn't it? :eat2:





mollycoddles said:


> Your ridiculous accusations aren't helping things.



I like to use humor every now and then. Definitely is called for when you look at what Loves was saying.


----------



## Fascinita

GTAFA said:


> One of the reasons this conversation is happening (and it's such a broad conversation, both in this thread and in the broader sense, that i think a few of us aren't sure what it's about anymore) is related to the tendency you find in digital media to break down boundaries and divisions. Whereas print magazines and institutions constituted in buildings with charters and rules, tend to have clear definitions and boundaries between them and those who are excluded, that doesn't work so well if you're just a click away from those whom you might exclude.
> 
> And this goes both ways. Whichever side of the "fence" you are on, it's really not much of a fence anymore. Boundaries and disciplinary divisions are largely historical fictions, when one can easily go across that frontier. That lack of clear boundaries open conversations to the kind of conflicts you see here. One can't easily say whether it's good or bad; it just is.
> 
> The very term size acceptance is therefore conflated with discussions that used to be separate (suppose i paraphrase them as "i want respect" and "i want gratification"), as well as all sorts of discussions that are not quite so political (such as of "what is beauty", or "what do you like to eat"). For better or worse, they can all be parts of the same subject. When you segregate populations in buildings and separate print magazines, the boundaries are more real; but even then, they are just metaphors. Once everyone is on the internet --not even the same site, please note --a person sitting at their laptop or desktop or other device can click click click wherever they want to go.
> 
> Boundaries? they don't exist anymore.



This is great food for thought.

I'd add, though, that it's curious--if boundaries truly don't exist anymore--that people seem still to desire to band together politically. It's one reason we're having this discussion.

How do you account for that? Just an illusion? I think it may be too harsh a "truth" to expect fleshy, breathing, pooping, baby-making humans to swallow. In a very real sense, there is more oppression and more danger than ever, and so more boundaries than ever. The internet offers a way out of that, but only in a virtual sense, right? We still have to get up and be productive in the morning.

That reminds me... There's a paper I need to write about Lacan.


----------



## Webmaster

Good question, and true enough. As is, there is a standard set of 11 fairly innocuous vBulletin smilies. The rest were added later, perhaps automatically via additional styles, or I added them for one reason or another. At times I look at pages like this one to get new ideas.



Fascinita said:


> Glad you changed it. :bow:
> 
> Can I ask, what was the thinking behind the "giving the finger" emoticon? It seems... I dunno. Isn't it going to stir up animosity? I thought we were trying to get away from that?


----------



## LoveBHMS

Santaclear said:


> I like to use humor every now and then. Definitely is called for when you look at what Loves was saying.



I guess it's all well and good to make fun of and not take seriously the issues I brought up.

I really and truly do not think it's appropriate for photographs of anyone under the age of 18 to be on this site. Why is that such a difficult and laughable idea for you?

And gosh, I guess I should flog myself for my massive error and ignorance of trademark/patent matters around an acronym. I misunderstood that Conrad owned the rights to the term but had not invented it. 

Either way, I don't see why Conrad has to vocally strengthen his committment to SA. This is his site, and beyond that I think he's shown more than sufficient committment to the cause of SA. 

And I'm genuinely annoyed with the idea that allowing fiction stories with certain themes are in any way not "fat positive" when many fat people enjoy them.


----------



## Santaclear

LoveBHMS said:


> I guess it's all well and good to make fun of and not take seriously the issues I brought up.
> I really and truly do not think it's appropriate for photographs of anyone under the age of 18 to be on this site. Why is that such a difficult and laughable idea for you?
> And gosh, I guess I should flog myself for my massive error and ignorance of trademark/patent matters around an acronym. I misunderstood that Conrad owned the rights to the term but had not invented it.
> Either way, I don't see why Conrad has to vocally strengthen his committment to SA. This is his site, and beyond that I think he's shown more than sufficient committment to the cause of SA.
> And I'm genuinely annoyed with the idea that allowing fiction stories with certain themes are in any way not "fat positive" when many fat people enjoy them.



"Issues" you brought up? Looks to me like you're only bringing up people posting pictures of their kids or family (which many do enjoy, and which does help foster a feeling of community here IMO) to say, "well, that makes me uncomfortable, but I want my porn, so if I have to tolerate that, you have to tolerate what I want too." Entirely self-serving.

Me? I visit the Library almost never. I don't care about it much, personally. I'm not offended but then again I'm not a fat woman. Does annoy me to see whining by *anyone* who isn't fat and/or a woman that Dimensions is _primarily_ their place.


----------



## exile in thighville

Fascinita said:


> Apparently it took exile using it to take a potshot at certain "liberal hysterics" to actually get movement on it.



seriously this tic you have

my friend made the comment, i know it's hard to remember because i changed my sig 12 hours ago...



Fascinita said:


> Well, maybe this is clear to you, but I think there's a whole bunch of people who disagree, thankfully.



i'd like to audit those people's size acceptance résumé, because i assure you the masturbators' inventory is longer. conrad doesn't bite the hand that feeds his hit count but others here who fight this contradiction tend toward the delusional.


----------



## Santaclear

exile in thighville said:


> seriously this tic you have
> 
> my friend made the comment, i know it's hard to remember because i changed my sig 12 hours ago...



You posted it tho (a quote from one of your genius chats.) He didn't.


----------



## exile in thighville

and i agree with it


----------



## exile in thighville

this brings up a good question of who here knows someone on here who has "done something for size acceptance"? you can name yourself but you know, tacky. maybe i'll start a thread.


----------



## LoveBHMS

> Me? I visit the Library almost never. I don't care about it much, personally. I'm not offended but then again I'm not a fat woman. Does annoy me to see whining by anyone who isn't fat and/or a woman that Dimensions is primarily their place.



So if you are fat and/or a woman, you can whine that Dimensions is primarily your place? My understanding is that it was a spinoff of a NAAFA group of FAs, and FAs are probably mostly, or largely thin males.

What a lot of us are tired of is the notion that there needs to be some sort of clear cut hierarchy in terms of whose needs matter most with SSBBW being at the top (and even within that group, I'm sure the SSBBW who are fetishists are probably closer to the bottom of their subgroup) and thin/average females who self ascribe as FFA and/or fetishists at the bottom. Thin/average males who self ascribe as fetishists are close to the bottom and maybe a bit lower down if they happen to be gay or transgendered. This hierarchy seems to be expressed primarily as:

1. Sensitivity to the group's needs and demands
2. Defference to their posts which offend others and offering them a lot more leeway when it comes to picking on or ridiculing others.

A lot of the fetishists and others on the Weight Board tend to feel there's a constant wink and nod towards the non-fetish types who constantly read and post there and make fun of us. And there are even clear and obvious examples of rule-breaking where the anti-fetish crowd takes whatever leeway it wants to promote the idea that we're a bunch of creepy loser weirdos who don't belong here.


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> seriously this tic you have
> 
> my friend made the comment, i know it's hard to remember because i changed my sig 12 hours ago...



Leave my tics out of it and let's talk issues. I'm not interested in talking to you if you just use my responses as fodder for more of your whining.

Who's this Theon, btw? And does he wear a Cosby sweater?




> i'd like to audit those people's size acceptance résumé, because i assure you the masturbators' inventory is longer. conrad doesn't bite the hand that feeds his hit count but others here who fight this contradiction tend toward the delusional.



Your resume is bigger than mine. And I'm deluded for having something to say.

Who're you kidding that you just don't want people to shut up and do as you say?

And, mmm, I've always taken it at face value when I hear Conrad say that he's not in it for the money and that he cares about fat acceptance. 

But evidently you know something I don't, huh? The hits are good for what? For all that ad traffic Conrad has on here? Please.

See, it's me who has a sincere stake in this.

What you're doing here is anyone's guess.

Now, please, away with you! _*clap clap*_ Jeeves, bring my breakfast!

:bow::bow::bow::bow::bow:


----------



## Santaclear

LoveBHMS said:


> So if you are fat and/or a woman, you can whine that Dimensions is primarily your place? My understanding is that it was a spinoff of a NAAFA group of FAs, and FAs are probably mostly, or largely thin males.
> 
> What a lot of us are tired of is the notion that there needs to be some sort of clear cut hierarchy in terms of whose needs matter most with SSBBW being at the top (and even within that group, I'm sure the SSBBW who are fetishists are probably closer to the bottom of their subgroup) and thin/average females who self ascribe as FFA and/or fetishists at the bottom. Thin/average males who self ascribe as fetishists are close to the bottom and maybe a bit lower down if they happen to be gay or transgendered. This hierarchy seems to be expressed primarily as:
> 
> 1. Sensitivity to the group's needs and demands
> 2. Defference to their posts which offend others and offering them a lot more leeway when it comes to picking on or ridiculing others.
> 
> A lot of the fetishists and others on the Weight Board tend to feel there's a constant wink and nod towards the non-fetish types who constantly read and post there and make fun of us. And there are even clear and obvious examples of rule-breaking where the anti-fetish crowd takes whatever leeway it wants to promote the idea that we're a bunch of creepy loser weirdos who don't belong here.



I'm not saying you don't belong here nor am I describing you that way. I mean that your complaint about posters posting pictures of their kids or grandkids who are minors is there merely to cloud the issue.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> So if you are fat and/or a woman, you can whine that Dimensions is primarily your place? My understanding is that it was a spinoff of a NAAFA group of FAs, and FAs are probably mostly, or largely thin males.
> 
> What a lot of us are tired of is the notion that there needs to be some sort of clear cut hierarchy in terms of whose needs matter most with SSBBW being at the top (and even within that group, I'm sure the SSBBW who are fetishists are probably closer to the bottom of their subgroup) and thin/average females who self ascribe as FFA and/or fetishists at the bottom. Thin/average males who self ascribe as fetishists are close to the bottom and maybe a bit lower down if they happen to be gay or transgendered. This hierarchy seems to be expressed primarily as:
> 
> 1. Sensitivity to the group's needs and demands
> 2. Defference to their posts which offend others and offering them a lot more leeway when it comes to picking on or ridiculing others.
> 
> A lot of the fetishists and others on the Weight Board tend to feel there's a constant wink and nod towards the non-fetish types who constantly read and post there and make fun of us. And there are even clear and obvious examples of rule-breaking where the anti-fetish crowd takes whatever leeway it wants to promote the idea that we're a bunch of creepy loser weirdos who don't belong here.



Pick a side and stick with it. Either you want to roll around in the porn, or you're disgusted by seeing someone's childhood photo. Either this place is primarily for FAs or they get trampled on by the big, bad fat women. Make up your mind.

As far as your previous posts about Conrad's stance, what do you have to say to all of the people on here that have donated money to Dimension's in support of size acceptance? I know of at least a handful that now feel duped into parting with money for something they don't stand behind, and that their trust was taken advantage of.


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> What a lot of us are tired of is the notion that there needs to be some sort of clear cut hierarchy in terms of whose needs matter most



See? This is you letting your fear speak for you.

Not one person in this thread, except for the "fetish brigade," has spoken in terms of "hierarchy." People have simply been saying, "I object to being treated like a second-class citizen on a site that purports to be _also_ for me."

It's mostly those who are afraid of having their fetishes censored who have made statements about this being a site that runs mostly on fetish, as if that entitled the purported majority to treat the rest as second-class citizens.

I do see that those who fear equal consideration for non-fetishists are probably not going to back down. They've enjoyed unlimited freedom to not have to be considerate of anyone else for long, and they aren't letting go of that privilege easily. They obfuscate and rail and throw up smokescreens and make personal attacks, all in the name of protecting their freedom, without awareness of the irony of demanding something they already have in spades, from people who have a lot less, natch.

No matter. I think people will continue to ask for equal consideration, whether certain folks like it or not. :happy:


----------



## LoveBHMS

Why can't you see that others have a stake in this, even when their stake is something you don't like, don't understand, or don't want to understand.

Is this a matter of who _needs_ this place the most? 

I'm not going down the road of saying be an FA is harder than being a SSBBW, but you know what? We have a place here too. I'm totally not going to rank order the value of having a private forum to discuss SSBBW health issues and having a forum to communicate with others who "get you" on some level when you talk about being 7 years old and finding "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" more interesting than your classmates did or looking up the word "fat" in the dictionary or checking Guiness for the Worlds Fattest as several posters here have talked about.

I think we matter too, our needs matter too, what we get out of this place matters too. If a fetishist comes here to feel a tiny bit less freakish or a FFA comes here to talk about how Vinnie D'Onofrio is hot (because a lot of IRL straight females are bemoaning his recent weight gain) then I don't see why anyone has the right to question us being here. A thin, straight, male feeder won't get off on any of the chats on playboy(dot) com or probably want to pass around the latest issue of Maxim. This is a venue where his sexuality is understood and accepted. Can't you just let some of us BE and not jump down our collective throats about how expressing our sexuality on an adult site with protected forums for our freakish kinks is harmful to somebody else who *chooses* to read posts that are not even geared towards them?



> Pick a side and stick with it. Either you want to roll around in the porn, or you're disgusted by seeing someone's childhood photo. Either this place is primarily for FAs or they get trampled on by the big, bad fat women. Make up your mind.



Did i ever say I was disgusted by childhood photos? No. I said (and others have agreed) that there is a legitimate question of whether or not pictures of kids should be allowed on here when it's a site limitted to adult posters.

I just flat out disagree that having certain kinds of pornographic fiction on this site is contrary to SA. You keep not understanding both that some fat people get off on it, and that FA/Feeders who get off on it have the right to do so. The existence of B&D porn is not anti-woman; both because it's just a kink some people have AND because some women enjoy it.


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> We have a place here too.



I'm sorry, but it seems that either you're obfuscating the issue willfully, Love, or you're not reading up on this discussion.

No one is talking about denying you a place here.

I'll repeat:

We're talking about drawing firmer boundaries between fantasy and reality, for instance by making a statement to library users that we don't condone fat hate and we expect any such fantasy to _remain fantasy_ and not be foisted on anyone who doesn't opt-in.

A statement like that might allow both the fantasists and the realists (the "fetishists" and the "SAers") to co-exist with a lot less friction.

Again, and for the last time. *Not* talking about obliterating fetish out of existence, but about asking for equal consideration for non-fetish.

Understand that, please.

Note: When I said to exile that "It's me who has a sincere stake here," that only referred to things as between him and me. That did NOT mean that me (the SA rep) has a sincere stake over him (the fetish rep).


----------



## James

apologies... this is a slightly nerdy contribution but...

I think its a fallacy to think about fat acceptance stakeholders as part of a top down hierarchy, with different tiers of 'importance' and certain groups having a more deserving claim to be at the top.

I think that, in actuality, its more appropriate to conceptualize it all as a panarchy rather than a hierarchy. Fat/size acceptance has multiple groups that interact with eachother and are interdependent. No one group has a right to define fat acceptance, in totality, through its own perspective.

end of nerd contribution... please continue


----------



## Fascinita

James said:


> panarchy



Thanks. That's helpful.


----------



## exile in thighville

Fascinita said:


> Who're you kidding that you just don't want people to shut up and do as you say?



you can keep waving the confession in my face and pistol-whipping me but i'm not gonna sign it. folks *who admitted they don't read the stories here* got on my turf and made little sucking noises for their pacifier. i didn't do anything to them.


----------



## LoveBHMS

Fascinita said:


> I'm sorry, but it seems that either you're obfuscating the issue willfully, Love, or you're not reading up on this discussion.
> 
> No one is talking about denying you a place here.
> 
> I'll repeat:
> 
> We're talking about drawing firmer boundaries between fantasy and reality, for instance by making a statement to library users that we don't condone fat hate and we expect any such fantasy to _remain fantasy_ and not be foisted on anyone who doesn't opt-in.
> 
> A statement like that might allow both the fantasists and the realists (the "fetishists" and the "SAers") to co-exist with a lot less friction.
> 
> Again, and for the last time. *Not* talking about obliterating fetish out of existence, but about asking for equal consideration for non-fetish.
> 
> Understand that, please.
> 
> Note: When I said to exile that "It's me who has a sincere stake here," that only referred to things as between him and me. That did NOT mean that me (the SA rep) has a sincere stake over him (the fetish rep).



You have more than equal consideration, in my observations here. You all take constant liberties with policing the Weight Board for things you want to ridicule, you encourage starting Lounge threads about the Library, you mention Weight Board posts on other threads (I'm talking about an instance where an extreme fantasy was posted for discussion on the Weight Board and it was mentioned all over Dims with posters calling the OP "disturbing"). You've even said the Main Board should not have a thread with the *word* fetish in it.

But, I have no problems with placing a disclaimer on the Library that Dims Webmaster/Mods don't actually condone the activities discussed in the stories. What I do know is that once that's done, there are a number of posters on here who are going to cast about for the *next* thing to bring up as offensive and anti-SA and needing to go on the chopping block to ensure Dims caters primarily to you.


----------



## mollycoddles

Santaclear said:


> I like to use humor every now and then. Definitely is called for when you look at what Loves was saying.



You don't think that, when someone questions the appropriateness of underage photos on an adult site, that it's a bit inflammatory to start implying that they're lusting after children?


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> you can keep waving the confession in my face and pistol-whipping me but i'm not gonna sign it.



You may style yourself a martyr, but you're not even a Guy Fawkes.

:bow::bow::bow::bow::bow:

Mmmm... this buttered porridge is delicious! But where are those peaches I ordered? :eat1:


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> Did i ever say I was disgusted by childhood photos? No. I said (and others have agreed) that there is a legitimate question of whether or not pictures of kids should be allowed on here when it's a site limitted to adult posters.
> 
> I just flat out disagree that having certain kinds of pornographic fiction on this site is contrary to SA. You keep not understanding both that some fat people get off on it, and that FA/Feeders who get off on it have the right to do so. The existence of B&D porn is not anti-woman; both because it's just a kink some people have AND because some women enjoy it.



Well, except for the fact that your example of childhood photos posted by the adults are OF the adults that are willing and able to give consent to them being here. I agree that this really isn't the place to be posting photos of your grandkids or whatever, though it's more of an internet-as-a-whole issue than just a Dims thing. Like Santaclear said, that kind of sharing really does build a sense of community and friendship on the boards for a lot of the members, just like the sharing of fantasies does it for you.

And lol, I understand it perfectly. There are a lot of things I understand that I don't HAVE to agree with. I also never said that B&D porn is anti-woman. Hell, I was very big into BDSM for yearrrrs. *That does not mean that I can't empathize with people that don't want to be exposed to or associated with it.* 

I don't think anyone should have to sequester their sexuality or their "fat" self from reality. There's a bunch of people on Dimensions that want to be here for both SA and embracing their own sexuality as a fat person, but wouldn't DARE invite anyone they know in real life onto here because of the wide-open portrayal of fantasy. A lot of that fear comes from "yeah, _I_ don't go to the pay-site boards or library, but I can't control whether or not my cousin Sheila will, even if I tell her she won't like them. I'm better off just keeping it to myself." 

So while on one hand, yeah, it's great that fetishists have a place to come to be able to accept their fantasies or feel like they're not alone, but the fact that, simultaneously, it's making a lot of people feel that their own fat sexuality is somehow different or something to hide is completely shitty, and the fact that a lot of people don't _care_ on here is even worse, and it's the exact opposite of tolerance.


----------



## exile in thighville

i only get pissed when someone accuses me of lusting after children because children are the ugliest and it undermines my excellent batting average with lust objects


----------



## exile in thighville

Fascinita said:


> You may style yourself a martyr, but you're not even a Guy Fawkes.



this was a worthy quip


----------



## Santaclear

mollycoddles said:


> You don't think that, when someone questions the appropriateness of underage photos on an adult site, that it's a bit inflammatory to start implying that they're lusting after children?



It's a JOKE. Reacting to her faulty logic re: the kids stuff. Touchy, aren't ye?

Re: the photos. They are not at all posted in "adult" threads, so why the beef? Again I say "smokescreen" (re: LoveBHMs complaint.)


----------



## exile in thighville

now if only i was aged enough to know who that is


----------



## exile in thighville

goddammit santaclear.


----------



## Santaclear

darn it, exile.


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> You have more than equal consideration, in my observations here. You all take constant liberties with policing the Weight Board for things you want to ridicule, you encourage starting Lounge threads about the Library, you mention Weight Board posts on other threads (I'm talking about an instance where an extreme fantasy was posted for discussion on the Weight Board and it was mentioned all over Dims with posters calling the OP "disturbing"). You've even said the Main Board should not have a thread with the *word* fetish in it.



Your "read" on that and mine are different. If there really were equal consideration and equally applied "liberties," a lot of what you see as "ridicule" would die down.

What you're not accounting for is the frustration of people who come here to enjoy what's on offer, only soon to find out that it's not OK to expect a lot of respect for their experiences, and to be told that if they don't like it, it's tough. The status quo expects that fat people come here because they want to play into someone's fantasy of fat. Why should it be OK to be a fat person here only so far as the fat person is willing to mold himself to the fantasies of others?

Some fat people do and some don't. It's as simple as that.

And it's not "fat acceptance" if only fantasy of fat is allowed to flourish while the real experiences of many fat people who want to participate and find support here are swatted back with a stick.



> But, I have no problems with placing a disclaimer on the Library that Dims Webmaster/Mods don't actually condone the activities discussed in the stories.



Good. That would be helpful.


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> now if only i was aged enough to know who that is



Bubbeh, go make me a smoothie. Please?

Grandma needs energy to "rock out" later, as you saplings say.


----------



## LoveBHMS

> What you're not accounting for is the frustration of people who come here to enjoy what's on offer, only soon to find out that it's not OK to expect a lot of respect for their experiences, and to be told that if they don't like it, it's tough. The status quo expects that fat people come here because they want to play into someone's fantasy of fat. Why should it be OK to be a fat person here only so far as the fat person is willing to mold himself to the fantasies of others?
> 
> Some fat people do and some don't. It's as simple as that.
> 
> And it's not "fat acceptance" if only fantasy of fat is allowed to flourish while the real experiences of many fat people who want to participate and find support here are swatted back with a stick.



1. Having certain kinds of porn on here is not the same thing as a disrespect for anyone's experiences.

2. Nobody said "fat people only belong here if they mold themselves into fantasy" but rather "lots of fat people themselves have fantasies and fetishes and they are oftentimes the ones enjoying the fiction stories or discussions on the Weight Board". The feeder/feedee stories are not just a feeder saying "it would be so hot to force feed a partner" but also the feedees saying "it would be so hot to be force fed".

3. I've never, and i mean seriously never seen any thread, situation, post, or forum where the anyone was swatted back with a stick for wanting to share real experiences.

The fetish brigade being here does not change the nature of the rest of this place. I've been in a Barnes and Noble where they sold Playboy, but that did not make it into an adult book store.


----------



## exile in thighville

Fascinita said:


> The status quo expects that fat people come here because they want to play into someone's fantasy of fat. Why should it be OK to be a fat person here only so far as the fat person is willing to mold himself to the fantasies of others?



this is the disconnect. no one's asking you to do this, yet you're asking those who do to stop doing it in plain sight.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> 3. I've never, and i mean seriously never seen any thread, situation, post, or forum where the anyone was swatted back with a stick for wanting to share real experiences.



That's because they get deleted.


----------



## LoveBHMS

The only people I see coming under attack are the fetishists, readers of the Library and by some extension posters on the Weight Board.

I've never seen a post from an FA or feeder saying it's a massive buzzkill to have fat people write about the challenges of living life as an SSBBW or want to talk privately about health or lifestyle challenges. I've never seen widespread complaints from FAs about posts by fat people that are less than positive. I don't see FAs complaining about innocuous things like the "Exercise Report" on the health forum, along the lines of "I don't want to hear about SSBBWs working out, they might lose weight!" I don't see anyone telling fat people they should discuss their personal issues off someplace where the horndog FAs dont' have to read them.

A while back there was discussion about the creation of the private SSBBW forum. The SSBBW were saying they needed to have a protected forum to discuss SSBBW matter that they feared being used as stroke material or held up to ridicule. Now imagine if rather than the SSBBW asking for the forum, it was the FA who asked for the forum because they found it gross or unappealing or disturbing to be "forced" to read about health and lifetstyle and reach issues. Imagine ifthe FAs had banded together and said "Look, if you have to discuss the negative side of being a SSBBW, go ahead, but we just want you to do it away from the board where we are not forced to look."

That is just what we feel is being done to us. "Oh sure, have your little perversions, just not where we can see them."


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> 1. Having certain kinds of porn on here is not the same thing as a disrespect for anyone's experiences.



It's not the porn that's objectionable. It's the attitudes of "because it's my fantasy, that means I'm entitled to approach you to ask you if you'll ever consider eating until your stomach ruptures," etc. This happens a lot, and it seems to be fostered by an atmosphere which tends to protect fantasy even as that encroaches on the peace of mind those who have no interest in opting into it. By drawing firm boundaries spelling out that we expect fantasy to remain fantasy, we'd be combating those problems. The reason it's the porn that needs to be labeled is that the porn provides the gateway of entry to "fantasists" on this site.



> 2. Nobody said "fat people only belong here if they mold themselves into fantasy"



Not in as many words, but the attitudes that are brought to interaction certainly speak of that being what many believe.

As to fat people who want to play into fantasies, of course that's true. But as I said above, those aren't the only kinds of fat people here, and the site shouldn't welcome people on "SA" grounds if the only fat people welcome here are those who want to play into fantasy. 

Again, it's a matter of making room for all.



> 3. I've never, and i mean seriously never seen any thread, situation, post, or forum where the anyone was swatted back with a stick for wanting to share real experiences.



Then you may need to speak to more fat women here. Speak to people who want to be able to talk about dieting--not to go from 300 lb to 120 lb, mind you, but from 600 to 400--but can't, because it's immediately censored.

And speak to people who want to talk about being depressed about their eating disorders, only to have a rush of people tell them that it's OK to eat as much as anyone wants.

And speak to people who want not to have to always portray themselves as this uber-confident fattie, but feel like that's social death around here, so either they try to keep up the appearance or they drop out of the dialogue.

Those are stories from real fat people I know.

And I think that a culture where fantasy is allowed to rule without a reality check should be discouraged, not because it's tit for tat, but because unchecked fantasy gives the impression that there is no reality except that imagined for us by the fertile minds of fantasists. So I think it breeds a despotic atmosphere where a few--even a majority--get to "define" what can be talked about and what is considered too threatening to the equilibrium of the fantasy-scape.

Mmmm, Ok. Me talk too much. :happy:

Going back to my epic breakfast.


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> Now imagine if rather than the SSBBW asking for the forum, it was the FA who asked for the forum because they found it gross or unappealing or disturbing to be "forced" to read about health and lifetstyle and reach issues.



Just a point of info:

The FAs did ask for a private board where they could "be FAs among FAs." The idea was, I think, that some FAs wanted to discuss things without having negative or censoring or shaming commentary about their FA thoughts. They were not complaining that they were "forced" to read about health and lifestyle and reach issues, but they did want to be free to comment about such things (among other things) without being censored. 

I can't speak definitively for what the FAs wanted, but I did want to point out that at one point both FAs and BBWs asked for firmer boundaries to be drawn, and for more ground where they could feel safe to talk about their real experiences and thoughts.

They got the public FA Forum as a compromise, it's my understanding. But there sure _was_ such a request.

And... the possibility of private sub-forums for both the BBW and FA fora is still being discussed, I think.


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> this is the disconnect. no one's asking you to do this, yet you're asking those who do to stop doing it in plain sight.



Please see this. Thanks.


----------



## LoveBHMS

> Then you may need to speak to more fat women here. Speak to people who want to be able to talk about dieting--not to go from 300 lb to 120 lb, mind you, but from 600 to 400--but can't, because it's immediately censored.
> 
> And speak to people who want to talk about being depressed about their eating disorders, only to have a rush of people tell them that it's OK to eat as much as anyone wants.
> 
> And speak to people who want not to have to always portray themselves as this uber-confident fattie, but feel like that's social death around here, so either they try to keep up the appearance or they drop out of the dialogue.



I've seen any number of posts from women who wanted to lose weight for health reasons who got nothing but support. I've seen any number of posts from women who say they lost weight and got relief from *some* health or mobility issue and got support. When you refere to censorship, I'm not sure if you mean the mods or the other posters.

As far as depression over an eating disorder, I've seen support for that here, and I also have to wonder if you're looking for support for an eating disorder, you're not better off posting on webmd or the Overeaters Anonymous site. 

If somebody feels pressure to portray themselves a certain way, that is wrong, but again, you really need to consider the venue. It's like saying a porn star should always portray herself as being in the mood for sex. She likely isn't, but she would get more support sharing that fact on a forum for sex workers or with her family, rather than on a website hosted by Adult Video News or on her personal fansite. Even so, I'm willing to guess that a fat woman who posts about insecurities or unhappiness would get support on here. Maybe she'd also get input from FAs who say "you're hot the way you are" but I think she'd also get input from other fat women, or even thin/average women who said "I hear you...here's my experience and how I dealt with that...."


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> As far as depression over an eating disorder, I've seen support for that here, and I also have to wonder if you're looking for support for an eating disorder, you're not better off posting on webmd or the Overeaters Anonymous site.



So how is this different than saying that fetishists should seek whatever it is they want elsewhere?

People who come here looking for community are no different than people who come here looking for porn.

You may say that they're better off going to doctors, and I wonder why it should not then be OK for me to say the same back to you. Because there's no social component in dealing with eating disorders? I'd challenge that assumption on your part. And I wonder if you're not pathologizing the needs of some people even as you're trying to protect your desires from being denigrated.



> If somebody feels pressure to portray themselves a certain way, that is wrong, but again, you really need to consider the venue. It's like saying a porn star should always portray herself as being in the mood for sex. She likely isn't, but she would get more support sharing that fact on a forum for sex workers or with her family, rather than on a website hosted by Adult Video News or on her personal fansite. Even so, I'm willing to guess that a fat woman who posts about insecurities or unhappiness would get support on here. Maybe she'd also get input from FAs who say "you're hot the way you are" but I think she'd also get input from other fat women, or even thin/average women who said "I hear you...here's my experience and how I dealt with that...."



So which one is it? 

You're saying this is an adult site and people who need or want community should go find that elsewhere? 

Because you also appear to be saying that we can have both. Only you want the people who find it inappropriate and woefully unrealistic to see comments of "you're so hot the way you are"--to the point of threatening to drown out other dialogue--to just get used to having it that way. There's a dismissive quality to many of those comments--which don't always, but sometimes amount to sexualizing the problems of the person bringing them up--and incredible resistance to anyone who objects to all this. And it's not appropriate to ask those who give those unsolicited comments to moderate themselves? But it's always OK to ask the fat people to "just accept" that the "acceptance" they find here is not grounded in real community where people have to be considerate and tolerant, but on the needs of the fantasists to express their fantastical ideas about how fat actually is or should be.

So we're back to the fat people having to _just accept_ that this is first an adult site and to having to deal with the lack of boundaries between the fantasies that get people off and the reality of their own lives.

OTOH, you've already said you're OK with labeling the porn. And that's good enough for me.

:bow:


----------



## exile in thighville

Fascinita said:


> Not in as many words, but the attitudes that are brought to interaction certainly speak of that being what many believe.



there's been way too much fantasy vs. reality discussion on this board for you to assume this.


----------



## mollycoddles

Santaclear said:


> It's a JOKE. Reacting to her faulty logic re: the kids stuff. Touchy, aren't ye?
> 
> Re: the photos. They are not at all posted in "adult" threads, so why the beef? Again I say "smokescreen" (re: LoveBHMs complaint.)



What faulty logic? She brought up a legit point. This is in many ways an adult site and it does seem odd to allow photos of underage people while banning all stories involving underage people -- especially when one considers that there are actual living people involved involved in the production of photos. I know that the photos aren't "erotic" so the two situations aren't entirely analogous, but I think it's a point that bears thinking about.

But if you want to dismiss anyone you don't agree with by making "jokes" that cast aspersions on their character, then fine. The whole reason that this conversation took so long to produce any compromise was that early on posters kept reacting to anyone with a contrary opinion by branding them as trolls or perverts. I just thought we'd finally made it past that.


----------



## LoveBHMS

No, I'm just saying this site can't be everything, all the time, to all of its members.

I get really upset by Foodee Board threads that talk about topics like "How Do You Like Your Burger" or "Tuna Poll" because I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons and I strongly disagree with factory farming and either cows or fish being killed for their flesh. The place to discuss that angst is PETA or the Vegetarian Society or other animal rights venues, not here.

I've posted on the Health Forum about my exercise program. The whole truth of it is, I suffer from bursitis in both of my hips as the result of a car accident and my goal, healthwise, is to achieve the lowest possible body weight so as to take the pressure off of my joints. Is that something I specify on Dims? No. (I mean I just did, but only to prove a point.) If I need to discuss that particular goal, I'll do so IRL with a personal trainer or physician or online on a discussion forum for anyone with joint problems. I won't come to Dims and expect a cheerleading cadre for a goal of weighing as little as possible because I'm scared sh**less of hip replacement surgery.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> No, I'm just saying this site can't be everything, all the time, to all of its members.
> 
> I get really upset by Foodee Board threads that talk about topics like "How Do You Like Your Burger" or "Tuna Poll" because I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons and I strongly disagree with factory farming and either cows or fish being killed for their flesh. The place to discuss that angst is PETA or the Vegetarian Society or other animal rights venues, not here.



If we weren't told that this site is at least partly about size acceptance, then you'd have a point, but we are, so you don't.



> I've posted on the Health Forum about my exercise program. The whole truth of it is, I suffer from bursitis in both of my hips as the result of a car accident and my goal, healthwise, is to achieve the lowest possible body weight so as to take the pressure off of my joints. Is that something I specify on Dims? No. (I mean I just did, but only to prove a point.) If I need to discuss that particular goal, I'll do so IRL with a personal trainer or physician or online on a discussion forum for anyone with joint problems. I won't come to Dims and expect a cheerleading cadre for a goal of weighing as little as possible because I'm scared sh**less of hip replacement surgery.



That doesn't mean it's wrong for someone ELSE to want support or a cheerleading section from their friends and peers on a subject they know will be understood. 

A lot of people want to commiserate about difficulties of being fat, or they want to talk about only losing a certain amount but still be fat, because elsewhere on sites like WebMD or with a personal trainer, they are simply told "why don't you want to be thin?" or "you're not going to be healthy unless you are under "X" weight." You would THINK that this would be the perfect environment to garner that kind of support, but it isn't.


----------



## TraciJo67

So then, the litmus test for materials that belong here is ... they appeal to the fetishist nature of a small number of people? That's what we're being told is the reason that humiliation play, graphic stories about rape/violence/degradation/force feeding shouldn't be tidied up and swept into a less visible area? And worse, we're being told this by a *woman*. Hey -- being called a fat pig APPEALS to some women! Objectification -- even graphic, extreme objectification -- is OK because it really turns the sexual crank for some people! And forget about the fact that this site purports to be about size acceptance, among other things ... if it floats someone's boat, it belongs here!

Well, what if I personally get off on wearing steel-tipped boots, kicking fat men in the balls and then running away, laughing and taunting them because they can't catch me? Hey, it's MY fantasy and even though it lacks any kind of decency at all, even though it's degrading to others, even though its disrespectful in the extreme ... it's what floats MY boat, so to speak. Litmus test = if someone gets off on it, it belongs right here. Right? Yes?

I think ... I just saw a white rabbit. Oddly enough, he's wearing clothes and a stopwatch. Where am I again? I feel that I'm some surreal alternative universe that has been flipped upside down


----------



## Santaclear

mollycoddles said:


> ...But if you want to dismiss anyone you don't agree with by making "jokes" that cast aspersions on their character, then fine. The whole reason that this conversation took so long to produce any compromise was that early on posters kept reacting to anyone with a contrary opinion by branding them as trolls or perverts. I just thought we'd finally made it past that.



No, I joke at her first telling people to "get over it" (in as many words, re: the presence of fetish material) and be tolerant, then later complaining about people posting family photos. That's not a contradiction? Not funny? Sorry. (Well, I think it is.)


----------



## LoveBHMS

So now we're really cutting this down.

If you want to lose weight from 600 to 300 pounds, Dims needs to be the place for you to talk about it. If you want to lose weight down to the lowest possible weight you can maintain because you have a chronic illness, Dims is NOT the place for it, so long as you're *only* an FFA/Fetishist.

The "community" you all are talking about is apparently only supposed to extend to certain posters.


----------



## Santaclear

LoveBHMS said:


> So now we're really cutting this down.
> 
> If you want to lose weight from 600 to 300 pounds, Dims needs to be the place for you to talk about it. If you want to lose weight down to the lowest possible weight you can maintain because you have a chronic illness, Dims is NOT the place for it, so long as you're *only* an FFA/Fetishist.
> 
> The "community" you all are talking about is apparently only supposed to extend to certain posters.



Now we're starting with this "you people" stuff? Use your humor, Loves.


----------



## Observer

> They got the public FA Forum as a compromise, it's my understanding. But there sure was such a request.



Yes, there was an request and discussion, but not quite for the purposes you list. It did include a possible private board in addition to the public one. And since the FA/FFA public board was established we've had exactly one person propose a private discussion topic (I'm one of the mods there). Most FAs/FFAs seem to feel what we have is just fine.


----------



## LoveBHMS

> Well, what if I personally get off on wearing steel-tipped boots, kicking fat men in the balls and then running away, laughing and taunting them because they can't catch me? Hey, it's MY fantasy and even though it lacks any kind of decency at all, even though it's degrading to others, even though its disrespectful in the extreme ... it's what floats MY boat, so to speak. Litmus test = if someone gets off on it, it belongs right here. Right? Yes?



Fantasy, by nature, should not have the same sorts of filters that other issues have. This is not a discussion of what should be shown on prime time TV or pictured on the subways.

Everyone can see this for what it is, a turf war with bullying overtones. You want to initimidate all of us into shutting up, and we're fighting back. I know this pisses you off because you consider yourself the arbiter of all that is "right" or should be right with Dims. You want us to back down and scurry away.

Well we're not. We have as much right to be here as anyone and we're going to continue to affirm that right. I'm sure this statement will just make you ratchet up the personal attacks and bullying, but speaking on behalf of myself, I'm DONE putting up with these sorts of posts.


----------



## TraciJo67

LoveBHMS said:


> Fantasy, by nature, should not have the same sorts of filters that other issues have. This is not a discussion of what should be shown on prime time TV or pictured on the subways.
> 
> Everyone can see this for what it is, a turf war with bullying overtones. You want to initimidate all of us into shutting up, and we're fighting back. I know this pisses you off because you consider yourself the arbiter of all that is "right" or should be right with Dims. You want us to back down and scurry away.
> 
> Well we're not. We have as much right to be here as anyone and we're going to continue to affirm that right. I'm sure this statement will just make you ratchet up the personal attacks and bullying, but speaking on behalf of myself, I'm DONE putting up with these sorts of posts.



Actually, I want no such thing, LoveBHMS, and I think you know that. My question was a valid one, and I think you know that, too.

I am curious, though, who you mean by "all of us." I see two people fighting for the "anything goes" approach in the library. Two.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> So now we're really cutting this down.
> 
> If you want to lose weight from 600 to 300 pounds, Dims needs to be the place for you to talk about it. If you want to lose weight down to the lowest possible weight you can maintain because you have a chronic illness, Dims is NOT the place for it, so long as you're *only* an FFA/Fetishist.
> 
> The "community" you all are talking about is apparently only supposed to extend to certain posters.



What the hell are you talking about? My post was simply stating that you'd THINK because this site purports to be at least PARTLY about *size acceptance*, that people would be able to discuss wanting to lose weight for their own health while still wanting to be fat (i.e. health at every size, the only difference being that those people want to lose weight to be able to achieve HAES rather than tread water at one spot they're already at), because the latter part of the equation will not garner respect or agreement in the arenas that YOU suggested of personal trainers or physicians.

I said absolutely nothing about inhibiting anything else. You're just reading into things problems that you want to see. FWIW, I DO have a chronic illness and really should work towards being my lowest weight possible, but...we're not allowed to talk about that here, so whatever.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> Everyone can see this for what it is, a turf war with bullying overtones. You want to initimidate all of us into shutting up, and we're fighting back. I know this pisses you off because you consider yourself the arbiter of all that is "right" or should be right with Dims. You want us to back down and scurry away.
> 
> Well we're not. We have as much right to be here as anyone and we're going to continue to affirm that right. I'm sure this statement will just make you ratchet up the personal attacks and bullying, but speaking on behalf of myself, I'm DONE putting up with these sorts of posts.



*TIC* That's funny, it looks the same way from over here. Huh.


----------



## LoveBHMS

TraciJo67 said:


> Actually, I want no such thing, LoveBHMS, and I think you know that. My question was a valid one, and I think you know that, too.
> 
> I am curious, though, who you mean by "all of us." I see two people fighting for the "anything goes" approach in the library. Two.



If you get off on humilation of fat guys, go ahead and write a story about it. Tag it with the terminology used on the Library along the lines of "humiliation" or "Extreme Weight Gain" or "BDSM theme" and submit it to the mods of that forum.

Again, let's be real here. This is about a turf war and you want to win. I wonder when you'll be satisfied; when the library is gone? when the library is cut down to nothing but Danielle Steel novels? when the Weight Board is gone?

Oh yeah, the Weight Board gives you and your sidekicks a venue to ridicule others for their sexuality. You probably don't want it gone.


----------



## RobitusinZ

I see the energy of too many hot, fat women going to waste on this thread. If anyone's looking for an alternative...


----------



## Carrie

WTF, I just did a search for "Danielle Steele" in the library and got zip results. How'm I supposedta get my perv on now.


----------



## TraciJo67

LoveBHMS said:


> If you get off on humilation of fat guys, go ahead and write a story about it. Tag it with the terminology used on the Library along the lines of "humiliation" or "Extreme Weight Gain" or "BDSM theme" and submit it to the mods of that forum.
> 
> Again, let's be real here. This is about a turf war and you want to win. I wonder when you'll be satisfied; when the library is gone? when the library is cut down to nothing but Danielle Steel novels? when the Weight Board is gone?
> 
> Oh yeah, the Weight Board gives you and your sidekicks a venue to ridicule others for their sexuality. You probably don't want it gone.



Mindread much? 

See, this is the problem. We're all talking AROUND each other, and you're assuming things based on your opinion of me. I'll grant you this much, LoveBHMS -- you have the strength of your own convictions. I don't think you see this issue in the same way that I do. How about we both allow that we're equally sincere, though? 

I don't want to see the library banished. I would like to see graphic stories of humiliation and force-feeding and extreme violence to go bye-bye, it's true ... but I'd be willing to settle for such items not being part of the front-page experience of Dims. I understood why Katorade feels upset by some of the titles, because she searches threads by 'new posts'. I seldom see those titles, because I search by threads that I've contributed to (user CP). 

Contrary to what you continue to imply, I don't search out people on the Weight Board for harassment and bullying. The only issues that are apt to push my buttons are ones in which I feel objectified, or feel that objectification is going on in a thread where serious discussion has been taking place. Aside from that, I could not care less about your kinks, other people's desires, anything and everything that turns your proverbial crank. Really. I don't care. You're an adult. Believe me, you don't want to hear what really turns mine. I don't share it with others, nor expect people to understand my own kinks. In my personal universe, such things are private. I get that they aren't for other people - but what I don't get is when they insist on sharing them (i.e., I get off on stories that sexualize teens ... I love to humiliate people ... I want to be tied up and beaten to within an inch of my life ...etc) they cannot understand the criticism that comes raining down on them. Some things just aren't meant for public consumption, IMO. Humiliation of fat women, on a site about fat acceptance, is one of those things. Again, IMO.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> Oh yeah, the Weight Board gives you and your sidekicks a venue to ridicule others for their sexuality. You probably don't want it gone.



I don't do this. In fact, I recently got lambasted by a fellow fat woman for telling her how crappy it was to a) make judgments about someone else's sexuality and b) to insult someone's size in an effort to champion your own.

So you tell me what I actually have a problem with.


----------



## LoveBHMS

Scenario.

Fat person (male or female) gets ridiculed for being fat. Reads magazine articles or sees TV ads for Jenny Craig touting weight loss. S/he secretly...deeply secretly enjoys being fat. S/he enjoys the feel of the excess weight, believes that his or her body want intended to be fat. S/he feel guilty, weird, stupid for those desires. After all, clearly no normal or sane person would want to be SS, because otherwise why all the ads about weight loss? But some people do.

Where does that person go for erotica aimed at their desires? According to you and your cohorts, they can't come to Dims because Dims is _fat positive_ so if they actually get off on being called "fat pig" or want to be forced fed to be a fatter pig, their fantasies are not welcome here because this place is "fat positive".

Some people want to be force fed, where would you have them go?


----------



## Tad

Not regarding any of the immediately preceding posts, but just a thought....would it be worth a trial period with the 'latest posts' feature turned off? So that if you want to know what is going on with a particular board, you go to it (or rely on your subscriptions). That way if you are not interested in the weight board, you won't keep seeing the title of threads like "post your kinkiest weight gain fantasy" or "post your skinniest and fattest pics" (or whatever their exact titles are). They'd still be there if you go looking for them, but those who aren't interested in those parts of the boards won't be reminded of them. Same goes for stories, of course (and there is a 'latest additions' board for those anyway).

Perhaps along the same lines, take off the feature showing how many views each thread has.

Not that this would get rid of the fundamental problems, but it would be like putting up more sound proofing between your room and that of your flat mate...if won't make you magically get along, but it might help you not irritate each other quite as much.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> Some people want to be force fed, where would you have them go?




(Half jokingly, half serious) Fantasy Feeder?


----------



## joswitch

LoveBHMS said:


> I guess it's all well and good to make fun of and not take seriously the issues I brought up.
> 
> I really and truly do not think it's appropriate for photographs of anyone under the age of 18 to be on this site.



I agree with you. It "clunks". This is an adult site. For adults. Yet people post kids' pics on it. I'm like - WTF???


----------



## joswitch

Santaclear said:


> "Issues" you brought up? Looks to me like you're only bringing up people posting pictures of their kids or family (which many do enjoy, and which does help foster a feeling of community here IMO) to say, "well, that makes me uncomfortable, but I want my porn, so if I have to tolerate that, you have to tolerate what I want too." Entirely self-serving.
> 
> Me? I visit the Library almost never..



I disagree with you. I don't think the library issue relates to the pics issue in anything other than consistency, being appropriate, and protecting both minors and this site at the same time.

ftr - I've said this before, but in case you missed it. IMO the new age rule on stories is a *good thing* and I'm actually glad to see the library vetted like that. and yet I agree with LoveBHMs point re. the pics. A-mazing, huh???


----------



## LoveBHMS

katorade said:


> (Half jokingly, half serious) Fantasy Feeder?



So this is the honest goal of several posters on here. Get the fetishists away from Dims and off the Fantasy Feeder. I guess you want the Weight Board gone too.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> So this is the honest goal of several posters on here. Get the fetishists away from Dims and off the Fantasy Feeder. I guess you want the Weight Board gone too.



No, that was just my response to a baited question. Like I said, it was half joking. The half serious part comes in where they indeed CAN find a perfect environment for it there since that's exactly what that site is about. 

Also, just recommending someone to a site doesn't mean they can't visit anywhere else on the vast internet. Just because I used UPS once doesn't mean I can't set foot in a post office. Just because I like honey mustard on my chicken fingers doesn't mean I'm going to get persecuted for asking for barbecue sauce one day.

Again, you're just making assumptions about the big, mean, coup-staging, feminazi fatties that simply don't exist.


----------



## exile in thighville

katorade said:


> feminazi



i abhor this term because it does no one any favors but yeah the fact we're forced to mount a defense because some wayfarers accidentally stumbled into a LIBRARY OF PORNOGRAPHY and ran home crying is a dumb labor cost


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> there's been way too much fantasy vs. reality discussion on this board for you to assume this.



What? You didn't call me an oldie with tics (maybe even with ticks)? I may have a sense of humor, but that's not what I call "discussion" exactly. :bow::bow::bow::bow:

And someone else isn't on the WB Confessional with the usual complaints about "thought policing"? Never mind that this same Dims member doesn't seem to have a problem with "policing" the "thoughts" of fat people who want to talk about their lives in real terms, but are censored because it kills the "gleaming, smiling fattie who loooooooooves her fat" image that we're so bent on preserving.

I mean, I understand the need for limits and all, but how come they only apply to me?

:bow::bow::bow:


----------



## katorade

exile in thighville said:


> i abhor this term because it does no one any favors but yeah the fact we're forced to mount a defense because some wayfarers accidentally stumbled into a LIBRARY OF PORNOGRAPHY and ran home crying is a dumb labor cost



Wait, we're supposed to be getting paid for this?

Oh, and it's not pornography, Daaaaan. Get it right.


----------



## Fascinita

Observer said:


> Yes, there was an request and discussion, but not quite for the purposes you list.



Really? The FA Forum was not envisioned in part as a place where FAs could express and share with one another their FA experiences and thoughts without censure from non-FAs?

Because to my understanding, that's exactly how it was envisioned.

Of course, maybe I'm mistaken. Care to point out how?


----------



## Ernest Nagel

katorade said:


> Wait, we're supposed to be getting paid for this?
> 
> *Oh, and it's not pornography, Daaaaan. Get it right.*



Well shoot! If it _was_ pornography it would be a perfect place to insert this pithy quote: "In this process of oppression, many feminists point to pornography as the main mechanism that explains the incredible staying power of the male power structure. As Page Mellish of the group Feminists Fighting Pornography declared, 'There's no feminist issue that isn't rooted in the porn problem.' Pornography is seen to be the crucial thread in the tapestry of male oppression -- a thread that, if you pull it loose will cause the tapestry to unravel." ~ Michel Foucault and Pornography by Wendy McElroy 

But since it's not, never mind. 

FWIW I consider myself a feminist.


----------



## Fascinita

Tad said:


> Not regarding any of the immediately preceding posts, but just a thought....would it be worth a trial period with the 'latest posts' feature turned off? So that if you want to know what is going on with a particular board, you go to it (or rely on your subscriptions). That way if you are not interested in the weight board, you won't keep seeing the title of threads like "post your kinkiest weight gain fantasy" or "post your skinniest and fattest pics" (or whatever their exact titles are). They'd still be there if you go looking for them, but those who aren't interested in those parts of the boards won't be reminded of them. Same goes for stories, of course (and there is a 'latest additions' board for those anyway).
> 
> Perhaps along the same lines, take off the feature showing how many views each thread has.
> 
> Not that this would get rid of the fundamental problems, but it would be like putting up more sound proofing between your room and that of your flat mate...if won't make you magically get along, but it might help you not irritate each other quite as much.



Tad, I think it's a fundamental problem of expecting those who are here for fantasy to be neighborly, to respect that their fantasies are theirs and not to be foisted on people who don't want to opt in. And I would think Dimensions has to be willing to make a statement along the lines of what's been talked about prior to this post.

I think many people here like to participate in fantasy, and that there's a wide spectrum of what fantasies are represented here. When we're talking about the most extreme humiliation and torture, the issue crops up of just how to best protect everyone's interests.

I mean, there is this disingenuous belief that those who want to put the most extreme fantasy in its own separate category and slap a warning on that that it's not to be taken literally... that these people are somehow anti-sex and anti-fetish. 

In fact, I wonder how much those who want no such categorizing care about the desires of others to participate in fantasy, but who are made so uncomfortable by the disproportionately wide berth given to an "anything goes" kind of fantasy, that they hold back from participating in that arena.

So I think that making sure people know that Dimensions supports strong boundaries between fantasy and reality would go a long way to reassuring people that everyone has a place here.

And I expect when we stop seeing the fat fantasy folks claiming that "this is my turf and you either deal or get out"--in other words, when the non-fantasists/realists among us are finally fully admitted into Dimensions with equal consideration--that a lot of the complaints about Dimensions that now get labeled "prudery" and "thought policing" would naturally die down. Those labels are just weapons that try to silence claims for more egalitarian terms.


----------



## Wild Zero

How are those with extreme fantasies foisting those fantasies on the rest of the board from an already compartmentalized sub board clearly labeled for such extreme fantasies?


----------



## Fascinita

Wild Zero said:


> How are those with extreme fantasies foisting those fantasies on the rest of the board from an already compartmentalized sub board clearly labeled for such extreme fantasies?



Read the thread. I and others (including some in your camp, by the way) have already explained how the porn boards tend to act as a (rather wide open) gateway to people who bring their assumptions based on fantasy into Dimensions.

A simple statement from the administration explaining that fantasy is welcomed but that Dimensions doesn't condone fat-hate or fat-abuse in its real interactions on the board would go a long way to helping a lot of people feel like their presence here is respected.


----------



## LoveBHMS

> And someone else isn't on the WB Confessional with the usual complaints about "thought policing"? Never mind that this same Dims member doesn't seem to have a problem with "policing" the "thoughts" of fat people who want to talk about their lives in real terms, but are censored because it kills the "gleaming, smiling fattie who loooooooooves her fat" image that we're so bent on preserving.



So is your time on Dims spent reading the Weight Board and then coming over to the Main Board and saying how the WB needs to be cordoned off from the rest of Dims? If you want to read the WB, go ahead, but quit complaining about it.

It is not the same thing to police thoughts and question if it's appropriate to posts photographs of minor children on an adult site.

I don't see anyone bent on preserving anything. I am fairly certain that the majority of porn consumers understand the difference between what they read in pornographic stories and reality. That's why it's pretty much a stereotypical commonplace joke to acknowledge that Penthouse Forum stories always start with the words "I know you think these things don't really happen but they do...." Nobody who reads the WB or even the most extreme stories in the Library expects to come over to the Main Board or BBW or BHM forum and see real posts reflecting attitudes or situations they read about in _fiction_.

As WZ said, in no way are any of these stories being fosited upon you. Maybe you _choose_ to proactively go to the Library and read them, but foisting? No. 

What about MisticalMisty's commonsense idea of, if you find yourself mistakenly reading a story you don't like, just closing the window and discontinuing reading it?



> Read the thread. I and others (including some in your camp, by the way) have already explained how the porn boards tend to act as a (rather wide open) gateway to people who bring their assumptions based on fantasy into Dimensions.



Really? So you're saying anyone who finds the Library via a search engine or link from another site is automatically so dumb as to believe that fictional characters pretty much exist right there upthread and the real individuals posting on this site are totally representative of pretend people in stories labeled "fiction"?


----------



## Wild Zero

Fascinita said:


> Read the thread. I and others (including some in your camp, by the way) have already explained how the porn boards tend to act as a (rather wide open) gateway to people who bring their assumptions based on fantasy into Dimensions.



I've read the thread and for the most part the issue with the library, weight room and paysite boards being a "gateway" for people seems like a non-issue. The fetishists/fantasizers who actively participate in those boards aren't running around posting their fantasies in inappropriate boards. The only times I've seen posters scrawling fantasies across the entire board its been from someone with about 10 posts to their name, most of them interchangeable requests pertaining to their fantasy.

They're either trolls or socially inept and those two groups are a fact of life for any web community. Why should the mods slap a warning label on or sweep respectful, engaged community members out of view because of them?


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> So is your time on Dims spent reading the Weight Board and then coming over to the Main Board and saying how the WB needs to be cordoned off from the rest of Dims? If you want to read the WB, go ahead, but quit complaining about it.
> 
> It is not the same thing to police thoughts and question if it's appropriate to posts photographs of minor children on an adult site.
> 
> I don't see anyone bent on preserving anything. I am fairly certain that the majority of porn consumers understand the difference between what they read in pornographic stories and reality. That's why it's pretty much a stereotypical commonplace joke to acknowledge that Penthouse Forum stories always start with the words "I know you think these things don't really happen but they do...." Nobody who reads the WB or even the most extreme stories in the Library expects to come over to the Main Board or BBW or BHM forum and see real posts reflecting attitudes or situations they read about in _fiction_.
> 
> As WZ said, in no way are any of these stories being fosited upon you. Maybe you _choose_ to proactively go to the Library and read them, but foisting? No.
> 
> What about MisticalMisty's commonsense idea of, if you find yourself mistakenly reading a story you don't like, just closing the window and discontinuing reading it?



Seriously, we're wasting our time at this point, Love. You know how I feel. I know how you feel. I'm ready to let that stand.

You've already said you're OK with an official statement to keep extreme fantasies as fantasies. That's good enough for me. 

It's an issue of seeing that the administration cares as much about protecting its fat people--including those fat people for whom extreme fantasy is inconsistent with SA--as its fetishists. 

You and I arguing ceaselessly about it isn't going to change anything. I'm ready to let the issues stand on their merits before the administration at this point. They can do what they think best. And you can decide if you want to keep talking about this, but I'm about done with arguing with you over this.

I don't want to take anything from you. The "underage" stuff was decided by Conrad, so I think you need to ask him why, if you really see that as the beginning of a decline for fetish representation. This stuff, too--which is a separate issue--will be decided on by Conrad... or maybe it will go unnoticed. And I can live with that right now. I needed to make a case for it, and I have.

:bow::bow::bow:


----------



## mollycoddles

TraciJo67 said:


> Well, what if I personally get off on wearing steel-tipped boots, kicking fat men in the balls and then running away, laughing and taunting them because they can't catch me? Hey, it's MY fantasy and even though it lacks any kind of decency at all, even though it's degrading to others, even though its disrespectful in the extreme ... it's what floats MY boat, so to speak. Litmus test = if someone gets off on it, it belongs right here. Right? Yes?



Honestly, if it were labeled to warn readers that it was about fat guys getting kicked in the balls before they started reading it, then, yeah, it would be okay to post in the library here, I would think.

I suppose some might call for an additional disclaimer that the site doesn't actually advocate kicking anyone in the balls IRL, but if that were done I don't think anyone would have a problem with it.


----------



## Observer

If this were a democracy I'd vote that one off the island as protagonist abuse. But that's me. The limits on "freedom of fantrasy" isn't for any of us to define - and asking Mollycoddles to make that kind of hypthetical call I think is unfair.


----------



## wrestlingguy

I'd like to ask what importance is the mission statement of this website to the forum? Most companies NEVER lock themselves into mission statements, as they are limiting in scope. Please explain why if your mission statement is primarily geared towards fat acceptance, and trolls rub one out to pics or stories on this site, they cannot coexist?

See, I don't know Conrad very well, despite my 12+ years (on and off) here. Has much been accomplished with regard to fat acceptance as a result of this website? For me, I think so. I have referred many here over the years who have become contributors here, as well as other forums. 

One should also remember that it is this man's forum, and while you may have opinions as to his honesty in intention, I rarely, if ever, see a post criticizing him taken down. You guys (me included) have a hell of a lot of latitude here.

Do I read any of these stories? NO. Do I find them offensive, generally? YES. Do I think some of these stories dehumanize women (and some men)? Yes. Do I defend their right to be here, or on any other forum that allows it? YES. Do I find a conflict between the mission statement of this site, and the content posted here? YES. Do I care? NO.

I think the fetish/preference discussion was far more entertaining, even though it's in reruns. My quick take, FWIW. Both of those (preference & fetish) center around physical attraction/sex. That shytte all goes out the window when true emotion is involved.


----------



## Fascinita

wrestlingguy said:


> One should also remember that it is this man's forum, and while you may have opinions as to his honesty in intention, I rarely, if ever, see a post criticizing him taken down. You guys (me included) have a hell of a lot of latitude here.



Phil, if you feel it's disrespectful to Conrad to ask for change, I guess I have to plead guilty as charged.

But I don't think I've been disrespectful or discourteous in the way I've pointed out what I see as problems. And so I think I'll take your chastising with a grain of salt.

As for the rest of your post, your feelings on this issue are duly noted. Do you think they're more valid than anyone else's merely because you happen to be comfortable with the status quo?


----------



## wrestlingguy

Fascinita said:


> As for the rest of your post, your feelings on this issue are duly noted. Do you think they're more valid than anyone else's merely because you happen to be comfortable with the status quo?



My answer is no.


----------



## Fascinita

wrestlingguy said:


> My answer is no.



Thanks. I appreciate your taking time to respond.


----------



## LoveBHMS

Fascinita said:


> Phil, if you feel it's disrespectful to Conrad to ask for change, I guess I have to plead guilty as charged.
> 
> But I don't think I've been disrespectful or discourteous in the way I've pointed out what I see as problems. And so I think I'll take your chastising with a grain of salt.
> 
> As for the rest of your post, your feelings on this issue are duly noted. Do you think they're more valid than anyone else's merely because you happen to be comfortable with the status quo?



I think he was referring to the huge number of times Conrad has been criticized, including TraciJo's open letter telling him to go to hell and calling him a bloody hypocrite.

If you don't think you're disrespectful or discourteous, I'd ask you to total up the number of posts you've either had removed from the Weight Board and total number of WB posts for which you've been given warning. I daresay it's a lot highter than the number of deleted posts I've had from either the Main Board or the BBW board. You and your sidekicks spend a lot of time there reading up on us and poking fun; you even took pains to ridicule a post I made there this week. You all think you deserve whatever leeway you want to make fun of us, criticize our reasons for being here, and now for good measure saying that our threads are the gateways to harassment.


----------



## TraciJo67

LoveBHMS said:


> I think he was referring to the huge number of times Conrad has been criticized, including TraciJo's open letter telling him to go to hell and calling him a bloody hypocrite.
> 
> If you don't think you're disrespectful or discourteous, I'd ask you to total up the number of posts you've either had removed from the Weight Board and total number of WB posts for which you've been given warning. I daresay it's a lot highter than the number of deleted posts I've had from either the Main Board or the BBW board. You and your sidekicks spend a lot of time there reading up on us and poking fun; you even took pains to ridicule a post I made there this week. You all think you deserve whatever leeway you want to make fun of us, criticize our reasons for being here, and now for good measure saying that our threads are the gateways to harassment.



lololololololllllllllllulllllllllllllllllllllllllllz ....

You're reallllllllllllllllllly reaching now, aren't you? 

Sidekicks? Is that anything like COF? And how would one join such a group? 

Oh, and BTW? Pssst? Phil may take exception to you attempting to force words into his mouth. Hint, hint.


----------



## LoveBHMS

No idea what COF means, but there is a small group of self ascribed non-fetishists who make it their business to troll the WB looking for chances to make fun of posts there. Much of the time followed by the *shock* when they get warned and claim they were only having a little fun.

Once again, this is nothing beyond a turf war and another chance for you to showcase your bullying skills.


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> I'd ask you to total up the number of posts you've either had removed from the Weight Board



I don't know. Three of four? I try to keep my posts to the unprotected part of the Weight Board. I do generally try not to be a jerk. And I try to fight fair unless someone's not fair to me.



> and total number of WB posts for which you've been given warning.



Zero.

So... I'm going to go have dinner. I like eating. A lot. OK?


----------



## TraciJo67

LoveBHMS said:


> No idea what COF means, but there is a small group of self ascribed non-fetishists who make it their business to troll the WB looking for chances to make fun of posts there. Much of the time followed by the *shock* when they get warned and claim they were only having a little fun.
> 
> Once again, this is nothing beyond a turf war and another chance for you to showcase your bullying skills.



Love, dear, I haven't received an infraction of any kind since March of 2008. Try again, sweetie.

Lest someone think that the bully in the room ... isn't ... me


----------



## mollycoddles

LoveBHMS said:


> No idea what COF means, but there is a small group of self ascribed non-fetishists who make it their business to troll the WB looking for chances to make fun of posts there. Much of the time followed by the *shock* when they get warned and claim they were only having a little fun.



Really? Do you have any links to their posts? Not saying that I doubt you (I don't), but I'm curious as to the sorts of things they say.


----------



## TraciJo67

mollycoddles said:


> Really? Do you have any links to their posts? Not saying that I doubt you (I don't), but I'm curious as to the sorts of things they say.



I'd love to see them as well.


----------



## Santaclear

LoveBHMS said:


> If you don't think you're disrespectful or discourteous, I'd ask you to total up the number of posts you've either had removed from the Weight Board and total number of WB posts for which you've been given warning. I daresay it's a lot highter than the number of deleted posts I've had from either the Main Board or the BBW board. You and your sidekicks spend a lot of time there reading up on us and poking fun; you even took pains to ridicule a post I made there this week. You all think you deserve whatever leeway you want to make fun of us, criticize our reasons for being here, and now for good measure saying that our threads are the gateways to harassment.



True fetishism is, apparently, also the gateway to completely lacking a sense of humor.


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> I think he was referring to the huge number of times Conrad has been criticized, including TraciJo's open letter telling him to go to hell and calling him a bloody hypocrite.
> 
> If you don't think you're disrespectful or discourteous, I'd ask you to total up the number of posts you've either had removed from the Weight Board and total number of WB posts for which you've been given warning. I daresay it's a lot highter than the number of deleted posts I've had from either the Main Board or the BBW board. You and your sidekicks spend a lot of time there reading up on us and poking fun; you even took pains to ridicule a post I made there this week. You all think you deserve whatever leeway you want to make fun of us, criticize our reasons for being here, and now for good measure saying that our threads are the gateways to harassment.



OK, I'm back from eating dinner.

Speaking of lack of respect, I want just to say that if your hand had been on a Bible when you first entered this thread, you would have been perjuring yourself on several counts when you wrote that post above. 

Also, there's evidence that you've attempted to use the word "sidekick" against me. Now that's just wrong. I will neither deny nor confirm the allegations.

I object to you making what's a serious issue into a competition of "who has the fewest infractions." I bet you that I do, but I won't ask to see yours. No. Really.

And since this is clearly not a serious discussion anymore, my response boils down to this:







Have a nice day! :bow:


----------



## tonynyc

Fascinita said:


> OK, I'm back from eating dinner.
> 
> Speaking of lack of respect, I want just to say that if your hand had been on a Bible when you first entered this thread, you would have been perjuring yourself on several counts when you wrote that post above.
> 
> Also, there's evidence that you've attempted to use the word "sidekick" against me. Now that's just wrong. I will neither deny nor confirm the allegations.
> 
> I object to you making what's a serious issue into a competition of "who has the fewest infractions." I bet you that I do, but I won't ask to see yours. No. Really.
> 
> And since this is clearly not a serious discussion anymore, my response boils down to this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have a nice day! :bow:



*Ahhh Classic Andy Kaufman/Wrestling moments-A Comic Genius ahead of his time- it doesn't get any better. I'm sure the Late Mr. Kaufman has seen better days minus the "Bow and Arrow" :happy:*

*Andy on Letterman*


----------



## fatgirlflyin

wrestlingguy said:


> Do I find a conflict between the mission statement of this site, and the content posted here? YES. Do I care? NO.



Would you care if you were a fat woman/man?

I don't care about the paysite, or stories being here. Really don't, I think they have their place and serve a purpose. I do have an issue with stories that feature people being humiliated because they are fat. In my opinion they go against what this site is supposed to be. 

I totally get that some fat women get turned on by stories like that, truly I do, I just think there are more appropriate places for the stories to be posted. Surely there are other sites out there that don't claim to be a place that supports size acceptance/fat=beautiful.


----------



## LoveBHMS

fatgirlflyin said:


> Would you care if you were a fat woman/man?
> 
> I don't care about the paysite, or stories being here. Really don't, I think they have their place and serve a purpose. I do have an issue with stories that feature people being humiliated because they are fat. In my opinion they go against what this site is supposed to be.
> 
> I totally get that some fat women get turned on by stories like that, truly I do, I just think there are more appropriate places for the stories to be posted. Surely there are other sites out there that don't claim to be a place that supports size acceptance/fat=beautiful.



At least two fat women have posted on this thread that they enjoy those stories, and speaking as an FFA I can tell you I know men who enjoy humiliation/name calling stories.

Where do they belong? A good friend of mine has a favorite story about a gaining man who goes to a shopping mall with his feeder. The whole story highlights his weight gain and how hard it is for him to get around and how he's too fat to buy clothes. I'm sure that sounds awful to most people but not all people. And I can't get behind the idea that telling *fat people* who come to a *fat positive site* that it's well and good to have their fantasies but if they'd just be nice to enough to have them elsewhere, or at the very least to have the common courtesy to keep themselves locked away behind a big wall where nobody has to look at them.

I like fat guys. I like them eating and getting fatter and I enjoy the tertiary aspects of it on a sexual level. Where am I supposed to go? Where does an FFA belong?

To me this is just like telling a SSBBW not to wear a bikini to a public beach. How is it different from saying "Ok, wear what you want in private but since most people are grossed out by a 500 pound woman in a bikini, please have the good taste and respect public sensibilities to not wear it where others can see you." To me that is just what is being done to the fetishists and other fringe FA groups.

This is not just about acceptance, it's also about sexuality and we have the right to not only have our place but to enjoy the same respect and courtesy that everyone else does.


----------



## Paquito

LoveBHMS said:


> At least two fat women have posted on this thread that they enjoy those stories, and speaking as an FFA I can tell you I know men who enjoy humiliation/name calling stories.



Make that two fat women and a fat guy.


----------



## wrestlingguy

fatgirlflyin said:


> Would you care if you were a fat woman/man



Again, my answer would have to be no. Most of my motivation in doing the little I've done for size acceptance was because of the experiences of people I've been in relationships with. When you love someone you feel their pain equally.

What I cannot accept is that this site is about acceptance, yet some of the posters in this thread can't accept things and people that offend their personal morality. Honestly, anyone who knows me, knows what offends me on Dimensions, and other websites. Despite that, they are an integral part of the total experience, like them or not......AND I DON'T.

Sure, I'd like to mold my world, and obliterate anything that I disagree with withing my world, but I'm learning to coexist with the things I disagree with, and respect that people have differing opinions, no matter how offensive those opinions may be to me.



> Wars based on principle are far more destructive...the attacker will not destroy that which he is after. - Alan Watts


----------



## fatgirlflyin

I don't care about what turns someone's crank, god knows I am probably into stuff that would make people think I am an absolute whore so I don't know that its about morality. Its not for me anyway. To me its about the message that we get here that everything is supposed to be day positive. No diet talk, no wls talk but call someone a fat filthy pig in an erotic story and its ok because it is meant to get the collective dick hard.


wrestlingguy said:


> Again, my answer would have to be no. Most of my motivation in doing the little I've done for size acceptance was because of the experiences of people I've been in relationships with. When you love someone you feel their pain equally.
> 
> What I cannot accept is that this site is about acceptance, yet some of the posters in this thread can't accept things and people that offend their personal morality. Honestly, anyone who knows me, knows what offends me on Dimensions, and other websites. Despite that, they are an integral part of the total experience, like them or not......AND I DON'T.
> 
> Sure, I'd like to mold my world, and obliterate anything that I disagree with withing my world, but I'm learning to coexist with the things I disagree with, and respect that people have differing opinions, no matter how offensive those opinions may be to me.


----------



## katorade

fatgirlflyin said:


> I don't care about what turns someone's crank, god knows I am probably into stuff that would make people think I am an absolute whore so I don't know that its about morality. Its not for me anyway. To me its about the message that we get here that everything is supposed to be day positive. No diet talk, no wls talk but call someone a fat filthy pig in an erotic story and its ok because it is meant to get the collective dick hard.




Exactly. There are a lot of things I don't post about here because I think they're an inappropriate topic for the boards, and I have plenty of other outlets where I can talk about them. There are just some things that don't need to be publicly known in ANY arena, not just on Dimensions, and let's get one thing straight. This IS a public forum. More so than a lot of others considering the amount of meets and bashes that happen. 

That people keep saying that the material in question is already sequestered to its own little dark cubby hole is a complete misnomer. It's right there. It's as tucked away as the main board or the lounge. It's as visible as anything else. It sends the message that "this is what we're about" just as much as any other section of the forums with no blatant clear line that the content is really very specialized. The fact that the people arguing for it are uncomfortable to discuss it in their daily lives proves that. I'd be uncomfortable about discussing my kinks, too, not because I'd be ashamed of it, but because it's simply inappropriate to discuss in such a social atmosphere.

It's mind boggling to me why anybody would want it to be public knowledge, and maybe that does make me prudish, but seeing as how a lot of the people that share that content don't contribute to the rest of the community, or don't really disclose much information about their personal lives, they're already secretive, so I don't see why they WOULD have a problem with Fascinita's suggestion. Is it really just the fact that, yeah, it will be pointed out that fantasy ISN'T reality? Are they that comfortable with melding the two?

I just don't think the "do unto others" line of thinking works when the belief is firmly in place that, on here, you're allowed to offend one group of people and not allowed to offend the other. 
Or, even more confusing, you aren't allowed to offend one group of people about one touchy subject, but you ARE allowed to offend the SAME people with something else. 

There's seriously a pressure-cooker of hypocrisy a'brewin' with no pressure release valve.


----------



## wrestlingguy

And some people wanted to change Disneyland before it opened because things there were not to their liking.

If you go back nearly 10 years ago, I posted then that this is Conrad's place, and it's his rules, and his world, and if ya liked it, ya live with it, and if ya don't....

As I've said before, even if there is in fact a dichotomy between purpose and actuality at this site, it's been unimportant to me.




fatgirlflyin said:


> I don't care about what turns someone's crank, god knows I am probably into stuff that would make people think I am an absolute whore so I don't know that its about morality. Its not for me anyway. To me its about the message that we get here that everything is supposed to be day positive. No diet talk, no wls talk but call someone a fat filthy pig in an erotic story and its ok because it is meant to get the collective dick hard.


----------



## fatgirlflyin

It doesn't even seem like you are trying to hear what I am saying, and telling me that if I don't like it I should leave hardly solves anything. It is beyond me why it seems so hard to understand the mixed messages that are put forth here. Those messages are damaging, but I suppose whether or not that is important depends on the reason one finds themselves posting here at dims. I am not suggesting that any one group has more right to be here, or that ones needs are more important than the other. I am just suggesting that the same rules are applied across the board. Right now they just aren't...


wrestlingguy said:


> And some people wanted to change Disneyland before it opened because things there were not to their liking.
> 
> If you go back nearly 10 years ago, I posted then that this is Conrad's place, and it's his rules, and his world, and if ya liked it, ya live with it, and if ya don't....
> 
> As I've said before, even if there is in fact a dichotomy between purpose and actuality at this site, it's been unimportant to me.


----------



## LoveBHMS

What rules aren't being applied across the board?

There is a contingent here who has gotten away with calling us pedophiles, referring to stories that are no more kiddie porn than the "Sweet Valley High" series as "child pornongraphy", ridiculing me for not having a sense of humor when I questioned why pictures of kids could be posted on an age restricted board, and who take all the leeway they want with rudeness, derision, and top it off with a .gif of somebody being pinned on a wrestling mat and screaming in pain. Who precisely are the disrespectful ones?

There have recently been a couple of posts on the Weight Board, pointing out that traffic on that board has slowed down and discussions of feederism, stuffing, gaining and other sexually related manner have tapered off. I wrote that it's likely the inevitable outcome of people who are admittedly not into that stuff trolling the board and poking fun at us. While I realize that probably sends certain people into fits of giggles and joy, I think it's unfair to the people who want to post there and interact with others who share their sexuality.

I personally hate any food board discussion about meat. Threads like "How Do you Like Your Burger?" or posts about fried chicken recipes truly upset me because I wish nobody ate meat. But the fact that they upset me and other vegetarian is not the same thing as saying they shouldn't be there.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> I personally hate any food board discussion about meat. Threads like "How Do you Like Your Burger?" or posts about fried chicken recipes truly upset me because I wish nobody ate meat. But the fact that they upset me and other vegetarian is not the same thing as saying they shouldn't be there.



Said it before, will say it again. This board doesn't claim to support vegetarianism, so saying I enjoy a nice, juicy steak doesn't contradict anything Dimensions stands for, and as I've said a million times before, the only reason I take issue with the topic at hand is that it contradicts the message of size acceptance put forth on here and the resulting hypocrisy that it coincides with the fantasy message.

As far as being disrespectful, I think both sides have gotten their punches in. I'm apparently a prude and part of some imaginary band of cackling PC harpies bent on ripping the private parts off of anyone that insists on thinking naughty thoughts, so please, let's not act like anyone's being cast out as a social pariah here.


----------



## Miss Vickie

fatgirlflyin said:


> I don't care about what turns someone's crank, god knows I am probably into stuff that would make people think I am an absolute whore so I don't know that its about morality. Its not for me anyway. To me its about the message that we get here that everything is supposed to be day positive. No diet talk, no wls talk but call someone a fat filthy pig in an erotic story and its ok because it is meant to get the collective dick hard.



Yes. This. We must be protected from diet talk because it's supposedly so toxic and damaging. But a story existing, on this site, calling someone a "fat fucking pig" is okay because some people get their yaya's from reading it? So basically we're elevating people's sexuality above the comfort level of the objects in question.

Just because some people are turned on by something, doesn't mean it's appropriate to discuss in public. It also doesn't mean it's appropriate given the nature of what Dimensions is purportedly about, size acceptance. I don't care one whit what people do in their bedrooms but I absolutely do not want to hear any fat person -- real or fictional -- abused, physically or verbally. If I wanted that, I'd listen to Howard Stern, or Tom Leykis. But this place is supposed to be a safe space from that sort of abusive talk. Apparently, however, it's not. That makes me sad.

I'd also like to take a moment after reading the comments questioning the appropriateness of pictures of people's kids on this site, given its adult nature. Probably more than anything, Dimensions is a community that has developed and cohesed over a decade of familiarity. Many of us know each other through this site IRL and so that sense of community means even more to us. Telling us that we can't post pictures of our kids to me just is a smack in the face for people who want to share the good things in their life with the people they are about online. 

LoveBHM's, are you going to be the one to tell Bexy that she can't post pictures of her daughter who is, after all, the product of a fat pregnancy? What about Megan and others who have had babies since coming here. Should they not be able to share pictures with us because we don't allow pedophilia on the site? Anyone with two eyes and a conscience should be able to tell the difference between a mother posting a picture of her child and a story involving children that has sexual overtones and may even discuss masturbation and food play. I mean, can you not see the difference between the two?

I'm not interested in shutting down the library or weight board. Neither are my cuppa tea, but that's okay. I can live in peaceful coexistance with the feeders and feedees in this community, as I have for over a decade. However, if we really want to protect fat people from abuse, then that should include the stories which feature that abuse. Either that, or we need to back off on the "no diet talk" and "WLS is bad, you can only talk about it if you diss it" rules, which to this date have prevailed. My issue is the... erm... inconsistency of saying we must protect fat people and yet have such painful and emotionally damaging stories on the site.


----------



## LoveBHMS

Having fat protagonists in erotic fiction who enjoy humilation or name calling or bondage is not the same thing as being anti-fat acceptance.

There are plenty of FA people and FAs here who enjoy the stories and don't foist them on anyone else. Most of the readership just goes over and reads them and if they comment at all, do so on the appropriate forum. 

A while back, Tracijo said she 'wanted to see a show of hands' of how many fat people actually enjoyed the humilation/name calling genre. As of right now, three posts have said "I'm fat and I like it". When is it going to be clear to some of you that this is not just about what the fetish brigade wants and what FAs want but also about what fat people want.


----------



## bigsexy920

I just read through a lot of this thread and if there is anything that I will take from it is this that there are all kinds of people out there and if nothing else dimensions has enlightend me on many many good things. It also however allows me to see what is truly not ok for me and educates me on how people may have other motives than just liking me for who I am. 

A saying comes to mind. Beware of wolves in sheeps clothing.


----------



## Sugar

I'm the last one in the world to agree with making BBW's feel like they need to be fap material to any gross goon who just thinks they can say I like fat and we'll jump at the chance ...but even the FAQ's of the site don't mention Size Acceptance.
_
Is Dimensions just for men?
Initially (as in 1983) it was. But almost since the beginning Dimensions has been a forum for both fat women and the people who find them attractive. For men, Dimensions is a place where they can talk and learn about their preference, and find lots of steamy fiction, pictures, bulletin boards, chat rooms, and plenty more. For women, it's a place where THEY, and not their skinny sisters, are the stars. It's a place where they can learn about their admirers and to see the beauty and attractiveness in their bodies. _

Humans are complicated. It's always going to be hard to serve the needs of both sides of the ying and the yang when what pleases one may very will offend the other. 

I wish this site was A LOT more size acceptance and a little less fat glorification.


----------



## TraciJo67

I actually had to calm myself down a bit before responding to this post, because nothing that I initially had to say would have been at all productive.

Short version: Your perception is very skewed, LoveBHMS. And it's not any of us doing it; you are doing it to yourself.

Nobody is bullying you. If anything, you've brought out the low-blow guns a time or two dozen, and thus far, nobody has really called you on it.

Serious bit of advise: Take a breath. Calm yourself. Go to the weight board and pull these infamous examples of "bullying" that you're referring to. The last time that I participated substantively on the weight board was in the "feeder rant" thread that YOU started. My comments were supportive of you and of your position. I saw NOBODY getting bullied there, or elsewhere. Anyone can run my name through the thread search and see that I have but a handful of posts on that board. 

Your position is beginning to look very whiny. Continuing to call people "bullies" and "minions" with no substantive information to back your position isn't helpful to you. In fact, it's beginning to look like you're simply approaching the debating points from a weaker position, and you know it, so you're intentionally pulling out the "I'm being bullied" card. I repeat: Because you say it does not make it so. In fact, I'd bet dollars to donuts that anyone who cares enough to view this thread in its entirety will get a far different perspective of who the actual bully is here.



LoveBHMS said:


> What rules aren't being applied across the board?
> 
> There is a contingent here who has gotten away with calling us pedophiles, referring to stories that are no more kiddie porn than the "Sweet Valley High" series as "child pornongraphy", ridiculing me for not having a sense of humor when I questioned why pictures of kids could be posted on an age restricted board, and who take all the leeway they want with rudeness, derision, and top it off with a .gif of somebody being pinned on a wrestling mat and screaming in pain. Who precisely are the disrespectful ones?
> 
> There have recently been a couple of posts on the Weight Board, pointing out that traffic on that board has slowed down and discussions of feederism, stuffing, gaining and other sexually related manner have tapered off. I wrote that it's likely the inevitable outcome of people who are admittedly not into that stuff trolling the board and poking fun at us. While I realize that probably sends certain people into fits of giggles and joy, I think it's unfair to the people who want to post there and interact with others who share their sexuality.
> 
> I personally hate any food board discussion about meat. Threads like "How Do you Like Your Burger?" or posts about fried chicken recipes truly upset me because I wish nobody ate meat. But the fact that they upset me and other vegetarian is not the same thing as saying they shouldn't be there.


----------



## katorade

Miss Vickie said:


> Yes. This. We must be protected from diet talk because it's supposedly so toxic and damaging. But a story existing, on this site, calling someone a "fat fucking pig" is okay because some people get their yaya's from reading it? So basically we're elevating people's sexuality above the comfort level of the objects in question.




To further that, we keep getting told "don't like it, don't read it." Why isn't it then that the people so against reading anything having to do with censored material here are told the same thing? Don't want to read about diet talk, don't read it, etc. It's censored under the idea that it's damaging to our psyches, but then again, so is identifying with a character in a story that is called a fat fucking pig. The picking and choosing about what is _right _to be offended by is insulting.


----------



## Santaclear

LoveBHMS said:


> There is a contingent here who has gotten away with calling us pedophiles, referring to stories that are no more kiddie porn than the "Sweet Valley High" series as "child pornongraphy", ridiculing me for not having a sense of humor when I questioned why pictures of kids could be posted on an age restricted board, and who take all the leeway they want with rudeness, derision, and top it off with a .gif of somebody being pinned on a wrestling mat and screaming in pain. Who precisely are the disrespectful ones?



You're being ridiculed for not having a sense of humor? That is low.


----------



## fatgirlflyin

I will say it again. It feels as if you are not even trying to see my point of view or where I am coming from. I feel as though you are responding to this issue out of fear of what you stand to lose. If you could put yourself in someone elses shoes for just a minute maybe you would be able to see the point I'm trying to make. As it is you just don't see it since you are comparing it to threads about fried chicken and burgers. I truly like you and have enjoyed conversations we have had, and in those conversations you have always seemed more open minded than this. I can't speak for anyone else, but I"m not trying to take anything away. The rules are not enforced evenly, if they were then the story in question wouldn't be here. That's just how I see it. 





LoveBHMS said:


> What rules aren't being applied across the board?
> 
> There is a contingent here who has gotten away with calling us pedophiles, referring to stories that are no more kiddie porn than the "Sweet Valley High" series as "child pornongraphy", ridiculing me for not having a sense of humor when I questioned why pictures of kids could be posted on an age restricted board, and who take all the leeway they want with rudeness, derision, and top it off with a .gif of somebody being pinned on a wrestling mat and screaming in pain. Who precisely are the disrespectful ones?
> 
> There have recently been a couple of posts on the Weight Board, pointing out that traffic on that board has slowed down and discussions of feederism, stuffing, gaining and other sexually related manner have tapered off. I wrote that it's likely the inevitable outcome of people who are admittedly not into that stuff trolling the board and poking fun at us. While I realize that probably sends certain people into fits of giggles and joy, I think it's unfair to the people who want to post there and interact with others who share their sexuality.
> 
> I personally hate any food board discussion about meat. Threads like "How Do you Like Your Burger?" or posts about fried chicken recipes truly upset me because I wish nobody ate meat. But the fact that they upset me and other vegetarian is not the same thing as saying they shouldn't be there.


----------



## wrestlingguy

katorade said:


> To further that, we keep getting told "don't like it, don't read it." Why isn't it then that the people so against reading anything having to do with censored material here are told the same thing? Don't want to read about diet talk, don't read it, etc. It's censored under the idea that it's damaging to our psyches, but then again, so is identifying with a character in a story that is called a fat fucking pig. The picking and choosing about what is _right _to be offended by is insulting.



My apologies for not being able to paint across the boards with a broad brush, but I would tell those people the same thing if I was involved/subscribed to those threads.


----------



## katorade

wrestlingguy said:


> My apologies for not being able to paint across the boards with a broad brush, but I would tell those people the same thing if I was involved/subscribed to those threads.



I'm sorry if I made it sound like I was directing that at you. I was really referring to the many times it had been said in the thread previously. I read what you said as more of your own personal philosophy than a directive given to others.


----------



## LoveBHMS

I don't think it's about being open minded. 

Can you see that the fetish contingent genuinely feels under attack here? As Dan said upthread, it's like a "partial birth abortion" crusade. 

It feels like some factions on this board are just methodically cutting away at the sexuality based material on Dims. First the "underage", then the humiliation/name calling themed _fictional_ stories. Nobody thinks that even if all those stories disappeared that something else won't come next, some other objectionable weight board post held up for ridicule, some other genre of story because it has force feeding or extreme sexual content. 

This is not about worrying over having anything to lose but rather about just in general being tired of being made to feel freakish and as if ridiculing our sexuality is ok and if the whole notion of "safe haven" does not apply quite as much to us as it does to fat women. And even then if the fat women stand up and say "Hey, I'm into this stuff" they get ignored.

There also seems to be a massive disconnect between our sexuality and reality. There are innumerable situations in WG stories that nobody would dream of posting about on the Main Board or even necessarily wanting to happen in reality. For instance, there was a story (can't recall if it was here or elsewhere) called "Miss Butterball's Bukake" about a fat woman being gang banged and ejaculated on and forced to drink a bowl of the ejaculate. Now a lot of women would consider that pretty hot, but no way would anyone tolerate a man posting about having been a part of it in real life. Many feederism stories are akin to Penthouse Forum letters, they probably would never even happen IRL--there's one about a man who finds out his SS boss is a feedee and she invites him into her office for lunch and asks him to feed her. That's like 99.99999999999999% unlikely to ever actually happen or be posted about. 

We just want to read them, not have the situations migrate over to the discussion forums.


----------



## Miss Vickie

katorade said:


> To further that, we keep getting told "don't like it, don't read it." Why isn't it then that the people so against reading anything having to do with censored material here are told the same thing? Don't want to read about diet talk, don't read it, etc. It's censored under the idea that it's damaging to our psyches, but then again, so is identifying with a character in a story that is called a fat fucking pig. The picking and choosing about what is _right _to be offended by is insulting.



Yup. I have no problem with the argument, "Don't like it... don't read it" but it needs to be enforced across the board, so to speak. If dieting talk has the potential to be damaging to us, so be it. Then it should be in a place clearly marked as having diet talk so those who aren't interested can choose not to click on it and become hurt or offended; but at least the information would be there for those who DO want to or need to lose weight. The same could be said about humiliation stuff, if it truly has to be here to make certain FA's happy. 

Same with discussions of biting into juicy burgers, if we must take it to such an extreme.  I'll warrant, though, that if it truly offended LoveBHM's to read about people eating animal products, that would really limit her story enjoyment potential since a lot of the feeding stories have people eating cream, butter, and the like.

Otherwise, the same argument, "You can find it elsewhere on the web" can, and should, be used to justify removing these stories on the site. I'm sure you can find a TON of fat humiliation aaaaalllllll over this big ol' internet.


----------



## fatgirlflyin

LoveBHMS said:


> I don't think it's about being open minded.
> 
> Can you see that the fetish contingent genuinely feels under attack here? As Dan said upthread, it's like a "partial birth abortion" crusade.
> 
> It feels like some factions on this board are just methodically cutting away at the sexuality based material on Dims. First the "underage", then the humiliation/name calling themed _fictional_ stories. Nobody thinks that even if all those stories disappeared that something else won't come next, some other objectionable weight board post held up for ridicule, some other genre of story because it has force feeding or extreme sexual content.
> 
> This is not about worrying over having anything to lose but rather about just in general being tired of being made to feel freakish and as if ridiculing our sexuality is ok and if the whole notion of "safe haven" does not apply quite as much to us as it does to fat women. And even then if the fat women stand up and say "Hey, I'm into this stuff" they get ignored.



Absolutely, I can see that some people here feel threatened. That's why its so frustrating to me that those same people don't seem to be able to put themselves in my shoes to see where I'm coming from. I dont know that I agree with you about people trying to take things away little by little, I don't see it that way and I know that's not my intent. 

FWIW I think that the idea of safe haven should be applied evenly across the boards. I think you should be allowed your space, just as much as I should be allowed mine. That story, where a woman is called a fat fucking pig, whether you see it that way or not is offensive to many people. Its offensive to me, I'm not into humiliation, and I won't read another story by that author, no skin off my nose (or his I'm sure). But if I can't talk about my need to lose 75 pounds to not have pain in my hips because the owner of the site feels that diet talk doesn't belong here, then stories like that shouldn't either. I don't know how to say it any other way, and I wish that I could make you see my side of things but I'm afraid that will never happen.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> I don't think it's about being open minded.
> 
> Can you see that the fetish contingent genuinely feels under attack here? As Dan said upthread, it's like a "partial birth abortion" crusade.
> 
> It feels like some factions on this board are just methodically cutting away at the sexuality based material on Dims. First the "underage", then the humiliation/name calling themed _fictional_ stories. Nobody thinks that even if all those stories disappeared that something else won't come next, some other objectionable weight board post held up for ridicule, some other genre of story because it has force feeding or extreme sexual content.
> 
> This is not about worrying over having anything to lose but rather about just in general being tired of being made to feel freakish and as if ridiculing our sexuality is ok and if the whole notion of "safe haven" does not apply quite as much to us as it does to fat women. And even then if the fat women stand up and say "Hey, I'm into this stuff" they get ignored.



I assure you that a lot of us feel just as under attack as you do, and that's why we are as vocal as we are. _Just like you.

_Your second paragraph is pure speculation. If anyone wanted to get rid of it in its entirety, it would have started that way, and a wide net would have been cast over all of the content. In reality, the underage issue was approached as being against rules that were already in place and why the rules weren't being applied, as apparently it was previously agreed that material about underage characters was inappropriate on an adult site. The only other content being questioned is the dehumanization/debasement of fat people. 

Nobody has said "down with the weight board". Nobody has said "close the library". Nobody has said "ban all fetish topics". People have admitted to not liking it, but have also said that they understand that other people's kinks may not be their own. That is not the equivalent of saying they want to see it all dispatched of.

As far as it being a safe haven. Good god. Everyone can have their own safe haven about their sexuality. It's called privacy. If I don't want anyone to pick at the fact that I like a good spank now and again, all I have to do is not say anything about it. That goes for ALL people here, not just those into a fetish lifestyle. If you want to be out and about with your personal beliefs, then be prepared to face an opposing view.

On the other hand, there's absolutely nothing I can do about protecting myself from ridicule as a fat person outside of just shutting my front door and never leaving the house or watching tv or reading the newspaper. I can't just keep being fat to myself. I don't have that option, so yes, as far as needing a safe haven, fat women and men DO have a stronger need for that, and I'm not surprised that you refuse to see that.


----------



## LoveBHMS

I don't want to feel like I'm not being open minded. I've definitely been on the defense during this discussion because it's felt like one attack after another.

I feel as if the Fiction is not only properly tucked away, but that plain common sense would dictate that only a small number of those situations happen in real life and only a small number would even be appropriate for any sort of real life discussion.

As far as weight loss discussions, I personally feel that they should be allowed on the Health Board but it's not my call to make. I think size acceptance should reasonably not only encompass choices to be smaller as much as choices to be larger, but also there should be a recongnition that choices and lifestyles change over time.

It's certainly true that freedom of speech often gets applied to sexual situations before others. The whole way I found Dims was that I was angry that pro-anorexia websites were shut down by internet providers. I had an idea of feederism existing and looked it up and found Dims. I was (and still am) mad that Yahoo will host sites of 700 pound women who want to gain weight and not sites for women who want to talk about losing large amounts of weight.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> I don't want to feel like I'm not being open minded. I've definitely been on the defense during this discussion because it's felt like one attack after another.
> 
> I feel as if the Fiction is not only properly tucked away, but that plain common sense would dictate that only a small number of those situations happen in real life and only a small number would even be appropriate for any sort of real life discussion.



I can tell you why it is so touchy for a lot of people, even though it's fiction, and even though the chances of it happening in reality are extremely remote.

We are subject to the same forms of ridicule on a daily basis. We get to hear lovely snippets from people that like to say things like "fat people should all be killed and used for energy instead of oil", "fat people don't deserve health care and I'm sick of my taxes going to their Twinkie addictions", "fat girls are like scooters, fun to ride but you don't want your friends to see you on one", "the only way to find a fat girl's vagina is to roll her in flour and look for the wet spot", "fat people are useless", "we should hunt fat people instead of whales, it would kill two birds with one stone". 

Need I continue? All of it is something most of us have heard more than once, even if it wasn't aimed directly at us, and rarely do the people saying it have the gall to say it to our faces, or when confronted they say they're not actually "serious", but the hatred is there _just enough _and _often enough _that it gets harder and harder to let it all just roll off your back and think that people don't ACTUALLY feel that way. 

That, coupled with the fact that many of us HAVE experienced real fat hatred is enough to throw you over the edge. Has a complete stranger ever thrown a bottle out of a car window at you for your sexual urges? Have you been openly ridiculed and humiliated on the streets by people you don't know because you engage in a feeder/feedee relationship behind closed doors, when you gave them absolutely no reason to approach you? I didn't think so.

I personally don't give a flying fuck any more if they _actually _want it to happen. The fact that it pulsed through their brain, even for an instant, is enough for me to want to punch them in the mouth. Don't want to get punched in the mouth? Then don't say the words "fat fucking pig" around me. Simple!


As for your last paragraph...wtf? You don't understand why anyone would want to shut down websites that promote and encourage behaviors of a documented psychiatric illness? The fact that the driving factors behind both behaviors are extremely different?


----------



## Sugar

katorade said:


> I can tell you why it is so touchy for a lot of people, even though it's fiction, and even though the chances of it happening in reality are extremely remote.
> 
> We are subject to the same forms of ridicule on a daily basis. We get to hear lovely snippets from people that like to say things like "fat people should all be killed and used for energy instead of oil", "fat people don't deserve health care and I'm sick of my taxes going to their Twinkie addictions", "fat girls are like scooters, fun to ride but you don't want your friends to see you on one", "the only way to find a fat girl's vagina is to roll her in flour and look for the wet spot", "fat people are useless", "we should hunt fat people instead of whales, it would kill two birds with one stone".
> 
> Need I continue? All of it is something most of us have heard more than once, even if it wasn't aimed directly at us, and rarely do the people saying it have the gall to say it to our faces, or when confronted they say they're not actually "serious", but the hatred is there _just enough _and _often enough _that it gets harder and harder to let it all just roll off your back and think that people don't ACTUALLY feel that way.
> 
> I personally don't give a flying fuck any more if they _actually _want it to happen any more. The fact that it pulsed through their brain, even for an instant, is enough for me to want to punch them in the mouth. Don't want to get punched in the mouth? Then don't say the words "fat fucking pig" around me. Simple!
> 
> 
> As for your last paragraph...wtf? You don't understand why anyone would want to shut down websites that promote and encourage behaviors of a documented psychiatric illness? The fact that the driving factors behind both behaviors are extremely different?



"When you have cankles that big you should be directed to the WLS board when you sign in"

Fact is...even those who claim love the chub can come up haters. 

I'm with you on this Kato, I just hope you're not spinning your wheels. Some people will NEVER get it.


----------



## TraciJo67

Sugar said:


> I'm with you on this Kato, I just hope you're not spinning your wheels. Some people will NEVER get it.



Yes. This. 

That last paragraph, the sense of outrage that pro-ana sites are being taken down ... 

.... 

Explains a lot to me, some things that I just wasn't getting on the front end. I think we should focus on reasoning with people who are capable of it, and stop wasting breath on those who are not.


----------



## katorade

Sugar said:


> I'm with you on this Kato, I just hope you're not spinning your wheels. Some people will NEVER get it.




Even if I am, at least it's cathartic, and anybody interested in objectifying me sexually that reads this thread will stay the hell out of my PM box, lol. Unless you want to objectify me, Sarah, then grrrrr, you're on!


----------



## Sugar

katorade said:


> Even if I am, at least it's cathartic, and anybody interested in objectifying me sexually that reads this thread will stay the hell out of my PM box, lol. Unless you want to objectify me, Sarah, then grrrrr, you're on!



I'm not taking back that dirty PM...you nor deep can make me!


----------



## mollycoddles

Santaclear said:


> True fetishism is, apparently, also the gateway to completely lacking a sense of humor.



Really? So FAs who don't like being ridiculed just don't have a sense of humor? Wow, Santaclear, you've sure helped this discussion a lot. A lot of BBWs in this thread have posted about how they don't like being ridiculed for their weight or how they think that some things posted on this site are degrading. Do they just not have a sense of humor? BBWs in this thread are concerned that they aren't getting the respect they should and they're angry when they feel that the porn contingent's only response is "Don't like it? Tough." Yet when FAs complain that they feel they haven't been shown the same courtesy, your response is basically the same.

It's pretty easy to insult someone and then act shocked and say "But I was only joking!" when someone calls you on it. That's the favorite tool of the bully and that's been your modus operendi for this whole thread. I'm sure you're just going to respond with a "Golly, that Mollycoddles sure doesn't have a sense of humor, yuck yuck," so maybe you'll understand this:

Hey, I heard that Santaclear once raped and killed a girl and ate her brains. Oh, hey, don't get mad, I was just joking! LOL


----------



## LoveBHMS

Sugar's post, which I hope will be taken down is precisely the issue here.

Sugar, you know darn well that posting actual content of *private messages* on the Forums is against the rules. But the heck with it, right? Rules don't apply to you. You can do whatever you want to do if you feel slighted. And seriously? The "don't like it don't read it" for *certain* applies to private messages that don't have your name on them. You have no business, and I mean *none* flaunting forum rules like that and I sincerely hope you get a warning for it.



> As for your last paragraph...wtf? You don't understand why anyone would want to shut down websites that promote and encourage behaviors of a documented psychiatric illness? The fact that the driving factors behind both behaviors are extremely different?



Did you bother reading what I wrote? My point was that pro-ana sites are taken down but feederism sites are not. One encourages excessive weight gain and the other excessive weight loss. I thought it was wrong that the encouragement of excessive gaining was allowed likely because it was sexually based, whereas the pro-ana sites were not. And FWIW, people were getting anorexia long before the internet. If you dont' have an eating disorder you won't get one from a website and the overwhelming majority of posters on those sites are simply trying to engage in a certain type of behaviour, they don't actually have the disease.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

mollycoddles said:


> Really? So FAs who don't like being ridiculed just don't have a sense of humor? Wow, Santaclear, you've sure helped this discussion a lot. A lot of BBWs in this thread have posted about how they don't like being ridiculed for their weight or how they think that some things posted on this site are degrading. Do they just not have a sense of humor? BBWs in this thread are concerned that they aren't getting the respect they should and they're angry when they feel that the porn contingent's only response is "Don't like it? Tough." Yet when FAs complain that they feel they haven't been shown the same courtesy, your response is basically the same.
> 
> It's pretty easy to insult someone and then act shocked and say "But I was only joking!" when someone calls you on it. That's the favorite tool of the bully and that's been your modus operendi for this whole thread. I'm sure you're just going to respond with a "Golly, that Mollycoddles sure doesn't have a sense of humor, yuck yuck," so maybe you'll understand this:
> 
> Hey, I heard that Santaclear once raped and killed a girl and ate her brains. Oh, hey, don't get mad, I was just joking! LOL



Santaclear has always been tongue in cheek. Most of us realize this about him. He makes light/humor out of a lot of things....and most of us appreciate it. 
And I don't recall seeing Santa support Loves being referred to as a fat piggy, insult her body parts or any such thing........He was making light of the thread. Some people should lighten up......


----------



## Sugar

mollycoddles said:


> Really? So FAs who don't like being ridiculed just don't have a sense of humor? Wow, Santaclear, you've sure helped this discussion a lot. A lot of BBWs in this thread have posted about how they don't like being ridiculed for their weight or how they think that some things posted on this site are degrading. Do they just not have a sense of humor? BBWs in this thread are concerned that they aren't getting the respect they should and they're angry when they feel that the porn contingent's only response is "Don't like it? Tough." Yet when FAs complain that they feel they haven't been shown the same courtesy, your response is basically the same.
> 
> It's pretty easy to insult someone and then act shocked and say "But I was only joking!" when someone calls you on it. That's the favorite tool of the bully and that's been your modus operendi for this whole thread. I'm sure you're just going to respond with a "Golly, that Mollycoddles sure doesn't have a sense of humor, yuck yuck," so maybe you'll understand this:
> 
> Hey, I heard that Santaclear once raped and killed a girl and ate her brains. Oh, hey, don't get mad, I was just joking! LOL



Seriously, that was uncalled for...one minor joke several pages back and you're taking it to the next level?

After all this debate and talk and concerns on both sides the best you have to offer is say something disgusting about a very valuable member of dims? 

I suppose we should feel lucky you have had a grand total of 133 posts with comments like that.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> Sugar's post, which I hope will be taken down is precisely the issue here.
> 
> Sugar, you know darn well that posting actual content of *private messages* on the Forums is against the rules. But the heck with it, right? Rules don't apply to you. You can do whatever you want to do if you feel slighted. And seriously? The "don't like it don't read it" for *certain* applies to private messages that don't have your name on them. You have no business, and I mean *none* flaunting forum rules like that and I sincerely hope you get a warning for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother reading what I wrote? My point was that pro-ana sites are taken down but feederism sites are not. One encourages excessive weight gain and the other excessive weight loss. I thought it was wrong that the encouragement of excessive gaining was allowed likely because it was sexually based, whereas the pro-ana sites were not. And FWIW, people were getting anorexia long before the internet. If you dont' have an eating disorder you won't get one from a website and the overwhelming majority of posters on those sites are simply trying to engage in a certain type of behaviour, they don't actually have the disease.




Well, none of us knew that was part of a PM _until now._ Not surprising that it was from you, though.

Also, anorexia nervosa is just a liiiiiiiiittle bit more than "wanting to lose excessive weight".


----------



## LoveBHMS

So issues we bring up are fair game for "joking" and if we don't think it's funny, we're the bad guys? Got it.

This discussion does not need to turn into another goround of "Who has it worse in real life"? Forum rules are what they are, they're not dynamic based on the difficulty of somebody's life experiences.

And thusfar, 2 fat women and 1 fat man have posted that they like humiliation and submission. Dont' they count? Don't their suggestions about dealing with this material matter? Or all fat people equal but some are more equal than others so long as they toe the party line


----------



## Sugar

LoveBHMS said:


> Sugar's post, which I hope will be taken down is precisely the issue here.
> 
> Sugar, you know darn well that posting actual content of *private messages* on the Forums is against the rules. But the heck with it, right? Rules don't apply to you. You can do whatever you want to do if you feel slighted. And seriously? The "don't like it don't read it" for *certain* applies to private messages that don't have your name on them. You have no business, and I mean *none* flaunting forum rules like that and I sincerely hope you get a warning for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you bother reading what I wrote? My point was that pro-ana sites are taken down but feederism sites are not. One encourages excessive weight gain and the other excessive weight loss. I thought it was wrong that the encouragement of excessive gaining was allowed likely because it was sexually based, whereas the pro-ana sites were not. And FWIW, people were getting anorexia long before the internet. If you dont' have an eating disorder you won't get one from a website and the overwhelming majority of posters on those sites are simply trying to engage in a certain type of behaviour, they don't actually have the disease.



That was a quote I actually read in dim chat. I never saw a PM stating that. Sorry to break your heart on that one. Good to know your disgusting words were quoted accurately. 

It's real easy to say X is OK or Y is OK because it is your right. Sadly most people don't like it when horrible things are said about them or a character that they relate to or a group they are a part of. Those who spout "this is my right" don't tend to get it until the ugly mirror is held up for them to get a good look. Look what harmless words did before...imagine what they do now.

I'll take the warning or the time out or even the ban, but don't go spouting unless you expect your own actions to be involved. Own what you say. If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.


----------



## Santaclear

mollycoddles said:


> Really? So FAs who don't like being ridiculed just don't have a sense of humor? Wow, Santaclear, you've sure helped this discussion a lot. A lot of BBWs in this thread have posted about how they don't like being ridiculed for their weight or how they think that some things posted on this site are degrading. Do they just not have a sense of humor? BBWs in this thread are concerned that they aren't getting the respect they should and they're angry when they feel that the porn contingent's only response is "Don't like it? Tough." Yet when FAs complain that they feel they haven't been shown the same courtesy, your response is basically the same.
> 
> It's pretty easy to insult someone and then act shocked and say "But I was only joking!" when someone calls you on it. That's the favorite tool of the bully and that's been your modus operendi for this whole thread. I'm sure you're just going to respond with a "Golly, that Mollycoddles sure doesn't have a sense of humor, yuck yuck," so maybe you'll understand this:
> 
> Hey, I heard that Santaclear once raped and killed a girl and ate her brains. Oh, hey, don't get mad, I was just joking! LOL



LovesBHM does present herself as a fine straight woman for humor and I'm not surprised that the irony of one as fetishy as her complaining that Dimensions members being allowed to post family pictures here bothers her is lost on you. Also, there's a history here, which you may or may not be aware of, which causes me (and probably many others who were here to see it) to question her motives whenever she makes any argument which involves the best interests of fat women.

Also, my jokes mostly ARE funny. Nice try on the brains.


----------



## LoveBHMS

katorade said:


> Well, none of us knew that was part of a PM _until now._ Not surprising that it was from you, though.
> 
> Also, anorexia nervosa is just a liiiiiiiiittle bit more than "wanting to lose excessive weight".



1. Trust me, everyone on this board knew it. She just decided to flaunt the rules. Would you like everything you say in private reprinted on this board? Could you stand up to that kind of scrutiny?

2. I know what anorexia is. I'm talking about what happens to the body physically (excessive loss/gain) not about the mental component. My point was each can be damaging to the body, yet one is allowed and one is not.

3. "Actions" are not the same thing as "words said in private". 

4. This whole discussion is not about me, and i'm not going to make it about me. You're devolving to personal attacks, and Sugar, you are already on record in the infamous thread as saying you "read the whole exchange some time ago" so don't pretend you only read about it in chat.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

Santaclear said:


> Also, my jokes mostly ARE funny.




:bow: :bow: :bow: :inserts another PC bowing "person" with no pics of family members to please the people:


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> So issues we bring up are fair game for "joking" and if we don't think it's funny, we're the bad guys? Got it.
> 
> This discussion does not need to turn into another goround of "Who has it worse in real life"? Forum rules are what they are, they're not dynamic based on the difficulty of somebody's life experiences.



Reality appears to be dynamic based on the demands of _your_ life experiences, Love. One minute you're mingling with fat people, the next you're pro-anorexia... Oy gevalt!


----------



## saucywench

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> :bow: :bow: :bow: :inserts another PC bowing "person" with no pics of family members to please the people:


PC my ass; those are Muslims praying to Allah


----------



## TraciJo67

LoveBHMS said:


> 1. Trust me, everyone on this board knew it. She just decided to flaunt the rules. Would you like everything you say in private reprinted on this board? Could you stand up to that kind of scrutiny?
> 
> 2. I know what anorexia is. I'm talking about what happens to the body physically (excessive loss/gain) not about the mental component. My point was each can be damaging to the body, yet one is allowed and one is not.
> 
> 3. "Actions" are not the same thing as "words said in private".
> 
> 4. This whole discussion is not about me, and i'm not going to make it about me. You're devolving to personal attacks, and Sugar, you are already on record in the infamous thread as saying you "read the whole exchange some time ago" so don't pretend you only read about it in chat.



Don't like dirty tactics? Don't use them.


----------



## LoveBHMS

Fascinita said:


> Reality appears to be dynamic based on the demands of _your_ life experiences, Love. One minute you're mingling with fat people, the next you're pro-anorexia... Oy gevalt!



Did I say i was pro-anorexia? I merely pointed out that those sites are taken down by Yahoo and other Providers while they host sites where people encourage excessive gaining. What I said is that both are potentially harmful and that it makes no sense for Yahoo to taken down one kind of site and leave the other. Deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote is just silly.


----------



## Sugar

LoveBHMS said:


> 1. Trust me, everyone on this board knew it. She just decided to flaunt the rules. Would you like everything you say in private reprinted on this board? Could you stand up to that kind of scrutiny?
> 
> 2. I know what anorexia is. I'm talking about what happens to the body physically (excessive loss/gain) not about the mental component. My point was each can be damaging to the body, yet one is allowed and one is not.
> 
> 3. "Actions" are not the same thing as "words said in private".
> 
> 4. This whole discussion is not about me, and i'm not going to make it about me. You're devolving to personal attacks, and Sugar, you are already on record in the infamous thread as saying you "read the whole exchange some time ago" so don't pretend you only read about it in chat.



Actually I didn't know that line until tonight...but whatever. I'm not sorry I said it because your reasons for this fight are dubious. 

This is exactly why some things should be kept private. The bottom line is you could give to turds about the fat women on this board. You've made it clear that you deserve to be here because you love fat men and your primary concern is getting your rocks off, not bettering the community. Your choice but don't do round robins with people who actually do care about more than grabbing a handful of fat.

The fact that you'd stoop to the pro-ana sites is disgusting. When someone has a disease like that it can be "triggered" by things as simple as shopping and as complex as talking to another person with the same disease unchecked. Encouragement will lead to their relapse. Next time why don't you had a bottle to a kid who just came out of his 28 days while you're at it.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> 1. Trust me, everyone on this board knew it. She just decided to flaunt the rules. Would you like everything you say in private reprinted on this board? Could you stand up to that kind of scrutiny?




1) Actually, in THIS thread, an entire private conversation of mine was posted without my consent in order to try and chuck my character under a bus.

Did I report it? No. Did I stand up to the scrutiny? Yes. Did I openly admit to being wrong for getting information muddled? Yes. Did I die of shame afterwards? No.

So, uhhh...

2) Actually, I'm pretty sure the reason they were closed was directly related to it being a "mental" thing, not about the effects it has on the body.

3) What?

4) That wasn't a personal attack, honey. That was an observation.


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> 1. Trust me, everyone on this board knew it. She just decided to flaunt the rules. Would you like everything you say in private reprinted on this board? Could you stand up to that kind of scrutiny?
> 
> 2. I know what anorexia is. I'm talking about what happens to the body physically (excessive loss/gain) not about the mental component. My point was each can be damaging to the body, yet one is allowed and one is not.
> 
> 3. "Actions" are not the same thing as "words said in private".
> 
> 4. This whole discussion is not about me, and i'm not going to make it about me. You're devolving to personal attacks, and Sugar, you are already on record in the infamous thread as saying you "read the whole exchange some time ago" so don't pretend you only read about it in chat.



One day you're for personally attacking people in a public debate, the next day you're against it. Meshugana!


----------



## LoveBHMS

Fine.

You know what? If this community is bettered by eliminating the Fiction section, go ahead and eliminate it. It's not my call anyway, it's Conrad's but I'm sick of fighting about this and I refuse to be made the issue here. It's not about me, it's about, at least originally the fact that some posters here have a particular sexuality that is satisfied by some of those stories. They think they have the right to read them, roped off as they are in a safe place and clearly marked, and you think they need to go because their existence is setting back the cause.

If there is, or will be, a causal affect between deleting the Story forum and your life as a fat woman being better, I'm all for it. Seriously.


----------



## Santaclear

Again, no one called for eliminating the Fiction section.


----------



## Sugar

LoveBHMS said:


> Fine.
> 
> You know what? If this community is bettered by eliminating the Fiction section, go ahead and eliminate it. It's not my call anyway, it's Conrad's but I'm sick of fighting about this and I refuse to be made the issue here. It's not about me, it's about, at least originally the fact that some posters here have a particular sexuality that is satisfied by some of those stories. They think they have the right to read them, roped off as they are in a safe place and clearly marked, and you think they need to go because their existence is setting back the cause.
> 
> If there is, or will be, a causal affect between deleting the Story forum and your life as a fat woman being better, I'm all for it. Seriously.



Your actions over time have not shown that you would want our lives to be better. If you mean that...then thanks! 

As for making a clear point that fantasy is fantasy and members of the board of both sexes should be treated as real people and not fap fodder...that's not a terrible thing. A place for the reality of being very large and in need of weight loss and help from your friends who understand as well as a place to get your rocks off. As it stands now...only one half of that exists. 

I think it's good to have a place where everyone can come together. When you have two sides of one coin there are going to be issues. 

I just think it's important that if words are just words and it's just a story or a comment or whatever...then it should be made clear to you (the one who's been debating for the past several pages) that words do actually matter. 
Even your words matter. The good and the bad and the ones that fueled this debate much deeper than if anyone else had been going round and round for 2 days.


----------



## TraciJo67

This is what you said. If any misinterpretation was done, it was because you weren't clear. 

Also, I'm not convinced that you were misconstrued. The highlighted sentences are, actually, quite clear. 

You're angry that pro-ana sites were removed, because apparently you feel that if they are removed, pro-feeder sites should be, as well. There appears to be some huge disconnect between fantasy and reality, and I don't think you get that anorexia (and the young women who peruse pro-ana sites, whether clinically anorexic or not) is an illness having little to nothing to do with the desire to lose weight and everything to do with the desire to control one aspect of a life that feels completely overwhelming and out of control. Pro-ana sites are nothing -- and I mean NOTHING -- but an opportunity for very ill people to encourage each other that a very serious, very deadly mental illness is in fact "normal" ... i.e., an attempt to normalize a condition and a set of behaviors that are anything.but.normal. 

Feeder/feedee and gaining websites are for the most part about sexualizing and objectifying, and all parties involved know what the rules are. Whether society agrees with the behaviors, or not, has little bearing on the fact that fetishizing weight gain isn't a mental illness as defined by the DSM-IV. Or are you *now* arguing that it is? 



LoveBHMS said:


> It's certainly true that freedom of speech often gets applied to sexual situations before others. The whole way I found Dims was that *I was angry that pro-anorexia websites were shut down by internet providers*. I had an idea of feederism existing and looked it up and found Dims. I was (and still am) mad that Yahoo will host sites of 700 pound women who want to gain weight and not *sites for women who want to talk about losing large amounts of weight*.





LoveBHMS said:


> Did I say i was pro-anorexia? I merely pointed out that those sites are taken down by Yahoo and other Providers while they host sites where people encourage excessive gaining. What I said is that both are potentially harmful and that it makes no sense for Yahoo to taken down one kind of site and leave the other. Deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote is just silly.


----------



## mollycoddles

Santaclear said:


> LovesBHM does present herself as a fine straight woman for humor and I'm not surprised that the irony of one as fetishy as her complaining that Dimensions members being allowed to post family pictures here bothers her is lost on you. Also, there's a history here, which you may or may not be aware of, which causes me (and probably many others who were here to see it) to question her motives whenever she makes any argument which involves the best interests of fat women.
> 
> Also, my jokes mostly ARE funny. Nice try on the brains.



LovesBHM didn't seem to be actually complaining; they were pointing out that there was a disconnect between allowing photos but not stories. If you want to ridicule someone for that and then hide behind a defense of "I was just joking," that's your prerogative. The only posts I've seen from you since you've been in this thread have amounted to insults and then claims "LOL People who don't like being insulted don't have a sense of humor." I know plenty of people who do this and they are all jackasses. 

BBWs in this thread say they don't like to be insulted in stories, but when FAs are insulted those are just "jokes" that should be laughed off. I recognize that the insults in this thread may not be of the same magnitude as the insults that BBWs are complaining of seeing in stories, but still. I don't know anything about LovesBHM, I'm just going by what I see in this thread. 

Yes, I'm sure that you are the best judge of the quality of your jokes.


----------



## LoveBHMS

I've seen the ban on weight loss talked brought up by three people now. How exactly is that ban my fault? I have said time and again that I'm in favor of it being allowed on the Health Forum, but it's not up to me. I'm even in favor of it if it's fat men and not fat women talking about it.

I don't see where most porn consumers are so dumb that they don't get the concept of 'fiction'. I mean I think Penthouse Forum has been around for decades without men using it as an excuse for innappropriate behaviour. I read these stories and I share them with men who I know are into them. I can assure you I've never ever ever even a single time called a fat guy a "pig" or teased him about his size unless I knew for 100% that he's get off on it. A former coworker of mine who's fat recently started an exercise program, I know he has a family history of heart disease---do you think I said "Oh, but you're so hot being as fat as you are! Stay away from the gym"? Of course not.

But once again, if removing the Fiction stories is going to better anyone's real life, I'll personally PM Conrad and ask him to delete them.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

mollycoddles said:


> LovesBHM didn't seem to be actually complaining; they were pointing out that there was a disconnect between allowing photos but not stories. If you want to ridicule someone for that and then hide behind a defense of "I was just joking," that's your prerogative. The only posts I've seen from you since you've been in this thread have amounted to insults and then claims "LOL People who don't like being insulted don't have a sense of humor." I know plenty of people who do this and they are all jackasses.
> 
> BBWs in this thread say they don't like to be insulted in stories, but when FAs are insulted those are just "jokes" that should be laughed off. I recognize that the insults in this thread may not be of the same magnitude as the insults that BBWs are complaining of seeing in stories, but still. I don't know anything about LovesBHM, I'm just going by what I see in this thread.
> 
> Yes, I'm sure that you are the best judge of the quality of your jokes.



I thought you said you aren't an FA Molly?


----------



## mollycoddles

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I thought you said you aren't an FA Molly?



Did I? I don't recall that. But I don't have to be an FA to note when someone's insulting them.


----------



## Fascinita

LoveBHMS said:


> Deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote is just silly.





LoveBHMS said:


> But once again, if removing the Fiction stories is going to better anyone's real life, I'll personally PM Conrad and ask him to delete them.



One moment you're saying that deliberately misunderstanding what you wrote is just silly, the next you're deliberately misunderstanding what others wrote. Caramba!


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

mollycoddles said:


> Did I? I don't recall that. But I don't have to be an FA to note when someone's insulting them.



Well you did say that when BBWs come here, that we should just expect all the shit that goes along with it. You feel that FAs (those that actually LIKE fat people....just to be clear) hold some greater status and shouldn't have anything remotely humorous said about them?


Santaclear is an FA....that finds another supposed Fat "Admirer" funny.....why do you find that upsetting?


----------



## wrestlingguy

Please, just let it go already.


----------



## Sugar

LoveBHMS said:


> I've seen the ban on weight loss talked brought up by three people now. How exactly is that ban my fault? I have said time and again that I'm in favor of it being allowed on the Health Forum, but it's not up to me. I'm even in favor of it if it's fat men and not fat women talking about it.
> 
> I don't see where most porn consumers are so dumb that they don't get the concept of 'fiction'. I mean I think Penthouse Forum has been around for decades without men using it as an excuse for innappropriate behaviour. I read these stories and I share them with men who I know are into them. I can assure you I've never ever ever even a single time called a fat guy a "pig" or teased him about his size unless I knew for 100% that he's get off on it. A former coworker of mine who's fat recently started an exercise program, I know he has a family history of heart disease---do you think I said "Oh, but you're so hot being as fat as you are! Stay away from the gym"? Of course not.
> 
> But once again, if removing the Fiction stories is going to better anyone's real life, I'll personally PM Conrad and ask him to delete them.



I'm going to bold this just to be clear.

*There are probably people that want the library gone but those people haven't been thick in this debate with you. Kato, Traci, etc...just looking for some clear lines.*

You've been debating rights, and going on tangents...like all forum debates do...and it's clear you're cool with the inclusion of weight loss talk. However, don't try to paint yourself as reasonable and innocent now. The fact is several people just want clear lines drawn and some equal treatment. There is plenty of middle ground here...but talking about pro ana and then pictures of kids. It's smoke and mirrors. 

This isn't a witch hunt. You've talked about your rights to talk about whatever you want and let you BE. The flip side of that is not treating a vast majority of participants like they are worth nothing more than a good jerk off. 

Words matter...wars have started, been fought, lost, and won over words. Hearts broken, lives lost, joy given...all from words. Even words in some story that will only be read by a few hundred people on dims in it's entire lifetime.


----------



## Sugar

wrestlingguy said:


> Please, just let it go already.



Phil...I dig you...you're cooler than the other side of my pillow.

If you don't like it don't read, man.


----------



## katorade

LoveBHMS said:


> I've seen the ban on weight loss talked brought up by three people now. How exactly is that ban my fault?



Gonna pull my freaking hair out. NOBODY has said that anything was your fault. Nobody has said they wanted the library closed. Are you actually reading any of these posts or just skimming and coming up with your own conclusions? I'm not trying to be a smartass in saying that, either, I'm serious.


----------



## Santaclear

wrestlingguy said:


> If you go back nearly 10 years ago, I posted then that this is Conrad's place, and it's his rules, and his world, and if ya liked it, ya live with it, and if ya don't....





wrestlingguy said:


> Please, just let it go already.



Ya better live with it, Phil.


----------



## tonynyc

Santaclear said:


> You better live with it, Phil.



*Well Santa: Long Live the Library*


----------



## LoveBHMS

Being a fetishist does not mean you are treating anyone like they're good for nothing but a jerkoff. If that is your perception of fetishists, I'm very sorry and I'm not going to change it. 

Many fetishists, at least speaking only for myself and my IRL partners engage in open and honest communication about their turnons. Not only do I not engage in any fetish oriented talk or behaviour with a non-fetish partner, I would never do so. To be honest, I wouldn't even enjoy it, it's too much of a roll play thing.

I also fail to see who is not getting "equal treatment" on this site, or what you are claiming is equal treatment. You say any stories that have humilation themes or name calling are against fat acceptance? I disagree, being in favor of having pornography available is not the same thing as thinking real people should be treated the way subjects of fiction stories are.

Whatever unequal treatment you're getting, I hope the problem gets fixed. Like I said, 86 the Library and Weight Room since they're apparently the "gateway" to all the people who come in here and bother you.


----------



## mollycoddles

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Well you did say that when BBWs come here, that we should just expect all the shit that goes along with it. You feel that FAs (those that actually LIKE fat people....just to be clear) hold some greater status and shouldn't have anything remotely humorous said about them?



I most certainly NEVER said that BBWs should just accept all the shit they get here. I hope that you're just confusing me with another poster. 




> Santaclear is an FA....that finds another supposed Fat "Admirer" funny.....why do you find that upsetting?



I should say that, regardless of what side of this debate Santaclear is on, his jokes seem calculated to dismiss ideas that he just doesn't want to see debated.


----------



## wrestlingguy

Santaclear said:


> Ya better live with it, Phil.



And if I can"t, then what?


----------



## Santaclear

wrestlingguy said:


> And if I can"t, then what?



Ya don't.....


----------



## Fascinita

tonynyc said:


> *Long Live the Library*



I'll join you in that cheer, Tony. I support freedom of expression, as long as it's ethical and enjoyed responsibly. It's not for _me_ singly to decide what's ethical, but I think the site itself has already proved that ethics are important concerns, in the move to prohibit the mention of "underage" characters in stories. 

As for what's been discussed in this thread, I'd like to see a label put on the library saying that Dimensions is against hatred of fat and that if people must express fat-hatred, they should do it in clearly marked areas of the library only.

So that's all. I think people somehow got it in their heads that folks want the library gone. Not so.


----------



## wrestlingguy

Santaclear said:


> Ya don't.....



Not a good alternative, Russ.......sorry.

I come off a weekend of bringing a community of very different people closer together, and then have to read all this personal shytte, where the holes are poked at the messenger, rather than the message, both sides.

WTF happened to the question posed by the OP? He's likely moved on to "greener pastures" like the Fat Forums, or Curvage, or Fantasy Feeder by now, and our group has morphed the question into a discussion of anything else but the original topic. Geez, go figure.

One thing for certain, I'm an asshole if I continue to read this thread. Oh, and for those of you who think I'm an asshole anyway, at least you know that I consider it myself at times.

Eff this, I'm gonna go plan the spring bash.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

mollycoddles said:


> Still, actions speak louder than words and it doesn't change the fact the site is designed to encourage visitations from perverts what with its massive porn library and swathes of plugs for adults BBW sites. The site's content would argue that the porn aspect is integral to its mission and if Conrad has a problem with it being seen that way he may want to take a more hands-on approach to policing what gets posted here.
> 
> 
> But I don't see why you expect that the perverts will leave of their own accord when everything that they want is right here. I mean, if you leave trash in your kitchen, who should you blame when you get cockroaches?
> 
> 
> Personally, I think that abolishing the library would be a safer approach, simply because any sort of pornography archive is eventually going to attract these elements. I suppose that if it were very heavily policed it could be restricted to writing that is genuinely uplifting rather than sordid. But such stories would be written for the purposes of politics first and pornography second. That's not a criticism, mind you; I'm just trying to say that it would be a different animal than the archive we have now, which is explicitly for pornography with no higher political or educational aims.





mollycoddles said:


> My main point is that I think the main reason that people are constantly rehashing the "fetish vs preference" debate is because they want to think of this particular kink as something that elevates them above people with other kinks.
> 
> I do know some larger people in real life, but my girlfriend is rather svelte. I don't know what conclusions you want to draw from that, but there it is.





mollycoddles said:


> It's not the best comparison, I admit. I was just trying to point out how it didn't make any sense to have a site full of the sort of thing that would attract fat admirers and then get upset that fat admirers showed up. I could have just as easily said that it was silly to have a garden full of flowers and then get angry that bees showed up. I didn't mean it as a slight against either fat women or fat admirers, it was just the first analogy that came to mind.





mollycoddles said:


> I most certainly NEVER said that BBWs should just accept all the shit they get here. I hope that you're just confusing me with another poster.



Perhaps you said it a bit more eloquently.....but it all means the same thing at the end of the day. 



mollycoddles said:


> I should say that, regardless of what side of this debate Santaclear is on, his jokes seem calculated to dismiss ideas that he just doesn't want to see debated.




It's normal for fat people or people with common sense, to dismiss the "reasoning" of fat haters. Santa isn't a Fat ADMIRER that disses the fat women here.....let's leave it at that.


----------



## mollycoddles

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Perhaps you said it a bit more eloquently.....but it all means the same thing at the end of the day.



I'm afraid that you are completely misconstruing everything that I've said. I trust that you're not doing it on purpose, of course.

People in this thread seemed to be confused as to WHY there was so much oestensibly anti-fat porn on a pro-fat website. I was explaining WHY the site is the way it is. I merely said that, given the way the site is run, it was unfair to treat people who post such porn as if they should have thought this was an inappropriate place to post such porn. I never said that the BBWs here had to just accept it or that they shouldn't push for changes. 



> It's normal for fat people or people with common sense, to dismiss the "reasoning" of fat haters. Santa isn't a Fat ADMIRER that disses the fat women here.....let's leave it at that.



Well, sorry, just seems that LovesBHM raised a good point. Even if you don't like that poster, you know, broken clock, twice a day.


----------



## tonynyc

wrestlingguy said:


> Not a good alternative, Russ.......sorry.
> 
> I come off a weekend of bringing a community of very different people closer together, and then have to read all this personal shytte, where the holes are poked at the messenger, rather than the message, both sides.
> 
> WTF happened to the question posed by the OP? He's likely moved on to "greener pastures" like the Fat Forums, or Curvage, or Fantasy Feeder by now, and our group has morphed the question into a discussion of anything else but the original topic. Geez, go figure.
> 
> *One thing for certain, I'm an asshole if I continue to read this thread. Oh, and for those of you who think I'm an asshole anyway, at least you know that I consider it myself at times.
> 
> Eff this, I'm gonna go plan the spring bash*.



*Phil: 
Time to have good thoughts... You, Berna & the other great awesome NJ Dimmers just plan that Spring 2010 Bash & hopefully Pre-Dinner Bash. That's what it's all about. Meeting folks and having a wonderful time ... Wonder if the loveable Assholes are invited....*


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

mollycoddles said:


> I'm afraid that you are completely misconstruing everything that I've said. I trust that you're not doing it on purpose, of course.
> 
> People in this thread seemed to be confused as to WHY there was so much oestensibly anti-fat porn on a pro-fat website. I was explaining WHY the site is the way it is. I merely said that, given the way the site is run, it was unfair to treat people who post such porn as if they should have thought this was an inappropriate place to post such porn. I never said that the BBWs here had to just accept it or that they shouldn't push for changes.



Nah, I don't think I misunderstood you at all. I'm one of the people that "post porn here". I'm also acutely aware of all the other people that post here. I write porn FOR fat people.....not about hating them. That seems more appropriate for a site that is "for fat people and their ADMIRERS". 
If anyone found it convenient to jump to the conclusion that fat hatred is just as groovy as the fat people they supposedly "admire", then I think they need to pull their heads out of their collective asses. 
But that's just me not being so eloquent but more to the point again. *shrugs*



mollycoddles said:


> Well, sorry, just seems that LovesBHM raised a good point. Even if you don't like that poster, you know, broken clock, twice a day.



Russ raises a good point himself....and yeah, I do like him.  
But then again, he doesn't see his preference or the woman he loves as a fetish....so I can see why someone that comes here only for the kink might not agree with him.


----------



## Santaclear

tonynyc said:


> *Well Santa: Long Live the Library*



Sure, long live it. 

Truthfully, I've hardly mentioned it (and this is to everyone, not just you, Tony) but I could hardly give a flying fuck about fetish or no-fetish and I have NO interest in the Library. Sure, I respect that it's here and that some of my friends probably like it but it's never been for me. It's not that I'm a prude - I can probably say more twisted stuff in a second of conversation than most of those wildest stories and not blink an eye.

I'm only saying this to explain that I'm not "offended" by any of it. 

To me, what's being discussed on this thread, sure....FA this and FA that, fetish, yada...Conrad's place, don't like it, can leave but *the focus here* (Dimensions) *should be on fat people.* Their voices should be heard.

LovesBHM bemoaned a "hierarchy" here, that "the fetishists are treated as second class citizens" - but to me (and apparently to many women who regard themselves as more than fetish objects) it seems the opposite is true. Sure, it's great for FAs get their rocks off but that's less important than making things better for fat people. I think a sense of community here fosters that. Nothing against the fetish contingent but getting off only benefits themselves.


----------



## exile in thighville

the stories should be password protected and you should have to apply to view them like any other private forum. that would keep the easily shook babies and hypothetical newborns from accidentally wandering in and having their brain fucked by sexy fiction.

LOCK THREAD.


----------



## LoveBHMS

> To me, what's being discussed on this thread, sure....FA this and FA that, fetish, yada, it's Conrad's place, don't like it, can leave but the focus here (Dimensions) should be on fat people. Their voices should be heard.



What about the three fat people who said they like humiliation stories? Should their voices be heard or only fat people voices that tow the line. Not all fat people believe that these kinds of stories are anti-fat.

I'm gonna go post now in Dan's thread about the last thing I did for size acceptance.


----------



## Sugar

I really like Dan's idea. If you want to read stories, awesome. Contact a mod and password and tada! 

I realize it's more work, but then a short disclaimer can be offered. 

Hell just froze over.


----------



## kayrae

and for the record, i am upset that the asian smiley is gone!


----------



## Santaclear

LoveBHMS said:


> What about the three fat people who said they like humiliation stories? Should their voices be heard or only fat people voices that tow the line. Not all fat people believe that these kinds of stories are anti-fat.



Yes, their voices should be heard. There is no "line."


----------



## mollycoddles

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Nah, I don't think I misunderstood you at all. I'm one of the people that "post porn here". I'm also acutely aware of all the other people that post here. I write porn FOR fat people.....not about hating them. That seems more appropriate for a site that is "for fat people and their ADMIRERS".
> If anyone found it convenient to jump to the conclusion that fat hatred is just as groovy as the fat people they supposedly "admire", then I think they need to pull their heads out of their collective asses.
> But that's just me not being so eloquent but more to the point again. *shrugs*



Uh, you just misunderstood me again. There is porn on this site that you object to. People here said that it is inappropriate for this site and that it should not be here. They seemed mystified as to why, if this was the case, that this sort of porn was, in fact, here. I simply explained exactly why it was here. I didn't say that this was the way it SHOULD be or MUST be; I was just explaining why it is the way that it is and why a person coming to the site for the first time might think that this was an appropriate venue for such porn. I was simply saying that someone coming to that conclusion would be making an honest mistake.

If you want to get on some high horse because you think the sort of porn you write is nobler than the porn I write, I don't have much see how that pertains to this matter.






> Russ raises a good point himself....and yeah, I do like him.
> But then again, he doesn't see his preference or the woman he loves as a fetish....so I can see why someone that comes here only for the kink might not agree with him.



Ohhhhhhh no you di'int! LOL

I think I've already explained at length how my fetish doesn't prohibit me from loving, so I won't bother going into that again.

PS Who's Russ?


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> password protected



Glad you agree, thighs. Other posters have already suggested the password option, in language that _isn't_ inflammatory or derogatory of those they are debating.

Oh, yeah. And that's something else _you_'ve done for size acceptance. :happy:




bdog said:


> Well maybe there could be a *password protected *section for erotic material so people don't accidentally stumble on to something they don't want to see. The stories and paysite stuff can go there. I don't know if it's pragmatic from an administrative standpoint, though.





Fascinita said:


> Can we talk about putting in some measures that might be helpful in both sides co-existing?
> 
> I dunno if the administration would be interested in implementing this, but how about putting the fiction that contains elements of abuse or hate toward fat people in a *password-protected* forum? Anyone who requested a password could access that fiction, then, without the rest of Dims users having to run into that fiction when they surf the library. It would be a way of having those who desire it "opt in" to those kinds of stories, without everyone else having to opt in by default.
> 
> A measure like that would be helpful, I think, in making it clear that we recognize and respect the line between fantasy and reality. Actively acknowledging the fantastic nature of those stories and establishing firm symbolic boundaries that must be respected would, I think, go a long way toward reassuring real fat people and their supporters that their interests are being protected, too. ...
> 
> Just an idea.


----------



## Santaclear

kayrae said:


> and for the record, i am upset that the asian smiley is gone!



Me too. It was like having my own personal assistant on every post. Now the thousands of posts I made using it are ruined.


----------



## kayrae

I really liked it. I'm not even kidding. But I guess this one :happy: will have to do.


----------



## Santaclear

kayrae said:


> I really liked it. I'm not even kidding. But I guess this one :happy: will have to do.



Same here. I liked that it was a wry nod and was multifaceted. The new one has a completely different connotation.


----------



## mollycoddles

> Russ raises a good point himself....and yeah, I do like him.
> But then again, he doesn't see his preference or the woman he loves as a fetish....so I can see why someone that comes here only for the kink might not agree with him.



Assuming that Russ is Santaclear, my only disagreement with him was that he kept insulting FAs, accusing them of sordid behavior with children, and then defending his childish behavior by claiming he was just joking. I don't see how that at all relates to the way that either he or I define our feelings for larger ladies.


----------



## thatgirl08

I've been avoiding this thread at all costs because I honestly can't stand some of these discussions but I have to say this. I don't understand why this is so long and dragged out. There are two options here, option 1 - change the library (eliminate it, put a password on it, whatever) or 2 - don't change the library. There are clearly two camps of thought here and it's been proven yet again on this thread that those two sides cannot come to an agreement and that no one is changing anyone elses mind. So my question for all of you is, what's next? Are we going to continue debating this? It's a waste of time and no one's having any fun and it's just creating a lot of negativity. If you sincerly have an issue with the library, why not PM a mod or Conrad and discuss the issue with him or make some sort of proposal for a change? I just don't see the need for this type of ongoing debate. Feel free to enlighten me.


----------



## Santaclear

mollycoddles said:


> Assuming that Russ is Santaclear, my only disagreement with him was that he kept insulting FAs, accusing them of sordid behavior with children, and then defending his childish behavior by claiming he was just joking. I don't see how that at all relates to the way that either he or I define our feelings for larger ladies.



I didn't insult FAs. And the exchange was in posts #516 through 519, if anyone's interested.


----------



## mollycoddles

Santaclear said:


> I didn't insult FAs. And the exchange was in posts #516 through 519, if anyone's interested.



Sorry, that is true. I should amend to say that you were insulting PEOPLE.


----------



## Santaclear

mollycoddles said:


> Sorry, that is true. I should amend to say that you were insulting PEOPLE.



I was insulting all of humanity.


----------



## Fascinita

thatgirl08 said:


> ...There are clearly two camps of thought here and it's been proven yet again on this thread that those two sides cannot come to an agreement and that no one is changing anyone elses mind. ... I just don't see the need for this type of ongoing debate. Feel free to enlighten me.



Debates are worth having for the simple reason that they can help people who disagree come to an understanding and a compromise.

Here's the evidence of that:



Fascinita said:


> Glad you agree, thighs.


----------



## thatgirl08

In a general sense, I would agree with that but in this particular issue I see very little compromise or understanding going on and instead, lots of finger pointing and arguing. In this type of situation wouldn't it be easier and more beneficial to agree to disagree and let someone in power make a decision?


----------



## Santaclear

thatgirl08 said:


> In a general sense, I would agree with that but in this particular issue I see very little compromise or understanding going on and instead, lots of finger pointing and arguing. In this type of situation wouldn't it be easier and more beneficial to agree to disagree and let someone in power make a decision?



If this were really true then nothing should be discussed. You had to be there, thatgirl.


----------



## thatgirl08

Santaclear said:


> You had to be there, thatgirl.



Where exactly is there?


----------



## Fascinita

thatgirl08 said:


> In a general sense, I would agree with that but in this particular issue I see very little compromise or understanding going on and instead, lots of finger pointing and arguing. In this type of situation wouldn't it be easier and more beneficial to agree to disagree and let someone in power make a decision?



Well, that would be another way of going about it... maybe even a better one, theoretically. But try to get consensus on how best to arrive at "agreeing to disagree" without someone wanting to do it some other way...

In this case, some people felt it was important to talk about this in public. The finger pointing and arguing are bad distractions from the issues, I agree, but unfortunately those kinds of negatives seem to come part and parcel with the idea of public debate. Once an idea is out in the open, anyone is free to jump in and criticize it.


----------



## Sugar

Fascinita said:


> Glad you agree, thighs. Other posters have already suggested the password option, in language that _isn't_ inflammatory or derogatory of those they are debating.
> 
> Oh, yeah. And that's something else _you_'ve done for size acceptance. :happy:



I stand corrected. Still a wonderful idea.


----------



## mollycoddles

thatgirl08 said:


> I've been avoiding this thread at all costs because I honestly can't stand some of these discussions but I have to say this. I don't understand why this is so long and dragged out. There are two options here, option 1 - change the library (eliminate it, put a password on it, whatever) or 2 - don't change the library. There are clearly two camps of thought here and it's been proven yet again on this thread that those two sides cannot come to an agreement and that no one is changing anyone elses mind. So my question for all of you is, what's next? Are we going to continue debating this? It's a waste of time and no one's having any fun and it's just creating a lot of negativity. If you sincerly have an issue with the library, why not PM a mod or Conrad and discuss the issue with him or make some sort of proposal for a change? I just don't see the need for this type of ongoing debate. Feel free to enlighten me.



No worries, it is an invigorating debate!


----------



## Santaclear

thatgirl08 said:


> Where exactly is there?



Posting on this thread. You haven't been and that's cool - people who are interested should post and those who aren't shouldn't. You were saying the discussion shouldn't be happening. No prob.


----------



## thatgirl08

Fascinita said:


> Well, that would be another way of going about it... maybe even a better one, theoretically. But try to get consensus on how best to arrive at "agreeing to disagree" without someone wanting to do it some other way...
> 
> In this case, some people felt it was important to talk about this in public. The finger pointing and arguing are bad distractions from the issues, I agree, but unfortunately those kinds of negatives seem to come part and parcel with the idea of public debate. Once an idea is out in the open, anyone is free to jump in and criticize it.



You're totally right, I just wonder why people continue to press issues that are likely to be unresolvable. 



mollycoddles said:


> No worries, it is an invigorating debate!



I honestly am not trying to be a bitch in saying this, as I've been part of many 'invigorating debates' on this board but to me, there becomes a point where enough is enough. This issue has been beaten to death in this and in many other threads. It comes down to one fundamental difference in ideology. It's like, trying to debate whether God is real? Yeah, it can be interesting and fun at times but mostly it ends up in a lot of fighting and negativity and hardly anyone ever changes their mind.



Santaclear said:


> Posting on this thread. You haven't been and that's cool - people who are interested should post and those who aren't shouldn't. You were saying the discussion shouldn't happen. No prob.



I wasn't really saying the discussion shouldn't happen at all, simply that it has many, many times and that the same disagreements are being discussed over and over and over again ad nauseum. Beating a dead horse and all.


----------



## Santaclear

thatgirl08 said:


> I wasn't really saying the discussion shouldn't happen at all, simply that it has many, many times and that the same disagreements are being discussed over and over and over again ad nauseum. Beating a dead horse and all.



Not telling you to read it but it's been kinda interesting, not really a dead horse. See what Molly said?



mollycoddles said:


> No worries, it is an invigorating debate!


----------



## thatgirl08

Santaclear said:


> Not telling you to read it but it's been kinda interesting, not really a dead horse. See what Molly said?



See what I said back?



> I honestly am not trying to be a bitch in saying this, as I've been part of many 'invigorating debates' on this board but to me, there becomes a point where enough is enough. This issue has been beaten to death in this and in many other threads. It comes down to one fundamental difference in ideology. It's like, trying to debate whether God is real. Yeah, it can be interesting and fun at times but mostly it ends up in a lot of fighting and negativity and hardly anyone ever changes their mind.


----------



## Santaclear

thatgirl08 said:


> See what I said back?



Yes, well thanks for your input on that.


----------



## thatgirl08

Santaclear said:


> Yes, well thanks for your input on that.



 This is the best debate.

Wait, no, it's not. It's still really fucking stupid.


----------



## Santaclear

thatgirl08 said:


> This is the best debate.
> 
> Wait, no, it's not. It's still really fucking stupid.



I don't care if you fucking like it or not. Sorry if I wasn't more rude to you first time around.


----------



## Sugar

thatgirl08 said:


> This is the best debate.
> 
> Wait, no, it's not. It's still really fucking stupid.



I think that you kinda took it off track by asking why.

If you don't want in on it, don't get in on it. No one is forcing you and at a point if a mod wants to shut it down they will. 

In the mean while...any thoughts on the stories and the discord between reality and fantasy that seems to clash on this forum?


----------



## Sugar

Santaclear said:


> I don't care if you fucking like it or not. Sorry if I wasn't more rude to you first time around.



I'm so out of rep...you made me spit water everywhere. Thanks! :happy:


----------



## Fascinita

thatgirl08 said:


> You're totally right, I just wonder why people continue to press issues that are likely to be unresolvable.



I'm optimistic. And I've found a little free time lately.


----------



## thatgirl08

Santaclear said:


> I don't care if you fucking like it or not. Sorry if I wasn't more rude to you first time around.



Let's beat this horse some more. Okay, first I'm going to quote your original response post to me and point out how you actually were pretty assholeish and then I'm going to quote Fasc as an example of someone who wasn't a dick and then you're going to pick apart my entire two sentence post and tell me how I was actually starting the fight, and then I'm going to respond and tell you that you're wrong and that you started the mean spirited posting and then maybe if I'm feeling extra cunty I'll add in some examples of how your spelling and/or grammar was incorrect and maybe even a dictionary.com link or two about how you didn't use a word correctly and then maybe you can write back and we can dissolve this into a huge shit-slinging fest about how we don't like each other and I'm a child and I should probably just shut the fuck up.

THIS IS SO INVIGORATING.


----------



## thatgirl08

Sugar said:


> In the mean while...any thoughts on the stories and the discord between reality and fantasy that seems to clash on this forum?



Yeah, something about a witch hunt but that's just my $.02


----------



## Santaclear

thatgirl08 said:


> Yeah, something about a witch hunt but that's just my $.02



You're beating a dead horse. Go away.


----------



## Sugar

thatgirl08 said:


> Yeah, something about a witch hunt but that's just my $.02



Any thoughts on fat legs, smoke and mirrors, or meat consumption? 

Let people debate...mods will do their job when they wake up if they need to shut it down.


----------



## thatgirl08

Santaclear said:


> You're beating a dead horse. Go away.



That was really funny.


----------



## katorade




----------



## mollycoddles

Good job, Thatgirl, you broke the thread.


----------



## thatgirl08

At the risk of repeating myself, my original post in this thread was not meant at all to start a fight or be malicious. It was an honest suggestion. Clearly, some of you disagree and that's fine.. you're all entitled to your opinion. My point was that our efforts would probably be spent elsewhere as this topic in particular has been discussed ad nauseum with no real decision made. That's all I was trying to say.


----------



## Fascinita

thatgirl08 said:


> My point was that our efforts would probably be spent elsewhere as this topic in particular has been discussed ad nauseum with no real decision made.



Maybe a decision should be made. Maybe that's the point that was being pressed?

Password and possibly disclaimer. That appears to be some kind of loose consensus. Though it's obviously up to the administration.


----------



## thatgirl08

Fascinita said:


> Maybe a decision should be made. Maybe that's the point?



Yeah, I totally agree. The problem is that despite discussing this in various places across the board we remain unable to come to a decision because we seem to be separated into two very distinct groups. My suggestion was that maybe instead of continuing to beat a dead horse together, we could instead focus our energies on discussing this issue with a mod or Conrad, or both as they are the ones who make the final decisions anyway.


----------



## Fascinita

thatgirl08 said:


> My suggestion was that maybe instead of continuing to beat a dead horse together, we could instead focus our energies on discussing this issue with a mod or Conrad, or both as they are the ones who make the final decisions anyway.



Well, it's an open forum. Conrad _has_ weighed in sporadically. This _is_ a discussion with Conrad and the mods, though not _just_ with him and the mods.

It's all good.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

mollycoddles said:


> Sorry, that is true. I should amend to say that you were insulting PEOPLE.



Nah just one.....and I took a bit of what you were saying as "insulting".....and? 
Should I harass you now for the next 800 posts? Hell, he didn't even say anything "insulting" to you or about you. 
He disagreed with someone.....as have you for the entire 30+ page thread. 
Perhaps you need to get off your own high horse? 

For Santa


----------



## elroycohen

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Nah just one.....and I took a bit of what you were saying as "insulting".....and?
> Should I harass you now for the next 800 posts? Hell, he didn't even say anything "insulting" to you or about you.
> He disagreed with someone.....as have you for the entire 30+ page thread.
> Perhaps you need to get off your own high horse?
> 
> For Santa



Funny how youre quick to explain away Santa/Russs insulting comments to actual people, but you cant seem to get over a harsh comment in one of Vaders fictional stories directed at made up characters. No personal ax grinding going on there at all.


----------



## LoveBHMS

elroycohen said:


> Funny how youre quick to explain away Santa/Russs insulting comments to actual people, but you cant seem to get over a harsh comment in one of Vaders fictional stories directed at made up characters. No personal ax grinding going on there at all.



Yes, exactly.

It's been more than clear all along this is nothing but a tagging contest to see who Dims 'really' belongs to and whose needs are more important. It's not about how the Library is destroying size acceptance. The mere fact that Sugar launched a personal attack on me and then starting whinging about how *I* was going off on tangents just proves it.

This business about a "disclaimer" that fiction _really is fiction?_ Whatever, put it on there. Does anyone seriously believe that after that there will either be a massive uptick in size acceptance or that there won't be some new line of attack on the "fetish brigade". 

What gets me is how the three fat people who posted that they like the humilation stories have been flat out ignored in favor of directing anger at Mollycoddles, Exile, thatgirl08, and me. None of you have even bothered engaging them or asking for futher input about why they want the Library here. Nobody gave a single shred of credence to a fat person's idea of just closing the window if you come upon a story you don't like. I guess fat people are only important when they agree with you.


----------



## Santaclear

LoveBHMS said:


> Yes, exactly.
> 
> It's been more than clear all along this is nothing but a tagging contest to see who Dims 'really' belongs to and whose needs are more important. It's not about how the Library is destroying size acceptance. The mere fact that Sugar launched a personal attack on me and then starting whinging about how *I* was going off on tangents just proves it.
> 
> This business about a "disclaimer" that fiction _really is fiction?_ Whatever, put it on there. Does anyone seriously believe that after that there will either be a massive uptick in size acceptance or that there won't be some new line of attack on the "fetish brigade".
> 
> What gets me is how the three fat people who posted that they like the humilation stories have been flat out ignored in favor of directing anger at Mollycoddles, Exile, thatgirl08, and me. None of you have even bothered engaging them or asking for futher input about why they want the Library here. Nobody gave a single shred of credence to a fat person's idea of just closing the window if you come upon a story you don't like. I guess fat people are only important when they agree with you.



Good day, Madam.


----------



## Archangel

*sigh*

_Pours gasoline on himself and walks into towering inferno..._

The library is pretty clearly marked. I know I'm not trying to offend anyone personally when I write stuff, but I also am not naive enough to think that I can know everyone situation. I can understand that people could be offended by stories that insult fat women, especially where this is seen as their safe haven from that sort of bs in real life.

I've been on this site in some form or another for 10 years, so this has been my safe haven too. Yeah, I can see the strange dichotomy between being a place of size acceptance and being a place where I can post wg fiction, sure. Historically, though that is what it's been.

If putting up a disclaimer about the library will help solve the problem of people feeling insulted/angry, I'm ok with that. If people want to push it out, though, I feel that they're also trying to push me out of a community that I've been a part of for years. I hope you can understand where that might make some of us feel like we have to be on the defensive.

I don't have all the answers, as I can see the other side of the fence too. I thought having them partitioned off was enough, but if not maybe there can be an open dialogue about what can be done without asking one side or the other to secede from the union. 

_Sits in a corner, waiting to get lynched..._


----------



## bigsexy920

Why are people that HATE fat women allowed here? really I just don't get it. I don't have to point fingers you know who you are. and so does everyone else Go away already you are like a fly that won't die. And untill that fly goes away people, trap the fly in a window and ignore it till it dies. Get what I'm saying. 

It cant live if it has nothing to live off of.


----------



## TraciJo67

LoveBHMS said:


> What gets me is how the three fat people who posted that they like the humilation stories have been flat out ignored in favor of directing anger at Mollycoddles, Exile, thatgirl08, and me. None of you have even bothered engaging them or asking for futher input about why they want the Library here. Nobody gave a single shred of credence to a fat person's idea of just closing the window if you come upon a story you don't like. I guess fat people are only important when they agree with you.



I didn't see their posts. They are lost in the sea of people who, like me, feel that fat humiliation stories shouldn't be a *mainstream* part of a site that advertises itself to be about size acceptance. Had I seen the posts, though, it wouldn't have changed my stance. Some things aren't about catering to the whims of a minority. Some things should be about aligning goals so that they match the mission statement, so to speak. And some things go so far beyond the pale that it's point-blank ridiculous to dismiss concerns with "close the window if you come upon a story you don't like." When I saw your sense of outrage that pro-Ana sites were eliminated while pro-feeder sites were not, I understood more of where you are coming from. You think that any concession at all is taking something away from you. How about what is taken away from the people confronted by bigotry and fat hatred in the mainstream, and the last place they'd expect to see same is ... here? 

You aren't a fat woman, LoveBHMS. As far as I know, you never have been. You don't know the least thing about the fat experience, and it incenses me to see you hiding under the banner of the poor, under-represented, marginalized fat people who have posted here. You don't care to hear what the people who disagree with you have to say, and clearly, you never have. To me, it seems that what upsets you the most is the notion that some of your cookies might get taken away. Fly that free speech banner, loudly and proudly, while ignoring the very real feelings of those of whom you claim to admire. You're missing something very, very important in the process, though.


----------



## thatgirl08

Aren't the titles "Erotic Weight Gain" and "Unique Interests" with little descriptions of what type of story that particular sub forum has in it kind of it's own discliamer? If you don't want to read fiction stories about erotic weight gain and there's a section of the site titled that way.. wouldn't it make sense to just ignore it?


----------



## thatgirl08

bigsexy920 said:


> Why are people that HATE fat women allowed here? really I just don't get it. I don't have to point fingers you know who you are. and so does everyone else Go away already you are like a fly that won't die. And untill that fly goes away people, trap the fly in a window and ignore it till it dies. Get what I'm saying.
> 
> It cant live if it has nothing to live off of.



This comment is so insulting it's not even funny. Everyone who has shit to say about LoveBHMs needs to get off their high horse. I realize she said some REALLY insulting shit but can every single person on this board say they haven't? Absolutely not. There is so much witch hunting, drama starting and gossiping about the members on this board by each other. NONE of you are above it. Why would she be here if she truly hated fat people? Answer me that. Instead of attacking valuable members of the community, maybe we should all focus our energy on people outside of it who really do hate us.


----------



## Webmaster

Santaclear said:


> Same here. I liked that it was a wry nod and was multifaceted. The new one has a completely different connotation.



You guys need to make up your mind whether the smilie was a wry multifaceted nod or a condescending racist slap in the face.


----------



## NancyGirl74

I agree 100% with BigSexy920. Let the fly buzz it's self to death. 


*Hums "Shoo fly, don't bother me" to herself*


----------



## SocialbFly

Archangel said:


> *sigh*
> 
> _Pours gasoline on himself and walks into towering inferno..._
> 
> The library is pretty clearly marked. I know I'm not trying to offend anyone personally when I write stuff, but I also am not naive enough to think that I can know everyone situation. I can understand that people could be offended by stories that insult fat women, especially where this is seen as their safe haven from that sort of bs in real life.
> 
> I've been on this site in some form or another for 10 years, so this has been my safe haven too. Yeah, I can see the strange dichotomy between being a place of size acceptance and being a place where I can post wg fiction, sure. Historically, though that is what it's been.
> 
> If putting up a disclaimer about the library will help solve the problem of people feeling insulted/angry, I'm ok with that. If people want to push it out, though, I feel that they're also trying to push me out of a community that I've been a part of for years. I hope you can understand where that might make some of us feel like we have to be on the defensive.
> 
> I don't have all the answers, as I can see the other side of the fence too. I thought having them partitioned off was enough, but if not maybe there can be an open dialogue about what can be done without asking one side or the other to secede from the union.
> 
> _Sits in a corner, waiting to get lynched..._



i just have a question....ten years...74 posts? Wow, you HAVE made a positive impact on the boards. Cool. Lynched...you just saw a cluster fuck and decided to participate, the only lynching was self.


----------



## James

thatgirl08 said:


> ...Instead of attacking valuable members of the community, maybe we should all focus our energy on people outside of it who really do hate us.



This is the bottom line. We've got differences in of perspective in this community but if we want to collectively get somewhere with regards to that bottom line, some mutual compromise is going to be a necessary component of that first. 

Here's a quote from a bright lady called Marion Young who, I think, understands this pretty well.
*



"Social Justice,…requires not the melting away of differences, but institutions that promote reproduction of and respect for group differences without oppression”

Click to expand...

*
If we wish to demand respect for our differences to the mainstream norm, we've got to start with looking at ourselves and how to foster respect for our own internal differences...


----------



## Wild Zero

thatgirl08 said:


> Aren't the titles "Erotic Weight Gain" and "Unique Interests" with little descriptions of what type of story that particular sub forum has in it kind of it's own discliamer? If you don't want to read fiction stories about erotic weight gain and there's a section of the site titled that way.. wouldn't it make sense to just ignore it?



Not to mention the "Extreme Special Interests" section of the Library is (at least in my view of the index) 35 sections down from the top. And if you're terrified at the prospect of even accidentally scrolling down 30 odd threads, accidentally clicking on a story labelled with extreme themes and accidentally reading an offensive passage you can easily click "Discussion" at the top of the page and view only the discussion boards. 

Again, I don't see how "fat hate" or "fat phobia" in erotic stories intended to hit the humiliation fantasy switch are spread across the forums.



Wild Zero said:


> The fetishists/fantasizers who actively participate in those boards aren't running around posting their fantasies in inappropriate boards. The only times I've seen posters scrawling fantasies across the entire board its been from someone with about 10 posts to their name, most of them interchangeable requests pertaining to their fantasy.
> 
> They're either trolls or socially inept and those two groups are a fact of life for any web community. Why should the mods slap a warning label on or sweep respectful, engaged community members out of view because of them?


----------



## elroycohen

SocialbFly said:


> i just have a question....ten years...74 posts? Wow, you HAVE made a positive impact on the boards. Cool. Lynched...you just saw a cluster fuck and decided to participate, the only lynching was self.



So simply because of his post count you have made the decision he is a lesser member then you? If he had spent more time running up his post count with gems like _"I wish I could rep you, girl, but I'm all out right now." _would he make the cut then?

You don't have to post constantly to learn things around here. In fact sometimes it's better just to observe and not rush into the discussion with a poorly thought out shot at someone.


----------



## SocialbFly

elroycohen said:


> In fact sometimes it's better just to observe and not rush into the discussion with a poorly thought out shot at someone.



as you have shown...the post i made may have sounded dismissive, but tell me, in 74 posts in 10 years, what does that say....7 posts a year....i just think if you want to be a critic about the boards as a whole, be a contributor...then exercise the right...you know the old addage, no vote...no say...and believe me, the multiple times i wrote, then rewrote my post to me shows it was not poorly thought out...but you dont know me and wouldnt know that....now would you?


----------



## LoveBHMS

So what is most harmful to the community? What is most likely to turn away a fat woman (and let's be real, it's all about fat women and not fat men or FAs or feeders) who stumbles on here needing support and a sense of community

1. A reposting of a private comment made a year and a half ago.

2. Some fictional stories that are posted in a section of the site marked "Fiction" and tagged as to content.

3. Threads like this one whose sole purpose is throwing up tags and a turf war.

I think it's sad how many once active posters are *gone* because of nonsense like this. Not everyone thrives on drama, gossip, personal attacks and generally being nasty because they can.


----------



## Sugar

Sugar said:


> I think that you kinda took it off track by asking why.
> 
> If you don't want in on it, don't get in on it. No one is forcing you and at a point if a mod wants to shut it down they will.
> 
> In the mean while...any thoughts on the stories and the discord between reality and fantasy that seems to clash on this forum?





LoveBHMS said:


> Yes, exactly.
> What gets me is how the three fat people who posted that they like the humilation stories have been flat out ignored in favor of directing anger at Mollycoddles, Exile, thatgirl08, and me. *None of you have even bothered engaging them or asking for futher input about why they want the Library here.* Nobody gave a single shred of credence to a fat person's idea of just closing the window if you come upon a story you don't like. I guess fat people are only important when they agree with you.



See above. She simply came to defend you and say stop debating something I see going nowhere.  I hope you are kinder to her than you've been to vast majority of fat women around here.



LoveBHMS said:


> So what is most harmful to the community? What is most likely to turn away a fat woman (and let's be real, it's all about fat women and not fat men or FAs or feeders) who stumbles on here needing support and a sense of community
> 
> 1. A reposting of a private comment made a year and a half ago.
> 
> 2. Some fictional stories that are posted in a section of the site marked "Fiction" and tagged as to content.
> 
> 3. Threads like this one whose sole purpose is throwing up tags and a turf war.
> 
> I think it's sad how many once active posters are *gone* because of nonsense like this. Not everyone thrives on drama, gossip, personal attacks and generally being nasty because they can.



Let's make sure that you have sturdy wood for you to nail yourself up on this cross you're building. I'd hate for your project to tumble over and get messy. Seriously, you just keep crying foul, but the fact is you've never addressed the whole point of using your own words. WORDS MATTER. Especially since this is a forum...based on written word.

That comment is not number one and frankly neither are you. Berna is right...you're a fly that won't go away. 

This isn't some version of West Side Story. This isn't a turf war. The want/need for concerns to be heard and possibly worked on is what people are asking for...from both sides. You clouded the issue with cries of under aged family pictures, the pro ana stuff and then saying "fine close the library". C'mon get a grip. You keep twisting points and it's getting old. Get back on track or go away. This constant SHE BROKE THE RULES chant is lame. We have mods, they don't need you stomping your foot crying she's being mean to me! Stop bellowing. You're not a victim and painting yourself as one is ill advised.


----------



## mollycoddles

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Nah just one.....and I took a bit of what you were saying as "insulting".....and?
> Should I harass you now for the next 800 posts? Hell, he didn't even say anything "insulting" to you or about you.
> He disagreed with someone.....as have you for the entire 30+ page thread.
> Perhaps you need to get off your own high horse?



He disagreed with someone by joking that they liked underage kids. People in this thread seem to get all up in arms about stories with underage kids, but "jokes" are okay? In any case, Santa's original comments are less obnoxious than the fact that, whenever we've objected to them, he starts crying "I was just joking!"

I mean, people here keep getting livid when the porn people say "But they're just stories! They're harmless, they're not insulting! You should lighten up!"

I've explained everything I've said, though you seem eager to misunderstand. If you didn't like it, then, hey, it was just a joke. Don't you have a sense of humor? Sheeeeesh!


----------



## LoveBHMS

> This isn't some version of West Side Story. This isn't a turf war. The want/need for concerns to be heard and possibly worked on is what people are asking for...from both sides. You clouded the issue with cries of under aged family pictures, the pro ana stuff and then saying "fine close the library". C'mon get a grip. You keep twisting points and it's getting old. Get back on track or go away. This constant SHE BROKE THE RULES chant is lame. We have mods, they don't need you stomping your foot crying she's being mean to me! Stop bellowing. You're not a victim and painting yourself as one is ill advised.



So pointing out somebody breaking forum rules is crying victim? I don't think so. There are rules here and you broke them, there is a report function for that reason. Any time I stick up for myself or another poster says to please quit mentioning issues that are over a year old, you spazz out on them. 

I'm actually serious about closing the library. This _is_ a turf war complete with your nasty little personal attacks. As I said like a dozen posts ago, you seem to believe that the fiction stories make your life and/or your existence on this forum more difficult. If that's the case take them down. I said this before but if there is a causal relationship between the fiction story and anyone being harassed here or IRL, just delete that whole part of the board.

Put a password on them, put a disclaimer on them, or delete them. Whatever you want. You and your pals have made this personal (it shouldn't be, it's not about me) and your ultimate goal is to have Dims be your little playground and have it cater only to you and your needs. Numerous once active posters have simply left rather than deal with this sort of nonsense. Do you care? Probably not.


----------



## mollycoddles

bigsexy920 said:


> Why are people that HATE fat women allowed here? really I just don't get it. I don't have to point fingers you know who you are. and so does everyone else Go away already you are like a fly that won't die. And untill that fly goes away people, trap the fly in a window and ignore it till it dies. Get what I'm saying.
> 
> It cant live if it has nothing to live off of.



You will have to point fingers because you know that we don't know who we are. No one coming to this site defines themselves as a "fat hater.' People are being accused of fat hatred because of the sorts of fiction they write or what they enjoy in fantasies, but they don't see themselves as fat haters and so they won't recognize themselves in your statement.


----------



## Observer

The level of hyperbole is rather astonishing.

Writers and moderators were accused of "pedophilia" when that wasn't as factor - although bogus citations were used in other threads to create that impression. 

Even writers have used "pornographic" as though it were the Librarey norm when in fact it isn't.

There is talk of destroying the library because there are stories are objectionable to some which sopme would like kept under lock and key (whether that would motivate them to read any of the reminder is open to question). 

Post counts are used as a means of determining entitlement to post in this thread - and then there is talk about a lynch mom mentallity. I wonder why?

And now fellow community members are bering called "fat haters" because of their preferences?​
I can't predict what our Webmaster will choose to do with all this, but I will agree this has gotten to be a pretty partisan and personal discussion that needs to get back to the issues themselves.


----------



## BigBeautifulMe

Observer, fellow community members are not being called fat haters because of their preference. If you re-read Bigsexy's post and still don't get it, feel free to PM me and I'll clarify for you.



LoveBHMS said:


> So what is most harmful to the community? What is most likely to turn away a fat woman (and let's be real, it's all about fat women and not fat men or FAs or feeders) who stumbles on here needing support and a sense of community
> 
> 1. A reposting of a private comment made a year and a half ago.
> 
> 2. Some fictional stories that are posted in a section of the site marked "Fiction" and tagged as to content.
> 
> 3. Threads like this one whose sole purpose is throwing up tags and a turf war.
> 
> I think it's sad how many once active posters are *gone* because of nonsense like this. Not everyone thrives on drama, gossip, personal attacks and generally being nasty because they can.



Loves, you are SERIOUSLY asking what is likely to turn away a fat woman from this site? 

How about #4: hearing fat bigotry, hatred and prejudice from someone who purports to be an FA, on a site that is supposed to be safe from that kind of absolute vitriol and shit? Yes, it's against the rules to repost people's PMs, including yours, but you know what? What you said is NEVER going to die, because you not only insulted AM and me, you insulted EVERY fat woman on this board in a despicable way. It matters not that it was in a PM - the fact that you would even THINK what you said, let alone find it funny, speaks volumes. As does the fact that you are still mincing around here like you did absolutely nothing wrong when you clearly did.


----------



## home

You are a big person. You have friends and family that accept you as BIG!!! Why would you want to deal with or either BOTHER WITH, someone who couldn't accept you??? Basically you would say: "Fuck you!! Punch me in the stomach!!! And then I'll punch you. And if you don't have the guts to punch me in the stomach and would rather spew your hate at me through words. Go away!!! GO somewhere, shrivel up on you're own inner hatred and FUCK OFF!!! Or have the bravery to come up to me. Punch me and then I'll punch you!!!"

So, if you have friends and family who accept you??? WHy would you even bother to be around those who didn't. You would just avoid them. Later. Nyah, nyah. I'm a pretty smart, "cookie dough", aren't I???!!!??? Little Buffyism in there. Buffy talking to Angel. Later.


----------



## TraciJo67

Observer said:


> And now fellow community members are bering called "fat haters" because of their preferences?[/INDENT]



No, some community members are being called fat haters because they are, in fact, fat haters.

Others are being called fat haters because they write stories that clearly are fat hating at their core, and then they post them here at Dims.

Nobody is being called a fat hater because of a preference. I'd really like to see you explain this one, Observer. 

Finally, I don't know what Conrad will do with this mess, either. I have a suggestion, though. How about a poll, allowing people to respond anonymously, ASKING if certain content in the library should be locked or removed?


----------



## katorade

What's even funnier is that I had absolutely NO clue what the hell anyone was talking about until very late last night when I took the opportunity to ask what exactly I was being accused of personally attacking someone with.

Getting really tired of the blame being displaced in this thread. How about addressing people that you actually ask questions to? LoveBHMS, you asked me how I'd feel if my private conversations were posted here. I answered. Apparently that answer wasn't good enough, or more likely, you couldn't use it as fuel for your self-lit pyre fire, so you completely ignored it and kept trucking on about how victimized you've been. The only person that you stabbed in the back is yourself. Yes, the oooonly person that's had such tactics used against them in the history of the world is _you._

Nobody's victimizing you. Nobody wants the library closed. Nobody wants to commit board genocide. Nobody has a secret agenda to sneakily raise a fat female hierarchy. Stop ignoring things that people have been telling you for the past 20 pages and the past WEEK.


----------



## Miss Vickie

Observer said:


> The level of hyperbole is rather astonishing.



Not as astonishing as the quasi-martyrdom of saying that people are trying to close the library. This despite the fact that we've said, oh, a jillion times or more that we DON'T want to close the library. DramaQueen, much? If the humiliation stories are really such a teensy weensy part of the library, then what's the big deal with either removing them or making them password protected and make it so they don't show up when people log in? It still leaves a huge percentage of stories for people to enjoy.



> Writers and moderators were accused of "pedophilia" when that wasn't as factor - although bogus citations were used in other threads to create that impression.



When one writes a sexually explicit story about minors, that's pedophilia. Sure, no pictures are allowed, other than those which are created in the writer's mind. Doesn't matter whether it's erotica or pictures, sexualizing children is WRONG. Most of us (astonishingly not ALL of us) think that pedophilia is abhorrent and has no place on this site, let alone in decent (of even indecent!) company.



> There is talk of destroying the library because there are stories are objectionable to some which sopme would like kept under lock and key (whether that would motivate them to read any of the reminder is open to question).



Again with the library destruction talk. The only person talking about destroying the library is LovesBHMS. Not anyone else. This straw man thing is getting really old, really fast.



> Post counts are used as a means of determining entitlement to post in this thread - and then there is talk about a lynch mom mentallity. I wonder why?



First of all, it's lynch MOB. Not MOM. See the difference? (Your Freudian slip is showing, Observer... ).

Secondly, when people almost NEVER post, and then only post to stir shit in a contentious thread, then yeah, I'll question their motives. That's not a lynch mob -- and I think the person who makes such shit stirring comments should be able to defend themselves without playing the victim card. It doesn't make anyone better if they are a regular contributor here; however it does bring into sharp focus a person's intentions vis a vis Dimensions' future when they almost never post except to rag on the people who DO try to make Dimensions the very best it can be.



> And now fellow community members are bering called "fat haters" because of their preferences?



Nooooo, they're called fat haters because they engage in fat hating behavior and verbiage. If a troll came in here an called us "fat fucking pigs" you'd call them a troll and a fat hater and kick their ass to the curb, and with good reason. So tell me, how is it any different if it was couched as fiction? Anyone who would get their yaya's by calling fat people names is no better than Howard Stern, Tom Leykis and the asshats who post hateful diatribes against fat people. Difference is, if those guys posted here they'd be deleted. And yet these comments, made by so called FA's, still exist on this site. Niiiiiice. 



> I can't predict what our Webmaster will choose to do with all this, but I will agree this has gotten to be a pretty partisan and personal discussion that needs to get back to the issues themselves.



But isn't this an issue worth discussing? Why sweep it under the rug? Because it makes people uncomfortable? Sometimes we have to talk through difficult issues in order to find our way forward. How is this a bad thing?


----------



## Miss Vickie

Oh and for those who think that the kid-oriented stories are gone, feast your eyes on this little baby.

So drugging and stuffing minors for sexual gratification is just fine and dandy? Good to know!


----------



## James

Miss Vickie said:


> Oh and for those who think that the kid-oriented stories are gone, feast your eyes on this little baby.
> 
> So drugging and stuffing minors for sexual gratification is just fine and dandy? Good to know!



Thanks for identifying this. We have a group of mods that have combed through, removing over 250 stories with underage characters so far, but its always helpful when community members find stuff we've missed. Its a big library so if you come across something that continues to be in violation of the revised rules as they stand now, just let one of us know by PM and we'll remove it.

The story is now removed.


----------



## katorade

Miss Vickie said:


> Oh and for those who think that the kid-oriented stories are gone, feast your eyes on this little baby.
> 
> So drugging and stuffing minors for sexual gratification is just fine and dandy? Good to know!



Or, how 'bout this one: http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11683

Main character starts out at 13 and remains a minor for most of the story. Author is _16_ (wtf?). The people that commented even pointed out that the age was inappropriate!

That took me less than two minutes to find. Two minutes. No, that wasn't a witch hunt, just pointing out how incredibly easy it is to pick out these stories without even trying. Find a title that sounds like it may contain children. Check. Yep. Ding, fries are done.

Also found one posted by Observer himself with a 17 year old main character in it, but...whatever.

James, I'm not trying to sound like you guys aren't doing your job, because I know that the mods are up to their elbows in it right now. I just wanted to show how actually rampant the problem is when you can pretty much close your eyes, throw a rock, and hit a story with minors in it. (Ooh, look, notice I didn't say pedophilia? Minors, people. Key word is minors!)


----------



## James

Thanks for the heads up. Your help is appreciated. I have removed this one now also.


----------



## katorade

I'd offer to help with the clean-up crew, but I somehow don't think my help would be taken as anything other than a witch hunt for my own personal agenda by some people. Really, though, you guys are doing a good job. Kudos to you for taking the task on.


----------



## Fascinita

Archangel said:


> If putting up a disclaimer about the library will help solve the problem of people feeling insulted/angry, I'm ok with that.



Good. Thank you.

Maybe I should start a list of people who agree. That makes quite a few who think that putting up a disclaimer and/or password protecting the Library are workable compromises.


----------



## Fascinita

thatgirl08 said:


> Aren't the titles "Erotic Weight Gain" and "Unique Interests" with little descriptions of what type of story that particular sub forum has in it kind of it's own discliamer?



Read the rest of the thread for reasons why people feel that's not enough. The disclaimer that has been proposed is along the lines of...

"Dimensions does not condone hatred or abuse against fat people. If you must use language that expresses hate or portrays abuse against fat or fat people, please do it only in the areas clearly marked for those purposes.

Others have articulated it better, but that captures the gist of it.


----------



## mollycoddles

katorade said:


> I just wanted to show how actually rampant the problem is when you can pretty much close your eyes, throw a rock, and hit a story with minors in it. (Ooh, look, notice I didn't say pedophilia? Minors, people. Key word is minors!)



Thanks, Katorade, I appreciate you making that distinction


Putting aside the underage issue for a moment, do you know of any stories in the library that you do consider to be appropriate for this site (ie size positive stories)? I'm not trying to challenge you here, I'm just curious. I was thinking about it earlier and, if I'm honest about it, I think that most of the stories that I consider fairly innocuous still do actually contain some questionable content. Even most of the "lighter" stories involve women either feeling insecure or depressed over their size at some point or else some sort of conflict with some other character giving them grief about their weight. I think we can agree that a lot of the heavy duty force-feeding or humiliation stories are to some degree incompatible with a size positive mission, but I'm curious as to how, uh, negative* a story can be before it starts to feel inappropriate for the site? The BBWs in this thread have objected mostly to the very extreme porn while the FAs worry that any porn more ribald than a "Harlequin romance" will get purged, so I'm trying to suss out the middle ground where things start going from "okay" to "questionable." 

Again, I'm just curious and not trying to start a fresh argument. I've never received any feminist/size conscious crits on my stories, but, in thinking back on them, I couldn't say if they'd pass muster, so that just got me wondering about positive a story written for this site ought to be.

* - not the right word, but I'm seriously not sure how to better say this right now


----------



## Fascinita

Observer said:


> The level of hyperbole is rather astonishing.



This cuts both ways, Observer.



> There is talk of destroying the library
> 
> ...
> 
> And now fellow community members are bering called "fat haters" because of their preferences?



For example, both of the above statements of yours are distorted and hyperbolic.

1) No one wants to destroy the library. 

Are you just fanning the flames? Or have you not kept up with the debate? Because if you've been reading, it makes no sense that you're saying "there is talk of destroying the library." No sense at all.

We've been talking about a *password* and a *disclaimer* as possible viable compromise that would be workable for a majority of both "camps."

2) People who are being taken to task for "fat hate" are being taken to task *not because of their preferences*, but for their *behavior*.

There is a difference. 

No one's preferences are under attack.

Let's just make sure that's clear.

AND the only reason that people's behavior is up for scrutiny is that they've tried to paint themselves paragons of model citizenship on the Board while accusing others of being personally hateful. A lot of smoke has been blown in the direction of the people who would like to see some simple changes made, and that smoke has clouded the issue. Taking people to task for blowing smoke--by pointing out that they're not the models of neighborliness that they pretend to be--has just been a way of clearing the air so those who want to debate the issue legitimately can get back to it. 
​
Fat people have a voice here because they have a presence here. Those that don't like it when some fat people and supporters take a stand against language that they find demeaning should ask themselves why.


----------



## Ernest Nagel

Look, I can't feature why anyone would EVER want to read or write about the humiliation and debasement of other human beings? Chalk it up to my lack of imagination, prudery, bad upbringing or whatever the f*ck you like. I do have the good sense however to understand I can't walk into a gay bar and shout "You dick-eating fudge-packers are a filthy abomination on decent christian civilization who should all slither off and die!" I automatically recognize I can't even whisper it in a dark corner. Such malignant garbage is reserved for the company of other homophobes. If I feel that way I DON'T BELONG THERE! How simple is that?!? 

This isn't about acceptance, tolerance, censorship or being comprehensive! It's about people having the right to stand up for their intrinsic value as human beings and confront those who disrespect them. Those who enjoy degrading fantasies about fat people who can't understand that don't contribute _anything _to this community that justifies their debauched tripe existing adjacent to legitimate fat fiction. Quite the contrary, they're parasites who feed on the hurt they inflict and undoubtedly thrive on conversations like this simply for the angst they hope it engenders. I've had enough of this self-indulgent, petulant BS from people who don't GAF about anyone but themselves. JMO & just for the record before this thread is closed.  Sorry for trying to make light of this earlier, btw.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

elroycohen said:


> Funny how youre quick to explain away Santa/Russs insulting comments to actual people, but you cant seem to get over a harsh comment in one of Vaders fictional stories directed at made up characters. No personal ax grinding going on there at all.



Russ didn't "insult" a person....he laughed off a silly post that person made because it seemed quite contradictory of what this person was arguing for/about. There is a difference....and he disagreed with this person's assertions of what was "offensive". 
I have seen a lot of people hashing that out in this thread....why did Molly single out Santaclear? It's something of a mystery to me. :blink:

Errrrmmmmm....Vader got bent with me in another thread for a generalization I made about the library and some of the stories I had edited in it. I found them rather ugly, hate-filled and ignorant....this led me to be cautious whenever I read something in the library.....if at all.

Someone in the other thread grew melo-dramatic and said they wouldn't "Post their art" there anymore.....I found that statement of random short stories being posted in an erotica library as "art" quite amusing myself. 

I have read no "art" in that library....that seemed to offend Vader because that is my perspective....one that is most likely not to change. 

Vader was the one that decided he had a "beef" with me in another thread. It's over now....let it go Elroy....I have *shrugs*

Russ wasn't insulting a person. If he had, the mods would have removed the post and reprimanded him as it is against forum rules. What he found funny, and what I found to be quite reaching and outright ridiculous, is that poster claiming that pics of family members somehow bother her delicate sensibilities....yet stories of hatred, mysoginy, force feeding under the threat of death and underage characters being abused/forced fed doesn't. 
That IS quite ironic....I think Russ was being quite nice to simply call her post/argument funny. I flat out call it stupid myself. 



TraciJo67 said:


> I didn't see their posts. They are lost in the sea of people who, like me, feel that fat humiliation stories shouldn't be a *mainstream* part of a site that advertises itself to be about size acceptance. Had I seen the posts, though, it wouldn't have changed my stance. Some things aren't about catering to the whims of a minority. Some things should be about aligning goals so that they match the mission statement, so to speak. And some things go so far beyond the pale that it's point-blank ridiculous to dismiss concerns with "close the window if you come upon a story you don't like." When I saw your sense of outrage that pro-Ana sites were eliminated while pro-feeder sites were not, I understood more of where you are coming from. You think that any concession at all is taking something away from you. How about what is taken away from the people confronted by bigotry and fat hatred in the mainstream, and the last place they'd expect to see same is ... here?
> 
> You aren't a fat woman, LoveBHMS. As far as I know, you never have been. You don't know the least thing about the fat experience, and it incenses me to see you hiding under the banner of the poor, under-represented, marginalized fat people who have posted here. You don't care to hear what the people who disagree with you have to say, and clearly, you never have. To me, it seems that what upsets you the most is the notion that some of your cookies might get taken away. Fly that free speech banner, loudly and proudly, while ignoring the very real feelings of those of whom you claim to admire. You're missing something very, very important in the process, though.



This.......deserves a politically correct bowing "person" :bow:



mollycoddles said:


> He disagreed with someone by joking that they liked underage kids. People in this thread seem to get all up in arms about stories with underage kids, but "jokes" are okay? In any case, Santa's original comments are less obnoxious than the fact that, whenever we've objected to them, he starts crying "I was just joking!"
> 
> I mean, people here keep getting livid when the porn people say "But they're just stories! They're harmless, they're not insulting! You should lighten up!"
> 
> I've explained everything I've said, though you seem eager to misunderstand. If you didn't like it, then, hey, it was just a joke. Don't you have a sense of humor? Sheeeeesh!



He cracked on her lame argument....not her. It's allowed. Don't like it? Don't read it 

We can dance this dance all day......


----------



## Paquito

Look, put a freaking password on the library so we can get on with our lives. The people that love the library still have it, and the ones who hate the stories don't have to acknowledge its existance. 

Besides, while I do love that this sight blends size acceptance with size sexuality, I find it interesting, and odd, that the library takes up roughly half the Dimensions Forums page. And this is coming from someone who does love the library, btw.


----------



## katorade

mollycoddles said:


> Thanks, Katorade, I appreciate you making that distinction
> 
> 
> Putting aside the underage issue for a moment, do you know of any stories in the library that you do consider to be appropriate for this site (ie size positive stories)? I'm not trying to challenge you here, I'm just curious. I was thinking about it earlier and, if I'm honest about it, I think that most of the stories that I consider fairly innocuous still do actually contain some questionable content. Even most of the "lighter" stories involve women either feeling insecure or depressed over their size at some point or else some sort of conflict with some other character giving them grief about their weight. I think we can agree that a lot of the heavy duty force-feeding or humiliation stories are to some degree incompatible with a size positive mission, but I'm curious as to how, uh, negative* a story can be before it starts to feel inappropriate for the site? The BBWs in this thread have objected mostly to the very extreme porn while the FAs worry that any porn more ribald than a "Harlequin romance" will get purged, so I'm trying to suss out the middle ground where things start going from "okay" to "questionable."
> 
> Again, I'm just curious and not trying to start a fresh argument. I've never received any feminist/size conscious crits on my stories, but, in thinking back on them, I couldn't say if they'd pass muster, so that just got me wondering about positive a story written for this site ought to be.
> 
> * - not the right word, but I'm seriously not sure how to better say this right now



I'm actually fine with most of the stories posted in there, even if they're not my bag. Hell, I would even go so far as to say that I don't mind elements of humiliation in a story as long as the story as a whole isn't conveyed as fat hatred, like someone being taunted by a bully but standing up for themselves. Dare I say I would even give a nod to stories like this one: http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39299 where even the thread discussion pointed out that humiliation could play a part in the story without turning fat into something negative.

My real key issues are with the stories that really do portray hatred, not just humiliation or force or whatever plot device of your choice. I understand why it is some people are drawn to such subjects, even if common sense says they should be offended. As a victim of molestation myself, I have some kinks that a lot of people would think is contradictory to what I _should _be turned on by. Likewise, it's the same reason many rape victims have rape fantasies while others are appalled by it. I GET that.

What I don't understand is the writing allowed here that drips with just pure hatred of fat people. You asked earlier why anyone would be here for so long if they actually hated fat people. There's a lot of different answers for that that I'm not qualified to answer, nor am I privy to their own reasons. Why were rotten.com and ogrish such popular sites? Why can't people keep their eyes off of a train wreck when they know the outcome isn't good? Why do trolls show up on websites they know they have no business being on? Boredom? Displaced self-loathing? Psychopathy? Who knows. 

Better question is why it's tolerated by people that claim to have the best interests of fat people in mind. More and more it sounds like their idea of best interests and my(and other's) idea of it are farther and farther apart.


----------



## elroycohen

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Russ didn't "insult" a person....he laughed off a silly post that person made because it seemed quite contradictory of what this person was arguing for/about. There is a difference....and he disagreed with this person's assertions of what was "offensive".
> I have seen a lot of people hashing that out in this thread....why did Molly single out Santaclear? It's something of a mystery to me. :blink:
> 
> Errrrmmmmm....Vader got bent with me in another thread for a generalization I made about the library and some of the stories I had edited in it. I found them rather ugly, hate-filled and ignorant....this led me to be cautious whenever I read something in the library.....if at all.
> 
> Someone in the other thread grew melo-dramatic and said they wouldn't "Post their art" there anymore.....I found that statement of random short stories being posted in an erotica library as "art" quite amusing myself.
> 
> I have read no "art" in that library....that seemed to offend Vader because that is my perspective....one that is most likely not to change.
> 
> Vader was the one that decided he had a "beef" with me in another thread. It's over now....let it go Elroy....I have *shrugs*
> 
> Russ wasn't insulting a person. If he had, the mods would have removed the post and reprimanded him as it is against forum rules. What he found funny, and what I found to be quite reaching and outright ridiculous, is that poster claiming that pics of family members somehow bother her delicate sensibilities....yet stories of hatred, mysoginy, force feeding under the threat of death and underage characters being abused/forced fed doesn't.
> That IS quite ironic....I think Russ was being quite nice to simply call her post/argument funny. I flat out call it stupid myself.



Wow, thats pretty long winded for not even beginning to address the point I was making. What you think is a joke I consider an insult. What you think is fat hatred I think is a small part of a fictional, albeit extreme story. You said nothing of the double standard I called you on. Not that I really expected you to.


----------



## mollycoddles

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Russ didn't "insult" a person....he laughed off a silly post that person made because it seemed quite contradictory of what this person was arguing for/about. There is a difference....and he disagreed with this person's assertions of what was "offensive".
> I have seen a lot of people hashing that out in this thread....why did Molly single out Santaclear? It's something of a mystery to me. :blink:



I've explained multiple times EXACTLY why I singled out Santaclear. Other people may have been insulting, but Santaclear is the only one making passive-aggressive cracks and then refusing to take responsibility for them by hiding behind the excuse that he was just "joking" and that, if you dno't like it, you don't have a sense of humor. That you seem unable to understand my position after I've explained it multiple times makes me think that you're just willfully misunderstanding me. I'm sure that if someone on the other side of this debate had made the same comments as Santaclear you would be quick to label them as offensive, but you're quick to give Santaclear a pass because he's your friend.



> Russ wasn't insulting a person. If he had, the mods would have removed the post and reprimanded him as it is against forum rules. What he found funny, and what I found to be quite reaching and outright ridiculous, is that poster claiming that pics of family members somehow bother her delicate sensibilities....yet stories of hatred, mysoginy, force feeding under the threat of death and underage characters being abused/forced fed doesn't.
> That IS quite ironic....I think Russ was being quite nice to simply call her post/argument funny. I flat out call it stupid myself.



Do I need to say this again? Russ didn't say "Your argument/post is funny." He said "I don't like your argument, so I'm going to say that you sound like you like diddling kids." And when I called him out on that he said "Gee, you just don't have a sense of humor." If you read Loves comment, it seems obvious that she was pointing out a disconnect rather than saying that she was actually offended. But based on your comments toward me, I'm not surprised that you'd wilfully misunderstand posts when it's in your interest.

You say that I can't find Santaclear's behavior toward another poster offensive. You say that I can't find behavior toward FAs offensive if I'm not an FA myself (Which I am, but you apparently decided I'm not based on what seems like a deliberate misinterpretation of my comments). You don't seem to understand the concept of empathy very well.



> He cracked on her lame argument....not her. It's allowed. Don't like it? Don't read it
> 
> We can dance this dance all day......



Are you seriously not understanding a word I say? Or are you just intentionally misunderstanding because you want to protect your friend from getting called on his immaturity?


----------



## Observer

Thank you Katorade for acknowledging that we are dealing with an age issue, not pedophilia. That latter term is so inflammatory and in the view of our writers so inaccurate that its mere use causes many to just withdraw from the fray while drawing in others who haven't even read much in the ilbrary. As to helping out, we can discuss that in PM. 

Thanks also to James for pullinng the two cited stories - *if anyone knoiws of any more please let me know via PM*. I suspect there are some due to the process by which the purge is done. Several of our mods volunteered to review different archival forums and not all are complete. 

One of the cited stories dates back to 2005 and illustrates the practice even before the nuanced rules of 2006. That's why the arguement that we weren't following the rules in 2009 makes those who were doing the job shake our heads. 

The other, as noted, was a fantasy written by a sixteen year old who was, I believe, banned for two years when that fact became known (he's now been reinstated). It was copied from his Yahoo group! This reflects a very real elephant in the living room that's not going away - affirmations about being an adult site or not, there are many teens among us. They just don't generally log in and post. This has always been the case - my own thoughts about what could be done about it were given years ago and no one liked the idea: password protect all but the most innocuous of forums.


----------



## mollycoddles

katorade said:


> I'm actually fine with most of the stories posted in there, even if they're not my bag. Hell, I would even go so far as to say that I don't mind elements of humiliation in a story as long as the story as a whole isn't conveyed as fat hatred, like someone being taunted by a bully but standing up for themselves. Dare I say I would even give a nod to stories like this one: http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39299 where even the thread discussion pointed out that humiliation could play a part in the story without turning fat into something negative.
> 
> My real key issues are with the stories that really do portray hatred, not just humiliation or force or whatever plot device of your choice. I understand why it is some people are drawn to such subjects, even if common sense says they should be offended. As a victim of molestation myself, I have some kinks that a lot of people would think is contradictory to what I _should _be turned on by. Likewise, it's the same reason many rape victims have rape fantasies while others are appalled by it. I GET that.
> 
> What I don't understand is the writing allowed here that drips with just pure hatred of fat people. You asked earlier why anyone would be here for so long if they actually hated fat people. There's a lot of different answers for that that I'm not qualified to answer, nor am I privy to their own reasons. Why were rotten.com and ogrish such popular sites? Why can't people keep their eyes off of a train wreck when they know the outcome isn't good? Why do trolls show up on websites they know they have no business being on? Boredom? Displaced self-loathing? Psychopathy? Who knows.
> 
> Better question is why it's tolerated by people that claim to have the best interests of fat people in mind. More and more it sounds like their idea of best interests and my(and other's) idea of it are farther and farther apart.



Hi Katorade, thanks for clarifying! I do appreciate that.


----------



## Fascinita

Observer said:


> Thank you Katorade for acknowledging that we are dealing with an age issue, not pedophilia.



IT has been acknowledged throughout the thread. And even after I called for people to remain calm about the "underage" issue, that the case for calling it pedophilia was dubious under current law, the "underage" issue was dragged back into the conversation by LoveBHMs.

Apparently she felt, because having "underage" characters in porn is now prohibited at Dimensions, that no one should be allowed to post pictures of their kids in the non-adult sections of Dimensions.

Some people who had been trying to debate with some clarity and mutual respect felt that this was an attempt on Love's part to cloud the real issue at hand here. And some took her to task for it.


----------



## TraciJo67

mollycoddles, I just wanted to point out that the resistance you are getting from others re: your argument about Russ & his intentions is because most of us who know Russ long-term know that it is very, very unlikely for him to involve himself in a fight of any kind. He expresses himself via humor, and if you knew him, you'd know that there really isn't anything passive-aggressive about that. I am inclined to believe Russ' explanation for why he wrote what he did, and that takes into account the nearly 5 years that I've been participating here, and the fact that I've yet to see him be anything but kind to other people. Maybe we can put this issue to rest and focus on what's at hand? You know ... the faction that wants to get rid of the library and take everyone's toys away coz we're bitter prudes vs. those who eat babies?  

(My attempt at levity ... sorry if it's a gigantic fail)



mollycoddles said:


> I've explained multiple times EXACTLY why I singled out Santaclear. Other people may have been insulting, but Santaclear is the only one making passive-aggressive cracks and then refusing to take responsibility for them by hiding behind the excuse that he was just "joking" and that, if you dno't like it, you don't have a sense of humor. That you seem unable to understand my position after I've explained it multiple times makes me think that you're just willfully misunderstanding me. I'm sure that if someone on the other side of this debate had made the same comments as Santaclear you would be quick to label them as offensive, but you're quick to give Santaclear a pass because he's your friend.
> 
> 
> 
> Do I need to say this again? Russ didn't say "Your argument/post is funny." He said "I don't like your argument, so I'm going to say that you sound like you like diddling kids." And when I called him out on that he said "Gee, you just don't have a sense of humor." If you read Loves comment, it seems obvious that she was pointing out a disconnect rather than saying that she was actually offended. But based on your comments toward me, I'm not surprised that you'd wilfully misunderstand posts when it's in your interest.
> 
> You say that I can't find Santaclear's behavior toward another poster offensive. You say that I can't find behavior toward FAs offensive if I'm not an FA myself (Which I am, but you apparently decided I'm not based on what seems like a deliberate misinterpretation of my comments). You don't seem to understand the concept of empathy very well.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously not understanding a word I say? Or are you just intentionally misunderstanding because you want to protect your friend from getting called on his immaturity?


----------



## Miss Vickie

To Observer: You're welcome. Any time.

Edited to add that legally, pedophilia can include sexual acting out toward pubescent, and post pubescent minors. So using the term -- while it's certainly inflammatory (with good reason!) -- is accurate in the stories mentioned. 

You know, I was a very well developed, pubescent 12 year old when I was diddled by my uncle. What he did was legally deemed pedophilia, plain and simple. He's just lucky that I had no one to stand up for me. But me? Not so lucky.


----------



## katorade

Observer said:


> Thanks also to James for pullinng the two cited stories - *if anyone knoiws of any more please let me know via PM*. I suspect there are some due to the process by which the purge is done. Several of our mods volunteered to review different archival forums and not all are complete.




I would like to take a moment to just scratch an itch I have. The above post? THAT MEANS YOU, TOO, LIBRARY READERS. You can and should report things you believe are not following the rules. 

I'm a little disheartened that this thread has painted it to look like the people who stick mostly to the discussion boards are akin to the Harper Valley PTA or the blind bourgeoisie while the readers of the library are either a bunch of moral bottom-dwellers or sexually-liberated anarchists. The link to the story I posted proves that you guys know when content is questionable, so don't just point it out, report it. That doesn't make you the enemy or a tattle-tale. It makes you a responsible contributor to this site. It also makes the mods' jobs a hell of a lot easier and does a lot to keep issues like this one from becoming as heated as they are.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

elroycohen said:


> Wow, that’s pretty long winded for not even beginning to address the point I was making. What you think is a joke I consider an insult. What you think is fat hatred I think is a small part of a fictional, albeit extreme story. You said nothing of the double standard I called you on. Not that I really expected you to.



Okay Elroy. I won't be so long winded this time....mainly because I had enough of these histrionics with Vader. 

I view people that support child molesting and fat hatred as assclowns. I think people that support it do so because they get their rocks off on it. 
I don't get off on hurting/abusing other people.....hence, I don't support abuse, and can't get behind supporting those stories.

I'm just a simple kind of girl that prefers to use logic in my dealings in how I treat other people. 

It's kind of like being a white girl that doesn't use the N word because it's got a long history of being used to hurt and put down people. I think it would make me an ignorant fuck to use that word. People might assume I'm a racist if I felt the need to go around spouting that hateful word.....people might be right about me if I did such things. 

I don't give a fuck if someone insults racists, haters or selfish, manipulative assclowns because they are very low on my totem pole of people who are important. I don't give a flying fuck if people think their hatred is art. I will mock them mentally and anywhere it's "allowed"....or at the very least, have a good laugh at their expense because they deserve nothing better in my mind. 

I value people for their ideals and how they treat other people. People that write stories of hatred and abuse of a certain sect of people and feel that it's all giggly/funny/cool beans to post that shit (yeah I called it shit again) on a site where those very people obviously spend a lot of time and endear that place enough to call it a "community", are abusive in my eyes. 

Fuck abusers....they can eat my ass. 

That's not hypocrisy....I'm forthright in that claim/ideal. I might be an asshole to you for some of what I said above but at least I'm an honest asshole that isn't playing the victim here. 

Oh sorry....didn't mean to write another long paragraph to upset you so badly again :doh:

Go find someone else to vent at Elroy. You and I are done.


----------



## Observer

Thank you, Katorade. I am bolding your final sentance in appreciation.



katorade said:


> I would like to take a moment to just scratch an itch I have. The above post? THAT MEANS YOU, TOO, LIBRARY READERS. *You can and should report things you believe are not following the rules. *
> 
> I'm a little disheartened that this thread has painted it to look like the people who stick mostly to the discussion boards are akin to the Harper Valley PTA or the blind bourgeoisie while the readers of the library are either a bunch of moral bottom-dwellers or sexually-liberated anarchists. The link to the story I posted proves that you guys know when content is questionable, so don't just point it out, report it. That doesn't make you the enemy or a tattle-tale. It makes you a responsible contributor to this site. It also makes the mods' jobs a hell of a lot easier and does a lot to keep issues like this one from becoming as heated as they are.


----------



## Fascinita

mollycoddles said:


> Do I need to say this again? Russ didn't say "Your argument/post is funny." He said "I don't like your argument, so I'm going to say that you sound like you like diddling kids."



Wait a minute. You're putting a lot of words in his mouth that he never said.

Molly, we seemed to be having a rational, fair conversation--one in which you had thanked me for asking people not to conflate the issue of "pedophilia" with the issue at hand--and then LoveBHMs walked in and started talking about "underage" kids. Santaclear took her to task for using THAT VERY TOPIC to cloud the issue.

He _explained_ that his joke was intended to get her to see the contradictions of her position. He even asked her what she'd like to see done about her discomfort about people's family pics. It was a clear case of his taking her to task for clouding the issue with talk of "underage kids." _She_ was talking about that.

But you continue to stuff words he didn't say in his mouth? That doesn't seem fair, molly.

Or are you saying that you know better how to interpret what he said than he does?

Please. Drop this "underage" thing. Nobody's making it about that but you at this point. Let's get back to talking with clarity.


----------



## Fascinita

katorade said:


> I'm a little disheartened that this thread has painted it to look like the people who stick mostly to the discussion boards are akin to the Harper Valley PTA or the blind bourgeoisie while the readers of the library are either a bunch of moral bottom-dwellers or sexually-liberated anarchists.



I've tried for some time now to take people to task for fighting their battles along these lines, especially when it's clear that their intelligence and purported maturity should make those kinds of shenanigans clearly off-limits in debate.

The irony is lost on some folks of painting their critics as "prudes" and the "PTA" brigade AND then accusing the "prudes" and "babies" of treating them as "bottom-dwellers."

What does it lead to? Debates that are mired in whining and name-calling, and at some point even those calling for a cease on name-calling are name-called.

There's clearly something very immediately appealing about ridiculing one's opponent, painting her a monster and oneself a victim. I'm guilty of it myself occasionally. And I see some people who make it their specialty to mount entire campaigns against ideas they don't like by using good old ridicule. I've seen it aimed at women a lot--mudslinging against "prudes" and "feminists" and "the PC Police" (that way you can take a shot at anti-homophobia, too) and "the feminist bullies" and the "grandmas." 

The tactic makes it appear as though one has won the debate, when in fact all that happens is that mud has been flung. And I'm not sure mud is a better weapon on a public Internet forum than old-fashioned debate.

Is it conducive to progress or to any kind of neighborly climate? Absolutely not. The mods sound overworked as it is, so I don't blame them if they can't get to all of it. _Someone_ should do something. But I think that would require going deep to the roots, and a lot of self-reflection, and that is sometimes too difficult to do.

*shrug*


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

mollycoddles said:


> You don't seem to understand the concept of empathy very well.



I find this statement to be quite ironic coming from someone that seems to be on a mission to defend loves and an even bigger mission to bash Santaclear.....:blink:

We're done Molly.


----------



## saucywench

Fascinita said:


> _Someone_ should do something. But I think that would require going deep to the roots, and a lot of self-reflection, and that is sometimes too difficult to do.


And that is why we revisit these same topics year after year after year after....


----------



## Santaclear

Webmaster said:


> You guys need to make up your mind whether the smilie was a wry multifaceted nod or a condescending racist slap in the face.



I used that smiley maybe 4,000 times, so it should be clear I liked it. Dan said it's racist. A couple others mentioned that too. We're different guys. Can't please everyone.


----------



## Santaclear

Again, I'm not emotional about the Library or fetish vs. no fetish. 

I do feel these are interesting topics and 100% pertinent to Dimensions, so there's no reason they shouldn't be discussed out in the open.


----------



## Archangel

Miss Vickie said:


> .
> 
> Secondly, when people almost NEVER post, and then only post to stir shit in a contentious thread, then yeah, I'll question their motives. That's not a lynch mob -- and I think the person who makes such shit stirring comments should be able to defend themselves without playing the victim card. It doesn't make anyone better if they are a regular contributor here; however it does bring into sharp focus a person's intentions vis a vis Dimensions' future when they almost never post except to rag on the people who DO try to make Dimensions the very best it can be.



My original post was what I thought a pretty well thought out summary of my feelings, without being attacking and without stirring up anything that wasn't already whipping around the community like a hurricane. I think if you actually read what I wrote, I think it's fairly clear I wasn't attacking anyone. I did use some self deprecating humor, so if that's what's being pointed at, I can understand that. Probably a bad place to use such humor- so I apologize for that. I also pointed out the reason I thought it was worth posting.

I'm not sure what a post count plays into that. I wasn't 'ragging' on anyone, in fact I agreed with some of the items being said on the other side of the argument. I'd be more than happy to explain/defend anything I said, but it doesn't seem like that's the issue for people. I don't feel like a second-class citizen just because I don't always have something to say.


----------



## elroycohen

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> *I might be an asshole* to you for some of what I said above but at least I'm an honest asshole that isn't playing the victim here.
> 
> Oh sorry....didn't mean to write another long paragraph to upset you so badly again :doh:
> 
> Go find someone else to vent at Elroy. You and I are done.



I clipped it to save space. I think I got the important parts. People can choose if they want to to go back and wade through your tap dance of a response in its full form.

As long as you are satisfied that we are done, because if one thing has been made clear to me from you painfully long and rambling post it is that it is all about you and what you want and how you feel. At least we can end our back and forth agreeing on one thing (the part that I bolded).

Don't be sorry about the length. For the most part they have been entertaining, if devoid of any usefull imformation regarding the point I brought up. I too feel no further need to continue since I can't get you to engage what I'm saying instead of what you said to someone else in another thread.

Have a nice day


----------



## tonynyc

Santaclear said:


> Again, I'm not emotional about the Library or fetish vs. no fetish.
> 
> I do feel these are interesting topics and 100% pertinent to Dimensions, so there's no reason they shouldn't be discussed out in the open.










*
The Library is still standing -No Farenheit 451 here 
*


----------



## mollycoddles

Fascinita said:


> Wait a minute. You're putting a lot of words in his mouth that he never said.
> 
> Molly, we seemed to be having a rational, fair conversation--one in which you had thanked me for asking people not to conflate the issue of "pedophilia" with the issue at hand--and then LoveBHMs walked in and started talking about "underage" kids. Santaclear took her to task for using THAT VERY TOPIC to cloud the issue.
> 
> He _explained_ that his joke was intended to get her to see the contradictions of her position. He even asked her what she'd like to see done about her discomfort about people's family pics. It was a clear case of his taking her to task for clouding the issue with talk of "underage kids." _She_ was talking about that.
> 
> But you continue to stuff words he didn't say in his mouth? That doesn't seem fair, molly.
> 
> Or are you saying that you know better how to interpret what he said than he does?
> 
> Please. Drop this "underage" thing. Nobody's making it about that but you at this point. Let's get back to talking with clarity.



That's true, I was paraphrasing to point out that the tone of Santaclear's comments seemed quite different from the way GEF interpreted them; I think most people would tell from context that I wasn't direct quoting, but in any case I'll admit that it wasn't entirely fair. I suppose I'm more annoyed by Santa's attempt to brush off criticism against him by claiming it's all a joke and that it's the people he offends that have the problem.


----------



## mollycoddles

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I find this statement to be quite ironic coming from someone that seems to be on a mission to defend loves and an even bigger mission to bash Santaclear.....:blink:
> 
> We're done Molly.



I'm not on any sort of mission. I could just as easily say that you're on some sort of mission to defend Santaclear and bash Loves. I don't know anything about anyone who's posted here other than what I've seen them do in this thread, so I'm basing all my comments on what I see here. But if you want to make up motives and attribute them to me, go right ahead. You seem to be really good at that.


----------



## thatgirl08

Fascinita said:


> Read the rest of the thread for reasons why people feel that's not enough. The disclaimer that has been proposed is along the lines of...
> 
> "Dimensions does not condone hatred or abuse against fat people. If you must use language that expresses hate or portrays abuse against fat or fat people, please do it only in the areas clearly marked for those purposes.
> 
> Others have articulated it better, but that captures the gist of it.



Yeah, I mean I honestly have no problem with a disclaimer being put up. It seems like an okay compromise to me.


----------



## exile in thighville

Fascinita said:


> Glad you agree, thighs. Other posters have already suggested the password option, in language that _isn't_ inflammatory or derogatory of those they are debating.
> 
> Oh, yeah. And that's something else _you_'ve done for size acceptance. :happy:




hush. by lacking the cognitive ability to use the IGNORE FUNCTION in your brains unpaid mods are given way too much (thankless) busy work round the clock just to keep people from being offended by things they Do Not Have to See. did you write letters to the paint company telling them to put a label on the paint cans warning you not to eat it too?

dimensions as a whole lacks the maturity and sophistication to handle an archive of fetish stories and they should really be removed from the site and moved elsewhere. somewhere they don't have to be defended every fucking week. goddammit shut this thread up.


----------



## TraciJo67

exile in thighville said:


> hush. by lacking the cognitive ability to use the IGNORE FUNCTION in your brains unpaid mods are given way too much (thankless) busy work round the clock just to keep people from being offended by things they Do Not Have to See. did you write letters to the paint company telling them to put a label on the paint cans warning you not to eat it too?
> 
> dimensions as a whole lacks the maturity and sophistication to handle an archive of fetish stories and they should really be removed from the site and moved elsewhere. somewhere they don't have to be defended every fucking week. goddammit shut this thread up.




I'm going to picture you in full pancake make-up and holding a rose between your teeth while saying this.


----------



## bdog

TraciJo67 said:


> I'm going to picture you in full pancake make-up and holding a rose between your teeth while saying this.



I've got a video, but the rose falls out halfway through.


----------



## Mack27

Just let people be who they are. The humiliation side of things was never my bag, but it used to come up a lot in private chats, when I was doing that a lot. I get the feeling that out of the people who want to be fattened (feederism is tolerated here right? At least in fantasy terms?) there is at least a double digit percentage where humiliation is a facet of what turns them on. To be derided by loved ones, people in general but especially lovers for being fat is a turn on for some people. 

You aren't any better than them just because what they find erotic you find offensive.


----------



## bdog

Fascinita said:


> Read the rest of the thread for reasons why people feel that's not enough. The disclaimer that has been proposed is along the lines of...
> 
> "Dimensions does not condone hatred or abuse against fat people. If you must use language that expresses hate or portrays abuse against fat or fat people, please do it only in the areas clearly marked for those purposes.



I saw this terrible thread where this fat woman sat on this dude's face. How come this disclaimer does nothing to protect thin people??! Everytime I see a bbw now I just hysterically blurt out "oh god please don't crush me." I almost got fired once as a result. I'm gonna sue that pants off this place one day.

Also, based on past profile infractions I made a couple of adjustments..

"Dimensions does not condone the use of irony, farce, sarcasm, satire, or any other form of thought which people cannot take at face value. Dimensions does not condone the use of any remarks which may bring up past issues in the reader. Dimensions does not condone the use of honesty if it makes people feel remotely uncomfortable. Dimensions does not condone hatred or abuse against fat people. If you must use language that expresses hate or portrays abuse against fat or fat people, please do it only in the areas clearly marked for those purposes."


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> hush.



Nah.  

:bow::bow::bow::bow::bow:


----------



## Fascinita

bdog said:


> I saw this terrible thread where this fat woman sat on this dude's face. How come this disclaimer does nothing to protect thin people??! Everytime I see a bbw now I just hysterically blurt out "oh god please don't crush me." I almost got fired once as a result. I'm gonna sue that pants off this place one day.
> 
> Also, based on past profile infractions I made a couple of adjustments..
> 
> "Dimensions does not condone the use of irony, farce, sarcasm, satire, or any other form of thought which people cannot take at face value. Dimensions does not condone the use of any remarks which may bring up past issues in the reader. Dimensions does not condone the use of honesty if it makes people feel remotely uncomfortable. Dimensions does not condone hatred or abuse against fat people. If you must use language that expresses hate or portrays abuse against fat or fat people, please do it only in the areas clearly marked for those purposes."



Pretty witty, bdog! I give it a 4.


----------



## Fascinita

Mack27 said:


> Prudes. Just let people be who they are. The humiliation side of things was never my bag, but it used to come up a lot in private chats, when I was doing that a lot. I get the feeling that out of the people who want to be fattened (feederism is tolerated here right? At least in fantasy terms?) there is at least a double digit percentage where humiliation is a facet of what turns them on. To be derided by loved ones, people in general but especially lovers for being fat is a turn on for some people.
> 
> You aren't any better than them just because what they find erotic you find offensive.



You aren't any better than "prudes" just because you find their opinions offensive.


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> hush.



I find it ironic (and kind of funny), thighs, that you're making noises _now_ about getting me to hush and locking down the thread.

You know, because _you_ are always going on about how no one understands the idea of "freedom of expression" as well as you.

Thanks for listening.

:bow:


----------



## JoyJoy

exile in thighville said:


> hush. by lacking the cognitive ability to use the IGNORE FUNCTION in your brains unpaid mods are given way too much (thankless) busy work round the clock just to keep people from being offended by things they Do Not Have to See. did you write letters to the paint company telling them to put a label on the paint cans warning you not to eat it too?
> 
> dimensions as a whole lacks the maturity and sophistication to handle an archive of fetish stories and they should really be removed from the site and moved elsewhere. somewhere they don't have to be defended every fucking week. goddammit shut this thread up.



Hush. By lacking the cognitive ability to use the IGNORE FUNCTION in your brain, unpaid mods are given way too much (thankless) busy work round the clock just to keep you from being annoyed by things you Do Not Have to See. Did you write letters to the paint company telling them to put a label on the paint cans warning you not to eat it too?

You as a whole lack the maturity and sophistication to deal when people express their opinions and feelings about something they find offensive and you should really move elsewhere. Somewhere we don't have to see you bitch every fucking week.


----------



## RobitusinZ

This thread is like having sex with an old man on viagra...it doesn't END!

(I WAS gonna say that it was like the fat blunt I rolled last night...I fell asleep before I could finish it...but, that would be an insult to good kush.)


----------



## mergirl

Mods.. think we need a 'Preference v's fetish part 2' thread. 
Maby we should have a preference v's fetish lol catz thread...yes..the more i think about it the more i think it should be.


----------



## Santaclear

RobitusinZ said:


> This thread is like having sex with an old man on viagra...it doesn't END!
> 
> (I WAS gonna say that it was like the fat blunt I rolled last night...I fell asleep before I could finish it...but, that would be an insult to good kush.)



I can't blame you for smoking that blunt. You must've been pretty sore from fucking that old man on viagra all night.


----------



## Miss Vickie

Santaclear said:


> I can't blame you for smoking that blunt. You must've been pretty sore from fucking that old man on viagra all night.



Dammit, Santaclear, you owe me a new keyboard!


----------



## TraciJo67

Miss Vickie said:


> Dammit, Santaclear, you owe me a new keyboard!



He owes me a new lung.


----------



## RobitusinZ

Santaclear said:


> I can't blame you for smoking that blunt. You must've been pretty sore from fucking that old man on viagra all night.



Bahahahahahahahahha! Someone had to take it for the team...


----------



## bdog

JoyJoy said:


> You as a whole lack the maturity and sophistication to deal when people express their opinions and feelings about something they find offensive and you should really move elsewhere. Somewhere we don't have to see you bitch every fucking week.



I'm not trying to be cheeky here, nor am I trying to defend callous behavior, but...

I often find that people lack the maturity and sophistication to actually express their genuine feelings instead of a knee-jerk, "I feel angry. Therefore this is wrong." 

Feelings can't be listened to unless they're felt and understood, but how rare is it that someone is willing to sit in the fire.. :huh:

-
Where is my fucking bowing Chinaman?


----------



## joswitch

Ernest Nagel said:


> Well shoot! If it _was_ pornography it would be a perfect place to insert this pithy quote: "In this process of oppression, many feminists point to pornography as the main mechanism that explains the incredible staying power of the male power structure. As Page Mellish of the group Feminists Fighting Pornography declared, 'There's no feminist issue that isn't rooted in the porn problem.' Pornography is seen to be the crucial thread in the tapestry of male oppression -- a thread that, if you pull it loose will cause the tapestry to unravel." ~ Michel Foucault and Pornography by Wendy McElroy
> 
> But since it's not, never mind.
> 
> FWIW I consider myself a feminist.



1) It's not porn, it's money and guns*.
2) You're a bloke, you don't have the qualifications to be a feminist.

*i.e. a near monopoly on coercive force (can't find a link but there's some state in India where the women formed local armed militias to protect themselves from rape and violence. Seemed to work fairly well.)


----------



## joswitch

LoveBHMS said:


> No idea what COF means, but there is a small group of self ascribed non-fetishists who make it their business to troll the WB looking for chances to make fun of posts there. Much of the time followed by the *shock* when they get warned and claim they were only having a little fun.
> 
> Once again, this is nothing beyond a turf war and another chance for you to showcase your bullying skills.



Here you go - C.O.F.:

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1289725&postcount=65

and scroll down for the ensuing debate...

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63448&page=3


----------



## superodalisque

pretty much all of y'all are messed up. instead of discussing the issue this thread has been used pretty much like all of the interesting serious ones to trade attacks and trivial accusations etc... just take someone else's opinion for what it is like a grown up and move on for just once--just for a change. cuz really most people don't give a damn about boring personal motivations . they just want to talk about an issue without the overly sensitive bs on either side.


----------



## joswitch

Santaclear said:


> It's a JOKE. Reacting to her faulty logic re: the kids stuff. Touchy, aren't ye?



Child abuse and genocide - two subjects that sit under the "Not Funny" heading in life.


----------



## mollycoddles

joswitch said:


> 1) It's not porn, it's money and guns*.
> 2) You're a bloke, you don't have the qualifications to be a feminist.
> 
> *i.e. a near monopoly on coercive force (can't find a link but there's some state in India where the women formed local armed militias to protect themselves from rape and violence. Seemed to work fairly well.)



I'm with you on the first point, not on the second. But that's a common misconception


----------



## joswitch

Santaclear;1302891
Re: the photos. They are not at all posted in "adult" threads said:


> Miss Vickie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd also like to take a moment after reading the comments questioning the appropriateness of pictures of people's kids on this site, given its adult nature. Probably more than anything, Dimensions is a community that has developed and cohesed over a decade of familiarity. Many of us know each other through this site IRL and so that sense of community means even more to us. Telling us that we can't post pictures of our kids to me just is a smack in the face for people who want to share the good things in their life with the people they are about online.
> 
> LoveBHM's, are you going to be the one to tell Bexy that she can't post pictures of her daughter who is, after all, the product of a fat pregnancy? What about Megan and others who have had babies since coming here. Should they not be able to share pictures with us because we don't allow pedophilia on the site?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rhetoric aside. No "beef", nor "face slapping" involved.
> 
> From the POV of folks posting their kid's pics here - People: it is very unwise of anyone to post pictures of their kids on *any public forum* on the internet - and that goes double for any public forum that is *18+*. It's not safe, secure nor appropriate.
> 
> Facebook exists so that you can share pics of your nearest and dearest in a protected environment where only people you have "let in" can see your pics. That would be a safe and appropriate place to share such pics. If you want to build community safely may I suggest founding a "DIMS family" group or suchlike on Facebook, where membership would be controlled.
> 
> From the POV of DIMs it is a risk to this website and it's users in general to host any pictures or any minors whatsoever on an 18+ forum. Neither authorities nor vigilantes are prone to a "nuanced" response where images of minors on websites / your computer are concerned.
> 
> Two excellent reasons not to post such pics here. Ever.
> 
> And once again ftr I SUPPORT the "no minors in stories" rule too!
Click to expand...


----------



## joswitch

free2beme04 said:


> *snip*
> Besides, while I do love that this sight blends size acceptance with size sexuality, *I find it interesting, and odd, that the library takes up roughly half the Dimensions Forums page.* And this is coming from someone who does love the library, btw.



Stan flagged this too - in addition to a "disclaimer" on the relevent subsections Why not have ONE entrance to the library with sub menus ("U" "PG" "Kinky") in a "tree" structure? That would make kinky things less "in your face"... but still there...


----------



## joswitch

Fascinita said:


> Good. Thank you.
> 
> Maybe I should start a list of people who agree. That makes quite a few who think that putting up a disclaimer and/or password protecting the Library are workable compromises.



While I'm all for the appropriate anti-fat-hate disclaimer - as I suggested waaaaaay up thread - I think a _password_ will actually be counter productive:

How many people in realtionships give a LOT of headspace to wondering "what is my partner really thinking?" ??? So how many fat folks arriving here are going to wonder the same about FAs? A passworded section might suggest to a newb that the kinky stories represent the "dirty, secret motivation" of FAs and imply that they are kept hidden to lull fat folks into a false sense of security. Having the stories in the open - but discreetly - with an anti-RL-fat-hate disclaimer slapped on them puts them in their proper place, without mystifying/demonizing/glamorizing them with "secrecy".

Yes, I know the password will be available from a mod, but I'm talking about the impression made on someone without history here.


----------



## Santaclear

superodalisque said:


> pretty much all of y'all are messed up. instead of discussing the issue this thread has been used pretty much like all of the interesting serious ones to trade attacks and trivial accusations etc... just take someone else's opinion for what it is like a grown up and move on for just once--just for a change. cuz really most people don't give a damn about boring personal motivations . they just want to talk about an issue without the overly sensitive bs on either side.



I disagree, Supero. There has been some very interesting discussion within this thread and I feel I've learned a few things about Dimensions I didn't previously know. (I'm not insisting you wade through it all, but I am saying it's not been just your usual clusterfuck.)


----------



## superodalisque

Santaclear said:


> I disagree, Supero. There has been some very interesting discussion within this thread and I feel I've learned a few things about Dimensions I didn't previously know. (I'm not insisting you wade through it all, but I am saying it's not been just your usual clusterfuck.)



how many do you think those posts are out of the 858 percentage wise? i wish we had just as many in the "what have you done for SA besides post in this forum" thread. maybe we need a "i've done nothing for SA besides be overly argumentative and complain" thread.


----------



## exile in thighville

joswitch said:


> You're a bloke, you don't have the qualifications to be a feminist.



first of all,


----------



## cinnamitch

exile in thighville said:


> first of all,



fem·i·nist (f&#283;m'&#601;-n&#301;st) 
n. A* person* whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism.
adj. Relating to feminism


----------



## exile in thighville

y&#601;s talk to josw&#301;tch


----------



## thatgirl08

superodalisque said:


> how many do you think those posts are out of the 858 percentage wise? i wish we had just as many in the "what have you done for SA besides post in this forum" thread. maybe we need a "i've done nothing for SA besides be overly argumentative and complain" thread.



hahahaha this is the best post in this thread.


----------



## Fascinita

superodalisque said:


> how many do you think those posts are out of the 858 percentage wise? i wish we had just as many in the "what have you done for SA besides post in this forum" thread. maybe we need a "i've done nothing for SA besides be overly argumentative and complain" thread.



I hear you, Felicia. You don't like complaining OR this thread. 

Wait... What are you doing here? 

Oh. Right. You're complaining. :happy:

Not for anything (as I like to say), Felicia, but how is your post any more productive or positive than any other post on this thread? I'm not convinced that scolding is better than arguing. And _ideas matter_. And best of all, we can be thankful that the expression of most ideas--even very crummy ones--is allowed here on Dims. 

Ain't it great?

What's your take on "preference vs. fetish," anyway? Let's talk.


----------



## mollycoddles

Fascinita said:


> I hear you, Felicia. You don't like complaining OR this thread.
> 
> Wait... What are you doing here?
> 
> Oh. Right. You're complaining. :happy:
> 
> Not for anything (as I like to say), Felicia, but how is your post any more productive or positive than any other post on this thread? I'm not convinced that scolding is better than arguing. And _ideas matter_. And best of all, we can be thankful that the expression of most ideas--even very crummy ones--is allowed here on Dims.
> 
> Ain't it great?
> 
> What's your take on "preference vs. fetish," anyway? Let's talk.



^ Yes, This.


----------



## superodalisque

Fascinita said:


> I hear you, Felicia. You don't like complaining OR this thread.
> 
> Wait... What are you doing here?
> 
> Oh. Right. You're complaining. :happy:
> 
> Not for anything (as I like to say), Felicia, but how is your post any more productive or positive than any other post on this thread? I'm not convinced that scolding is better than arguing. And _ideas matter_. And best of all, we can be thankful that the expression of most ideas--even very crummy ones--is allowed here on Dims.
> 
> Ain't it great?
> 
> What's your take on "preference vs. fetish," anyway? Let's talk.



respectfully: 

i just thought the thread could use a little reality check thats all. there are lots of people here who love arguing over minutia in ways that don't do anything for the community. people are always going to have fetishes. people are always going to dislike the idea of fetish. my eyes are brown. someone else's are blue. this won't change much in that respect,but in the end everyone here either is or likes fat people and feels the pressure from that or have people they care about who do. it would just be nice to see more about that instead of the general tendency to attack each other over personal tendencies etc...maybe people like arguing about that more because it doesn't require them to actually DO anything but sit at thier comp. maybe its distracting them from the fact that they should be taking some of thier concerns about fat out into the world and remembering to protect each other? but i guess its more important to get thier way on here than to really fight for anything that makes a difference for everybody on here other than having the satifaction of convincing oneself smuggly of being right. its a fake kind of power that people get from this in my opinion. what about some real power? it would just be nice if it was an argument about something truly constructive for once like exactly where to go on a march or what kind of a local group would be best for creating support--anything. but this will just end up being another ball of nothing. so go ahead and keep on with this unproductive stuff while the world is hating on just about everybody here. people talk a lot about ideas here but when is there ever going to be any heated discussion about action? *hears crickets*


----------



## Sugar

superodalisque said:


> respectfully:
> 
> i just thought the thread could use a little reality check thats all. there are lots of people here who love arguing over minutia in ways that don't do anything for the community. people are always going to have fetishes. people are always going to dislike the idea of fetish. my eyes are brown. someone else's is blue. this won't change much in that respect,*but in the end everyone here either is or likes fat people* and feels the pressure from that or have people they care about who do. it would just be nice to see more about that instead of the general tendency to attack each other over personal tendencies etc...maybe people like arguing about that more because it doesn't require them to actually DO anything but sit at thier comp. maybe its distracting them from the fact that they should be taking some of thier concerns about fat out into the world and remembering to protect each other? but i guess its more important to get thier way on here than to really fight for anything that makes a difference for everybody on here other than having the satifaction of convincing oneself smuggly of being right. its a fake kind of power that people get from this in my opinion. what about some real power? it would just be nice if it was an argument about something truly constructive for once like going on a march or creating a local group for support--anything. but this will just end up being another ball of nothing.
> so go ahead and keep on with this unproductive stuff while the world is hating on everybody here.



Naturally this thread started as one thing and turned into another. IMO what it boiled down to was that no, there are people on this board that do not like fat people and they've shown it in various ways. 

You're right the infighting can be ugly and gross and concerning. That doesn't mean that concerns shouldn't be addressed on both sides of an issue and it is important to discuss. 

If one is to see growth there first has to be conflict and resolution.


----------



## superodalisque

Sugar said:


> Naturally this thread started as one thing and turned into another. IMO what it boiled down to was that no, there are people on this board that do not like fat people and they've shown it in various ways.
> 
> You're right the infighting can be ugly and gross and concerning. That doesn't mean that concerns shouldn't be addressed on both sides of an issue and it is important to discuss.
> 
> If one is to see growth there first has to be conflict and resolution.



i agree with that. but i guess after the years of hearing the same old arguments by the same old people i'm ready to see some juice behind something people are ready to agree on and will help anyone. how many times are people going to go over this? and when is there ever going to be any effort to do anything that will help everybody here? i'm sorry i guess my patience is waining when it comes to doing nothing but talking, arguing and often insulting other people who are really all in the same boat. the boat just seems to be going around in circles and not getting anywhere*sigh*. nearly 900 posts getting us nowhere while feeling SA is about action--yes it makes me feel impatient. nearly 900 posts while other people need our help. i need to say goodnight. i have something i need to do.


----------



## Sugar

superodalisque said:


> i agree with that. but i guess after the years of hearing the same old arguments by the same old people i'm ready to see some juice behind something people are ready to agree on and will help anyone. how many times are people going to go over this? and when is there ever going to be any effort to do anything that will help everybody here? i'm sorry i guess my patience is waining when it comes to doing nothing but talking, arguing and often insulting other people who are really all in the same boat. the boat just seems to be going around in circles and not getting anywhere*sigh*. nearly 900 posts getting us nowhere while feeling SA is about action--yes it makes me feel impatient. nearly 900 posts while other people need our help. i need to say goodnight. i have something i need to do.



I really feel ya on that. Sometimes you have to let others fall for them to learn a lesson.


----------



## Fascinita

superodalisque said:


> maybe people like arguing about that more because it doesn't require them to actually DO anything but sit at thier comp.



I disagree with your analysis, Felicia.

The computer _is_ important. What happens here _is_ important. This website draws lots of traffic, and lots of people exchange ideas here. That _is_ real. Ideas have real impact. And talking about ideas _is_ action.



> but this will just end up being another ball of nothing. so go ahead and keep on with this unproductive stuff while the world is hating on just about everybody here.



And I disagree that it's a ball of nothing. I'm an optimist and I believe in dialogue--even when it's difficult.

Time will tell which of us is right. And that's OK with me.


----------



## Fascinita

superodalisque said:


> and when is there ever going to be any effort to do anything that will help everybody here?



Hey, Felicia, if this is directed at me, contact me by PM and I can respond privately about my efforts to help make this site better. I'd be happy to discuss the work I've been involved in here, but I don't really like tooting my horn in public. Thanks.


----------



## exile in thighville

all work and no play makes dimensions a dull lay


----------



## Fascinita

exile in thighville said:


> all work and no play makes dimensions a dull lay



Good luck trying to get your money back, champ. :happy:


----------



## katorade

superodalisque said:


> i agree with that. but i guess after the years of hearing the same old arguments by the same old people i'm ready to see some juice behind something people are ready to agree on and will help anyone. how many times are people going to go over this? and when is there ever going to be any effort to do anything that will help everybody here? i'm sorry i guess my patience is waining when it comes to doing nothing but talking, arguing and often insulting other people who are really all in the same boat. the boat just seems to be going around in circles and not getting anywhere*sigh*. nearly 900 posts getting us nowhere while feeling SA is about action--yes it makes me feel impatient. nearly 900 posts while other people need our help. i need to say goodnight. i have something i need to do.



Here's a bullhorn, there's the door to the outside world. Sometimes when you want action to be taken, you have to take it yourself.


----------



## superodalisque

katorade said:


> Here's a bullhorn, there's the door to the outside world. Sometimes when you want action to be taken, you have to take it yourself.



and i definitely do


----------



## superodalisque

Fascinita said:


> Hey, Felicia, if this is directed at me, contact me by PM and I can respond privately about my efforts to help make this site better. I'd be happy to discuss the work I've been involved in here, but I don't really like tooting my horn in public. Thanks.



no that was directed at the whole of dims. because besides self serving stuff little or nothing seems to ever happen. and when i've tried to organize things--no bite. i definitely haven't been asked to do anything. luckily there are plenty of people here locally who are willing. but it would be nice if something with an international exposure and a wealth of talent could be mobilized. 

it bothers me a lil that you feel that i have to PM you to find out what you've done. its not about judging you or criticizing you about that. you don't have to explain anything to me personally. but its a shame you evidently don't feel safe enough here that you can say what you do if for nothing else than to inspire and even have people to join and support you. and you are probably right that someone will be after you trying to say that you think you are a big deal. well, you are a big deal and so is everyone else here. it really is depressing that people aren't acting like it because a few people always seem to take everything as a negative personal commentary on what they are and are not doing. the whole place seems to be emprisioned by that kind of narrow selfish thinking.

whats happening that people here who work in SA feel they have to somehow keep it under wraps? that makes me feel there is something really kind of unhealthy about a site, one of whose major concerns is SA, that doesn't allow people to feel comfortable about the good stuff they do to help the cause. that silence is probably the reason why so many people feel justified in thier negative judgements of other people. they never get the entire picture of another person's dedication to the idea of SA. overall it saddens me that many things here are so very secretive, even things that we should be glad of and happy about. since when has it become shameful to do something good for SA? why are people in an SA closet? i just can't understand it. it just doesn't make sense to me. i hope you change your mind and post on the thread about what you do for SA. i think its important for people to get ideas about what they can do from that. and there is nothing wrong with your getting the respect for the work you do. then whether anyone ever agreed with you or not about anything it would be further reinforcement for everyone that your heart is in the right place--which i already know it is. there is a huge lack of trust here that needs to be worked on. and that has something to do with why people are so fetish averse here as well. i guess when you think someone is all fetish and sociopathic in that you get afraid. so maybe it would help if people got to undesrtand the entire person instead of just a small part of someone. we're al the sum of all of our parts.


----------



## joswitch

exile in thighville said:


> y&#601;s talk to josw&#301;tch



Nope, she can't do that  -


> cinnamitch
> This message is hidden because cinnamitch is on your ignore list.


----------



## cinnamitch

joswitch said:


> Nope, she can't do that  -


Oh how cute , im on ignore. How second grade.. :happy:


----------



## JoyJoy

The thing that keeps striking me about this is that many of us come here to help us feel a little more normal by being around those who encounter the same things we do in every day life. Interacting with others who understand us helps us all *live a life* that is pro-size acceptance, by learning to accept ourselves as fat people and show it every single day. That's pretty much all I do to support size acceptance - just be myself with pride (most of the time). For many, that should be enough, and if dimensions professes to support helping people find that, it should do so in every way. Soooo...when we encounter things here - attitudes, stories, personalities - that contradict size acceptance or make people in general uncomfortable, yes, people are going to speak up about it, as it should be. I mean, right or wrong, many, many of us came to feel like this was our home on the 'net - hence the family pics, etc. We grew close to the people here and treasured the sense of community. I think those of us who have spent a lot of time here knew what was in the library, basically...but we trusted that, because this was a size acceptance site, everything there was in some way respectful of that...not to mention the fact that I personally just assumed that those in charge of the library had enough common sense to keep out questionable stuff like stories about minors. The stories have never been my thing, so I had never looked. Finding out otherwise has been disconcerting, at best. 

I honestly haven't read all of the debate surrounding this general issue, and I know I'm chiming in late to the game and the horse is starting to stink. It's just been too tiresome to jump in before now. So, I don't know if this has already been said this time around, but I've said it a couple of times before and got the evil eye of death from some...but because I still believe it wholeheartedly I'll say it again...this is what happens when you attempt to jam together two opposite aspects of anything - in this case, size acceptance and the fetish-y side of loving fat. Yes, the fetishes are part of learning to love our fat bodies, but IMO, the fetishes should come after a person has learned to be comfortable in their own skin - not while they're in the beginning phases of it, and some people never do get comfortable with the more "extreme" sides of the fat fetish stuff, so when it's all mushed together, there will definitely be issues. 

To those who are trying to defend their fetishes and wank fodder housed here - I get it, I really do. I just don't like the way some of you go about it, by dismissing those who are uncomfortable with it being here as if they're just looking for a soapbox to shout from. I also wish there was some way to please both sides - you get to keep your stories, etc (underage crap being an exception), and we get a "home" free of such things. It would be totally awesome if we had a place to go where we could just "be" and talk about life stuff in general without all of the sexual pictures and weight gain and other fetish type stuff. Sadly, though, I think we may have to go elsewhere to get that.


----------



## cinnamitch

Someone please hand Joy some rep, i am totally out of it but she hit it on the head. 



JoyJoy said:


> The thing that keeps striking me about this is that many of us come here to help us feel a little more normal by being around those who encounter the same things we do in every day life. Interacting with others who understand us helps us all *live a life* that is pro-size acceptance, by learning to accept ourselves as fat people and show it every single day. That's pretty much all I do to support size acceptance - just be myself with pride (most of the time). For many, that should be enough, and if dimensions professes to support helping people find that, it should do so in every way. Soooo...when we encounter things here - attitudes, stories, personalities - that contradict size acceptance or make people in general uncomfortable, yes, people are going to speak up about it, as it should be. I mean, right or wrong, many, many of us came to feel like this was our home on the 'net - hence the family pics, etc. We grew close to the people here and treasured the sense of community. I think those of us who have spent a lot of time here knew what was in the library, basically...but we trusted that, because this was a size acceptance site, everything there was in some way respectful of that...not to mention the fact that I personally just assumed that those in charge of the library had enough common sense to keep out questionable stuff like stories about minors. The stories have never been my thing, so I had never looked. Finding out otherwise has been disconcerting, at best.
> 
> I honestly haven't read all of the debate surrounding this general issue, and I know I'm chiming in late to the game and the horse is starting to stink. It's just been too tiresome to jump in before now. So, I don't know if this has already been said this time around, but I've said it a couple of times before and got the evil eye of death from some...but because I still believe it wholeheartedly I'll say it again...this is what happens when you attempt to jam together two opposite aspects of anything - in this case, size acceptance and the fetish-y side of loving fat. Yes, the fetishes are part of learning to love our fat bodies, but IMO, the fetishes should come after a person has learned to be comfortable in their own skin - not while they're in the beginning phases of it, and some people never do get comfortable with the more "extreme" sides of the fat fetish stuff, so when it's all mushed together, there will definitely be issues.
> 
> To those who are trying to defend their fetishes and wank fodder housed here - I get it, I really do. I just don't like the way some of you go about it, by dismissing those who are uncomfortable with it being here as if they're just looking for a soapbox to shout from. I also wish there was some way to please both sides - you get to keep your stories, etc (underage crap being an exception), and we get a "home" free of such things. It would be totally awesome if we had a place to go where we could just "be" and talk about life stuff in general without all of the sexual pictures and weight gain and other fetish type stuff. Sadly, though, I think we may have to go elsewhere to get that.


----------



## thatgirl08

JoyJoy said:


> The thing that keeps striking me about this is that many of us come here to help us feel a little more normal by being around those who encounter the same things we do in every day life. Interacting with others who understand us helps us all *live a life* that is pro-size acceptance, by learning to accept ourselves as fat people and show it every single day. That's pretty much all I do to support size acceptance - just be myself with pride (most of the time). For many, that should be enough, and if dimensions professes to support helping people find that, it should do so in every way. Soooo...when we encounter things here - attitudes, stories, personalities - that contradict size acceptance or make people in general uncomfortable, yes, people are going to speak up about it, as it should be. I mean, right or wrong, many, many of us came to feel like this was our home on the 'net - hence the family pics, etc. We grew close to the people here and treasured the sense of community. I think those of us who have spent a lot of time here knew what was in the library, basically...but we trusted that, because this was a size acceptance site, everything there was in some way respectful of that...not to mention the fact that I personally just assumed that those in charge of the library had enough common sense to keep out questionable stuff like stories about minors. The stories have never been my thing, so I had never looked. Finding out otherwise has been disconcerting, at best.
> 
> I honestly haven't read all of the debate surrounding this general issue, and I know I'm chiming in late to the game and the horse is starting to stink. It's just been too tiresome to jump in before now. So, I don't know if this has already been said this time around, but I've said it a couple of times before and got the evil eye of death from some...but because I still believe it wholeheartedly I'll say it again...this is what happens when you attempt to jam together two opposite aspects of anything - in this case, size acceptance and the fetish-y side of loving fat. Yes, the fetishes are part of learning to love our fat bodies, but IMO, the fetishes should come after a person has learned to be comfortable in their own skin - not while they're in the beginning phases of it, and some people never do get comfortable with the more "extreme" sides of the fat fetish stuff, so when it's all mushed together, there will definitely be issues.
> 
> To those who are trying to defend their fetishes and wank fodder housed here - I get it, I really do. I just don't like the way some of you go about it, by dismissing those who are uncomfortable with it being here as if they're just looking for a soapbox to shout from. I also wish there was some way to please both sides - you get to keep your stories, etc (underage crap being an exception), and we get a "home" free of such things. It would be totally awesome if we had a place to go where we could just "be" and talk about life stuff in general without all of the sexual pictures and weight gain and other fetish type stuff. Sadly, though, I think we may have to go elsewhere to get that.



Although I wasn't one of the main people in this disagreement, I'd just like to respond to this. I'm trying to put myself in your shoes, and I think I really do understand where you are coming from. I can see why having parts of this site sexualized could detract from the experience and I can understand why some of the stories, especially the more extreme ones, are disturbing and unsettling to you. I really do get it. But, in the same way that you feel Dims is your "home," many people who are fetishists come here for support as well. Dims is one of the few places where I can find other people who share this interest who are also valuable members of the community. This is one of the few places where I feel comfortable sharing parts of myself that include my interest in feederism in addition to other parts of my life. Before Dims, feederism was something I looked at as being a flaw in myself. I was embarrassed about it, and I often felt guilty after reading the stories or fantasizing about it. Someone finally pointed me in this direction and I've been able to connect with people who feel similarly about it. I realize you guys see a lot of shit on the forum that is just asking for pictures, weights, etc. but I promise that that is not all that goes on here in regards to it. I'm going to put this bluntly. I did not ask to be interested in feederism, but it's not something I have control over and it hurts me to read nasty comments about fetishists from other people in this community, especially when they are members that I have shared pictures with on the clothing board or people that I have discussed pieces of my life with in the clubhouse. Dims matters to me, the people here matter to me. I know I'm not involved as you are, but this community is a part of my life. I wouldn't spend so much time here if it wasn't. I don't want to feel ostracized in this community, and these types of threads give me that feeling and I know I'm not the only one. I'm not going to sit here and defend why we need to have the stories here because I honestly can't think of any other reason than the fact that they've been here, and I'd like to keep it that way as would many other people. Maybe like you said there needs to be a separation of the two parts of Dims. But until that happens, as far as the attitudes towards fetishists go, I'd really like to see more acceptance towards us because whether you like it or not, we ARE part of this community and we deserve to be here just as much as you do.


----------



## JoyJoy

thatgirl08 said:


> Although I wasn't one of the main people in this disagreement, I'd just like to respond to this. I'm trying to put myself in your shoes, and I think I really do understand where you are coming from. I can see why having parts of this site sexualized could detract from the experience and I can understand why some of the stories, especially the more extreme ones, are disturbing and unsettling to you. I really do get it. But, in the same way that you feel Dims is your "home," many people who are fetishists come here for support as well. Dims is one of the few places where I can find other people who share this interest who are also valuable members of the community. This is one of the few places where I feel comfortable sharing parts of myself that include my interest in feederism in addition to other parts of my life. Before Dims, feederism was something I looked at as being a flaw in myself. I was embarrassed about it, and I often felt guilty after reading the stories or fantasizing about it. Someone finally pointed me in this direction and I've been able to connect with people who feel similarly about it. I realize you guys see a lot of shit on the forum that is just asking for pictures, weights, etc. but I promise that that is not all that goes on here in regards to it. I'm going to put this bluntly. I did not ask to be interested in feederism, but it's not something I have control over and it hurts me to read nasty comments about fetishists from other people in this community, especially when they are members that I have shared pictures with on the clothing board or people that I have discussed pieces of my life with in the clubhouse. Dims matters to me, the people here matter to me. I know I'm not involved as you are, but this community is a part of my life. I wouldn't spend so much time here if it wasn't. I don't want to feel ostracized in this community, and these types of threads give me that feeling and I know I'm not the only one. I'm not going to sit here and defend why we need to have the stories here because I honestly can't think of any other reason than the fact that they've been here, and I'd like to keep it that way as would many other people. Maybe like you said there needs to be a separation of the two parts of Dims. But until that happens, as far as the attitudes towards fetishists go, I'd really like to see more acceptance towards us because whether you like it or not, we ARE part of this community and we deserve to be here just as much as you do.



This was precisely my point. I didn't mean to imply that one group "belongs" here more than another. In fact, in regard to the fetish stuff, I think a large portion of the time, the majority of people here try to be tolerant of each other's differences. But with it all mixed together, there are always going to be issues like this that pop up - always. People can say it's normal, it's part of the cycle, it works best this way....but if you have good people who get disenchanted every time there's controversy over it and leave, or if hard feelings are created between members, it's not working. There are always going to be smoldering embers of discontent on both sides that will be fanned into flames, causing some level of destruction. 

I know how important and valuable it is to have a place where you feel comfortable with others who think like you do. On some level, it's what draws us to this place because we get a reward in being here. But when you have one group (not just a few) feeling brought down by something that the other group finds appealing, it's a no-win. Telling one group to suck it up and deal just to please the other group (and this could apply both ways) accomplishes nothing productive - only discord and resentment, in a never-ending cycle.


----------



## joswitch

JoyJoy said:


> This was precisely my point. I didn't mean to imply that one group "belongs" here more than another. In fact, in regard to the fetish stuff, I think a large portion of the time, the majority of people here try to be tolerant of each other's differences. But with it all mixed together, there are always going to be issues like this that pop up - always. People can say it's normal, it's part of the cycle, it works best this way....but if you have good people who get disenchanted every time there's controversy over it and leave, or if hard feelings are created between members, it's not working. There are always going to be smoldering embers of discontent on both sides that will be fanned into flames, causing some level of destruction.
> 
> I know how important and valuable it is to have a place where you feel comfortable with others who think like you do. On some level, it's what draws us to this place because we get a reward in being here. But when you have one group (not just a few) feeling brought down by something that the other group finds appealing, it's a no-win. Telling one group to suck it up and deal just to please the other group (and this could apply both ways) accomplishes nothing productive - only discord and resentment, in a never-ending cycle.



@ JoyJoy and ThatGirl - there were some productive ideas kicked about earlier on in the thread about drawing the boundaries better to help different people co-exist here peacefully... that all got drowned out though once another, different, old argument was brought up and rehashed for about three pages....

So there is a workable compromise "on the table" - a "DIMS is against RL fat-hatred but understand that some people kink that way, please only do it here" disclaimer over the "humiliation" sections of the library, which was what folks were loudly against (not feedism as such). And maybe less prominence to the libarary's subsections...

No-one loses the things they want, but hopefully everyone gets less of the things they don't want "in their face"... Folks from both "sides" seemed fairly cool with these ideas... So it's not all been butting heads...

Some of us have PM'd Conrad / Observer re. this...
Maybe that'll help?


----------



## kayrae

I think a disclaimer is an awesome idea.


----------



## mergirl

joswitch said:


> @ JoyJoy and ThatGirl - there were some productive ideas kicked about earlier on in the thread about drawing the boundaries better to help different people co-exist here peacefully... that all got drowned out though once another, different, old argument was brought up and rehashed for about three pages....
> 
> So there is a workable compromise "on the table" - a "DIMS is against RL fat-hatred but understand that some people kink that way, please only do it here" disclaimer over the "humiliation" sections of the library, which was what folks were loudly against (not feedism as such). And maybe less prominence to the libarary's subsections...
> 
> No-one loses the things they want, but hopefully everyone gets less of the things they don't want "in their face"... Folks from both "sides" seemed fairly cool with these ideas... So it's not all been butting heads...
> 
> Some of us have PM'd Conrad / Observer re. this...
> Maybe that'll help?


I think for people who want to co-exist this is a great idea. Though i think actually before this discussion came up not everyone knew what some of the more fetish based stories contained. I think this has left a bad taste in some people's mouths to the extent that they don't want to associate with a site at all that contains the more derogatory fetish stories. So, i'm not even sure it can be fixed with seperate subsections for some, because it goes a lot deeper. I dont think, as some people have suggested that this is about prudes denying people thier right to express thier fantasies, more that for many people size acceptance is the point of their membership here, and while it has been said that wls/diets cannot be talked about here because 'fat people hear this kinna talk all the time and need a place to escape' the same could be said for fat humiliation. 
I think this now runs deeper than size acceptance co-existing/co-operating with all fat fetish, because for some this just can't be the case. To support a site or to contribute your energies and time and not agree with the fundemental core or even with the things it supports can cause people to become disenchanted totally. The same goes with people who enjoy this kind of fetish- I believe there should be places to express these thoughts too. Is it here? As an Fa based site which proclaims to cater to ALL Fa's and subsections.. i guess here IS the place. I just think the people who believe more in size acceptance as opposed to embracing all fat fetish might not feel comfortable here and will move on. Maby here would work better as a fetish site anyway?? I have a feeling it would get pretty boring pretty soon though.


----------



## bdog

mergirl said:


> I dont think, as some people have suggested that this is about prudes denying people thier right to express thier fantasies, more that for many people size acceptance is the point of their membership here, and while it has been said that wls/diets cannot be talked about here because 'fat people hear this kinna talk all the time and need a place to escape' the same could be said for fat humiliation.



The heart is fragile. The world is harsh. But there's no running from it. Size acceptance is no closer on some other "nice bbw's only" forum than it is right here. 

When we deny our vulnerability we deny our strength. Those stories probably hit a little too close for some and I can't fault them for that. But they exist regardless of whether or not they're faced.


----------



## Webmaster

mergirl said:


> ...I just think the people who believe more in size acceptance as opposed to embracing all fat fetish might not feel comfortable here and will move on. Maby here would work better as a fetish site anyway??



Aren't we in a productive mood today. And I take deep offense of you suggesting this be just a fetish site!! If things are so bad here and so very much not to your liking, why do you waste so much of your valuable time and energy pointing this out again and again and again? You could make the same exact argument over GLBTQ. Some people might not feel comfortable having that here and will move on, or maybe they are outraged over some other inconvenient parts of the community, to the extent where they just can't bear typing dimensionsmagazine.com into their browsers anymore. Perhaps a bit more tolerance is in order.


----------



## gypsy

So... just for the curious onlooker, if this is not a fetish site why is this site blocked at 90% of corporate workplaces?


----------



## exile in thighville

gypsy said:


> So... just for the curious onlooker, if this is not a fetish site why is this site blocked at 90% of corporate workplaces?



probably the only question in this thread worth answering


----------



## exile in thighville

kayrae said:


> I think a disclaimer is an awesome idea.



i'd love some proof that newbs can't fend for themselves. it's overwhelmingly vets complaining here and _they_ decided to stick around for some reason


----------



## JoyJoy

Mods, I'd like to request that the name of this thread be changed to Dannyboy vs. The Harpies...since it "is" all about him, y'know.


----------



## joswitch

@gypsy - Cos BBW is a common abbreviation used in porn searches and the guy setting your firewall up is a lazy bum who uses a keyword blocker? Cos your boss wants you to do some work? ;P


----------



## TraciJo67

Jazz hands ... jazz hands ... jazz hands. It works for me.


----------



## katorade

Webmaster said:


> Aren't we in a productive mood today. And I take deep offense of you suggesting this be just a fetish site!! If things are so bad here and so very much not to your liking, why do you waste so much of your valuable time and energy pointing this out again and again and again? You could make the same exact argument over GLBTQ. Some people might not feel comfortable having that here and will move on, or maybe they are outraged over some other inconvenient parts of the community, to the extent where they just can't bear typing dimensionsmagazine.com into their browsers anymore. Perhaps a bit more tolerance is in order.



Well, that was uncalled for. If you take deep offense to someone actually having to ask if this is a fetish site or not, then maybe YOU are the one with the problem, not them.

Also, let's not forget that Mergirl is hardly the only person in this thread to make that suggestion, and I think it's a perfectly valid one when you have almost 1,000 posts in a thread arguing that very point. I'd ask you again why you just seemingly want to address everything she says in a rude, condescending manner, but I know I won't get an answer. For someone that doesn't like to argue, you sure try to cut her down at the knees.

Since homophobia isn't really welcome here, or you know, anywhere else in modern culture, I don't see a problem with someone storming off in a huff because they "saw gay people". That, and I think it's pretty clear that the main intent of this forum is not gay sexuality. The line between fetish and SA is just a _tad_ more blurred, and by a tad, I mean immensely.


----------



## lovesgaininggirls

Where can I jump into this discussion. For the most part, most of us who visit this site have a preference for fat bodies. This can be sexual and erotic or it can be esthetic. I think we can agree for the most part that certain segments in our society view this preference as outside the norm. For those at the extreme end of this point of view, this preference is just plain sick, for lack of a better way of putting it. So for THEM, it has become easier to lump ALL of us Fat Admirers as having a fetish. For those of us who admire the fat figure, that is not only offensive, but just plain wrong. We would say we prefer fat to thin in the same way that one might prefer chocolate to vanilla.

I think what I'm saying in so many words is that the argument is largely a moot point. The reason I say this is because our particular preference lies outside what SOME would classify as the norm. In the eyes of these people, we're just plain sick. They can't conceive that it is possible for anyone to find a male or female who is round or curvy as attractive. So it is easier for them to lump us all together in the dysfunctional category and let it go at that. And for THEM, that's fine. They can call me whatever they choose to call me, frankly, I don't care.

But I wonder why it should make that much of a difference to US. If we find the fat figure attractive (and why are we here if we don't?) that's our decision. It's not the norm. Perhaps we are numerically inferior to our thin-loving (obsesssed?) brothers and sisters, but why should this bother us? I, for one, love classical music. I rarely if ever listen to what passes for contemporary music. Do I have a classical music fetish? I suppose some might say yes, but they have a right to hold whatever opinion they want to, that's up to them.

I used to try to analyse my preference. Just WHY was I turned on sexually when I read "The Fattest Girl In Metropolis" in the Superman comic book? As I have gotten older (nearing 61) I find that my liking the idea of a skinny girl who abandons a life of dieting and exercise for the pure pleasure of eating to her heart's content without thinking about the consequences is OK, and I just don't care to delve into the whys and wherefores of just HOW my brain got that way. 

Fact is, we fat lovers are in the minority, at least as far as certain segments of society say. We can use all the friends we can muster in this crazy world of ours. I say we go on loving fat bodies and leave the analysis to those who have the time and energy to do so.


----------



## mergirl

Webmaster said:


> Aren't we in a productive mood today. And I take deep offense of you suggesting this be just a fetish site!! If things are so bad here and so very much not to your liking, why do you waste so much of your valuable time and energy pointing this out again and again and again? You could make the same exact argument over GLBTQ. Some people might not feel comfortable having that here and will move on, or maybe they are outraged over some other inconvenient parts of the community, to the extent where they just can't bear typing dimensionsmagazine.com into their browsers anymore. Perhaps a bit more tolerance is in order.



Aren't we in a patronising mood today. The suggestion that here was a fetish site was a rhetorical question btw.  Again, you are regurgitating the same old story.."If you are not happy with this site why do you waste time pointing out what you dont like".. Why should i not? Is it not better to point out the reasons why people are unhappy? I was doing that in the spirit of explaination. If you would rather satiate the pleasures of a few (yourself included?) at the discomfort of the majority, then that is your perogative. 
There is a bit of a difference between a forum for gay people and a forum for those who like to degrade fat people ...or don't you think so? 
If people arn't comfortable here because they don't like the fact that gay people have a forum then yes..move on they must...though i think these people are few and far between. I think fat people and some fas moving on from here because they have to 'experience' the degredation of fat people via fantasy is more understandable and likely. I think tolerance is in order... perhaps you need to tolerate the fact that people have oppinions and objections. 
I find it strange that i am singled out here, when infact i have only made a few posts and others have made many many more than me.... strange indeed!


----------



## Fascinita

lovesgaininggirls said:


> I say we go on loving fat bodies and leave the analysis to those who have the time and energy to do so.



I enjoyed reading your post, lgg, but I'm not sure I understand this last sentence. Would you clarify who is included in that "we," above?

And how do you see those who love fat bodies co-existing in the same community with those who want analysis? Do you think it should be "live and let live"?


----------



## gypsy

joswitch said:


> @gypsy - Cos BBW is a common abbreviation used in porn searches and the guy setting your firewall up is a lazy bum who uses a keyword blocker? Cos your boss wants you to do some work? ;P



Nah, I'm talking about everyone else in the world that doesn't have a cool boss like I do who doesn't care what I do on the internet, as long as my work is done. 

Seriously, on any given day you can look at how many people are on each board. The paysite board is always at least 4-5 times the population of any given board at any given time during the day. And most of those people are "guests". Nameless, faceless, and obviously not here to interact with the community at large (no pun intended ) So how does this phenomenon not equate with "fetish"?


----------



## bdog

gypsy said:


> Seriously, on any given day you can look at how many people are on each board. The paysite board is always at least 4-5 times the population of any given board at any given time during the day. And most of those people are "guests". Nameless, faceless, and obviously not here to interact with the community at large (no pun intended ) So how does this phenomenon not equate with "fetish"?



wut? :huh:


----------



## exile in thighville

JoyJoy said:


> Mods, I'd like to request that the name of this thread be changed to Dannyboy vs. The Harpies...since it "is" all about him, y'know.


----------



## katorade

exile in thighville said:


>



Aww, c'mon. Use your words. Dims has been so much more fun since I started imagining everything you say being spoken in a Swedish Chef voice.

"ooda loorve s'proo da noo cuhna foond fr desooves"


----------



## thatgirl08

JoyJoy said:


> This was precisely my point. I didn't mean to imply that one group "belongs" here more than another. In fact, in regard to the fetish stuff, I think a large portion of the time, the majority of people here try to be tolerant of each other's differences. But with it all mixed together, there are always going to be issues like this that pop up - always. People can say it's normal, it's part of the cycle, it works best this way....but if you have good people who get disenchanted every time there's controversy over it and leave, or if hard feelings are created between members, it's not working. There are always going to be smoldering embers of discontent on both sides that will be fanned into flames, causing some level of destruction.
> 
> I know how important and valuable it is to have a place where you feel comfortable with others who think like you do. On some level, it's what draws us to this place because we get a reward in being here. But when you have one group (not just a few) feeling brought down by something that the other group finds appealing, it's a no-win. Telling one group to suck it up and deal just to please the other group (and this could apply both ways) accomplishes nothing productive - only discord and resentment, in a never-ending cycle.



Maybe I misinterpreted your original post a little, and I'm sorry about that. I agree that both groups belong here, and I wish we could all coexist peacefully.



joswitch said:


> So there is a workable compromise "on the table" - a "DIMS is against RL fat-hatred but understand that some people kink that way, please only do it here" disclaimer over the "humiliation" sections of the library, which was what folks were loudly against (not feedism as such). And maybe less prominence to the libarary's subsections...
> 
> No-one loses the things they want, but hopefully everyone gets less of the things they don't want "in their face"... Folks from both "sides" seemed fairly cool with these ideas... So it's not all been butting heads...
> 
> Some of us have PM'd Conrad / Observer re. this...
> Maybe that'll help?



If a disclaimer is going to make this issue go away and make both sides feel comfortable, then I think it's a great idea. I'm just not 100% convinced that would satisfy everyone.


----------



## exile in thighville




----------



## Green Eyed Fairy

TraciJo67 said:


> Jazz hands ... jazz hands ... jazz hands. It works for me.


 
Best.chortle.of.the.day


----------



## thatgirl08

gypsy said:


> So... just for the curious onlooker, if this is not a fetish site why is this site blocked at 90% of corporate workplaces?



Where did this statistic come from?


----------



## JoyJoy

exile in thighville said:


>


 
Aww thanks! I *love* lemonade*! You're so sweet!

*pinches your cheek*


----------



## exile in thighville

ageism accusations : ageist condescension :: cake : eating it too


----------



## kayrae




----------



## Fascinita

SAT analogies : used by incoherent hipsters :: death : coming to the executioner


----------



## bbwsrule

I'm not going to wade through all the posts, on topic or not (so this might be repetitive), but dictionary.com defines a fetish (as it applies to sex) as:

"any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation".

Preference is defined in terms of preferring, so prefer is defined as:

"to set or hold before or above other persons or things in estimation; like better; choose rather than: to prefer beef to chicken".

So I guess anyone can define what they consider their "inclinations" to be.
I go with preference in my case. But, according to the fetish definition, if I get a habitual erotic response from breasts (they aren't genital, right?) then I have a fetish for breasts?

Sounds mostly like not much of a distinction, really.


----------



## Wild Zero

Disclaimer: This section of the board is 30 or more pages down from the top, if you're clicking here it isn't an accident if you stumble across some fairly extreme fetish fiction. If you're offended by humiliation or plot holes where protagonists spend a good chunk of their lives earning a doctorate just to make some fattening serum don't read them. 

Also magic. Who knew most magic books only concern making people really fat instantaneously?


----------



## katorade

Wild Zero said:


> Disclaimer: This section of the board is 30 or more pages down from the top, if you're clicking here it isn't an accident if you stumble across some fairly extreme fetish fiction. If you're offended by humiliation or plot holes where protagonists spend a good chunk of their lives earning a doctorate just to make some fattening serum don't read them.
> 
> Also magic. Who knew most magic books only concern making people really fat instantaneously?



30 or more pages? Correct me if I'm wrong, but go ahead and click on "Dimensions Forums" at the top of this page. Everything is listed on that one link, including the library, which is 1/3 of the entire page with 13 different sub-forums to choose from, all spelled out right in front of you. It's hardly in a hidey-hole. You'd have to be a simpleton not to stumble over it.


----------



## Wild Zero

katorade said:


> 30 or more pages? Correct me if I'm wrong, but go ahead and click on "Dimensions Forums" at the top of this page. Everything is listed on that one link, including the library, which is 1/3 of the entire page with 13 different sub-forums to choose from, all spelled out right in front of you. It's hardly in a hidey-hole. You'd have to be a simpleton not to stumble over it.



Library content is around 30 subforums down from the top of the page and can be blocked completely by simply clicking on the Discussion or Events & Community link at the top of those sections. 

And if we're going to act like the Library is something unsuspecting members wade into can we at least be honest about how easy it is to read the subheads on the library sections?



> *Extreme Special Interests Archive*
> Abductions, Immobility, Flatulence, Force and Mechanical Feeding



I wonder what could be in there? Probably some tame discussion on SA.



> *Erotica Archive*
> Reserved for genuine erotica; you don't like, you don't go there.



Aw that's all we get for a warning? Shouldn't it have a password so I don't accidentally go there when I'm randomly clicking links?


----------



## katorade

Wild Zero said:


> Library content is around 30 subforums down from the top of the page and can be blocked completely by simply clicking on the Discussion or Events & Community link at the top of those sections.
> 
> And if we're going to act like the Library is something unsuspecting members wade into can we at least be honest about how easy it is to read the subheads on the library sections?
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder what could be in there? Probably some tame discussion on SA.
> 
> 
> 
> Aw that's all we get for a warning? Shouldn't it have a password so I don't accidentally go there when I'm randomly clicking links?




What exactly is your point? I don't think you understand the motivation behind wanting a disclaimer.


----------



## wrestlingguy

thatgirl08 said:


> Where did this statistic come from?



Here's a question for you? Does it matter whether that stat was pulled out of her ass or not?

I have worked in several offices since my time on Dims since '97. In every case, I was unable to access this site. I think *most* people who are in the workforce will tell you the same.

Whether it's a lazy IT person, or someone who doesn't appreciate fat people, I think it's safe to say that most places disallow access to this site in the workplace.


----------



## NancyGirl74

Personal opinion here...

I don't think the Library should be hidden like a crazy cousin in the attic. It is what it is and it's been here longer than many of us posters. Still, a disclaimer is not a bad idea. If people are going to swimming beyond the waters they are used to it might be a good idea to give them a little warning about sharks. I mean I've wandered into a story with an innocent looking title and been hit between the eyes with waaay more information than I expected. Not a bad thing but not my thing. So, I back out of the door slowly and rarely do I return. A disclaimer seems like a fair heads up. 

Anything with characters under the age of 18 shouldn't be allowed. It just shouldn't. I don't care what your fantasy is or how freaky it is, not everything needs to be put out there for the public. Privately owned website or not we are still the public. Protect yourself, protect Dims, and protect children from creepers...just keep the underaged stuff out of the Library.

End of personal opinion.


----------



## elroycohen

I agree w/ what Nancygirl74 said. and since there are already warnings/descriptors in place as Wild Zero has noted I don't see a need to make any changes as far as adding a password or hiding the library.


----------



## Mack27

I've never had a problem coming to this site from work. Granted, I've only been at 2 different companies the past 13 years. I use google translate for stuff that is blocked though. I just pick translate Spanish to English and it leaves the English stuff alone.

We've had hardcore offensive to most-everybody stuff here for as long as there's been a here. I remember this one guy kept posting stories about women being fed to death in the html weight board. 

I find holier-than-thou attitudes trying to make everyone conform to their values and their sensibilities far more offensive than any story I've ever seen on this site. One persons freedom of expression is more important than another person's "right" not to be offended.

I haven't posted a story here in years, you can check out some of my stories in the old html weight room. I'm very tempted by this thread to try and write the most offensive to pedestrian sensibilities weight-gain fetishist feeder-fantasy story ever written and post it in the library.


----------



## thatgirl08

wrestlingguy said:


> Here's a question for you? Does it matter whether that stat was pulled out of her ass or not?
> 
> I have worked in several offices since my time on Dims since '97. In every case, I was unable to access this site. I think *most* people who are in the workforce will tell you the same.
> 
> Whether it's a lazy IT person, or someone who doesn't appreciate fat people, I think it's safe to say that most places disallow access to this site in the workplace.



Yes, I think it does matter whether she pulled it out of her ass or not. Just because one or two people have experienced something doesn't make it true for the thousands of people who access this site everyday. Maybe it is true, matter of fact I wouldn't be surprised if it was, but you can't base 99% of your 'argument' on a statistic you made up.


----------



## thatgirl08

Mack27 said:


> I've never had a problem coming to this site from work. Granted, I've only been at 2 different companies the past 13 years. I use google translate for stuff that is blocked though. I just pick translate Spanish to English and it leaves the English stuff alone.



Oh look. A person with a different experience than you.

Also, even if the site was blocked in 100% of work places, I don't see how that makes Dims a fetish site .. I'm sure plenty of work places block regular vanilla porn, how-to sex sites, etc. That just tells me Dims has sexual content on it. Is anyone surprised about this?


----------



## exile in thighville

i've always said that dims needs to be two sites, a work-safe one and a NSFW one. except it should really just give up the NSFW one.


----------



## tonynyc

wrestlingguy said:


> Here's a question for you? Does it matter whether that stat was pulled out of her ass or not?
> 
> I have worked in several offices since my time on Dims since '97. *In every case, I was unable to access this site*. I think *most* people who are in the workforce will tell you the same.
> 
> Whether it's a lazy IT person, or someone who doesn't appreciate fat people, I think it's safe to say *that most places disallow access to this site in the workplace*.



_
So true and even in places that do allow internet access to most sites- some things are just plain common sense after awhile... the amount of time that a person can spend on sites such as Dims- ESPN - Online Shopping etc. is monitored by the Company.

Some places say yes you can logon -but, you have to use discretion on when you do logon (during lunch time or after work ). 

That's why Firms terminated folks that chose to do "Day Trading" on the company dime. 

_





thatgirl08 said:


> Yes, I think it does matter whether she pulled it out of her ass or not. Just because one or two people have experienced something doesn't make it true for the thousands of people who access this site everyday. Maybe it is true, matter of fact I wouldn't be surprised if it was, but you can't base 99% of your 'argument' on a statistic you made up.



_
Statistics just gives information for that particular set of data at that time or time that the study was done. As far as Internet usage on work time- the only thing that matters is the policy of the company that you are working at.

Though given the tight and uncertain job market- more folks may be worried about keeping their job vs. whether they have full internet access or not 
_


----------



## Fascinita

katorade said:


> What exactly is your point? I don't think you understand the motivation behind wanting a disclaimer.



The disclaimer, as I understand it in terms of the discussion in this thread, is to discourage people who use the library from assuming that fantasy talk that portrays fat abuse and hatred of fat people is acceptable elsewhere on the board. In other words, it is to emphasize the line between fantasy talk and real interactions on the boards.

Likewise, a password would emphasize the boundaries between the Real and the Imaginary by making clear that one is "opting in" to the fantasy talk.

We already have a disclaimer that purports to tell those who might be offended by some material that the material may, in fact, be offensive.

This is not about fat people's overly sensitive natures.

This is about Dimensions finally taking a stance making it clear that it values and protects the interests of _all_ fat people (not just fat people who enjoy fantasy), even as it welcomes people who enjoy fantasy (among whom there are a number of fat people.)


----------



## Fallenangel2904

wrestlingguy said:


> Here's a question for you? Does it matter whether that stat was pulled out of her ass or not?
> 
> I have worked in several offices since my time on Dims since '97. In every case, I was unable to access this site. I think *most* people who are in the workforce will tell you the same.
> 
> Whether it's a lazy IT person, or someone who doesn't appreciate fat people, I think it's safe to say that most places disallow access to this site in the workplace.



I'd like to note its also disabled from my College's server. It says it contains sexually explicit content as being the reason it's blocked. There is sexual material on here, but It's not a pay site or anything- that I could obviously see them blocking. It irritates me to no end that I can't get on here when at school lol.


----------



## bdog

tonynyc said:


> Statistics just gives information for that particular set of data at that time or time that the study was done. As far as Internet usage on work time- the only thing that matters is the policy of the company that you are working at.



I think she was objecting to the willy nilly use of a percentage/statistic. If most of my friends like reading books I'm not going to say, "80% of people like reading books." 

For the record, I've worked at three companies since being a member of Dims and none of them blocked this site nor any sites, for that matter.


----------



## thatgirl08

tonynyc said:


> _
> Statistics just gives information for that particular set of data at that time or time that the study was done. As far as Internet usage on work time- the only thing that matters is the policy of the company that you are working at.
> 
> Though given the tight and uncertain job market- more folks may be worried about keeping their job vs. whether they have full internet access or not
> _





bdog said:


> I think she was objecting to the willy nilly use of a percentage/statistic. If most of my friends like reading books I'm not going to say, "80% of people like reading books."



Yeah, that was my point. It just seems like if you're going to make a loaded statement like DIMENSIONS IS A FETISH SITE then you should probably not back it up with a statistic that you made up, especially if that's the only thing you're using to back it up.


----------



## elroycohen

Fascinita said:


> The disclaimer, as I understand it in terms of the discussion in this thread, is to discourage people who use the library from assuming that fantasy talk that portrays fat abuse and hatred of fat people is acceptable elsewhere on the board. In other words, it is to emphasize the line between fantasy talk and real interactions on the boards.
> 
> Likewise, a password would emphasize the boundaries between the Real and the Imaginary by making clear that one is "opting in" to the fantasy talk.
> 
> We already have a disclaimer that purports to tell those who might be offended by some material that the material may, in fact, be offensive.
> 
> This is not about fat people's overly sensitive natures.
> 
> This is about Dimensions finally taking a stance making it clear that it values and protects the interests of _all_ fat people (not just fat people who enjoy fantasy), even as it welcomes people who enjoy fantasy (among whom there are a number of fat people.)



You know where I think the whole disclaimer/password system would really work is on the Discussion Boards. A disclaimer would give all the newbies fair warning before they jump in unaware with some naïve comment about how they dont find skinny women attractive and then get swiftly cut down by some 3,000 post veteran who had a bad day at work. Alot of hurt feelings could be avoided by this disclaimer idea.

The password system would also allow people to opt in to the discussions that are quite often vicious and immature. I know I sure would have appreciated something like that. I havent been out here very long and I already feel dirty and abused.


----------



## Fascinita

elroycohen said:


> You know where I think the whole disclaimer/password system would really work is on the Discussion Boards. A disclaimer would give all the newbies fair warning before they jump in unaware with some naïve comment about how they don’t find skinny women attractive and then get swiftly cut down by some 3,000 post veteran who had a bad day at work. Alot of hurt feelings could be avoided by this disclaimer idea.
> 
> The password system would also allow people to “opt in” to the discussions that are quite often vicious and immature. I know I sure would have appreciated something like that. I haven’t been out here very long and I already feel dirty and abused.



Since this is a site that purports to cater to fat people and their admirers, but not one that claims to cater to "newbs and their admirers" in particular, I'm afraid your post above is irrelevant to the discussion. But you know that, don't you? 

I'm sorry you haven't felt welcomed. Please enjoy this photo of a missed target as a gift.







Oh! Zut alors!


----------



## fatgirlflyin

elroycohen said:


> I already feel dirty and abused.



You should write a story about it.


----------



## Santaclear

elroycohen said:


> You know where I think the whole disclaimer/password system would really work is on the Discussion Boards. A disclaimer would give all the newbies fair warning before they jump in unaware with some naïve comment about how they don’t find skinny women attractive and then get swiftly cut down by some 3,000 post veteran who had a bad day at work. A lot of hurt feelings could be avoided by this disclaimer idea.
> 
> The password system would also allow people to “opt in” to the discussions that are quite often vicious and immature. I know I sure would have appreciated something like that. I haven’t been out here very long and I already feel dirty and abused.



I hadn't read any of your posts prior to this thread but going by my first impression you do seem dirty and abused.


----------



## elroycohen

fatgirlflyin said:


> You should write a story about it.



Or hijack a completely unrelated thread and whine about it for 40 pages.


----------



## fatgirlflyin

Yeah, but you've already participated in that. A story would bring something fresh and exciting to the table. Then you can spend even more time telling people how they should feel and think. Its a win for everyone!



elroycohen said:


> Or hijack a completely unrelated thread and whine about it for 40 pages.


----------



## mergirl

fatgirlflyin said:


> You should write a story about it.


A child called tit.


----------

