# How does it make you feel....



## wrench13 (Oct 28, 2006)

I went to a BBW Halloween dance last nite. Now, there are two BBW organizations in and around ***, I will not mention names. Upon seeing the founder for the one I attended, I noticed a dramatic difference in her size 
(way way smaller). I found out there had been some surgery involved. I also know the other founder and she has had a similar reduction in her size. 

The question is, how does that make the participants feel? 

Here are size-acceptance organizations, putting on BBW dances , etc; and once the organization gets popular and profitable, the owner gets surgury to get thin!

I know it made me feel: WTF is this????


----------



## LoveBHMS (Oct 28, 2006)

Can't size acceptance be broader than that?

Women's bodies, no matter what size they are always seem to be fair game. Too skinny, you must have an eating disorder; too fat, you're a worthless lowly piece of trash. If you color your hair or wear makeup, you're giving in to social brainwashing about how women should look and if you don't do those thing, you're not 'well groomed' or you've 'let yourself go' or 'don't take pride in your appearance.'

Should fat women be considered traitors to the SA cause because they decide to change their bodies? I can't see why. It's a personal choice, just as gaining or choosing to stay big is a personal choice. Size acceptance should mean accepting all sizes and respecting all women's choices about their bodies.


----------



## Missy9579 (Oct 28, 2006)

You dont always have to BE what you are supporting.

I whole heartedly support gay rights, although I am not gay. But that doesnt mean that I do not feel very passionate about it.

The positive is, I will never be gay, and try and support the rights, these women have been fat, and are trying to support SA. They have a first hand knowledge of what we go through.


----------



## NFA (Oct 28, 2006)

BBW Social groups aren't size acceptance organizations. Its a mistake to view them as such. As someone interested in fat politics, I wish that wasn't the case, but it is. As such, its unfair to expect from those communities what I'd expect fat fat acceptance activists. Simple as that.

Size Acceptance is ABSOLUTELY not about weight loss. Never has been, never will be. And while you don't need to be fat to believe in fat acceptance or size acceptance, you do need to believe in size acceptance to believe in size acceptance. No one is required to believe in size acceptance. I don't see fat activists storming the streets forcing their will on the masses. We're advocating for our beliefs and we should be allowed to do that. If someone wants to take a subjectivist approach to body issues, go nuts. But that is NOT size acceptance. Fat activists haven't been working hard for decades to make the world safe for dieters and fat hatred. Simply put, they don't need the help.


----------



## Punkin1024 (Oct 28, 2006)

How would that make me feel? Curious - I guess. If I were in a similar situation, I'd ask the ladies why they had the WLS. Although WLS would never be my choice, if I felt that reducing my size would make me feel better, I'd do something about it. I did go through some lifestyle changes a couple years back and as a result I dropped some weight. I left Dimensions because I was afraid I'd not be accepted here. I was wrong. I have since discovered that many people here are concerned for their health and are making changes. That doesn't mean we are bowing to societal pressure to be thin - heck I'm still fat, but I am much healthier. Anyway, that is my 2 cents on the subject.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Oct 28, 2006)

There are so many posts on here about reclaiming the word "fat" and people who are fat just saying "I'm fat" without believing there are any other personality or physical attributes attached to it.

I don't see how you can claim a woman's choice to lose weight means she "hates fat" or even "hates herself fat." There is a advice columnist in this month's Oprah who asks about weight loss because she plans to donate a kidney, and the hospital wants her at a lower weight prior to surgery. That has nothing to do with politics.

So long as women [and men] allow themselves to be split up by size or shape or appearance, the worse things get. Are fat women supposed to stay fat even if they choose another path just so they can be considered SA purists? That makes as much sense as saying "If you get above a certain size, you are no longer a valuable person."


----------



## bbwbabe (Oct 28, 2006)

For me I would know that even someone so obviously active in supoprting larger people still had major self-esteem issues to the point they had to get the surgery---------but --I admit to also being jealous of their ability to pay for it and also that they can fit into smaller clothes than me-but in the end I am terrified of the surgery and likely will die before I get it.


----------



## kathynoon (Oct 28, 2006)

When we go to events, and we are surrounded by others who accept us, we feel strong and able to work through all limitations and challenges. But when we go back to our day to day lifes, we many times have family and friends who get on us about their desire for us to lose weight. We many times go to jobs where they will not make any accomodations for our weight. We many times see our loved ones going off skiing, mountain climbings, playing sports and such while we painfully walk 10 feet and get out of breath. We many times also get diagnosed with 'fat' diseases by doctors who scare us into thinking we are going to drop dead any minute. Right or wrong, all of those things can drag you down and make you want to change. I would think those who had the surgery had gone through many hours of painful soul searching and decided that having the surgery would improve the quality of their lives.

I don't think as a community we should banish those who made the decision to have surgery. They may need our support then more than ever as they adjust to post-op complications, or to new feelings as their bodies change and the people in their lives change how they treat them.


----------



## bbwbabe (Oct 28, 2006)

Did I say "banish"? I did NOT ---I simply said it appears they were dissatisfied/unhappy/uncomfortable with their image/size /health--period. I dont then say you are unworthy to be my peer---it makes me realize they are MORE like me than ever.And as to them needing more support---well we ALL do need that we are all equal --those 20 lbs over and those 200 lbs over .


----------



## Jane (Oct 29, 2006)

Okay, once again, I have a good friend who had weight loss surgery 20 years ago.

It was a health issue, and her health has been wonderful since.

It isn't always self-esteem, sometimes its necessity.

Broaden your mind just a little. It's not really your business.


----------



## TheSadeianLinguist (Oct 29, 2006)

To echo Jane and Love:

Surgery is a personal choice.

One may have that surgery for a myriad of reasons.

Ultimately, people in fat acceptance should be expected to welcome and treat fat people with the same love and dignity as anyone else. That is all.


----------



## lemmink (Oct 29, 2006)

Hm. I've just jumped through a few different threads and have come to the conclusion that I agree with everything that LoveBHMS has ever said. Ever ever. Eh, I discovered I was completely anti-SA a few months ago, so I'm not to fussed 'bout those issues. 

I'd feel a little confused by the message the thinner owners gave only if they actually stopped being BBWs... after that, I think it might be a wise idea for them to hand over leadership to someone who was a bit more representative of the group. It might be a little alienating to new members to have thin leaders, much like Michael Jackson would have trouble leading the NAACP. Then again, I don't know anything about the group or what kind of accepting people the members are, so I'm really not very capable of making any judgement. I'd completely support their decision to have WLS, though, if that's what they wanted to do, and they certainly shouldn't be alienated from the group at large... 

Actually - and having just edited this post - there's a big difference between being an owner and being a postergirl. Now I'm completely confused and have no answer. Just, uh, mark my ballot as a dummy.


----------



## moonvine (Oct 29, 2006)

wrench13 said:


> I went to a BBW Halloween dance last nite. Now, there are two BBW organizations in and around ***, I will not mention names. Upon seeing the founder for the one I attended, I noticed a dramatic difference in her size
> (way way smaller). I found out there had been some surgery involved. I also know the other founder and she has had a similar reduction in her size.
> 
> The question is, how does that make the participants feel?
> ...



Well, as someone else said, "BBW dances" are not fat acceptance organizations.

I'm not saying that fat acceptance organizations can't put on "BBW dances," but an organization that exists solely to organize social events isn't an activist organization. That's like saying if I put on dances designed to attract and cater to African Americans that I serve the same purpose as the NAACP.

If I wanted to go to a "BBW dance" I'm not sure I would care who put the dance on. I'd care about whether or not I had a good time at the dance!


----------



## mossystate (Oct 29, 2006)

Yeah, how dare the woman live her own friggin life.


----------



## bbwbabe (Oct 29, 2006)

Jane said:


> Okay, once again, I have a good friend who had weight loss surgery 20 years ago.
> 
> It was a health issue, and her health has been wonderful since.
> 
> ...


Neither is it yours to critique my opinion-- is it Hon? As you know we are BOTH entitled to have an opinion and neither of us can say its wrong -as its OURS...so dont hold me to any standard higher than you jump to ok>:}?


----------



## rainyday (Oct 29, 2006)

lemmink said:


> Eh, I discovered I was completely anti-SA a few months ago, so I'm not to fussed 'bout those issues.



Lemmink, was that a typo? I haven't read all that many posts from you, but you've never seemed anti to me in the ones I have read.


----------



## Jes (Oct 29, 2006)

i skimmed the question, oops, but for me, there's probably slippage. The answer i want to give ('let everyone do as she/he sees fit') and the reality which is that sometimes, I do feel weird, etc. Mind you, i don't (or haven't) attend these sorts of events, so in that sense, I can't say, but ...


----------



## MoonGoddess (Oct 29, 2006)

Jane said:


> Okay, once again, I have a good friend who had weight loss surgery 20 years ago.
> 
> It was a health issue, and her health has been wonderful since.
> 
> ...




_I agree with you 100%. What a woman does with her body is HER business, not MINE.

If your health is suffering and WLS is a plausible solution, go for it if that is what you wish. Or don't. In either case, the individual must make the choice that is best for him/herself. And must live with that choice. 

Who are we to say?_


----------



## Jane (Oct 29, 2006)

bbwbabe said:


> Neither is it yours to critique my opinion-- is it Hon? As you know we are BOTH entitled to have an opinion and neither of us can say its wrong -as its OURS...so dont hold me to any standard higher than you jump to ok>:}?


Leave the ladies and gentlemen forced to make this decision alone. You can fight with me all you want to. I will fight back or not as I choose.


----------



## SamanthaNY (Oct 29, 2006)

MoonGoddess said:


> _I agree with you 100%. What a woman does with her body is HER business, not MINE.
> 
> If your health is suffering and WLS is a plausible solution, go for it if that is what you wish. Or don't. In either case, the individual must make the choice that is best for him/herself. And must live with that choice.
> 
> Who are we to say?_


Ditto!

A paying customer (presumably) enjoys all that the parties have to offer - and then judges the owners'/management worth by her size? And mentions size acceptance in the same breath? 


wrench13 said:


> I know it made me feel: WTF is this????


What the fuck, indeed.


wrench13 said:


> Now, there are two BBW organizations in and around ***, I will not mention names. Upon seeing the founder for the one I attended, I noticed a dramatic difference in her size


Your location is right under your avatar, so it's pretty evident who you might be talking about, at least in one instance. I know of her - she was in a wheelchair last year, and this year, she's walking more. She's also just as active in the community as when she was heavier. 


wrench13 said:


> The question is, how does that make the participants feel?


The bigger question, imo, is *why *does it make you feel anything other than concern for the woman (and not yourself)? I understand that FAs are rooted in their attraction to fat women (switch genders where applicable, dear readers). But your post smacks of an expectation and entitlement.... followed by, what... outrage almost? I find that disturbing.

What would happen if all the FAs came to Dim one day... and all the fat people were suddenly smaller? And getting smaller each day? That's an interesting story to write. Wonder if that will ever show up in the library.


----------



## LoveBHMS (Oct 29, 2006)

Jesus. I don't know these people. I had no idea when I posted a mild defense of women being qualified to make judgements about their bodies without having to worry about others' feelings, and you're saying that this woman's health was compromised to the point where she *couldn't walk* and she was supposed to worry about the social-political implications of her choice.

I read somewhere that some types of WLS have like a 1 in 200 chance of killing you. I saw a congressman on a news program who'd had the surgery, and he pointed out that those statistics were accurate, but that one only has the surgery if the patient's chances of dying without the surgery are greater.

As vital as health is, I don't think it's even the bigger point. No woman [or man] should have to rationalize her choices. How anyone else feels doesn't matter. What if she wanted to lose weight because she found a really really cute sweater that didn't come in plus sizes and dammit, she wanted that sweater.

That's the outrage here, that our bodies, our choices, are appearances, are inevitabley placed in the public realm where they don't belong.


----------



## Donna (Oct 29, 2006)

Why is it that some see any effort by a large sized person to lose weight as some type of betrayal of the Fat Acceptance movement? It doesn't matter if someone is seeing a nutritionist to eat better and actively working out to tone up, or attending Weight Watchers or even going through radical WLS to shed pounds. They are still called on the carpet. I know, because when I posted about a dramatic weightloss I had earlier this year, I was subjected to some very nasty emails calling me all kinds of names. 

I heard the story recently of a highly respected figure in the SA community who lost a great deal of weight due to an illness/surgery. She felt the need, when speaking to folks inquiring, to mention that it was not as a result of WLS. WHY? Why should she have to even justify or explain why and how she lost weight?

So I ask, why should it make the participants feel anything other than, "oh, she looks different"?


----------



## MissToodles (Oct 29, 2006)

I know which two ladies are being referenced. While both are considerably smaller, they are still fat! And even if they weren't, who cares? What people do for their own bodies, is their own business. As long as they don't preach to the choir, it doesn't bother me.


----------



## Ivy (Oct 29, 2006)

mossystate said:


> Yeah, how dare the woman live her own friggin life.



The nerve! Clearly she did this for attention and to upset people who attended her dances, not because she might have some underlying health issues she decides to keep private.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 29, 2006)

I like the posts by loveBHMS :bow: 

Also want to add that from what I read about WLS - it doesnt sound like a cakewalk- AT ALL
I know from the couple of small surgeries I have had that getting cut open and healing up is PAINFUL and what I had done is nowhere near what they do to your insides for WLS (Im speaking in terms of stomach stapling type procedures- someone please correct me if I am wrong in thinking that WLS stands for Weight Loss Surgery?)
My point is that to go to such an extreme measure to lose weight wasnt about her vanity but was more about her health and mobility- which seems like something we all enjoy. How could anyone fault someone for wanting such things?

Btw, I also think that someone who was at one time heavy and loses weight still understands all the implications of exactly what it "means to be fat". They dont change on the inside from losing weight-saying that they do sounds like the same type of ignorance as people treating me "better" when my weight is down. We are who we are irregardless of body size- that means we should accept not only large body types- but any body type.


----------



## KnottyOne (Oct 29, 2006)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Also want to add that from what I read about WLS - it doesnt sound like a cakewalk- AT ALL
> I know from the couple of small surgeries I have had that getting cut open and healing up is PAINFUL and what I had done is nowhere near what they do to your insides for WLS (Im speaking in terms of stomach stapling type procedures- someone please correct me if I am wrong in thinking that WLS stands for Weight Loss Surgery?)
> My point is that to go to such an extreme measure to lose weight wasnt about her vanity but was more about her health and mobility- which seems like something we all enjoy. How could anyone fault someone for wanting such things



Yea, surgery should be the last option for most physical problems. I've had more then my fair share, and I wouldn't wish most of them on anybody. More then likely, it was for a health issue, in which case, no one has any right to criticize her choices. And if it was becoming harder to walk, or even just live a normal life, then not supporting her choice is just cruel. Also, if your heart is in something (such as running one of these groups) why does size matter? If you care enough about something, why should we be hindered by a shell?


----------



## LoveBHMS (Oct 29, 2006)

Donnaalicious said:


> Why is it that some see any effort by a large sized person to lose weight as some type of betrayal of the Fat Acceptance movement? It doesn't matter if someone is seeing a nutritionist to eat better and actively working out to tone up, or attending Weight Watchers or even going through radical WLS to shed pounds. They are still called on the carpet. I know, because when I posted about a dramatic weightloss I had earlier this year, I was subjected to some very nasty emails calling me all kinds of names.
> 
> So I ask, why should it make the participants feel anything other than, "oh, she looks different"?



Some ladies on here may be old enough to recall an old feminists' slogan "the personal is political." Part of what it meant was that personal choices women make wind up having larger communal implications.

Look no further than another thread where two plus sized women are planning to go on a talk show about plus sized women. Numerous posters are upset over this and worried about how the community will be affected. So if you're a fat woman, and you go on television and discuss _your own personal feelings and experiences with being a fat woman_ then you are de facto [in some people's minds] representing every fat person and every FA in the world.

Women are always expected to worry about what others may think or how their personal choices may wind up being indicative of all women. 

I'm going to guess that the doctors who discussed surgery with their patients never gave a moment's consideration to how their social circle might react to the surgery. Women get denigrated by society for being fat, and then they join the SA movement and wind up getting denigrated for losing weight. Gotta love it.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Oct 29, 2006)

I remember going to a dance and almost 3/4 of the people in attendance had had wls of some type. While I don't think anyone should go on suffering if they don't have to it still makes me wonder what is says for size acceptance when you've got 22 people talking it up and 16 of them have had wieghtloss surgery. Can any passive onlooker take it seriously?

I agree with what many others say. Dances are not size acceptance. They're just parties for people of size and those who admire them. I often wonder though if size acceptance exists at all. Can anyone ever really be size accepting? If your size, be it too thin or too heavy, is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be causing you distress then you have to do something. You can still be anti descrimination against people because of their size but I wonder if the term 'size acceptance' is being applied in places where it shouldn't.


----------



## love dubh (Oct 29, 2006)

This controversy of whether a woman (as is this particlar case) is worth more when she weighs more and is worth less when she has WLS or engages in eating modifications/exercising whathaveyou...and her need to justify this choice to others (particularly men, in this case)...has glaring similarities to another women-centered topic: EC and abortion. When a woman has an abortion, people assume she did it "for convenience" (there was an anti-abortion demonstration at my Univ. this week, I heard it all, believe me). 

When a woman has WLS, people assume she did it to "fit in" with society, or "for convenience." Why do narrow-minded bigots think that spending from 500 dollars (for an abortion) to several THOUSANDS (for WLS, or whatever "change of diet" program)...accompanied with the recovery time (one week to...who knows?)...accompanied with the after-care...WHY DOES THIS EQUAL CONVENIENCE? 

This is NOT convenient. Going through drastic surgery is not convenient. It is neither considered LIGHTLY. What ultimately decides the course of action is the quality of life that will result from it. Someone pointed out that WLS isn't a cakewalk. Neither is abortion. Neither is a mastectomy or removing a lung or a kidney or having chemotherapy. Yet these surgeries/procedures are not labeled convenient. HOW DARE YOU NOT TAKE YOUR CANCER LIKE A WOMAN? SUCK IT UP, SOLDIER! HOW DARE YOU NOT TAKE YOUR WEIGHT-RELATED DISABILITIES/PAINS LIKE A WOMAN? SUCK IT UP, SOLDIER! 

Because your health doesn't matter, you know. It's what others think of you, whether you've became a traitor and unsexy (had WLS) or become a big whorey slutbag (for having an abortion).

Perhaps its because detractors are obsessed with women's bodies and have been for over 2000 years because it is the ONE thing they have absolutely no control over?


----------



## lemmink (Oct 29, 2006)

rainyday said:


> Lemmink, was that a typo? I haven't read all that many posts from you, but you've never seemed anti to me in the ones I have read.



I'm completely anti-SA, as I've had it since defined to me by the more radical SA advocates. I think it's fine for someone to lose weight or get WLS for whatever reason, and I don't think they're betraying anyone by doing it.


----------



## rainyday (Oct 29, 2006)

lemmink said:


> I'm completely anti-SA, as I've had it since defined to me by the more radical SA advocates. I think it's fine for someone to lose weight or get WLS for whatever reason, and I don't think they're betraying anyone by doing it.


Thanks for explaining that. I see how you meant it now. The radical definition of SA doesn't appeal to me much either.


----------



## Friday (Oct 30, 2006)

What hypocrisy to demand that people accept you at the size you choose to be while going on in the next breath to demand that others be the size you want them to be.

And Wrench, I see no difference between you and a man who suddenly loses interest in a woman who gains weight.


----------



## moonvine (Oct 30, 2006)

Friday said:


> What hypocrisy to demand that people accept you at the size you choose to be while going on in the next breath to demand that others be the size you want them to be.



One of the core tenets of the fat acceptance movement is that there really is not a lot of choice where one's size is involved. There are many ways to become temporarily thinner, but a good way hasn't been come up with yet to make fat people thin permanently.

I SO would not choose to be this size, but my choices are to diet and get temporarily thinner and regain all the lost weight + some more or to have my intestines rearranged, get A LOT thinner temporarily (that is, if I don't die) and regain the weight at a later time. I don't consider either of those to be a good choice, so I am staying this size. I guess that is still a choice, but it is the best available choice out of a lot of bad ones.

If we were chosing sizes, I'd choose 6.


----------



## KuroBara (Oct 30, 2006)

moonvine said:


> One of the core tenets of the fat acceptance movement is that there really is not a lot of choice where one's size is involved. There are many ways to become temporarily thinner, but a good way hasn't been come up with yet to make fat people thin permanently.
> 
> I SO would not choose to be this size, but my choices are to diet and get temporarily thinner and regain all the lost weight + some more or to have my intestines rearranged, get A LOT thinner temporarily (that is, if I don't die) and regain the weight at a later time. I don't consider either of those to be a good choice, so I am staying this size. I guess that is still a choice, but it is the best available choice out of a lot of bad ones.
> 
> If we were chosing sizes, I'd choose 6.


Ok, this is random but even with my WLS, I don't plan to be smaller than a 12. I don't want to be thin, I just want to be healthier. I would suppose these women also feel that way and that is why they are continuing to run "BBW/BHM/FA/FFA" parties. At any rate, why should I care?


----------



## Mary (Oct 30, 2006)

NFA said:


> Size Acceptance is ABSOLUTELY not about weight loss. Never has been, never will be.



Size acceptance IS about promoting health and self esteem regardless of size. It gave me the courage to try activities that were always reserved for thin people. I made some wonderful friends who have helped me learn to accept myself for who I am. As a result, I spent more of my time having fun and less of it drowning my sorrows in a pint of Haagen Daaz. As a result, I lost some weight. Was that the goal? No. The goal was to be happier and live a more fulfilling life. Weight loss was simply a side effect.

Now should I be ostracized from a community that's given me so much? Simply because I'm not quite as fat as I used to be? I'm still fat, and I will probably always be. I will certainly never starve myself to reach a certain size. I don't care what size I wear - I care that I'm happy, healthy, and enjoying life.


----------



## SamanthaNY (Oct 30, 2006)

I realize this is a topic either for another thread, or something that should be kept quiet forever... but I wish we, as a community, would figure this out once and for all. What, exactly IS the size acceptance movement? While I would like to define myself as pro-S.A. (and Fat Acceptance), like Lemmink, I'm also strongly opposed to some of the beliefs as stated by some of SA's more radical advocates. 

So what is the _real _definition? Who gets to decide what the core tenets of S.A. and F.A. are? I know someone is gonna answer "Naafa", but I already know Naafa does not speak for me - on a number of issues.

So perhaps that's my answer. I'm anti-S.A. too.


----------



## moonvine (Oct 30, 2006)

SamanthaNY said:


> I realize this is a topic either for another thread, or something that should be kept quiet forever... but I wish we, as a community, would figure this out once and for all. What, exactly IS the size acceptance movement? While I would like to define myself as pro-S.A. (and Fat Acceptance), like Lemmink, I'm also strongly opposed to some of the beliefs as stated by some of SA's more radical advocates.
> 
> So what is the _real _definition? Who gets to decide what the core tenets of S.A. and F.A. are? I know someone is gonna answer "Naafa", but I already know Naafa does not speak for me - on a number of issues.
> 
> So perhaps that's my answer. I'm anti-S.A. too.



I don't think that any group speaks for all members of the group. I'm a member of the Democratic party, even though their beliefs are not 100% in agreement with mine. No one's are, except for my fabulous Congressman.:wubu: :wubu: 

NAAFA has been out there speaking for fat people since 1969, which is more than anyone else has been doing. 

There's also ISAA, but they are almost a non-entity.

I think the core tenets of fat acceptance have been decided for a good number of years now. 

As far as I am concerned, all these internal squabbles are one of two main reasons that fat acceptance is going nowhere fast.


----------



## Ivy (Oct 30, 2006)

maire dubh said:


> This controversy of whether a woman (as is this particlar case) is worth more when she weighs more and is worth less when she has WLS or engages in eating modifications/exercising whathaveyou...and her need to justify this choice to others (particularly men, in this case)...has glaring similarities to another women-centered topic: EC and abortion. When a woman has an abortion, people assume she did it "for convenience" (there was an anti-abortion demonstration at my Univ. this week, I heard it all, believe me).
> 
> When a woman has WLS, people assume she did it to "fit in" with society, or "for convenience." Why do narrow-minded bigots think that spending from 500 dollars (for an abortion) to several THOUSANDS (for WLS, or whatever "change of diet" program)...accompanied with the recovery time (one week to...who knows?)...accompanied with the after-care...WHY DOES THIS EQUAL CONVENIENCE?
> 
> ...



shit, can i buy you a drink? i think i'm in love!


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 30, 2006)

moonvine said:


> One of the core tenets of the fat acceptance movement is that there really is not a lot of choice where one's size is involved. There are many ways to become temporarily thinner, but a good way hasn't been come up with yet to make fat people thin permanently.
> 
> I SO would not choose to be this size, but my choices are to diet and get temporarily thinner and regain all the lost weight + some more or to have my intestines rearranged, get A LOT thinner temporarily (that is, if I don't die) and regain the weight at a later time. I don't consider either of those to be a good choice, so I am staying this size. I guess that is still a choice, but it is the best available choice out of a lot of bad ones.
> 
> If we were chosing sizes, I'd choose 6.



I looked pretty damn good at size 14- Marilyn Monroe was a size 12
Even in the smaller sizes, big is better, imo


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Oct 30, 2006)

SamanthaNY said:


> I realize this is a topic either for another thread, or something that should be kept quiet forever... but I wish we, as a community, would figure this out once and for all. What, exactly IS the size acceptance movement? While I would like to define myself as pro-S.A. (and Fat Acceptance), like Lemmink, I'm also strongly opposed to some of the beliefs as stated by some of SA's more radical advocates.
> 
> So what is the _real _definition? Who gets to decide what the core tenets of S.A. and F.A. are? I know someone is gonna answer "Naafa", but I already know Naafa does not speak for me - on a number of issues.
> 
> So perhaps that's my answer. I'm anti-S.A. too.



Personally, I dont give a damn what the definition of SA is- I want to be accepted exactly how I am. That means I in turn accept others exactly how they are. As we all know here, not everyone is meant to be thin. Not everyone is meant to be fat. We are all human beings that can decide our own ideas of attractiveness and happiness. I dont want someone telling me my ideas of acceptance- hollywood and magazines have tried enough allready. Going to the opposite end of any spectrum is just as bad as the original offense, imo. Just how I see it.


----------



## love dubh (Oct 30, 2006)

Ivy said:


> shit, can i buy you a drink? i think i'm in love!



To answer that? Yes.

Shall I plan a roadtrip to Chicago this summer?


----------



## LoveBHMS (Oct 30, 2006)

Good point. Why does there have to be a definition of size acceptance beyond "People can be whatever size they want and it's nobody's business." It was a great point to say Wrench's "WTF" was as bad as a man deciding a woman isn't attractive if she's bigger----actually I think the "WTF" is worse because his thoughts about a woman's WLS went beyond whether or not he found her attractive at a different size, but that she should have thought about how others were going to feel about it. Like it mattered!!

Maire's comparison between SA and choice was excellent [and if you take Ivy up on her drink offer, and you want another drink, I'm in love too.] There is this public notion that women's bodies and choices should be tossed around the public arena, and that we are supposed to be held accountable for them. Why do you want that abortion? Why do you want that surgery? Worry about if your answers are acceptable to others.

I've seen a lot of posts here that twist size [or fat] acceptance into a thought process that says "If you make a choice to be smaller, it is only because you're brainwashed or because you have low self esteem and hate yourself fat and you're only doing something out of self hatred, not _possibly_ self love." F**k that.


----------



## Mini (Oct 30, 2006)

Size acceptance is accepting someone regardless of his or her size. Why this is deemed less worthy a pursuit than "Fat or fuck off!" is beyond me.


----------



## Ivy (Oct 30, 2006)

maire dubh said:


> To answer that? Yes.
> 
> Shall I plan a roadtrip to Chicago this summer?



YES! YES! YES!


----------



## love dubh (Oct 30, 2006)

Ivy said:


> YES! YES! YES!



Alright. But I need to find some other NJ/NY/PAers to come with me.


----------



## NFA (Oct 31, 2006)

Intentional weight manipulation is NOT size acceptance. Whether through disordered eating, drug dependancy, or organ amputation. End of discussion. No one has an obligation to agree with Size Acceptance, but neither does anyone have the right to redefine Size Acceptance to include beliefs the movement has always been against and exclude beliefs the movement has always been for by damning them with perjoratives like "radical" or "extremist". Size Acceptance isn't a weight loss support/advocacy movement. You can want to support weight loss or weight gain all you please, but its just not Size Acceptance. The status quo doesn't require an advocacy movement. The only purpose of those who want to redefine Size Acceptance to eliminate all of that pesky Size Accepting is to silence a quiet voice against an overwhelming chorus of weight negativity. We need that voice. The promise of weight loss is false. Its not been shown to be effective or safe or remotely beneficial. We need a voice which calls for a different way. Which pleads for end of the failure that has been fat hostility. That demands that the health and humanity of fat people be respected instead of constantly subjected to ineffective weight stigmatization. It is no surprise that some would find this quiet voice to be terribly threatening, but shame on them for trying to silence it rather than respect that others disagree with them. Size Acceptance is what it has ALWAYS been. If you disagree, that doesn't make you a traitor. It just means you disagree with Size Acceptance. If you cannot accept that implication, its your own problem. Size Acceptance cannot be redefined for the benefit of those who are opposed to it. That's not remotely fair to those who have put their time, energy, and faith into the Size Acceptance movement for decades.


----------



## Mini (Oct 31, 2006)

NFA said:


> Intentional weight manipulation is NOT size acceptance. Whether through disordered eating, drug dependancy, or organ amputation. End of discussion. No one has an obligation to agree with Size Acceptance, but neither does anyone have the right to redefine Size Acceptance to include beliefs the movement has always been against and exclude beliefs the movement has always been for by damning them with perjoratives like "radical" or "extremist". Size Acceptance isn't a weight loss support/advocacy movement. You can want to support weight loss or weight gain all you please, but its just not Size Acceptance. The status quo doesn't require an advocacy movement. The only purpose of those who want to redefine Size Acceptance to eliminate all of that pesky Size Accepting is to silence a quiet voice against an overwhelming chorus of weight negativity. We need that voice. The promise of weight loss is false. Its not been shown to be effective or safe or remotely beneficial. We need a voice which calls for a different way. Which pleads for end of the failure that has been fat hostility. That demands that the health and humanity of fat people be respected instead of constantly subjected to ineffective weight stigmatization. It is no surprise that some would find this quiet voice to be terribly threatening, but shame on them for trying to silence it rather than respect that others disagree with them. Size Acceptance is what it has ALWAYS been. If you disagree, that doesn't make you a traitor. It just means you disagree with Size Acceptance. If you cannot accept that implication, its your own problem. Size Acceptance cannot be redefined for the benefit of those who are opposed to it. That's not remotely fair to those who have put their time, energy, and faith into the Size Acceptance movement for decades.



You remind me of Nick Naylor.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Oct 31, 2006)

Mini said:


> You remind me of Nick Naylor.



I believe in Size Acceptance too, for now. I reserve the right to begin running in blind horror grasping for the first barbed wire rope they toss me if a festering ulcer appears that can't be cured.


----------



## GWARrior (Oct 31, 2006)

NFA said:


> Intentional weight manipulation is NOT size acceptance. Whether through disordered eating, drug dependancy, or organ amputation. *End of discussion.*



Dude, i dont think you can just... end it. Cause like... only GOD can do that.


----------



## Mini (Oct 31, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> I believe in Size Acceptance too, for now. I reserve the right to begin running in blind horror grasping for the first barbed wire rope they toss me if a festering ulcer appears that can't be cured.



You remind me of Lilly. I like her.


----------



## Mary (Oct 31, 2006)

NFA said:


> Intentional weight manipulation is NOT size acceptance. Whether through disordered eating, drug dependancy, or organ amputation. End of discussion.



I'm for health. I agree with you that weight loss is not necessarily a path to better health, and often times, it just makes things worse (especially in the case of WLS). There are lots of people who are wonderfully healthy at 500 lbs. That's fantastic. I wouldn't change a thing. PERSONALLY, I was pre-diabetic and needed to change something. I changed what I eat, but I do NOT consider it to be a disordered diet. I love food, I enjoy what I eat, and I do not go hungry. I'll repeat that better health was my primary goal - not weight loss.

But according to your definition, I don't agree with size acceptance. I don't think anyone should be discriminated against because of their weight. I don't think weight loss is the magical solution to all of our ailments. I don't agree with doctors who will blame any (unrelated) problems on a patient's fat. I don't think weight loss is possible for a lot of people, and I do not think places like Jenny Craig and Weight Watchers should be allowed to exploit fat people selling something that does not work for (and causes harm to) 99% of their customers. But, I guess I don't agree with size acceptance. So much for that.


----------



## GWARrior (Oct 31, 2006)

man im all confused. people saying theyre anti-SA, other saying what SA is.

*sigh* :doh: *goes back to eating leftover Halloween candy*


----------



## Ho Ho Tai (Oct 31, 2006)

wrench13 said:


> The question is, how does that make the participants feel?
> 
> WTF is this????



Wrench13 - Now that I've got your attention, thought you might get a kick out of this article. Sorry about hi-jacking (or hi-jilling) the thread.

I quoted your question, because I bet these participants felt great!

http://www.americasheartland.org/episodes/episode_202/womans_touch.htm


----------



## lemmink (Oct 31, 2006)

Thanks, NFA & Mary. That's exactly why I'm against SA. 

I'd previously seen SA as a movement akin to the feminist movement - a group's belief in the same rights and treatment for people of all different sizes. Like Mary, I'd figured that it was simply a case about a person's rights to equal treatment, and didn't impose restrictions on the very people who would seek the support of SA advocates in the first place. That's the only reason I ever (ignorantly) said I agreed with SA when I originally came to the board.

I call it 'radical SA' supporting because I think SA is a radical concept. I recognise that it's important to create a place and community for people who don't want to hear about dieting or WLS - but I think that people being judged for their actions outside that community to help their health (or heck, their self image) is pretty horrible. I think SA fails the fat community partly because it doesn't take into account individual circumstances and feelings - but mainly because SA seems to have become the major 'truth' in fat-advocacy groups. This means that a fair wad of the fat community are effectively excluded from taking part in their groups. I don't think alienating _anyone_ is a good way to push forward a cause.


----------



## Friday (Nov 1, 2006)

> Intentional weight manipulation is NOT size acceptance. Whether through disordered eating, drug dependancy, or organ amputation. End of discussion.



Why do I get the distinct feeling that intentional weight manipulation wouldn't be a problem for you NFA if it was weight going up instead of down?


----------



## bigsexy920 (Nov 1, 2006)

Well, I know of one of the women that I think you are talking about. I remember how hard it was for her to walk in years past and the last time saw her she was dancing and actually enjoying an event. AND she was still a BBW. Seems to me it helped her with her quality of life and it bothers me a little .... well alot that it would piss you off. How selfish can YOU be. Here is a woman that has spent many many years putting her time and effort into a place where people like us can meet and have a venue to socialze on a regular basis. It's beyond me that a person could be so self centered to think that she can't live her live as she sees fit. 

Look past what you see and see the person not the size.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 2, 2006)

One thing I hate is these people who think SA only applies those who don't lose weight. 

Size acceptance is about accepting yourself as well as others no matter what size! It is also the fact that you have to be thin to be healthy. 

We have to be supportive our those who eat healthier and execrise more to become healhier. And, we should understand that the amount of weight change that happens varies for person to person. And, then there is the fact that it usually comes back. 

Because, what would people think about SA if we don't give people the choice to be as healthy as they can be?


----------

