# Are you worth date?



## superodalisque (Jan 21, 2014)

it's typical for everyone to keep things very casual. no one seems to want to make demands on anybody, especially women. but really and truly do fat people feel they are actually worth a date?


----------



## penguin (Jan 21, 2014)

You want us to speak for all fat people everywhere?


----------



## Dromond (Jan 21, 2014)

I thought we were all individuals.


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 21, 2014)

And then, in aggregate, we'll get a better sense of the broader complexion of what type of vibe others might be getting from fats across the board. Which might, at some level, account for how we're all treated.

For my part, I would say I am worth "a date." For many. But much more than that for a smaller & more selective group. But, it's necessarily conditional, based on a person's appreciation of what I have to offer. If they don't "get" me, then it's sort of like a person who really wants a Toyota Camry winding up having to drive a _Kettenkraftrad_. Fun, yes; makes for an interesting story. But not a long-term solution.

But, as you (*superodalisque*) suggest, more and more of us (people-in general) are beginning to see ourselves like this. Especially as we get older. i.e. We're becoming that much more selective...just as our range of selection narrows. And seem to be totally fine with it, even if that works out to being alone in lieu of having to deal-with anyone else.


----------



## penguin (Jan 21, 2014)

Dromond said:


> I thought we were all individuals.



Nope. We are Borg. Assimilation is achieved through eating each other. We are one.

I get that SuperO is probably trying to stir up some conversation, but topics like this piss me off. They're not asking if we think that we are worthy, or what journey our self esteem has taken, but how all of fat-kind think and operate, like we're one beast. Questions like these are also filled with ridiculous, unproved statements such as "it's typical for everyone to keep things very casual." Really? Throw me some references.

I am worth dating. I am not everyone's cup of tea, but I'm someone's cup of coffee. I'm not perfect, but I don't look for perfection. When I was younger, I thought I wouldn't be able to get what I wanted and needed, and should settle for whatever I got, douchebag or not. I no longer feel that way. I'm worth it.


----------



## Blackjack (Jan 21, 2014)

Clearly the opinion of any member in a community is indicative of the opinions of all members in that community, no matter what it is that brings the members of that community together or in what manner they disagree on anything else.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jan 21, 2014)

penguin said:


> Nope. We are Borg. Assimilation is achieved through eating each other. We are one.
> 
> I get that SuperO is probably trying to stir up some conversation, but topics like this piss me off. They're not asking if we think that we are worthy, or what journey our self esteem has taken, but how all of fat-kind think and operate, like we're one beast. Questions like these are also filled with ridiculous, unproved statements such as "it's typical for everyone to keep things very casual." Really? Throw me some references.
> 
> I am worth dating. I am not everyone's cup of tea, but I'm someone's cup of coffee. I'm not perfect, but I don't look for perfection. When I was younger, I thought I wouldn't be able to get what I wanted and needed, and should settle for whatever I got, douchebag or not. I no longer feel that way. I'm worth it.



As always, Superodalisque is initiating great topics of discussion. I think BBWs and BHMs are worth dating; the question is whether they are willing to abandon their computers and leave their houses in order to be dated.


----------



## snuggletiger (Jan 21, 2014)

Well said 



penguin said:


> Nope. We are Borg. Assimilation is achieved through eating each other. We are one.
> 
> I get that SuperO is probably trying to stir up some conversation, but topics like this piss me off. They're not asking if we think that we are worthy, or what journey our self esteem has taken, but how all of fat-kind think and operate, like we're one beast. Questions like these are also filled with ridiculous, unproved statements such as "it's typical for everyone to keep things very casual." Really? Throw me some references.
> 
> I am worth dating. I am not everyone's cup of tea, but I'm someone's cup of coffee. I'm not perfect, but I don't look for perfection. When I was younger, I thought I wouldn't be able to get what I wanted and needed, and should settle for whatever I got, douchebag or not. I no longer feel that way. I'm worth it.


----------



## Shosh (Jan 21, 2014)

Why do people feel the need to be mean about Felecia's post? She is just putting a question out there for discussion. She did not give her personal opinion.
I often see her get picked on here, and it is not very nice at all.

I do feel worthy to date. As a woman in my 40's I am very comfortable in my skin, and at peace with who I am.

I probably could not have said that in my 20's.


----------



## tonynyc (Jan 21, 2014)

Yakatori said:


> ... But, as you (*superodalisque*) suggest, more and more of us (people-in general) are beginning to see ourselves like this....





penguin said:


> ...Questions like these are also filled with ridiculous, unproved statements such as "it's typical for everyone to keep things very casual." Really? Throw me some references.
> 
> I am worth dating. I am not everyone's cup of tea, but I'm someone's cup of coffee. I'm not perfect, but I don't look for perfection. When I was younger, I thought I wouldn't be able to get what I wanted and needed, and should settle for whatever I got, douchebag or not. I no longer feel that way. I'm worth it.



*The question is open to various points of interpretation and only SuperO can clarify that ;but... One way to look at it 

1. to go through a self -assessment at some point is a good thing - not only for relationships ;but, career, goals any specific issue that one is confronted with.

*




CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> As always, Superodalisque is initiating great topics of discussion. I think BBWs and BHMs are worth dating; the question is whether they are willing to abandon their computers and leave their houses in order to be dated.



*

The question is not so much whether one should abandon their computers- but, to develop the necessary social skills and awareness of dating larger people.*



Blackjack said:


> Clearly the opinion of any member in a community is indicative of the opinions of all members in that community, no matter what it is that brings the members of that community together or in what manner they disagree on anything else.


----------



## Dromond (Jan 21, 2014)

Shosh said:


> Why do people feel the need to be mean about Felecia's post? She is just putting a question out there for discussion. She did not give her personal opinion.
> I often see her get picked on here, and it is not very nice at all.
> 
> I do feel worthy to date. As a woman in my 40's I am very comfortable in my skin, and at peace with who I am.
> ...



I like SuperO a lot, but this sort of question leaves me cold. Blanket statements just tossed out as discussion fodder are tiresome, and not typical of her. She's usually much more articulate than that.


----------



## tonynyc (Jan 21, 2014)

Dromond said:


> I like SuperO a lot, but this sort of question leaves me cold. Blanket statements just tossed out as discussion fodder are tiresome, and not typical of her. She's usually much more articulate than that.



Well it's a blanket statement (open to a variety of interpretations) - and unless you are going to have some sort of a anonymous survey - you may not get the detailed answers you want AND it depends how individuals feel.

One could ask the question of SuperO to provide clarification


----------



## Ms Charlotte BBW (Jan 21, 2014)

From personal experience, I have to agree with Shosh. Now at the age of 43, I certainly feel worth a date. I am just as good, pretty, attractive, nice, etc. (if not better!) than any skinny girl out there. Now had this question been asked to me in my younger years, I would have said no, since I wasn't comfortable in my own skin back then.


----------



## snuggletiger (Jan 21, 2014)

Its nice to see people grow and evolve into being happy.


----------



## Mathias (Jan 21, 2014)

I can't imagine why anyone would answer no to this question. Also, fat or thin, everyone is deserving of a date.


----------



## penguin (Jan 21, 2014)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> the question is whether they are willing to abandon their computers and leave their houses in order to be dated.



Way to assume that every fat person is a recluse, slothful, and lives on their computer 24/7. It's not like they're people and have like, personalities or lives or anything.



Shosh said:


> Why do people feel the need to be mean about Felecia's post? She is just putting a question out there for discussion. She did not give her personal opinion.
> I often see her get picked on here, and it is not very nice at all.



Because this was her question: 



superodalisque said:


> but really and truly do fat people feel they are actually worth a date?



It's not a good question. It's a broad, sweeping generalisation where we're meant to answer for all of fatkind, like we're hive-minded beasts. Your experiences are not mine, just like mine aren't yours. The question would have been better phrased asking for individual experiences and insight, such as "Do you feel that your weight and/or appearance has impacted your date-ability?" Not "Tell me what all fat people have felt, because you're all clones."



tonynyc said:


> 1. to go through a self -assessment at some point is a good thing - not only for relationships ;but, career, goals any specific issue that one is confronted with.



It is, and it's necessary. We are constantly evolving, so looking back at how we were, and looking forward to how we want to be, are important.




Mathias said:


> I can't imagine why anyone would answer no to this question. Also, fat or thin, everyone is deserving of a date.



Yes, everyone is deserving of a date. I know that when I was younger, I never thought I was deserving of the good stuff. I thought I would just have to settle for what I was given, because "no one likes fat chicks" - which is the message I got repeatedly. I know many here have felt the same, and also that many here didn't grow up with that message. The influence of friends, family, the media, and society in general can beat us down until we think we're not allowed to ask for what we want, because no one's going to want us enough to give it to us.

I got past that, thankfully.


----------



## EMH1701 (Jan 21, 2014)

I am absolutely worth a date. I don't know about how everyone else wants to rate themselves, so I will only speak for me. I am worth a date.


----------



## Blackjack (Jan 21, 2014)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> As always, Superodalisque is initiating great topics of discussion. I think BBWs and BHMs are worth dating; the question is whether they are willing to abandon their computers and leave their houses in order to be dated.



"Fat people would be so dateable if they actually left the house ever. You never see them in public, only in their natural habitat bathed in the glow of a monitor."


----------



## Jah (Jan 21, 2014)

I think everyone is worthy of dating. I think as a mentally ill person that dating can be somewhat difficult for me, however I've been married for 10 years so I guess I must be worthy somehow.


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 21, 2014)

There are times or points in my life when I've felt like I am probably not the best deal out there for someone looking to explore....what's out there. And I don't think everyone, necessarily, is _deserving_ of "a date." I mean, frankly, some of us (and indeed some people-in general) should probably NOT be dating. For their own sake and the sake of others. Hmm..I guess it sort of depends on what we actually mean by the term "date." (As if we could all universally agree on that.) To me, implied in the term "date" is a degree of open-endedness. That, necessarily, things might progress in any number of ways depending on "how it goes." If the outcome is expressly predetermined, ie. "_We're not going to see each other ever again after this_," then that's not really...it doesn't quite fit into how I think most people imagine such an experience.



penguin said:


> "_They're not asking if we think that we are worthy, or what journey our self esteem has taken, but how all of fat-kind think and operate...filled with ridiculous, unproved statements such as "it's typical for everyone to keep things very casual." Really? Throw me some references._"


I'm open to that you guys know her a bit better than I, but I didn't really take it in quite that way. The first part, I think -is- part of the intended question. But in the second, I sense that she's more pointing to how...in a group...the behavior and mindset of other fellow members can inform how any of us are treated by outsiders. Which is, fairly-I think, an observation that arouses some controversy. (In so many ways, not least of which for how it might seem to take responsibility or moral agency away from the people who are actively engaged in said treatment only to put it onto those who're otherwise-bystanders, but for their being part of said group)

Another issue seems to hinges on the interpretation of the word "_typical_;" which, on my research of the definition, first supports what I think is your reading of it, as in (sort of paraphrasing here): '_not merely 'normal' but indicative of a 'type.'_ As in the "let's-keep-it-casual-thing" is somehow, but particularly-so, an experience more common to fat people. But I'm not so sure if that's really what she meant. Because I'm, myself, inclined to think otherwise, that's more of an...across-the-board modern-world type of phenomenon. Albeit one that some fat people might internalize a bit differently, ie. "_This is happening.....because I'm fat_." Which, frankly, I'm inclined to think -is- typical. But I mainly suspect-so based on what I see in threads here. And, of course, my own personal interactions with both fat-people & people-in-general.


----------



## tonynyc (Jan 21, 2014)

Yakatori said:


> There are times or points in my life when I've felt like I am probably not the best deal out there for someone looking to explore....what's out there. And I don't think everyone, necessarily, is _deserving_ of "a date." I mean, frankly, some of us (and indeed some people-in general) should probably NOT be dating. For their own sake and the sake of others.
> Hmm..I guess it sort of depends on what we actually mean by the term "date." (As if we could all universally agree on that.) To me, implied in the term "date" is a degree of open-endedness.




You bring up at interesting point ...

1. some folks are not "date worthy"
2. what degree of "dating" is being considered


----------



## wrestlingguy (Jan 21, 2014)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> As always, Superodalisque is initiating great topics of discussion. I think BBWs and BHMs are worth dating; the question is whether they are willing to abandon their computers and leave their houses in order to be dated.



I'm not going to speak for Felicia, but I can certainly speak about her, and this post.

I know a lot of you dislike her posts. Some of you don't like HER. That's up to you. Here's the thing....A week ago, a thread about "our own rock star" Zsalynn stirred up a shitstorm of drama and insults, to the point where the mods (or harbingers of death, depending on your perspective) killed the thread before tempers could calm down and people could actually discuss the issues without the venom that took the thread over. 

The thread started by SuperO here is quite innocuous, and may have been in response (not by topic, but just a safer tone) to the thread that was closed. It's sort of like after everyone throws gas & sets each other on fire, and one person speaks up afterward and says "Hey, did anyone watch Shameless last night?"

The Main Board in the Dimensions Forums is so people can discuss size/size acceptance issues. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't her question a size acceptance issue? Can anyone explain why you'd question why she asked this question?

Here's the truth. About 60% of all threads in this forum are started by SuperO. Occasionally, a few people (including me) will add something that could be worthy of discussion. Quite frankly, some of the other posts in this forum are either irrelevant to the board ("Please Delete Me", or "Whatever Happened To?" come to mind), or don't stimulate any conversation. So, what the readers of the board here are subjected to (in my opinion) is a sanitized version of the Main Board where little actually pertinent to fat people and their issues get discussed, or when it does and things get personal (we are generally passionate people here), threads get closed, posts get deleted, people get banned, and nothing gets accomplished. So, do you want to talk about the weather? 

I think most of you should thank Felicia for at least trying to generate some dialogue on a board that used to have so much discussion. I get that you may disagree with her (I disagree with her often), and I get that to some of you her posts sound repetitive (which I can do as well, which is trying to rephrase something to perhaps make the point more understandable from a different perspective).

I took some time off again from Dimensions to write a couple of blogs, and get away from what I see almost as a cleansing of fat history. Conrad is proud of his 2 millionth post, and should be, as this is still one of the better places to visit if you're fat, or into fat. With that said, I'd love to know how many posts (some of which might have been valuable to some people, despite the snark, hate, name calling and cursing) were flushed down the toilet thanks to the moderation. This isn't an indictment of the mods here, but I have to say that if someone who's participated & contributed here had something to say, there really isn't a reason to delete it, or stop dialogue from continuing again, once people calm down.

Honestly, as an avid size acceptance blogger/reader, I have a lot to contribute, but I hold back because I feel like there's no longer a community to speak of here. I'm more than content to share my links, activities and thoughts through my blogs, but at times feel like posting here doesn't have the same effect that my blogs have, since I actually get more readers to my blogs than I get to my posts here, and that's sad to see, as I've in the past viewed Dimensions as the largest & best place to post and get dialogue in return.

So, this post is more about Felicia than anything else, and while I do want to thank Conrad, and congratulate him on his great accomplishment, I also want to commend SuperO for continuing on here, attempting to initiate dialogue when many don't even know what a size acceptance issue really is.


----------



## penguin (Jan 21, 2014)

The original post was badly written. Her intent may have been good, but the execution failed. I'm all for discussing self esteem issues, dating, what it's like being a fat girl trying to find self worth - but that's not what her question SAID. I shouldn't have to read between the lines and GUESS as to what a question is. I also shouldn't have to try to brush aside sweeping generalisations to get to the heart of the matter.


----------



## Shosh (Jan 21, 2014)

wrestlingguy said:


> I'm not going to speak for Felicia, but I can certainly speak about her, and this post.
> 
> I know a lot of you dislike her posts. Some of you don't like HER. That's up to you. Here's the thing....A week ago, a thread about "our own rock star" Zsalynn stirred up a shitstorm of drama and insults, to the point where the mods (or harbingers of death, depending on your perspective) killed the thread before tempers could calm down and people could actually discuss the issues without the venom that took the thread over.
> 
> ...


Exactly! Here here! Well said.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 21, 2014)

tonynyc said:


> You bring up at interesting point ...
> 
> 1. some folks are not "date worthy"
> 2. what degree of "dating" is being considered



Regarding item number 2 I'm going to assume that we're talking about long-term relationships (the calculus is very different if we're just talking hooking up).

Addressing the first point -- as much as many people may protest the choosing of mates is basically an economic process wherein the parties seek to strike the best deal possible. A person's datability is determined by what can be described as that person's romantic capital. An abundance of such things as health, wealth, education, and good looks increase a person's romantic capital. Things like a criminal record, poverty, and poor health decrease a person's romantic capital.

Weight by it self is an interesting factor in that it can be seen as a positive by some people and a negative by others. Weight can, however, indirectly affect more generic sources of romantic capital. For example a fat person who chooses to forgo college because of his or her weight has made a decision that will lower their romantic capital and greatly reduce the probability of them dating a high status person.

I know this sounds awful cold but if we're honest with ourselves we all know that this is the way the world operates.


----------



## CastingPearls (Jan 21, 2014)

To answer the OP....yes. I am worth a date. I am worth a relationship. I am worth a lifetime. It took me over 40 years to truly believe that in spite of my flaws, failings, and flailings, I am worth it.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 22, 2014)

to people who wanted an elaboration:

i had just finished watching a t.v. discussion about women trying for a relationship rather than a hook up,hang out partner or friends with benefits etc.... it wasn't aimed at fat women or thin women, just all women. part of the discussion explored why women who wanted a relationships had one night stands and friends with benefits etc... instead when they were ready for something more or at least different. one theory was that the media beats up on all women of all stripes so much that they no longer feel the kind of self worth that makes them think that they are actually worth a formal date. instead they feel they have to compete with sports porno and other things and that asking for the effort and planning of a formal date centered on them and what they like is just asking for too much. 

even though we have the exact same issues as other women, fat women also have some differences. we have different and specific social pressures to deal with that might affect our ability to ask for or even think we will/can actually date formally like social scrutiny. it can be hard enough to date anyway without all of the extra attention and commentary. some also deal with fat culture which has it's own social characteristics, some of which don't require much one on one or sometimes even in person formal dating. just like average dating culture we also now rely heavily on texting skype etc... instead. sometimes out of preference but sometimes out of a necessity that other people don't always have to deal with. technology can become an even more important tool when people are having a hard time finding the kind of mutual attraction they want close to home. sometimes it's also of value out of design when people find it easier to get their feet wet in the relationship world and distance can be a kind of buffer when they have specific needs and concerns. even the logistics of just getting around and getting to the different venues comfortably to have a date can appear to affect formal dating. 

so we end up also having our own specific pressures to deal with concerning our own expectations for relationships and the effort we expect other people to have to put out to date us in a formal way. like a lot of women we can end up sometimes feeling like, or be made to feel like, we are asking for way too much if we want to actually date formally since it can require even more thought and effort.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 22, 2014)

Yakatori said:


> There are times or points in my life when I've felt like I am probably not the best deal out there for someone looking to explore....what's out there. And I don't think everyone, necessarily, is _deserving_ of "a date." I mean, frankly, some of us (and indeed some people-in general) should probably NOT be dating. For their own sake and the sake of others. Hmm..I guess it sort of depends on what we actually mean by the term "date." (As if we could all universally agree on that.) To me, implied in the term "date" is a degree of open-endedness. That, necessarily, things might progress in any number of ways depending on "how it goes." If the outcome is expressly predetermined, ie. "_We're not going to see each other ever again after this_," then that's not really...it doesn't quite fit into how I think most people imagine such an experience.
> 
> I'm open to that you guys know her a bit better than I, but I didn't really take it in quite that way. The first part, I think -is- part of the intended question. But in the second, I sense that she's more pointing to how...in a group...the behavior and mindset of other fellow members can inform how any of us are treated by outsiders. Which is, fairly-I think, an observation that arouses some controversy. (In so many ways, not least of which for how it might seem to take responsibility or moral agency away from the people who are actively engaged in said treatment only to put it onto those who're otherwise-bystanders, but for their being part of said group)
> 
> *Another issue seems to hinges on the interpretation of the word "typical;" which, on my research of the definition, first supports what I think is your reading of it, as in (sort of paraphrasing here): 'not merely 'normal' but indicative of a 'type.' As in the "let's-keep-it-casual-thing" is somehow, but particularly-so, an experience more common to fat people. But I'm not so sure if that's really what she meant. Because I'm, myself, inclined to think otherwise, that's more of an...across-the-board modern-world type of phenomenon. Albeit one that some fat people might internalize a bit differently, ie. "This is happening.....because I'm fat." Which, frankly, I'm inclined to think -is- typical. But I mainly suspect-so based on what I see in threads here. And, of course, my own personal interactions with both fat-people & people-in-general.*




i think a lot of people do think they don't get asked out formally because of their size i.e. because the guy is in the closet or does not want to deal with any of the "difficulties". but, a lot of my friends of average size are in a similar situation. so any differences fat women may have are really up for debate because there just isn't truly any way to prove it. it could just be an easy out for people have no intention of formally dating anyone of any size anyway since the bare emotional intention behind formally dating someone can be very scary to people who might not be sure if they are ready.


----------



## Extinctor100 (Jan 22, 2014)

I'm not fat by any stretch of the imagination, but I keep company with a lot of fat people, both men and women. Personally, I enjoy being around them more than my thin or "average" friends. Many of them shunned or teased growing up, they have a real appreciation for having an honest, real friend and they don't take those kinds of friends for granted. People in general seem to have a lot more importance to them...

I talked with a woman recently who's part of a fat-positive Facebook group I comment in frequently. She and I were chatting and I took a second to compliment her that she was a very articulate, well-spoken person and that I was really interested in her topic. I didn't realize that she saw herself as an awkward obstacle of a human being who had to talk fast before her audience is repulsed or bored, until she replied with a lot of emotion and happiness about my really simple compliment! It's very easy to miss that some people really don't know their worth, so I discover this wealth inside people every day.

So it's just my personal experiences... But when I consider the question (and thank you SuperO for elaborating on it) may I say that I truly believe there's a vast number of fat people who are definitely worth a date. They're worth exclusive, special attention and the courtesy of being formally presented with it. So while I can't speak as a fat person to answer the question, I can tell any fat person reading this that if your unvoiced answer is "no," that I really believe _you are worth it._


----------



## loopytheone (Jan 22, 2014)

I can't answer for the population as a whole obviously or for anybody else but I can answer this question for myself.

For most of my life I have had absolutely no interest in dating. I got bullied into a couple of relationships in my teenage years thanks to my friends but they all lasted less than a week because I just wasn't interested. One reason (of many) why I wasn't interested in dating was because I set such high standards for my partner. They had to be perfect, to know when to leave me alone, when to comfort me, how to make me laugh and to have a never ending supply of love and patience and honestly I figured such a perfect example of a human being didn't exist and I wasn't willing to settle for anything less. 

As it happens, I somehow managed to find said perfect human being (in my eyes) completely out of the blue. And never once did I have any hesitation in making the first move and what not. I have never had a casual date or a 'hook up' or anything like that, I have only ever been approached by men who want me to be their partner. 

That is my experience, at least.


----------



## AuntHen (Jan 22, 2014)

I, like the last couple of posters, will speak for myself only...

In my 20s, I thought I was unworthy to date or be desired. In my teens I was not fat at all but my mother had paved the way to thinking I was and thinking being fat was the worst thing ever. She was obsessed with it.

My own Dad (who I love and respect) told me once, bluntly, to my face "if you ever want to get married, you had better lose weight"  I weighed less at that time, than I do now. Am I mad at my Dad for saying that? No... I just think he was wrong, dead wrong.

I spent all those years in self loathing and thinking anyone I had a crush on would want me if I could "just lose the weight".

I hid from scenarios of possible dating though. I didn't try to flirt or put myself out there to be asked, so I blame myself too but not too harshly as I was living in residual garbage from my childhood at the time. I had a social life but it didn't involve "picking up dudes"  Men tried sometimes to flirt or more but I wasn't having it. In fact my first encounter with a self professed "fat girl lover" mortified me because he was pointing out "you are fat". Even though to him, that was a wonderful, attractive thing, I wasn't ready for that (fat was still a BAD word for me)... NOT AT ALL!! :shocked:

I fell hard for someone when I was around 24 or so and he tried to love me DESPITE my fat but I also sabotaged that relationship because 1) I hated myself fat 2) I was insecure and projected it at him ALL THE TIME! So I made him constantly notice my "flaws" and wasn't comfortable in my skin with him.

Fast forward to now... I have been working on these issues for the last 5 years or so. I am in a relationship. I love my body more and more (I still have a few body insecurities but they aren't fat related). I am comfortable in my skin around my partner. Him finding my fat an attractive part of my body, is now a good thing. I am soooo much more than just my body (this was the biggest lesson to learn). I am a different person now than I was then.

It was a growing process for me.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 22, 2014)

Blackjack said:


> "Fat people would be so dateable if they actually left the house ever. You never see them in public, only in their natural habitat bathed in the glow of a monitor."



Its not that they don't leave the house -- its that many (certainly not all) don't attend the sort of social functions where there is an actual potential of meeting datable people.

And this isn't just a BBW/BHM issue -- far to many people have substituted online life for real life.


----------



## Ms Charlotte BBW (Jan 22, 2014)

fat9276 said:


> I, like the last couple of posters, will speak for myself only...
> 
> In my 20s, I thought I was unworthy to date or be desired. In my teens I was not fat at all but my mother had paved the way to thinking I was and thinking being fat was the worst thing ever. She was obsessed with it.
> 
> ...



Beautifully written. Your words sounded like my own. I grew up "chubby" with a mother who put me on my first diet when I was 7. She would lock the refrigerator and count every cookie in the house (in case I took one). My father, who I no longer speak to, constantly ridiculed me for my weight. Even as an adult he was embarrassed to be seen with me and remarked to other people how he hated having a FAT daughter. I still, and will always, hate that word: FAT. 

I didn't have dates or admirers in school, even though I was under 200 pounds. I couldn't even get a date to the prom. When I did start dating, I was disgusted by my size, and assumed my partner was too. I eventually pushed any guy away who tried to get close.

Long story short, I am now 43 and I am finally comfortable in my own skin. I love my body and the way it feels. I can look in the mirror and actually like what I see. (For years I closed my eyes whenever I had to pass by a mirror). When I look at myself now, I see a beautiful, kind, and intelligent woman. It's not about how much I weigh anymore; it's about who I have become as a person, and as a woman. It took a long time to get where I am, but I am loving it! 

Kudos to you for coming into your own! You are beautiful...both inside and out! ((hugs))


----------



## Blackjack (Jan 22, 2014)

bigmac said:


> Its not that they don't leave the house -- its that many (certainly not all) don't attend the sort of social functions where there is an actual potential of meeting datable people.



Many people first met their spouses at school or the workplace. A lot just by random chance. I'm not sure whose sob story of "I don't go anywhere" you're listening to, but there's still a fucking vast majority of people who go out and meet others pretty regularly. 

If you're in a place where there's people, you're in a place where there's potentially dateable people.



> And this isn't just a BBW/BHM issue -- far to many people have substituted online life for real life.



But I mean if you're going to do this and try to discredit the relationships that people form online then you're just fucking wrong about shit. But that's not news.


----------



## loopytheone (Jan 22, 2014)

Blackjack said:


> But I mean if you're going to do this and try to discredit the relationships that people form online then you're just fucking wrong about shit. But that's not news.



This, 100%. Myself and fiance met online and I am going to go and live over there and get married later in the year. My best friend met her partner online and they have been together 4 years and she is leaving to live with him in America in July after she graduates. The people you meet on the internet are, shockingly, people and therefore dateable people. They aren't suddenly no longer people just because they are behind a computer screen.


----------



## bbwbud (Jan 22, 2014)

penguin said:


> Nope. We are Borg. Assimilation is achieved through eating each other. We are one.
> 
> Well, now that's a plus to being Borg I hadn't thought of before...Is 69 their favorite number?:eat2::eat2:


----------



## bbwbud (Jan 22, 2014)

Ms Charlotte BBW said:


> From personal experience, I have to agree with Shosh. Now at the age of 43, I certainly feel worth a date. I am just as good, pretty, attractive, nice, etc. (if not better!) than any skinny girl out there. Now had this question been asked to me in my younger years, I would have said no, since I wasn't comfortable in my own skin back then.



I can't think of many people who are more worth a date than Ms. C...As yummy as she is on the outside, she is even better on the inside, and dateable is much more a a function of what's inside...Hotties and notties come in all shapes, sizes and sexes and I'll take a nice person of any size over a jerk of the size I prefer...Fortunately, Ms. C. possesses abundant charms of both body and soul...


----------



## Ms Charlotte BBW (Jan 22, 2014)

bbwbud said:


> I can't think of many people who are more worth a date than Ms. C...As yummy as she is on the outside, she is even better on the inside, and dateable is much more a a function of what's inside...Hotties and notties come in all shapes, sizes and sexes and I'll take a nice person of any size over a jerk of the size I prefer...Fortunately, Ms. C. possesses abundant charms of both body and soul...



Thank you bud, that means a lot.  xo


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 22, 2014)

loopytheone said:


> I can't answer for the population as a whole obviously or for anybody else but I can answer this question for myself.
> 
> For most of my life I have had absolutely no interest in dating. I got bullied into a couple of relationships in my teenage years thanks to my friends but they all lasted less than a week because I just wasn't interested. One reason (of many) why I wasn't interested in dating was because I set such high standards for my partner. They had to be perfect, to know when to leave me alone, when to comfort me, how to make me laugh and to have a never ending supply of love and patience and honestly I figured such a perfect example of a human being didn't exist and I wasn't willing to settle for anything less.
> 
> ...



That has been my experience as well sort of. I don't like dating. I did it for a while because it seemed the thing to do but I cringe just thinking about going on a date. I prefer to hang around with people I share something in common with. If I make a connection that way then great. But walking in blind on a date is like going to a physical exam for an insurance company. I don't know this clown, I'm not good at small talk. I suppose I could be pleasantly surprised but that hasn't been my experience. I just don't like it so for me I would say the answer to the question is no.


----------



## tonynyc (Jan 22, 2014)

bigmac said:


> Its not that they don't leave the house -- its that many (certainly not all) don't attend the sort of social functions where there is an actual potential of meeting datable people. ....



*Depends on the "social" function and what one considers "datable" *


----------



## bigmac (Jan 22, 2014)

Blackjack said:


> ...
> 
> But I mean if you're going to do this and try to discredit the relationships that people form online then you're just fucking wrong about shit. But that's not news.




Online is a great place to *start* relationships. Unfortunately many people spend all their time chatting with people they'll seldom actually meet.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 22, 2014)

tonynyc said:


> *Depends on the "social" function and what one considers "datable" *




How many people actually meet a date in the supermarket? These days dating at work is almost always a terrible idea. So if you want to actually meet people you have to actually go to places where people of the sort you're looking for are. If you're into music attend performances. If you're into art go to gallery openings. If you're a political junkie become active. What one considers "datable" is infinitely variable. But regardless of what an individual considers "datable" they're not likely to find them unless you get out and look.


----------



## Blackjack (Jan 23, 2014)

bigmac said:


> Unfortunately many people spend all their time chatting with people they'll seldom actually meet.



Funny you should say that, since there's all sorts of events where people are able to meet- and there's a lot of people who live in metropolitan areas like New York and Boston who are able to meet up in person after meeting online. In fact, bashes are where I've first touched many of my current friends- and I say "touched" because I definitely met them online well before being within their gravitational field.

Honestly, this is just condescending bullshit that you would act as though online relationships (of all sorts) are somehow less legitimate than meeting someone in person.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 23, 2014)

Blackjack said:


> ...
> 
> Honestly, this is just condescending bullshit that you would act as though online relationships (of all sorts) are somehow less legitimate than meeting someone in person.




Sorry but relationships that are *just* online are second tier. The internet should be looked at as a tool to make real life better -- not as a replacement or substitute for real life.


----------



## penguin (Jan 23, 2014)

bigmac said:


> Sorry but relationships that are *just* online are second tier. The internet should be looked at as a tool to make real life better -- not as a replacement or substitute for real life.



The internet is part of real life.


----------



## loopytheone (Jan 23, 2014)

bigmac said:


> Sorry but relationships that are *just* online are second tier. The internet should be looked at as a tool to make real life better -- not as a replacement or substitute for real life.



Wow, thank god I had you here to tell me this now. I will immediately dump my fiance because he lives in Canada and go to my local football ground and pick up the first man I see there because I liked football and therefore everybody else that does is a much better choice for a real, first tier relationship.


----------



## tonynyc (Jan 23, 2014)

bigmac said:


> How many people actually meet a date in the supermarket? These days dating at work is almost always a terrible idea. So if you want to actually meet people you have to actually go to places where people of the sort you're looking for are. If you're into music attend performances. If you're into art go to gallery openings. If you're a political junkie become active. What one considers "datable" is infinitely variable. But regardless of what an individual considers "datable" they're not likely to find them unless you get out and look.



_
It still boils down to having "options" which is a good thing. 

In addition, regardless of what we think is a "great" place to meet or "horrible" place to meet; what matters is what was successful for that specific couple. 
_


----------



## Sweet Tooth (Jan 23, 2014)

Okay, I'll bite since I have actually considered this question before. [Not just while sitting in front of my computer monitor. ] I would watch my thinner friends get asked out on actual dates when we were younger. I would rarely get asked out on dates, even when I was a size 18/20. Granted, my self-esteem was probably at its lowest point then, but it did seem to me like men didn't value me enough to take me out. I don't think I'm unattractive. I'm not a super girly girl, but certainly take good care of myself. As for personality, that's something you get to know *through* dating.

When I was introduced to the size acceptance community, there were a lot of avenues to meet and get to know someone a little without having to do the dating dance. Some took this as an opportunity to be cheap. Some took this as an opportunity to be underhanded and hide their attraction under the guise of "let's hang out and watch a movie.... and if you let me get in your panties, so much the better." Admittedly, I haven't much liked the thought of dating a bunch of random guys met on a place like POF. Dating is a great way to get to know someone better, but there also seems to be a presumed "investment" in a date when you can get to know someone a little better online. In my most cynical moments, it absolutely felt like men didn't find me worthy of dating. They liked spending time with me, but not "dating". [And, of course, there were the guys who were happy to date so long as I paid. It's fine if the relationship has inherent merit and there are issues of unequal finances but it's good to know you're cared about for more than your pocketbook.]

Now that I'm older and taken, I may not be asked on on first dates, but I still expect to be "dated" by my partner. It's not for validation of my worth. It's to get out and experience life with the person with whom I love having those experiences.


----------



## Mathias (Jan 23, 2014)

bigmac said:


> Sorry but relationships that are *just* online are second tier. The internet should be looked at as a tool to make real life better -- not as a replacement or substitute for real life.



There are people I've met here and elsewhere online who_ have_ made my life better by getting to know them. This is a ridiculous yet condescending statement we've all come to expect from you. Newsflash, (and knowing you you'll probably ignore this point all for the sake of keeping the back and forth going) just because it's what _you_ think doesn't mean it's true.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Jan 23, 2014)

Both methods have their flaws. You could have great chemistry with someone but once the enchantment and sex wear off you've got nothing. You can have fireworks online but meet in person and there's no chemistry. To call one method first or second tier would be inaccurate. Any way you can begin a relationship is good. Whatever is good for you is good for you.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 23, 2014)

LillyBBBW said:


> Both methods have their flaws. You could have great chemistry with someone but once the enchantment and sex wear off you've got nothing. You can have fireworks online but meet in person and there's no chemistry. To call one method first or second tier would be inaccurate. Any way you can begin a relationship is good. Whatever is good for you is good for you.



I agree with you. I never said that the internet isn't a good place to meet people (i.e. begin a relationship). *The problem is when people, for better or worse, don't move on to the next step.*

I've met a few people on line -- a little less than 6% of the people I've "dated" I met online. This number does include my wife however. We exchanged a few messages -- met in person -- and the online part of our relationship was over.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 23, 2014)

penguin said:


> The internet is part of real life.



True, but its a secondary part. Watching sitcoms on TV can be an enjoyable way to kill an hour or two -- but its not a substitute for real interactions. Likewise, the internet can be an enjoyable experience. I kill time here in the evening when I'm away from home working. If I were at home with my flesh and blood friends and family I wouldn't be typing this.


----------



## LeoGibson (Jan 23, 2014)

bigmac said:


> ..And this isn't just a BBW/BHM issue -- far to many people have substituted online life for real life.





bigmac said:


> Sorry but relationships that are *just* online are second tier. The internet should be looked at as a tool to make real life better -- not as a replacement or substitute for real life.






Blackjack said:


> But I mean if you're going to do this and try to discredit the relationships that people form online then you're just fucking wrong about shit....



I'm using the two of you and part of your exchange as an example of what I think is a shift in the paradigm of modern life. Bigmac I think is around 50 and I think your just a little below 30 Blackjack and I think that is your major disconnect here. As someone who is in between your ages I can see both sides, but I think society has moved or progressed to a point where the internet and real life has become synonymous. I think that for those say around 30 or below that the net is an integrated part of their life and there really aren't as many distinct lines between the two whereas someone older still sees it as more of a novelty of sorts and not to be taken as seriously. That's my armchair take on the sociology of it all.


----------



## Jah (Jan 23, 2014)

From my experience people that use the internet to replace a social life they don't have offline (not sure if I worded that right) do so because they have a good reason to. I go online to chat because I live in a rural area and there isn't much variety of people offline although I do have friends off the internet as well. I have never met someone from the internet because there aren't many people from Tasmania online and I would have to travel interstate to meet someone. I also use the internet to connect with family that live hours away. Having an online relationship isn't exactly easy, which there are a lot of people that think it's some sort of easy way out. I've never had an internet relationship before mostly because I found it easier to find someone off the internet, so I don't see really what could be wrong with having an internet relationship.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 24, 2014)

i feel i'm worth a date. luckily i was in a situation where i was nurtured as a fat person and grew up seeing a lot of fat folk around me dating regularly and naturally. so, as far as being fat and dating was concerned i doubt it had very much effect on me at all. i never expected that absolutely everyone should be attracted to me, just as absolutely everyone was not attracted to my thin friends either. so it wasn't traumatic to find that just maybe somebody was not attracted to me. 

i enjoy dating formally. it's fun having a special situations and occasions with people that i like and am attracted to and to create romance together. i have the rest of my life to just hang out and be routine. i learned that in the LTR i had --not to to take the time you have when you're starting a relationship, and even after that, for granted. memories created together are great and help to create some kind of glue that makes a relationship special. when i date formally i don't feel taken for granted or run of the mill and i hope the other person doesn't either. i think if i wasn't taking opportunities for myself to make special moments that it wouldn't even have a point for me. 

i honestly have the feeling that the reason a lot of relationships don't last now is because nearly nothing is special anymore. there isn't much to remember and counter balance when times can be tough. so there is, for a lot of people, hardly anything to add to the positive column of their relationship list if things do get difficult as they often can in real life.

i guess an internet relationship if fine is someone can make it work but for me absolutely nothing could ever replace actually being with someone.


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 24, 2014)

LeoGibson said:


> ...an example of...a shift in the paradigm of modern life...50..[versus]..30..major disconnect here....I can see both sides, but I think society has moved or progressed to a point where the internet and real life has become synonymous....whereas someone older still sees it as more of a novelty of sorts and not to be taken as seriously..


Absolutely. No question. There are other factors, like what type of family you were raised-in (public versus private) or your general relationship with technology. But we're definitely living in a time when very large parts of the population are living in very different realities vis a vis "the virtual world."

Possibly applicable tangent: I remember reading an article some time back (wish I could recall more about it) talking about the decline in both the mental-health & overall happiness of both Generation X & Millennials due to their more-so having to relocate further from their families of origin to find education, work, social-partners, & affordable housing, etc.... And so, as a result, for the average or median person this decreases a certain index measured in..._get this_....the # of people who live nearby that you would feel comfortable just reaching in their refrigerator for a drink. Apparently, not having as many relations of that degree of personal intimacy in as close physical proximity will heavily factor in your overall attitude & well-being. 



Jah said:


> ...I have never met someone from the internet *because there aren't many people from Tasmania online* and I would have to travel interstate to meet someone...


Seriously!? Even in the bigger cities? Skeptical as I am, I'll have to take your word for it as you're the very first Tasmaniac I've (knowingly) encountered. 



superodalisque said:


> "_i feel i'm worth a date....not to to take the time you have when you're starting a relationship, and even after that, for granted.... i don't feel taken for granted or run of the mill and i hope the other person doesn't either._"


Yeah, I feel like I can just tell that about you. Straight-away. To add: They say that if you find yourself managing a good number of 1st & 2nd dates; but not making it so well beyond; that it tends to be more of a reflection on your personality. Your own personal-style i.e. It's not physical attraction or how you look, since a person generally would not go on a first or second date absent a modicum or baseline of physical attractiveness. Just at least being open to the idea of the person as they present physically. Moving forward, it's more about....making that person feel special. Absent of that ability, one person will not want to date another long-term.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 24, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> ...
> 
> i guess an internet relationship if fine is someone can make it work but for me absolutely nothing could ever replace actually being with someone.




Yes, nothing can replace real life. The internet is great for creating opportunities to actually be together with someone -- but people need to step away from the screen and actually spend time together to have a real relationship (IMHO).


----------



## AuntHen (Jan 24, 2014)

bigmac said:


> Yes, nothing can replace real life. The internet is great for creating opportunities to actually be together with someone -- *but people need to step away from the screen and actually spend time together to have a real relationship* (IMHO).




Who is saying they don't? Do you think that that isn't the goal for *most *people? Sometimes it doesn't work out or happen but I highly doubt that is the desired intention.


----------



## HeavyDuty24 (Jan 24, 2014)

I think internet and real life go hand and hand. Ecspecially nowadays and even more so. Just because you spend alot of time online doesn't mean you don't have a life. And nothing wrong with a long-distance relationship if both the parties are willing to put thereself into it i don't see anything wrong with it. Real life is over-rated anyway hahahaha lol.


----------



## liz (di-va) (Jan 24, 2014)

bigmac said:


> True, but its a secondary part. Watching sitcoms on TV can be an enjoyable way to kill an hour or two -- but its not a substitute for real interactions. Likewise, the internet can be an enjoyable experience. I kill time here in the evening when I'm away from home working. If I were at home with my flesh and blood friends and family I wouldn't be typing this.



No, that has changed. If you were writing this in 2005 it might make more sense, but these days tech is woven into everyday life in a much different way.

ETA: I don't mean that pixels = the same thing as the five senses, but I think you're drawing a distinction that isn't there anymore for many people.


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 24, 2014)

Would be to dial this back to, say, 1999? When said technology was more emergent...more a pure-novelty in daily-life for more people. But factored by a roaring US & world economy. Very cheap airline travel. More economic opportunity, across a much larger variety of fields, especially for those adventurous few willing to relocate. To me, that makes for a kind of 'perfect storm' (if you will forgive the expresion) of an actual phenomenon or trending of lots & lots of online-initiated relationship more-so tending to more directly lead towards real-life relationships.

Today, in contrast, I think it's a bit more difficult for the average person out there to make that type of leap.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 25, 2014)

Yakatori said:


> Would be to dial this back to, say, 1999? When said technology was more emergent...more a pure-novelty in daily-life for more people. But factored by a roaring US & world economy. Very cheap airline travel. More economic opportunity, across a much larger variety of fields, especially for those adventurous few willing to relocate. To me, that makes for a kind of 'perfect storm' (if you will forgive the expresion) of an actual phenomenon or trending of lots & lots of online-initiated relationship more-so tending to more directly lead towards real-life relationships.
> 
> Today, in contrast, I think it's a bit more difficult for the average person out there to make that type of leap.



in general i don't think that kind of leap is being made even when it can be. it's like you nodded to in an earlier post, for a large number of people dependence on the net for relationships is often leading to more depression, insecurity and impotence. it's also not leading to most people broadening their world view but narrowing it and making them more intolerant nasty disrespectful and abusive. 

where i work one aspect of what i do entails talking to parents about their children's driving habits. there are lots of teens wandering around without drivers licenses and no intentions or interest whatsoever in ever learning how to drive. as a child of the 70s i can't even imagine wanting to be stuck up in the house under my parents power like that. the freedom of the open road and access to see RL friends was calling to us so loud that none of us could wait to have our license. we weren't just reading and pontificating about about Jack Kerouac we were him --sneaking out to drive cross country to mardi gras together and telling our parents we were at each other's houses. these are intelligent kids, but they nearly never leave the house to have very much social interaction. that can really retard their ability to have healthy relationships and friendships. having a healthy relationship depends a great deal on practicing, like any other social situation. but unfortunately these young people have hardly or hardly even want any opportunity to get that practice. they are really missing out. and, sadly they don't even know what they are missing out on. 

sure, a lot of people are meeting on the net, but are they staying together? the net, like texting, can be a great tool but i think a lot of people use it as a tool of avoidance because they are afraid of RL and what it means to looks someone in the eye and see a real emotion on their face. the net makes it really easy to pretend that there is never anything wrong with you that you need to adjust. it is no way to know anyone for real. i don't even think that's the intention. the drivers on the net are to turn human relations into a commodity that can be bought sold mediated and controlled. the net only works for real people if it is only a starter and they have a real life. it can be and often is a barrier if people aren't careful. people are getting into anime porn which has absolutely nothing in common with touching another real human being -- just another step in the commercial world becoming the sole mediator and profiteer of human "intimacy". 

i remember being at a couple of bashes where people had been all excited about flying and driving across the country to finally meet one another IRL or either they had already met one another at a bash before. these people who claimed to really adore each other as online friends and potential romantic interests spent a lot of their time in either a darkened hotel rooms with laptops sitting next to other silently playing WoW. all you could hear in the room was the clicking of keys. granted it wasn't the whole event but it was weirdly out of place at an event where people were supposed to actually be there to finally interact with each other IRL. i always wondered if people even missed that special person that they didn't get to meet or the conversation that they never got to have. but i guess a glowing box is easier to face than potentially being shot down. 

depending on how reliant people are on fake worlds sometimes even meeting in person means nothing. IRL people don't have interesting names and awe inspiring powers. they are just fragile normal run of the mill folk and those are really the people worth getting to know.


----------



## penguin (Jan 25, 2014)

God forbid that people socialise or develop relationships and friendships in different ways! I didn't realise we were meant to be clones. Preferences, needs, and abilities (financial, physical, and emotional) differ in every person. How about having some open minded thinking instead of sitting on your porch grumbling about how good it used to be and yelling at kids to get offa your damn lawn. 

It's the 21st century. You might want to join us.


----------



## Donna (Jan 25, 2014)

Anyone else find it ironic that we (we being an online community) are arguing over the validity of online relationships on an online forum?
:doh:


----------



## azerty (Jan 25, 2014)

Donna said:


> Anyone else find it ironic that we (we being an online community) are arguing over the validity of online relationships on an online forum?
> :doh:



Lol, even paradoxical


----------



## penguin (Jan 25, 2014)

Donna said:


> Anyone else find it ironic that we (we being an online community) are arguing over the validity of online relationships on an online forum?
> :doh:



I find it ridiculous.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 25, 2014)

liz (di-va) said:


> No, that has changed. If you were writing this in 2005 it might make more sense, but these days tech is woven into everyday life in a much different way.
> 
> ETA: I don't mean that pixels = the same thing as the five senses, but I think you're drawing a distinction that isn't there anymore for many people.




From my point of view the internet works pretty much the same as it always has. Social sites come and go -- but the internet remains just a useful tool. Even in business technology doesn't change the way things are done as much as tech people like to think. The platforms of productivity tools change but their basic purpose remains the same (i.e. from the end user's perspective web based LexisNexis works pretty much the same as the earlier non-web platform).


----------



## bigmac (Jan 25, 2014)

Donna said:


> Anyone else find it ironic that we (we being an online community) are arguing over the validity of online relationships on an online forum?
> :doh:




This place is indeed an interesting forum -- but no online forum is an adequate substitute for real-life friends and family.


----------



## Donna (Jan 25, 2014)

bigmac said:


> This place is indeed an interesting forum -- but no online forum is an adequate substitute for real-life friends and family.



And what psychology degree or super-power do you hold that makes you qualified to make that call? If it doesn't work for you, than super. It shows extreme hubris, however, to make such a blanket statement about someone else's choice. Their reality isn't your reality. Accept that and move on. What gives you the right to sit in judgment and denounce someone else's lifestyle choice? 

Penguin is right. This is ridiculous.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 25, 2014)

bigmac said:


> This place is indeed an interesting forum -- but no online forum is an adequate substitute for real-life friends and family.



exactly. that is why personal dissatisfaction is so rampant now. online alone without a transition to the real is absolutely not enough. we already know that babies that don't have actual human touch contact communication and interaction are likely to die. adults who lack that kind of contact are more likely to be depressed or suicidal. it's odd to me that people would honestly think they can really live without actual direct human contact.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jan 25, 2014)

Shosh said:


> Why do people feel the need to be mean about Felecia's post? She is just putting a question out there for discussion. She did not give her personal opinion.
> I often see her get picked on here, and it is not very nice at all.
> 
> I do feel worthy to date. As a woman in my 40's I am very comfortable in my skin, and at peace with who I am.
> ...



I think it is because Felecia makes them think. They feel threatened by having to admit that their cherished illusions are really illusions.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 25, 2014)

http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20515167_6,00.html

*12 Surprising Causes of Depression:

Facebook overload*

Spending too much time in chat rooms and on social-networking sites? A number of studies now suggest that this can be associated with depression, particularly in teens and preteens. Internet addicts may struggle with real-life human interaction and a lack of companionship, and they may have an unrealistic view of the world. Some experts even call it "Facebook depression." 

In a 2010 study, researchers found that about 1.2% of people ages 16 to 51 spent an inordinate amount of time online, and that they had a higher rate of moderate to severe depression. *However, the researchers noted that it is not clear if Internet overuse leads to depression or if depressed people are more likely to use the Internet.*

and either way it's an issue since it doesn't matter whether you're depressed by the actual use or depressed because of overexposure to depressed people.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jan 25, 2014)

penguin said:


> Way to assume that every fat person is a recluse, slothful, and lives on their computer 24/7. It's not like they're people and have like, personalities or lives or anything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Penguin, you assumed that I said something that I did not say. I did not call every fat person a recluse. But let's be honest: Quite a few fat folks do not want to leave their computers or go out of their houses. I realize this is not true for people who have active lifestyles, but it is true for some. It's really sad when I go out on the town and don't see many BBWs socializing.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jan 25, 2014)

wrestlingguy said:


> I'm not going to speak for Felicia, but I can certainly speak about her, and this post.
> 
> I know a lot of you dislike her posts. Some of you don't like HER. That's up to you. Here's the thing....A week ago, a thread about "our own rock star" Zsalynn stirred up a shitstorm of drama and insults, to the point where the mods (or harbingers of death, depending on your perspective) killed the thread before tempers could calm down and people could actually discuss the issues without the venom that took the thread over.
> 
> ...



Felecia makes some very important contributions to the Dimensions board. I am really glad she is here, and I enjoy her posts. She appeals to people's higher selves. She seeks to bring out the best in the folks here on Dims. She encourages people to avoid self-destructive behavior and to think about the world around us. I have been on Dimensions for 11 years. I don't post on here often because most of the postings are snarky, hateful, and immature. What Felecia does--and what some people hate about her--is that she lights up what sometimes can be a dark place. I wish to commend Felecia for what she has been doing and to encourage her to continue.


----------



## penguin (Jan 25, 2014)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> I think it is because Felecia makes them think. They feel threatened by having to admit that their cherished illusions are really illusions.



Uh...no. It was a badly worded question, and her responses have been harshly judgmental. Comments like this one are also ridiculous.



superodalisque said:


> and either way it's an issue since it doesn't matter whether you're depressed by the actual use or depressed because of overexposure to depressed people.



Facebook doesn't cause depression. No more than shopping, school, work, or breathing do. Depression is. Sometimes there's a trigger, most of the time there isn't. Sometimes it's just how it is, sometimes it's a build up of events and stress. Depression is part of the human condition, and has been for a very long time. 



CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> Penguin, you assumed that I said something that I did not say. I did not call every fat person a recluse.




You said: 



> the question is whether they are willing to abandon their computers and leave their houses in order to be dated.




I read what you said. You didn't say anything about "some" people, you made a blanket statement. That might not be what you meant, but it's what you SAID. It's right there. Go back and look.




> But let's be honest: Quite a few fat folks do not want to leave their computers or go out of their houses. I realize this is not true for people who have active lifestyles, but it is true for some. It's really sad when I go out on the town and don't see many BBWs socializing.




It's also true for a lot of thin people. It's true for short people, tall people, ones with good skin and ones with acne. I don't know where you live, but I see fat people out and about all the time. 

You don't know what other people do. Just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they don't go out. It doesn't mean they don't "have a life", because you're judging everyone by your social standards. I don't go clubbing because I'm 37 and clubbing no longer appeals, and I don't go out to restaurants because I don't have money to waste on fancy meals, and most of my friends are busy with family and jobs and also don't have a lot of money to spare. I hang out with friends, I go to the occasional movie, go to the park, go shopping, but mostly, I like to stay home. I'm not hiding away, though I have days where I don't want to socialise, and I'm not a recluse. If I stay home, it's not because I'm fat. I like to socialise online because it's more convenient and I get to interact with people I'd never meet otherwise. I'm also an ambivert and don't NEED to go out and socialise often.

Your way is NOT the only way (this goes for everyone), so it's a good idea to remember that other people will socialise differently and have different wants, needs, and prefences in their relationships. You can look down your nose at those who prefer to stay home (or have to, through lack of funds, transport, health, whatever), but that says far more about you and your prejudices than anything about them.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jan 25, 2014)

LeoGibson said:


> I'm using the two of you and part of your exchange as an example of what I think is a shift in the paradigm of modern life. Bigmac I think is around 50 and I think your just a little below 30 Blackjack and I think that is your major disconnect here. As someone who is in between your ages I can see both sides, but I think society has moved or progressed to a point where the internet and real life has become synonymous. I think that for those say around 30 or below that the net is an integrated part of their life and there really aren't as many distinct lines between the two whereas someone older still sees it as more of a novelty of sorts and not to be taken as seriously. That's my armchair take on the sociology of it all.



I am 38 and I agree with Leo. The internet is part of my life, but it does not form the entirety of my social life. I think it is good to get unwired from time to time, to meet people away from the computer.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jan 25, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> in general i don't think that kind of leap is being made even when it can be. it's like you nodded to in an earlier post, for a large number of people dependence on the net for relationships is often leading to more depression, insecurity and impotence. it's also not leading to most people broadening their world view but narrowing it and making them more intolerant nasty disrespectful and abusive.
> 
> where i work one aspect of what i do entails talking to parents about their children's driving habits. there are lots of teens wandering around without drivers licenses and no intentions or interest whatsoever in ever learning how to drive. as a child of the 70s i can't even imagine wanting to be stuck up in the house under my parents power like that. the freedom of the open road and access to see RL friends was calling to us so loud that none of us could wait to have our license. we weren't just reading and pontificating about about Jack Kerouac we were him --sneaking out to drive cross country to mardi gras together and telling our parents we were at each other's houses. these are intelligent kids, but they nearly never leave the house to have very much social interaction. that can really retard their ability to have healthy relationships and friendships. having a healthy relationship depends a great deal on practicing, like any other social situation. but unfortunately these young people have hardly or hardly even want any opportunity to get that practice. they are really missing out. and, sadly they don't even know what they are missing out on.
> 
> ...



I could not have said this better!


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jan 25, 2014)

penguin said:


> God forbid that people socialise or develop relationships and friendships in different ways! I didn't realise we were meant to be clones. Preferences, needs, and abilities (financial, physical, and emotional) differ in every person. How about having some open minded thinking instead of sitting on your porch grumbling about how good it used to be and yelling at kids to get offa your damn lawn.
> 
> It's the 21st century. You might want to join us.



Do you have a psychological ax to grind? Felecia is quite open minded and more current with modernity than you think.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jan 25, 2014)

Donna said:


> Anyone else find it ironic that we (we being an online community) are arguing over the validity of online relationships on an online forum?
> :doh:



You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Donna again.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jan 25, 2014)

Donna said:


> And what psychology degree or super-power do you hold that makes you qualified to make that call? If it doesn't work for you, than super. It shows extreme hubris, however, to make such a blanket statement about someone else's choice. Their reality isn't your reality. Accept that and move on. What gives you the right to sit in judgment and denounce someone else's lifestyle choice?
> 
> Penguin is right. This is ridiculous.



Bigmac has a valid point, which brings me back to the point I made earlier today. There is no substitute for meeting people in person. Only then can you see what that person is really like.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jan 25, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> it's odd to me that people would honestly think they can really live without actual direct human contact.



People have become so attached to their computers and smart phones that they are losing the ability to connect with others. I would not be surprised if I did a study that found that people today are much ruder than people were 30 years ago.


----------



## Blackjack (Jan 25, 2014)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> People have become so attached to their computers and smart phones that they are losing the ability to connect with others. I would not be surprised if I did a study that found that people today are much ruder than people were 30 years ago.



It's amazing that us young people even have time to comment here considering how busy we are not connecting with people.

Relevant.


----------



## Blackjack (Jan 25, 2014)

Blackjack said:


> "Fat people would be so dateable if they actually left the house ever. You never see them in public, only in their natural habitat bathed in the glow of a monitor."



Curvaceous, you gave me rep for this post. I don't think that you understood the sarcastic manner in which I made it in order to mock your gross and insulting generalization.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 25, 2014)

BTW the description of the average person using social media is is a 45 yr old female


----------



## penguin (Jan 25, 2014)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> Do you have a psychological ax to grind? Felecia is quite open minded and more current with modernity than you think.



It was a bad question, and the attitude that's come up is also bad. I also fail to see anything in this thread that supports your stance.



CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> People have become so attached to their computers and smart phones that they are losing the ability to connect with others. I would not be surprised if I did a study that found that people today are much ruder than people were 30 years ago.



...you obviously have no idea what those people are doing with their computers and phones. Even when they're playing games, they're interacting and connecting with other people. You also seem to have no concept on how society is evolving and how behaviours change. I'm sure someone from the 50s would think those in the 80s were very rude, too.



Blackjack said:


> It's amazing that us young people even have time to comment here considering how busy we are not connecting with people.



I guess they think we're just sitting there staring at a screen, not even playing solitaire.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jan 25, 2014)

penguin said:


> It was a bad question, and the attitude that's come up is also bad. I also fail to see anything in this thread that supports your stance.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Check out this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg11glsBW4Y

There is lots of interaction going on here between this woman on her cell phon and the water in the fountain.

And Penguin, I know exactly what is going on, so much so that I have ripped apart your cherished illusion.


----------



## wrestlingguy (Jan 25, 2014)

A little food for thought... 

View attachment dating-misery-online-offline-cry-for-help-ecards-someecards.gif


----------



## liz (di-va) (Jan 25, 2014)

bigmac said:


> From my point of view the internet works pretty much the same as it always has. Social sites come and go -- but the internet remains just a useful tool.



That's so untrue. Just the fact that you use the word "sites" gives you away.


----------



## Mathias (Jan 25, 2014)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> Check out this link:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg11glsBW4Y
> 
> There is lots of interaction going on here between this woman on her cell phon and the water in the fountain.



Someone falling into a fountain because they weren't paying attention is one person who paid the price for not being more aware of their surroundings. I missed the part where this analogy video applied to society as a whole.


----------



## swordchick (Jan 25, 2014)

I miss when you could be rude & cuss at people all at once, like Carlos Green did.


----------



## penguin (Jan 26, 2014)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> There is lots of interaction going on here between this woman on her cell phon and the water in the fountain.




Yes, because people never walked into things before they had phones. I used to read a book while walking down the street. What's your point? One person being clumsy and not paying attention doesn't mean everyone is the same way. Also, who was she meant to be interacting with? She was alone and there was no one nearby. What is your point, exactly? That you hate modern technology?



> And Penguin, I know exactly what is going on, so much so that I have ripped apart your cherished illusion.


Uh, what? What "cherished illusion" are you talking about? You've used that a few times, but I really have no idea WTF you're on about. All I can tell that you're doing is trying to poo-poo on the idea that other people are allowed to do things differently to you.


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 26, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> "_in general i don't think that kind of leap is being made even when it can be._"


Well, I don't know that it necessarily should be. Unless, of course, the connection is truly special. Unless it stands in some stark contrast with everything else around us. 

However, what happens-then, might well be some indication of where we're headed. 



penguin said:


> "_Preferences, needs, and abilities (financial, physical, and emotional) differ in every person._"


I can appreciate this as well. I'm just not so sure *supero*'s trying to say otherwise....



CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> "_I think it is because Felecia makes them think. They feel threatened..._"


I don't look at it in quite that way. Because it's really not that these responses, so far, reflect any 'lack of thought,' per se. It's more a question of what's worth thinking or talking about, whether that includes in it this innate tension between something being what compels or enables us to live as-if "_this-is-just-how-it-is_" versus a lifeline for those who're just hanging-on.



penguin said:


> "_I like to socialise online because...*I get to interact with people I'd never meet otherwise.* I'm also an ambivert and don't NEED to go out and socialise often_"


I'm sort of the same way. I like a certain amount of solitude both in and outdoors. But I also like to meet & interact with new people. But not, like, people-in-general or, too often, where it's like some huge raucous party. And not, too much, those who're aren't in some way like-minded. 

But if I genuinely like someone, then I more-so tend to want to get to know them a little better. And the more I find that I like them (as I continue to get to know them better), the more I tend to want to be closer with them. And share more with them.

Although, I can feel fairly close to someone while being quite far away or without too much contact.


----------



## Donna (Jan 26, 2014)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> [F]Check out this link:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg11glsBW4Y
> 
> There is lots of interaction going on here between this woman on her cell phon and the water in the fountain.
> ...



I hate to admit this, but I walked into a pool once because I was so engrossed in conversation with the people I was with. I wasn't on my phone or iPad. They didn't stop me because they too were focused on what we were talking about and not where we were going. All my experience and the experience of fountain lady proves is that we made the mistake of not paying attention to where we walked.

Again I say, if interacting and making friends offline works for you, then great. Continue to do that. But please quit trying to invalidate the experiences of others who choose to make friends online.


----------



## Donna (Jan 26, 2014)

wrestlingguy said:


> A little food for thought...



I think they did...isn't it called "The Bachelor"???


----------



## bigmac (Jan 26, 2014)

Donna said:


> And what psychology degree or super-power do you hold that makes you qualified to make that call? If it doesn't work for you, than super. It shows extreme hubris, however, to make such a blanket statement about someone else's choice. Their reality isn't your reality. Accept that and move on. What gives you the right to sit in judgment and denounce someone else's lifestyle choice?
> 
> Penguin is right. This is ridiculous.




Its not ridiculous -- studies have indeed found that too much time online is psychologically detrimental.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...nline-makes-you-moodier-lonelier-and-obsessed

http://healthland.time.com/2010/02/02/too-much-time-online-linked-with-depression-risk/

http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2012/...nstantly-online-can-develop-mental-disorders/


----------



## Donna (Jan 26, 2014)

I'm not going to argue the validity of any study one way or the other; I'm not qualified to do that and neither are you. You can take any study and use the results to support your mental health trolling all you want. Plus, I don't think anyone is saying that online is the only way to interact. They are saying you don't have the right to pronounce judgment on them. Bottom line, it's none of your damned business to judge what someone else wishes to do with their time, on or offline---they're not hurting you.

I don't spend a lot of time online which puts me in a strange position to be arguing this point. I definitely lean more toward the introverted side of life, but I am married to an extrovert so he tends to pull me out into social situations. I work outside the home and I belong to a few organizations and clubs which take up a lot of my time. Time that I might otherwise fill with online interaction. Perhaps that's why. I have a mixture of both online and offline friends as a result. I recognize what works best for me which is a balance. For someone else that balance may not work as well. 

I still say its ridiculous to invalidate someone else's experiences by simply dismissing it as "second tier." It's just too broadly judgmental for me.


----------



## Blackjack (Jan 26, 2014)

bigmac said:


> Its not ridiculous -- studies have indeed found that too much time online is psychologically detrimental.
> 
> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...nline-makes-you-moodier-lonelier-and-obsessed
> 
> ...



An opinion piece by a life coach is not a study.

The second article states that 


> The study, which will be published in the journal Psychopathology, assessed more than 1,300 people between the ages of 16 to 51 for both internet use and depressive symptoms. The researchers found that, 1.2% of study participants showed signs of addiction.



and then does not link to any sort of study. It's a reach to say that being on the internet makes people depressed based on the meager data provided there.

As for the third piece, he study described is a bit more complex than the article lets on. The stress is not just a result of people being online:



> Many people handle work-related emails in leisure time or are expected to be accessible via the mobile phone outside of work. Likewise, the private sphere can enter the work or study situation by means of ICT accessibility. The blurring of boundaries between work and private life can cause role stress, role conflicts, and role overload for the individual.



It pretty clearly states that there is a reason for the increased stresses on people who are more connected, especially in the workplace.

As for depression, there's a lot to take into account:



> In 1998, Kraut et al reported negative effects on social involvement and psychological wellbeing *among new Internet users*. Use of the Internet was associated with a decline in participants’ communication with family members in the household, a decline in the size of the social circle, and an increase in depression and loneliness. These findings of course caused some alarm. *It was later argued by LaRose et al that the causal link between Internet use and depression may have been specific to novice Internet users*. In a follow-up study, Kraut et al also found that *negative effects dissipated with time, and in a second longitudinal survey, respondents generally experienced positive effects of Internet use on communication, social involvement, and wellbeing*. However, it was concluded that *personality variables have an influence on effects of Internet use*.



But for the 2012 study itself, it showed that there was a correlation between mental illness/stress and high technology use, *but* that does not provide evidence of causation, as people who suffer from anxiety and depression may be more likely to go online to deal with these issues.

And ultimately it discusses heavy ICT use as a potential risk factor for sleep problems (and psychological problems that result from that)- especially use late at night.

The article is more sensationalism from a local news station that misrepresents the findings and their significance.

You should seek better sources for defending your bullshit.

And even if there is a proven link demonstrating that intensive use of the internet and technology has a detrimental effect on psychology, I'd rather deal with depression and anxiety with the social circles I'm currently in all across the world than treat them as second-class friends (because the internet isn't real) and wind up a condescending jackass like you.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 26, 2014)

liz (di-va) said:


> That's so untrue. Just the fact that you use the word "sites" gives you away.




My point is that people often vastly overestimate the power of technology. For example a 2014 Honda Accord (a very good car) incorporates tons of technology that was not present in the 1955 Chevrolet (a very good car of its day which many people consider the first modern car). Both cars weigh a little over 3000 pounds and their dimensions and engine horsepower ratings are roughly similar. Technology has made the newer car safer, more efficient, and the newer car emits far far fewer pollutants. However, from the end user utility point of view not very much has changed. Driving to the office or local mall is going to be pretty much the same experience in either car.

Likewise, the internet of today doesn't do much for the end users that earlier versions didn't. Like most technologies there is a very steep diminishing returns curve.


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 26, 2014)

bigmac said:


> "_Likewise, the internet of today doesn't do much for the end users that earlier versions didn't. Like most technologies there is a very steep diminishing returns curve._"


What earlier versions are you talking about? Before the first bbs? Either way, you obviously concede that....beyond the mid 90's, when use became exponentially more wide-spread; it thus began to put a very wide range of people into very rapid communication in a manner that was truly unprecedented. Revolutionary, even. In terms of transforming so much of everyday life, just things you don't even think of like fact-checking in public debate and research and exposing people to all kinds of new media & ideas.

Where else, before this, before AOL, did you see such a range of people exchanging in this kind of ongoing dialogue....24 hours a day...all around the globe...as we are right here and now? And Dimensions is just one, single forum of its kind...out of however many there are out there.

The internet is indeed a tool, but an extremely powerful one. That has implications well beyond its intentional utility for any one individual.


----------



## Blackjack (Jan 26, 2014)

bigmac said:


> Likewise, the internet of today doesn't do much for the end users that earlier versions didn't.



I can talk in real time on cam with people from all over of the planet while we are engaging in a group effort in a game (again, in real time) and streaming that so that other people all over the world can watch it (yes, again, real time). 

I can order digital versions of text and other media to read on my computer or download them to handheld devices like my Nook or my phone.

Just by the fact that we're able to do these things faster and almost-instantaneously is a huge improvement over what used to be back in the 56k days, when interactions were severely limited by connection speed and whether or not someone tried to make a call from your home phone line. It breaks down a wall of interaction and brings people closer because it's not just text- it's voice and visuals.

And comparing this kind of thing to a car is your usual dish of bullshit.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 26, 2014)

like Mack said, it really doesn't matter exactly how sparks start. the idea is that * someone is actually met and known for real. * i think everyone's hope here that someone has a _*real*_ dance. it's just that the dance should not be replaced by a substitution where no one ever meets and real closeness never happens. i guess what some of us are really trying to say is that we hope you dance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV-Z1YwaOiw

*I Hope You Dance*
LEE ANN WOMACK LYRICS


I hope you never lose your sense of wonder,
You get your fill to eat but always keep that hunger,
May you never take one single breath for granted,
God forbid love ever leave you empty handed,
I hope you still feel small when you stand beside the ocean,
Whenever one door closes I hope one more opens,
Promise me that you'll give faith a fighting chance,
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance.

I hope you dance....I hope you dance.

I hope you never fear those mountains in the distance,
Never settle for the path of least resistance
Livin' might mean takin' chances but they're worth takin',
Lovin' might be a mistake but it's worth makin',
Don't let some hell bent heart leave you bitter,
When you come close to sellin' out reconsider,
Give the heavens above more than just a passing glance,
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance.

I hope you dance....I hope you dance.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 26, 2014)

Blackjack said:


> I can talk in real time on cam with people from all over of the planet while we are engaging in a group effort in a game (again, in real time) and streaming that so that other people all over the world can watch it (yes, again, real time).
> 
> I can order digital versions of text and other media to read on my computer or download them to handheld devices like my Nook or my phone.
> 
> ...



there is absolutely a technological and even a personal benefit to some extent but i think it's probably a mistake to think it actually compares to traveling and visiting places and actually knowing people for real. and, it can be a distraction from developing what is near.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 26, 2014)

Blackjack said:


> It's amazing that us young people even have time to comment here considering how busy we are not connecting with people.
> 
> Relevant.



commenting here is not actually connecting. for instance, as Curvaceous said it much easier to be nastier and disrespectful to people online or texting etc.. than in person where someone can see someone's face and know what the words do to them on a visceral level. i know very few people who have the courage to say in person the kinds of things they say online or via text where they can be emotionally safe from their actions and even anonymous. generally speaking, there is a huge difference between what goes on online and what actually happens between people who know one another. this is also another reason people like the net etc...there is a level of emotional avoidance in it as well. 

there is this really good PSA i need to find. it's about how it's much harder to scam people in person than online. there is some guy posing as one of those silly guys who are always on the on the net trying to scam people out of money. you know, i'm the african prince who needs you to put my cash in your bank thing. he repeats the words that are hooking in people to the tune of billions of dollars online. of course he looks crooked saying it because no one can make that stuff come across as legitimate in person. the truth is a human brain is one of the most awesome pieces of technology there is. it can account for so many cues that can't be tabulated by a computer at all because the knowledge experiences etc... it takes to form an individual experience is waay beyond any piece of technology. it's true that there is this project going on where memories etc... are being transported from the human brain but it is the actual human being who decides how all of these memories and experiences cascade together and relate to form impressions and judgements. a comp mediates and screens a lot of info so you never get the full story via skype et... because it has absolutely no way of gathering all of the cues available to you organically.


----------



## Smushygirl (Jan 26, 2014)

Blackjack said:


> I can talk in real time on cam with people from all over of the planet while we are engaging in a group effort in a game (again, in real time) and streaming that so that other people all over the world can watch it (yes, again, real time).
> 
> I can order digital versions of text and other media to read on my computer or download them to handheld devices like my Nook or my phone.
> 
> ...



BJ, I get the use of media to 'bring people closer', I do. I have met you in person, several times, and that has not made us closer, just easier to recognize. But I do have one question, have you ever had a close intimate relationship with a girl or boy of your choice and knew that they felt the same for you? I don't mean booty calls, cyber sex or fetish sharing, I mean true intimacy with another person.


----------



## lucca23v2 (Jan 26, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> it's typical for everyone to keep things very casual. no one seems to want to make demands on anybody, especially women. but really and truly do fat people feel they are actually worth a date?



I don't think it is a matter of fat or not. If you are comfortable in your own skin, it will show. You will be confident and that is what attracts people. A person being themselves is what is attractive, whether they are big or small. So it may be a question of does anyone feel they are worth a date. To which my answer would be..yes.. there is someone for everyone in the world. That is what makes the world go round as they say......

Just my opinion.


----------



## lucca23v2 (Jan 26, 2014)

In response to this whole online dating is not real life... well.. let's go back a few decades.... during WWII or Vietnam.. women would write letters to the men in service as pen pals... just so that they can have someone writing to them. Many of them developed long lasting friendships, and many developed relationships and were married when they came home... Their whole relationship was established through letters that took a lot longer to get to them than a text or email or post gets to people now. They didn't meet face to face.. but it worked out for them.. So how is online dating any different?


----------



## Blackjack (Jan 26, 2014)

Smushygirl said:


> BJ, I get the use of media to 'bring people closer', I do. I have met you in person, several times, and that has not made us closer, just easier to recognize. But I do have one question, have you ever had a close intimate relationship with a girl or boy of your choice and knew that they felt the same for you? I don't mean booty calls, cyber sex or fetish sharing, I mean true intimacy with another person.



Yes, I have, and I'm really insulted by the implications of this question.


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 26, 2014)

That seems sort of unfair. But to add that, weren't there, like, lots and lots of people pre-internet who could essentially be asked the same?

I mean, the point is, or should be, that the type of experience we're describing here is not really something that's guaranteed. To anyone. Ever.

It's something which has to be pursued on both ends. So, are we, maybe, confusing the effect for the cause?


----------



## johnnny2005 (Jan 26, 2014)

Hi Everyone. I personally think Im worth a date! To ask what I think about Bigger Women being worth a date. I think Bigger Women are worth a date more than any other girl! I just wish there was more Bigger Women in the world!! I havent read all the posts in detail but I will say I have Met Felecia a.k.a Superodailsque in person in real life before in 2007! She is one of the nicest girls I ever met and radiates good positive vibes! She is also gorgeous in both Her pics and especially real life!!! She is gorgeous in both Her looks and personality and Character!!!!


----------



## AuntHen (Jan 26, 2014)

Not that anyone cares about my opinion but why don't you make another thread about online relationships?

Is anyone actually going to answer the question "am I/fat person/fat people worth dating" anymore on THIS thread? :doh:



Edit: We posted at the same time but THANK YOU JOHNNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 26, 2014)

lucca23v2 said:


> In response to this whole online dating is not real life... well.. let's go back a few decades.... during WWII or Vietnam.. women would write letters to the men in service as pen pals... just so that they can have someone writing to them. Many of them developed long lasting friendships, and many developed relationships and were married when they came home... Their whole relationship was established through letters that took a lot longer to get to them than a text or email or post gets to people now. They didn't meet face to face.. but it worked out for them.. So how is online dating any different?



that is an excellent point. but i do personally think that the culture_ was_ somewhat different then. it wasn't built on porn quite as much. porn took a whole lot more effort to get back then, complete with brown wrappers and standing around looking furtive at magazine stalls, so it was not as available to the average person. there was hardly any privacy so most people felt really inhibited. could you imagine even trying to find pixs of fat women or guys back then in a situation like that? it was basically unheard of for average women to even get their hands on porn at all. so porn mentality wasn't at all as culturally pervasive as it is now where it's so easy and there is so much freedom. they didn't have much of a chance to develop that. it could be said that things are similar in a lot of ways except i think it was harder to engage in anything remotely resembling virtual sex with a stranger who was not in the sex trade. a letter or a magazine is a lot less addictive than porn sites and being able to have a lot of free wheeling civilian virtual sex etc... which can really have an affect on how people relate to each other.

the original t.v. show that made me think about the question had a woman involved who tended to have sex on the first date a lot because she felt pressured to by online expectations and not just because she wanted to. and, unfortunately it hadn't led to anything meaningful that she wanted for herself. the "expert" explained that studies show from charting usage that most times when chatting online re: dating sites etc... that guys often have an active porn window open. that's probably why we can get a lot of slimey messages. so many times the chat is just an extension of that activity and has absolutely nothing to do with really getting to know anyone as a person and generally it also has nothing to do with friendship either. studies also show there is a lot of sharing of pix etc... going along with it other than the kind of chatter that usually happens when people are actually trying to get to know who someone is.

i think you're right that when things do hinge on friendship they have just as much of a chance of working now as they did then. friends who want more and are really interested do follow up and do put in the effort to meet you and be with you. the virtual world or a letter is not going to be enough for someone who really has feelings. it's not just about having virtual sex or at best showing up and coping a feel or having a booty call but about someone willing and wanting to make a serious effort to actually know you. that can only happen with letters too if the person actually wants to meet IRL. you are exactly right, basically they are very similar where it matters. if someone is complaining about what it takes to make a real effort they probably don't care all that much.


----------



## penguin (Jan 26, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> so porn mentality wasn't at all as culturally pervasive as it is now where it's so easy and there is so much freedom.



Porn has been around for thousands of years. Dirty movies, photos, books, and magazines have been available for pretty much as long as the medium was invented. It may have been more hidden, but it was there. 



> they didn't have much of a chance to develop that. it could be said that things are similar in a lot of ways except i think it was harder to engage in anything remotely resembling virtual sex with a stranger who was not in the sex trade. a letter or a magazine is a lot less addictive than porn sites and being able to have a lot of free wheeling civilian virtual sex etc... which can really have an affect on how people relate to each other.



You don't think people have been having phone sex for a very long time? People are sexual creatures and have always found a way to make sex happen. We're not the first generation to discover it, ffs.



> the original t.v. show that made me think about the question had a woman involved who tended to have sex on the first date a lot because she felt pressured to by online expectations and not just because she wanted to. and, unfortunately it hadn't led to anything meaningful that she wanted for herself. the "expert" explained that studies show from charting usage that most times when chatting online re: dating sites etc... that guys often have an active porn window open. that's probably why we can get a lot of slimey messages.



Porn use doesn't make someone creepy. Men have been socialised to believe that it's an appropriate way to behave, and that women are meant to just take it. It's an attitude that's changing, but a lot of men out there still haven't gotten the memo that women are people and deserving of respect - the internet or body size has nothing to do with it. Misogyny, yo.



> if someone is complaining about what it takes to make a real effort they probably don't care all that much.



This happens in relationships everywhere, that have started in all ways. The problems of a relationship come down to the people involved, NOT how they met or the size of the people involved.


----------



## Smushygirl (Jan 26, 2014)

Blackjack said:


> Yes, I have, and I'm really insulted by the implications of this question.



I truly did not mean to insult you. Maybe now you know how you sound to Felecia et al.

I just can't understand why all points of view here are not tolerated as much as others. Why isn't it okay for people who have experience in dealing with others face to face to say that is a valid way of getting to know one another? It is, you know.

This place gives me the heebee jeebees.:doh:


----------



## Blackjack (Jan 26, 2014)

Smushygirl said:


> I truly did not mean to insult you. Maybe now you know how you sound to Felecia et al.
> 
> I just can't understand why all points of view here are not tolerated as much as others. Why isn't it okay for people who have experience in dealing with others face to face to say that is a valid way of getting to know one another? It is, you know.
> 
> This place gives me the heebee jeebees.:doh:



I don't think that anyone's disagreeing with the fact that face-to-face interaction is invalid.

The issue is that people are saying that interaction via other means are less important or meaningful, and that's a crock of shit.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 26, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> like Mack said, it really doesn't matter exactly how sparks start. the idea is that * someone is actually met and known for real. * i think everyone's hope here that someone has a _*real*_ dance. it's just that the dance should not be replaced by a substitution where no one ever meets and real closeness never happens. i guess what some of us are really trying to say is that we hope you dance.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV-Z1YwaOiw
> 
> ...




Yes, but please a different song!

May I suggest one of my favorite Joan Jett songs:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ_mEco0rtQ


_*Love Like Mine*_

_You call it charm but I'm not
What you're supposin' I am
I am all girl a lady I'm not
I like to fool around a lot

I never think a lot, when I drink a lot
Of sparkling wine
Hey, it's a ragged race can ya stand the pace
Of a love like mine

I'm warnin' you now so don't complain
About my constant insanity
An' for my tasteless profanity
I'm shunned by high society

I get talked about I been carried out
A thousand times
You made a big mistake there ain't no break
With a love like mine

There's a scene goin' down
When there's trouble who's always around
If you could see what your future would be
You go far out of town away from me

I never get dressed up when I'm all messed up
I'm feelin' fine
Think what life would be with a girl like me
And a love like mine

I'm not the girl next door oh no
I wake up mean an' ornery
Don't try to make me straight
You'll see what hell there's gonna be, oow

Won't you love a love like mine
Won't you love a love like mine
Won't you love a love like mine_


----------



## cinnamitch (Jan 26, 2014)

Mac, if you and Felicia are going to post songs, let's go all out here.

Why Don't We Get Drunk and Screw- Jimmy Buffet


I really do appreciate the fact you're sittin here
Your voice sounds so wonderful
But yer face don't look too clear
So bar maid bring a pitcher, another round o brew
Honey, why don't we get drunk and screw

Chorus:
Why don't we get drunk and screw
I just bought a water bed, it's filled up for me and you
They say you are a snuff queen
Honey I don't think that's true
So, why don't we get drunk and screw

-- spoken: pick it coral reefers, here we go...

(swing instrumental)

Chorus:
Why don't we get drunk and screw
I just bought a waterbed it's filled up for me and you
They say you are a snuff queen
Honey I don't think that's true
So why don't we get drunk and screw
Yeah, now baby I say, (lord!)
Why don't we get drunk and screw


----------



## bigmac (Jan 26, 2014)

cinnamitch said:


> Mac, if you and Felicia are going to post songs, let's go all out here.
> 
> Why Don't We Get Drunk and Screw- Jimmy Buffet
> 
> ...




Straightforward and honest -- I like it.

Unfortunately I don't really drink anymore.


----------



## tonynyc (Jan 26, 2014)

superodalisque said:


> commenting here is not actually connecting. for instance, as Curvaceous said it much easier to be nastier and disrespectful to people online or texting etc.. than in person where someone can see someone's face and know what the words do to them on a visceral level. i know very few people who have the courage to say in person the kinds of things they say online or via text where they can be emotionally safe from their actions and even anonymous. generally speaking, there is a huge difference between what goes on online and what actually happens between people who know one another. this is also another reason people like the net etc...there is a level of emotional avoidance in it as well.
> 
> there is this really good PSA i need to find. it's about how it's much harder to scam people in person than online. there is some guy posing as one of those silly guys who are always on the on the net trying to scam people out of money. you know, i'm the african prince who needs you to put my cash in your bank thing. he repeats the words that are hooking in people to the tune of billions of dollars online. of course he looks crooked saying it because no one can make that stuff come across as legitimate in person. the truth is a human brain is one of the most awesome pieces of technology there is. it can account for so many cues that can't be tabulated by a computer at all because the knowledge experiences etc... it takes to form an individual experience is waay beyond any piece of technology. it's true that there is this project going on where memories etc... are being transported from the human brain but it is the actual human being who decides how all of these memories and experiences cascade together and relate to form impressions and judgements. a comp mediates and screens a lot of info so you never get the full story via skype et... because it has absolutely no way of gathering all of the cues available to you organically.



1. Not sure what your experience in life is ;but, I've seen quite a few people be just as nasty in person 

2. Now you do have that sense of anonymity in the internet - but, you've always had dating scammers around regardless of the technology.



superodalisque said:


> that is an excellent point. but i do personally think that the culture_ was_ somewhat different then. it wasn't built on porn quite as much. porn took a whole lot more effort to get back then, complete with brown wrappers and standing around looking furtive at magazine stalls, so it was not as available to the average person. there was hardly any privacy so most people felt really inhibited. could you imagine even trying to find pixs of fat women or guys back then in a situation like that? it was basically unheard of for average women to even get their hands on porn at all. so porn mentality wasn't at all as culturally pervasive as it is now where it's so easy and there is so much freedom. they didn't have much of a chance to develop that. it could be said that things are similar in a lot of ways except i think it was harder to engage in anything remotely resembling virtual sex with a stranger who was not in the sex trade. a letter or a magazine is a lot less addictive than porn sites and being able to have a lot of free wheeling civilian virtual sex etc... which can really have an affect on how people relate to each other.
> 
> the original t.v. show that made me think about the question had a woman involved who tended to have sex on the first date a lot because she felt pressured to by online expectations and not just because she wanted to. and, unfortunately it hadn't led to anything meaningful that she wanted for herself. the "expert" explained that studies show from charting usage that most times when chatting online re: dating sites etc... that guys often have an active porn window open. that's probably why we can get a lot of slimey messages. so many times the chat is just an extension of that activity and has absolutely nothing to do with really getting to know anyone as a person and generally it also has nothing to do with friendship either. studies also show there is a lot of sharing of pix etc... going along with it other than the kind of chatter that usually happens when people are actually trying to get to know who someone is.
> 
> i think you're right that when things do hinge on friendship they have just as much of a chance of working now as they did then. friends who want more and are really interested do follow up and do put in the effort to meet you and be with you. the virtual world or a letter is not going to be enough for someone who really has feelings. it's not just about having virtual sex or at best showing up and coping a feel or having a booty call but about someone willing and wanting to make a serious effort to actually know you. that can only happen with letters too if the person actually wants to meet IRL. you are exactly right, basically they are very similar where it matters. if someone is complaining about what it takes to make a real effort they probably don't care all that much.



As Peguin had pointed out "porn" has been around for centuries; in fact, what we think of the mail order porn business can be traced back to the CIVIL WAR. 

History of Pornography


----------



## bigmac (Jan 26, 2014)

fat9276 said:


> Not that anyone cares about my opinion but why don't you make another thread about online relationships?
> 
> Is anyone actually going to answer the question "am I/fat person/fat people worth dating" anymore on THIS thread? :doh:
> 
> ...




Of course everyone deserves a shot at happiness. However, I do think the question was wrongly put at the start of this thread. For people in the dating market posing the existential question -- *"am I worth dating?"* -- is unlikely to elicit anything other than a sentimental nonspecific response.

The way I see it the problem is one of demographics. The number of guys with a preference for large women is smaller than the population of large women. This imbalance is not generally a problem for young women since they are always in great demand. Women in their 20's are courted by men their own age and older men too. Pretty much every under 30 year old female who puts herself out there will find a suitor. After 30 the tables turn on women in general and -- because of the FA/BBW imbalance -- against large women in particular. Market power -- which had previously been held by women -- migrates to men. The question thus becomes not whether a BBW is worthy of a date but rather whether or not a BBW will be left standing when the music stops.


----------



## tonynyc (Jan 26, 2014)

bigmac said:


> Of course everyone deserves a shot at happiness. However, I do think the question was wrongly put at the start of this thread. For people in the dating market posing the existential question -- *"am I worth dating?"* -- is unlikely to elicit anything other than a sentimental nonspecific response.



Unless you have an anonymous survey - you are only going to get what responses folks *feel like * posting .....


----------



## CastingPearls (Jan 26, 2014)

tonynyc said:


> As Peguin had pointed out "porn" has been around for centuries; in fact, what we think of the mail order porn business can be traced back to the CIVIL WAR.
> 
> History of Pornography



Civil War? Back up a few thousand years. You haven't seen the excavations at Pompeii?


----------



## lucca23v2 (Jan 27, 2014)

> it wasn't built on porn quite as much. porn took a whole lot more effort to get back then, complete with brown wrappers and standing around looking furtive at magazine stalls, so it was not as available to the average person.



Porn has been around for as long as man and woman has been around. Even the cavemen drew dirty pictures on the cave walls..lol



> the original t.v. show that made me think about the question had a woman involved who tended to have sex on the first date a lot because she felt pressured to by online expectations and not just because she wanted to. and, unfortunately it hadn't led to anything meaningful that she wanted for



It is sad that she that she felt that way. But I want to know the back story. Are these people she had been chatting with for a long time? or just started chatting with. Personally when I chat with someone online it is probably a good 3 to 6 months before i give them my phone number let alone agree to meet. I like to get to know a person first before agreeing to anything. 

But it might just be me.. who knows.


----------



## penguin (Jan 27, 2014)

Smushygirl said:


> I truly did not mean to insult you. Maybe now you know how you sound to Felecia et al.



I think you mean how you think he sounds to YOU. You said you didn't mean to insult him...but implied that he sounds insulting to others, so I guess you did mean to be insulting after all. 



> I just can't understand why all points of view here are not tolerated as much as others.



When you're trying to invalidate people and you put down their experiences and preferences, it's not okay. You might think XYZ is not good for YOU, but that doesn't mean it's not good for everyone.



> Why isn't it okay for people who have experience in dealing with others face to face to say that is a valid way of getting to know one another? It is, you know.



WTF is up with this condescending attitude? Why the jump to assuming that people have either ONLY got experience with interacting online OR off. We DO have lives, you know, and I don't know of anyone here who was raised in a bubble. We've ALL met and interacted with other people face to face. We haven't said that meeting offline isn't a valid way of getting to know other people - we've said that meeting them online IS a valid way. 

It's amazing how ridiculous this conversation has become. Quit trying to invalidate other people because they're not clones of you.



> This place gives me the heebee jeebees.:doh:



So...don't come here? 



CastingPearls said:


> Civil War? Back up a few thousand years. You haven't seen the excavations at Pompeii?



And sex toys were around for even longer! Why is it such a surprise that people are sexual and interested in talking about and looking at sexual activity?


----------



## lucca23v2 (Jan 27, 2014)

> that is an excellent point. but i do personally think that the culture_ was_ somewhat different then. it wasn't built on porn quite as much. porn took a whole lot more effort to get back



Porn has been around since men and women have been around. I am sure there were dirty pictures drawn on the cave walls. 



> the original t.v. show that made me think about the question had a woman involved who tended to have sex on the first date a lot because she felt pressured to by online expectations and not just because she wanted to. and, unfortunately it hadn't led to anything meaningful that she wanted for herself.



That is sad. I would need back story on whether she had been chatting with them for a while or if she was meeting men quickly, also what kind of chatting was she doing with these guys that they may have though that she was agreeing to meet to hook up. Regardless all she had to say was no if she felt pressured to.

Personally I chat with men a good 3 to 6 months before giving them my phone number..let alone agreeing to meet them. But that is just me.


----------



## Dromond (Jan 27, 2014)

This thread sucks.

There is nothing resembling a discussion going on here. I'm worth dating. You're worth dating. End of line.


----------



## one2one (Jan 27, 2014)

I am worth dating and had a date this evening. The first time we met was in a laundry room, not a chat room.


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 27, 2014)

Dromond said:


> "_*There is nothing resembling a discussion going on here.* I'm worth dating. You're worth dating. End of line._"


Yeah, maybe it's that I'm reading too deeply into it. Which I certainly tend to do...



fat9276 said:


> "_...why don't you make another thread about online relationships?
> 
> Is anyone actually going to answer the question "am I/fat person/fat people worth dating" anymore on THIS thread?_"


Because the real scope of this..er...discussion is a bit broader than that. Even if *supero* _et al._ seem mainly concerned with sussing out a more specific kind of inference about new media & internet technology and how all of it's various tools & mechanisms (email, chat, text, skype, interactive-gaming, social media etc..) have begun to inform and reform & regulate our culture, specifically in the area of new relationships & partnering. And, also to mention, how it may lead us to wonder & question (consciously or not) whether or not we're actually worth a person's time and undivided attention & effort. Or what our own is worth in return... 

As such, the survey aspect of it seems sort of secondary. But more like an entry point onto a much larger topic.

That and, of course, we're fairly hung-up on the use of a term like "real" as to categorically describe everything that happens offline in some meaningful contrast to; again, categorically; everything else, such that it threatens to marginalize any primarily mental activity (reading, writing, meditation, etc.. into a kind of nonevent. When, in all truth, "real life" provides all kinds of alienating & de-personalizing types experiences, that might well match up to anything the internet has to offer.



superodalisque said:


> porn took a whole lot more effort to get back the....brown wrappers and standing around looking furtive at magazine stalls...not as available to the average person.


The true watershed event for the importation of porn-culture into mainstream life was the invention of the VCR. And progress towards both cable-TV and the personal DVD-player. 

But the virtual omni-presence of internet-porn (And of such variety and basically available anywhere to anyone for free) would seem to also...demystify or defuse its power to actually stimulate the popular imagination. Leading towards whatever types of adaptations (established subcategories or sub genres such as Amateurs/Reality, Gonzo/p.o.v. etc..) and then, of course, seeing these types of techniques modified or more gently appropriated towards improving more mainstream porn. To make it seem more authentic or real. Approachable, even. But, most importantly, life-like. 



penguin said:


> "_And sex toys were around for even longer! Why is it such a surprise that people are sexual and interested in talking about and looking at sexual activity?_"


Indeed, Socrates-himself spoke about the very thing *supero* seems most concerned-with: the temptation-of or to-trade or substitute a kind of vicarious pleasure....for something more real. He blamed _playwrights_, I think? Or was it the _poets_ who should be destroyed?


----------



## AuntHen (Jan 27, 2014)

nevermind.... except Dro, I owe you rep.


----------



## ScreamingChicken (Jan 27, 2014)

The improvements in technology have been a double edged sword for society in general but especially for fat people and their admirers.

It has provided a mechanism for us to meet people who we may never get to and communicate instantly from great distances. However, in *some* cases, that's where the social factor ends.* Some* people don't want to take it any farther than the computer or the smartphone. The though of meeting a person in the flesh and seeing what happens scares the living hell out of them. I know of at least two people that I met through Dims that this describes to a "T". The fear of rejection becomes almost crippling. 

Now, for some people here, technology is just a tool in taking a relationship to another level but for a percentage of people , it is the end game.


----------



## Smushygirl (Jan 27, 2014)

penguin said:


> I think you mean how you think he sounds to YOU. You said you didn't mean to insult him...but implied that he sounds insulting to others, so I guess you did mean to be insulting after all.



Who are you? His mother?! 

I like Kevin, I have met him several times and have sat on his lap. I don't like when he acts like an impertinent little whelp because he doesn't like Felecia. I'm not even sure what was insulting about what I asked. 

I know a few guys from here that have made meaningful connections, but I know a LOT more that haven't and use this place as a masturbatory aid who treat the women here like sex workers , but don't pay anything. Personally, I don't think it is the fatties that are lazy. The women I have met here tend to be some of the most active and vibrant people I know. It's the FA's that tend to stay behind their computer screens particularly if they can get some women to flirt and cyber with them. Believe me, I know that Felecia knows that as well. She is just kind enough to start general discussions about these issues to clue in the new people that come here.

Why are you here?



penguin said:


> When you're trying to invalidate people and you put down their experiences and preferences, it's not okay. You might think XYZ is not good for YOU, but that doesn't mean it's not good for everyone.



No one here is trying to invalidate anyone else. Get that through your thick head.



penguin said:


> WTF is up with this condescending attitude? Why the jump to assuming that people have either ONLY got experience with interacting online OR off. We DO have lives, you know, and I don't know of anyone here who was raised in a bubble. We've ALL met and interacted with other people face to face. We haven't said that meeting offline isn't a valid way of getting to know other people - we've said that meeting them online IS a valid way.
> 
> It's amazing how ridiculous this conversation has become. Quit trying to invalidate other people because they're not clones of you.



You would be a lot nicer if you were a clone of me.



penguin said:


> So...don't come here?



I don't much anymore. I do have friends, close, personal friends that I have met and that have been to my house, that still do come here.


----------



## lucca23v2 (Jan 27, 2014)

wrestlingguy said:


> I took some time off again from Dimensions to write a couple of blogs,



i would love to read some of your blogs if you wouldn't mind sharing...


----------



## johnnny2005 (Jan 27, 2014)

Thanks Fat9276!!!!


----------



## Blackjack (Jan 27, 2014)

Smushygirl said:


> I'm not even sure what was insulting about what I asked.



I feel that asking me whether or not I've been able to form a close relationship with someone else, in the context of this discussion and considering how fervently I have been speaking for the legitimacy of online relationships and friendships, strongly implies that it is doubtful that I have done so. That's insulting.



> No one here is trying to invalidate anyone else. Get that through your thick head.



Entirely false:



bigmac said:


> Sorry but relationships that are *just* online are second tier.



This sums up most of the posts that bigmac has made in this thread. Supero and Curvaceous have agreed with this viewpoint. If this is not an attempt to invalidate the relationships that I have with friends who I know online (and for various reasons have not been able to meet in person) then I really don't know what you would call that.


----------



## wrestlingguy (Jan 27, 2014)

Beej, a question.

Knowing you from the BBW events we've both attended over the years, I would like to ask you this.

For those people who you've come to know via the internet that you've yet to meet, would you have preferred to meet them in person if there was no additional effort on your part (particularly those of the opposite gender), or are you happy simply knowing them online?


----------



## bigmac (Jan 27, 2014)

ScreamingChicken said:


> The improvements in technology have been a double edged sword for society in general but especially for fat people and their admirers.
> 
> *It has provided a mechanism for us to meet people* who we may never get to and communicate instantly from great distances. However, in *some* cases, that's where the social factor ends.* Some people don't want to take it any farther than the computer or the smartphone.* The though of meeting a person in the flesh and seeing what happens scares the living hell out of them. I know of at least two people that I met through Dims that this describes to a "T". The fear of rejection becomes almost crippling.
> 
> Now, for some people here, technology is just a tool in taking a relationship to another level but for a percentage of people , it is the end game.



Exactly! When I was dating I had contact with several of these types. Harsh as this may sound I had no patience for them. If a person didn't want to meet after chatting or e-mailing a couple of times I moved on.


----------



## bigmac (Jan 27, 2014)

Blackjack said:


> I can talk in real time on cam with people from all over of the planet while we are engaging in a group effort in a game (again, in real time) and streaming that so that other people all over the world can watch it (yes, again, real time).
> 
> I can order digital versions of text and other media to read on my computer or download them to handheld devices like my Nook or my phone.
> 
> ...



So how exactly has this the ability to access tons of generally useless unfiltered and unedited information actually improved your life.


----------



## Blackjack (Jan 27, 2014)

bigmac said:


> So how exactly has this the ability to access tons of generally useless unfiltered and unedited information actually improved your life.



Allowing me to form some of the most meaningful and rewarding relationships of my life; allowing me to have a better understanding of the world we live in with increased access to information that's not from my own region; permitting myself and others to discuss our lives in a public way that's more available to more people than ever before, therefore helping to normalize and destigmatize things that are largely misunderstood and misrepresented, such as mental health issues (like my depression and anxiety)... just to name a few very major ones.



wrestlingguy said:


> Beej, a question.
> 
> Knowing you from the BBW events we've both attended over the years, I would like to ask you this.
> 
> For those people who you've come to know via the internet that you've yet to meet, would you have preferred to meet them in person if there was no additional effort on your part (particularly those of the opposite gender), or are you happy simply knowing them online?



This is a difficult question to answer for me- I do have a lot of social anxiety and have had it for much of my life, so it's always been somewhat daunting for me to attempt to make friends with someone in person. I do greatly prefer the open interaction that's available online where you're able to see that the two of you have shared interests before initiating conversation, that makes it infinitely easier and more comfortable for me when I'm first interacting with someone.

However, I do really really want to meet in person all of my friends, or as many as I can. This would not change the nature of our relationships all that much- if at all- nor would it legitimize or make more "real" what I think about or how I interact with these people. And being so fully aware that I have friends who I will likely never see in person does not change that they are my friends and that I have love for them. 

If there were some way to make that face-to-face happen with my friends that required minimal effort (preferably on both our parts, it's just not fair for someone to cross the world to get to my backyard for this sole purpose), I would jump at the chance. As it is, I am happy with having my interactions with them being only online in the foreseeable future because I don't see that it really changes a whole lot of anything.

I'm kind of bothered by this emphasis that's being placed by you and Smushy on my meeting with women, though. I don't understand why this would have any sort of significance with regard to my answer. Could you explain this to me?


----------



## wrestlingguy (Jan 27, 2014)

Blackjack said:


> I'm kind of bothered by this emphasis that's being placed by you and Smushy on my meeting with women, though. I don't understand why this would have any sort of significance with regard to my answer. Could you explain this to me?



First, thank you for your frank and honest answer. Might have been TMI for some concerning any of your social anxieties, but it certainly doesn't diminish your answer with regard to the value of online vs. "real life" relationships.

I can't speak for Smushy with regard to your question. My question is simply tied into the subject of Felicia's original post, which discusses dating. For most of us, that involves the opposite sex. I suppose I could have asked about your online relationships with men as well, but I'm pretty sure you don't date men.


----------



## Blackjack (Jan 27, 2014)

wrestlingguy said:


> First, thank you for your frank and honest answer. Might have been TMI for some concerning any of your social anxieties, but it certainly doesn't diminish your answer with regard to the value of online vs. "real life" relationships.
> 
> I can't speak for Smushy with regard to your question. My question is simply tied into the subject of Felicia's original post, which discusses dating. For most of us, that involves the opposite sex. I suppose I could have asked about your online relationships with men as well, but I'm pretty sure you don't date men.



It's okay- I don't mind discussing my anxiety and depression that much anymore, because I hope that by being more open about it I can help people who might not feel comfortable talking about stuff that they don't see talked about as often. There's still a lot of taboo with the discussion of mental issues and one way to change that is to stop hiding them... but this is a discussion for elsewhere, so that soapbox is getting put away now.

As for the second part: understood! I was speaking in more general terms with regard to friendships rather than with more of a mind towards romantic relationships (for lack of a better term). I do know that those sorts of relationships are a bit of a different beast than friendship and there's a lot of other factors to consider when you're in a relationship with someone, but the basic idea that I've been speaking about still holds true- that that relationship is no less real or legitimate based on how much or how little time you spend interacting with the other person online versus in person.


----------



## tonynyc (Jan 27, 2014)

Dromond said:


> This thread sucks.
> 
> There is nothing resembling a discussion going on here. I'm worth dating. You're worth dating. End of line.



you could also include the debate as to what method is valid and what is not 

*what works for that individual "online" or "face-2-face" is also all that matters - End of Line *




Yakatori said:


> Yeah, maybe it's that I'm reading too deeply into it. Which I certainly tend to do...



_
the thread has simply gone off into other tangents- that's all ... plus, you have to filter though the specific postings to see what folks are trying to say. Some can say it with fewer words others need "volumes"
_






bigmac said:


> So how exactly has this the ability to access tons of generally useless unfiltered and unedited information actually improved your life.



this is still a matter of perception as to what is viewed as useless...


----------



## Yakatori (Jan 28, 2014)

wrestlingguy said:


> "_...tied into the subject ..original post, *which discusses dating.* For most of us, that involves the opposite sex._"


In terms of my basic impression of what she's trying to get across, it has implications all-round. Into platonic relationships as well:

For example, for my part; like, I assume a lot of people here; I was part of fairly tight-knit group of friends in school. And we were into a lot of the type of stuff that was just typical for kids our age at the time: house parties, road trips, and just your basic, garden-variety buffoonery and general-mayhem. But, outside of these types of activities, a good deal of time was spent in actual dialogue.

Sometimes, just between two or three (v. closest) friends; but also, at times, a bit larger but still fairly intimate group of four or five. Or, often enough, & provided alcohol, a full-on quorum of 15-20, including: significant others, pets, visiting-siblings, friendly ex's, ex-roomates', etc... And we would argue. Debate. Discuss. Mock each other. Do impressions. It was non-stop entertainment & socializing.

The topics would range from things we thought of as real-serious like political-philosophy or whatever policy-issues of the day. Or our favorite films, books, & bands, etc... To more personal-stuff (if even the source of some individual internal conflict), like changing relationships within our own families or future hopes & ambitions. Towards, naturally, subjects best not-repeated in polite company.

But-now, many of these friends are married and have very young children at home. And those who're still living-single are mostly flung out towards various cities across the country, in pursuit of whatever type of work. Still, every now and again, we all get-together. And, really, it's like nothing has changed. Or, I should say, none of what's most important, that is. But, you know, in a few hours, that's all over-with; and we all just go back to our own respective grinds.

So, obviously, it should go without saying that I wouldn't trade those (now long-past) experiences for anything I've experience online. Much less any insight (however great) I might find in your blog(s). Likewise, I don't think there's anything, that's in me, to just say-here, that can really measure up to my greatest-hits of yester-year....

But still, isn't it better than nothing? I mean, as for what goes on in Hyde Park (and, truly, I like to pretend myself among its more civil denizens, but...); how many of us can honestly say we're perfectly comfortable to talk or act like that towards our own next-door neighbors? Or the ranting and raving wing-nut (no offense to any of you in particular) we'll swiftly attract toward ourselves (as if magnetized) the very moment we enter a public-space (library, coffee-shop, place of worship, etc...)? Much less an actual co-worker or member of our extended family just-begging to be disabused of some ridiculous idea or another. ("_You know, Obama could solve this problem so easily just by once-and-for-all showing us his birth certificate!..._") 

Because, frankly, there are real world consequences for directly-engaging or otherwise confronting dull, stupid people and their painfully mangled ideas and thinking. And it's just not always, consistently, an efficient or convenient thing to do. But, nonetheless, it is sometimes both fun and rewarding; and I think that's a big part of why so many of us look to the internet and new media for a "safe" and more practical outlet for these types of urges.

However, to that, *supero* would only point out that it's not really and either/or or cake/eat-it type of choice, right? It's more like the bull and the horns. You can't really have one without the other, amirite?


----------



## penguin (Jan 28, 2014)

Smushygirl said:


> No one here is trying to invalidate anyone else. Get that through your thick head.
> 
> You would be a lot nicer if you were a clone of me.



Personal attacks aside - no I wouldn't, and I'm quite happy being me. 


I would much prefer to be able to meet up in person with all the friends I've made online, but finances don't allow that to happen. Skype is a fantastic tool for keeping in touch with friends and family, and for being able to spend time with your partner when you can't be together.


----------



## BriannaBombshell (Jan 28, 2014)

I am worth a date for sure! Pretty nice gal here


----------



## loopytheone (Jan 28, 2014)

Blackjack said:


> It's okay- I don't mind discussing my anxiety and depression that much anymore, because I hope that by being more open about it I can help people who might not feel comfortable talking about stuff that they don't see talked about as often. There's still a lot of taboo with the discussion of mental issues and one way to change that is to stop hiding them... but this is a discussion for elsewhere, so that soapbox is getting put away now.



Thank you for mentioning this actually, I have anxiety and depression myself, social anxiety especially and is one of the reasons I prefer meeting people online to in person. If I get nervous or I don't like a person online I can block them and never have to meet them or deal with them again. But in real life it isn't that simple. Not to mention that I don't have any desire to go to places with lots of people that are into activities I enjoy because it is hugely stressful and unpleasant for me and therefore not something I enjoy. And also, the only place full of people with shared interests to me that I do go to (which is where a lot of people on this board seem to be saying is the best place to meet people) is dog showing. I have been going there and meeting up with the same group of people since I was 10 years old and at our peak of showing we would go to about 10 shows a year. And whilst I am familiar with most of the people who also frequent these shows I wouldn't call any of them friends. There are about 30 of us who get together and chat and hang around for an entire day and I think I get christmas cards off of about three of them and even then I wouldn't call those people friends as we don't talk or interact other than at the shows. As for finding a date there? Literally in our group of 30 or so regulars there are three people under the age of 35 there; me, my sister and a lady named Kirsty. The average age of the people there is 50-60 years old and whilst they are wonderful I am a 23 year old woman who is interested in dating people my own age. On the other hand I have friends online that are my own age and love dog showing, perhaps not my breed specifically but we can still chat and talk about these things in a way that I wouldn't be comfortable talking to the people I actually attend shows with. I guess the point I am trying to make is that for me specifically meeting people online is much less stressful and much more rewarding. 

As for people who never want to meet up in person, I don't have a problem with that at all. They are still my friends, even if I can't reach out and touch them and some of the worst times of my life have been gotten through with the help of a certain person who lives the other side of the world to me. As for dating, I would have to meet up with the other person eventually for that to work out, yes. But I knew my fiance for a year and a half before we met up in person. My best friend knew her boyfriend online for over two years before they met up face to face. There is nothing wrong with taking your time with these things. As it is both me and my best friend have plans to move over to the countries our partners are in and get married and live there with them (america for her, canada for me). So no, we weren't willing to spend hundreds of pounds travelling across the world for somebody after sending a few emails and messages. But once they were a part of our lives and our souls then of course we would do anything to be with them. And I don't see how a relationship so meaningful that I am willing to leave behind my entire life and everything I have ever known to cross the ocean and be with my fiance despite all my anxiety problems can ever be considered 'second tier'.


----------



## Diana_Prince245 (Jan 28, 2014)

One of my best friends and I met online, and most of our relationship remains on line. She lives on the East Coast and I'm about 3,000 miles away. Getting to see her on a regular basis is nearly impossible, especially since she left the Baltimore-DC area where my parents live. That doesn't mean she's not there for me at 2 a.m. when my cat has to make an emergency trip to the vet or on Christmas Eve when my boyfriend dumps me to get out of buying me a Christmas present. To insist that online relationships are less in this day and age is to be completely and totally unaware of the world around you and how it has changed in the last 15 years. It smacks of Clint Eastwood yelling, "Get off my lawn," because the neighborhood isn't what it was when you were a kid.

Also, I'm very much worth dating, which is why I have standards.


----------



## Sweet Tooth (Jan 28, 2014)

My original response was about the dating question, but I have opinions about the online stuff as well. [Surprised? LOL]

Online stuff is very much real life. There are real people with real lives and real relationships behind the screens, even if it never involves in-person interaction. Sometimes internet friendships are fine for what they are. I don't need to get close to my photography group online any more than I would need to if I met with them in person to discuss photography. But they're still real people either way. I have a pet peeve with people who feel like they can play real when they have no intention of actually doing the things they say they want to do. ["Oh baby, I can't wait to kiss you for hours." .... never expresses intention to actually follow through .... "Um, that actually takes meeting me in person."] There are limitations to what you can get to know about a person over the internet, and sometimes you have deeper conversations when your "date" is online talking with you rather than taking you to dinner and a movie without much meaningful conversation.

I'm sure some people use it in an unhealthy way, but plenty of stuff can be unhealthy. Sometimes the internet is just a tool to make it easier to be unhealthy.

I've had LTRs in person and online. My current relationship was local and now is online mostly because of our jobs, although I'd prefer in-person. I'm fortunate to have the internet available to us. In some ways, it's forced challenging conversations over topics that were easier to brush aside before, and that has made us closer than before. For me, the internet is a tool to continue a relationship at this time in our lives, not a way of life. And I'm so grateful for the people I've been able to have and keep in my life because of doing some of my life online.


----------

