# Regarding FA's and Guilt



## Edens_heel (Jan 24, 2008)

I discovered this thread in the weight board:

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=35529

Now, Fachad brought up some interesting queries about things he was struggling with, but one post by FA Man Stan in particular shone a harsh light on something that I really haven't seen discussed too much - the question of guilt in being an FA. To quote Stan:





> "The hardest thing about my wife getting WLS is that I felt it was yet another insult to my preference for being attracted to fat women, one of many insults I’ve endured my entire life. I never wanted to be attracted to something that a woman hated about herself. This was just one more thing reinforcing what a pervert I am for being attracted to fat women, a condition they themselves don’t like. I had no problem with my wife making a decision like this about her body; she is the one who ultimately pays the price for decisions about her health. She didn’t need to ask me for permission to get WLS, as a matter of fact, she didn’t. There were many things she consulted other people about in the past to the disregard of my opinion; this was just one more thing. I can live with that. The one thing I will never accept is the culture of weight loss, and the fictitious belief that loosing weight is the end all to good health. Most people who have WLS discover this to their chagrin sooner or later. Health problems related to being heavy are replaced with health problems related to having WLS. Sometimes, high blood pressure returns even if the weight is kept off. This is what I’ve read, and observed. WLS is just a physical means of "behavior modification". You eat bad stuff, you barf. WLS doesn't teach a person how to be healthy. The stomach eventually readapts, often times WLS patients can even drink sodas again after a few years. I will even go a step further. In my opinion, I think WLS surgeons will eventually find their rightful place in history along side doctors who performed lobotomies.
> 
> "This is where you are headed my friend. You will have to help your wife through her post-surgery adjustment period; let me put it this way, episodes of not feeling good, lots of diarrhea and barfing. This decision she unilaterally made will affect you in many ways. She will probably want to go to a WLS support group after her surgery. She may very well ask you to go along. You are probably going to ask yourself, “Why should I?” People will congratulate your wife on all the weight she has lost. They will look at you and expect you to be happy, perhaps even ask “Aren’t you proud of her?” They will say, “Doesn’t she look so much younger!?” You will learn how to answer people with a silent smile. Your wife will meet other people who have had WLS, they will exchange Splenda recipes (Splenda is a form of chlorine BTW… “No known adverse health effects” does not necessarily mean “healthy”.) Your wife may eventually discover those fat free potato chips, and perhaps not tell you that she purchased a bag for the both
> of you. If you have an unexplained case of diarrhea for a week… you now know why. Your wife will rapidly loose weight and she will have to purchase new clothing. She will eventually get down to a size where she can purchase clothing in “regular” stores. She will tell you how horrible it was being fat and how she couldn’t watch “real fashion shows” where the clothing fit her. All this because she was fat… a condition you found to be attractive. What a pervert you are. What a pervert I am. I remember ("back when she was fat") how happy my wife would be when she found a new store where the clothing fit her; she used to go shopping with her other fat friends. I didn’t know those times were so horrible for her. Sometimes I wish the FA inside of me would just go away and die. Maybe it already has… good riddance.
> ...





To clarify: I am an FA, I am proud of this, and I love my partner very much, and would love her just as much if she was not a stunningly gorgeous BBW. But I wonder how many FA's, those of us who are FA's because we love every aspect of extra weight on a woman or man and not because we are fetishizing them, have struggled with guilt over their problems. 

I am a firm believer that being an FA is no different than any other preference, be it for blondes, brunettes, tall, short, black, white, etc. Yes, it is fetishized for some, but for most of us it feels exactly like any preference. But with one small caveat: forgetting everything that pop culture, media, family, and friends drills into our minds about fat not being right, weight still has many obstacles in the world, chief among them being the issue of health. Subsequent to that, though, is that for a great many overweight people, regardless of the support and love and devotion they may receive, most still hate their fat and wish it to hell in a handbasket. 

So how do you react when your partner tells you that they hate their fat - compeltely and utterly hate it? Those who truly love their partners would of course stand by them and help in any way that they could, but on a personal level, as an FA or FFA, would you feel betrayed or alone on some level that might lead you to feel guilty or "wrong" for liking what it is that you happen to love and lust after? Do you know or think that you might look inward and ask "is there something wrong with my preference?" or that you might feel as if there is a sudden loss of connection between you and your partner? We all crave the idea of having a true love, a partner in crime, but if you are with a BBW or BHM and they truly want to lose their weight no matter what or how you feel about it and try to make them feel about it, do you feel as if your preference is meant to be maligned against on some level?

This is about the identity of an FA / FFA. Has your partners feelings and desires to be part of the "thin is ideal" or "thin is healthy" concept made you question your identity? In such a situation, do you feel that there is nothing external that can validate your identity as an FA?


----------



## Bagalute (Jan 24, 2008)

Edens_heel said:


> This is about the identity of an FA / FFA. Has your partners feelings and desires to be part of the "thin is ideal" or "thin is healthy" concept made you question your identity? In such a situation, do you feel that there is nothing external that can validate your identity as an FA?



If being an FA is a preference like any other (like you said) your partner losing weight would be quite comparable to a blonde changing her hair to brunette. I doubt the latter one would make the "blonde admirer" question his identity (unless it's a real fetish)...


----------



## stefanie (Jan 24, 2008)

Edens_heel said:


> This is about the identity of an FA / FFA. Has your partners feelings and desires to be part of the "thin is ideal" or "thin is healthy" concept made you question your identity? In such a situation, do you feel that there is nothing external that can validate your identity as an FA?



My husband wanting to lose weight would not change my feelings about the appeal and desirability of a fat man. Nor would I stop loving him, either. If I were single, I would prefer to date fat men, and I would be well aware that most big men I met would want to lose weight/get more "buff." I would have to deal with that, because it's the common cultural pattern.

We can't (and shouldn't, IMO) want someone to stay fat for us if they don't want to be fat. 

I don't see any guilt or problem with loving large people - as long as we understand how they feel about themselves, about their own bodies. There's always that possibility, that they don't feel about themselves what we feel, that they don't see themselves as we see them. *That doesn't make our feelings or perception wrong.* What would be wrong would be to force, guilt-trip, etc. our feelings onto them (not that I see anyone seriously in this discussion doing that; I'm just saying.)


----------



## imfree (Jan 24, 2008)

This is a great topic and I'll be following this thread.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 24, 2008)

beautiful thread! i feel ya. and this is exactly why i tell all of my lovely friends who happen to be FAs to think very hard about who and where the other person is emotionally before you allow yourself to fall for them. if your preference is very specific a woman would really need to be a serious died in the wool, wouldn't have it any other way bbw. she can't vacillate between saying she would like to be thin and trying to be proud of herself. i have to do the same when it comes to various issues with FAs. 

i know its easier said than done. when you meet someone and you feel that you can't do without them its so hard to be rational. when you tingle and have butterflies at the meer thought of a person it hard to say no. i don't have any plans to lose weight but i realize someday i could have health problems that require it. i can imagine what it might do to someone with a very specific preference. he would feel torn apart. on top of that i think it would be very hard for him to talk to ANYONE about his true feelings. it would seem like a betrayal on many levels.

so a lot of times when i say no to an FA its not because i think he isn't a great guy that i would love to have. i really have to think about the long term possibilities.


----------



## Tad (Jan 24, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> beautiful thread! i feel ya. and this is exactly why i tell all of my lovely friends who happen to be FAs to think very hard about who and where the other person is emotionally before you allow yourself to fall for them. if your preference is very specific a woman would really need to be a serious died in the wool, wouldn't have it any other way bbw. she can't vacillate between saying she would like to be thin and trying to be proud of herself. i have to do the same when it comes to various issues with FAs.
> 
> i know its easier said than done. when you meet someone and you feel that you can't do without them its so hard to be rational. when you tingle and have butterflies at the meer thought of a person it hard to say no. i don't have any plans to lose weight but i realize someday i could have health problems that require it. i can imagine what it might do to someone with a very specific preference. he would feel torn apart. on top of that i think it would be very hard for him to talk to ANYONE about his true feelings. it would seem like a betrayal on many levels.
> 
> so a lot of times when i say no to an FA its not because i think he isn't a great guy that i would love to have. i really have to think about the long term possibilities.



Hmm, you know here, I think you might be worrying a bit too much on one level. I really think most FA would handle reasonably well I dont want to get thinner, but I really need to, for health reasons. Im only going to get as thin as I need to, Ill miss being bigger, and I know youll miss me being bigger, but this really needs to happen. But it is that first part, the I dont want to that is key I think. Things happen, most people can accept that. But Im changing grudgingly, and accept that there will be associated regrets is very different from Ive finally decided to make the changes, Im excited about it, and obviously all I used to say about accepting my size was less that truly felt.

But I think you make a good point, that if we can hold onto our hearts we have better chances of making good choices. This is where it is great, I think, that so many younger folk discover places like Dimensions, and learn that there are a variety of views out there. This gives them at least a chance to look for the right match in these matters.


----------



## Edens_heel (Jan 24, 2008)

Bagalute said:


> If being an FA is a preference like any other (like you said) your partner losing weight would be quite comparable to a blonde changing her hair to brunette. I doubt the latter one would make the "blonde admirer" question his identity (unless it's a real fetish)...



The question of identity in that sense comes from the fact that extra weight is still seen as unhealthy, or a disease, a blight, by so many, even those who have extra weight on them - so if you love and lust after a part of someone that they see as a plague to their existence, how could that not make you question the validity of your preference? Being an FA is a preference like any other, but where it differs is in the possible ramifications of your partners feelings on it and the health involved - because unlike a hair colour, extra pounds have a lot more, pardon me for the pun, weight to them in the world, be it through societal influences, or simply what feels and looks good to someone, or even the state of their health. The preference exists on the same level as the aforementioned example, but it's the possible result of that attraction that is in question here.


----------



## stan_der_man (Jan 24, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> ...
> so a lot of times when i say no to an FA its not because i think he isn't a great guy that i would love to have. i really have to think about the long term possibilities.


Not meaning to pick on you about your views of FAs Superodalisque, but this is a perception I've always had to deal with being a FA that I haven't been able to escape. We all have our own personal experiences and that does taint our views and actions. What you are saying is perfectly understandable, but it's based on the assumption that FAs will always attempt to make, or desire their partners to get fatter regardless of their health (or at least stay fat). It's like me saying that FAs should avoid fat women and learn adapt their desires to thinner women because they (the FAs) will inevitably end up being a fat woman's psychotherapist, have their preference for fat women thrown back in their face, and ultimately get blamed for the fatness of their partner and any health problems they may have or develop. That has been my experience, over and over again, and believe me I bent over backwards to make clear that my physical preferences are a far second to my partner's health. As I wrote in your "Freaks to Freaks" thread, I think it all comes back to FAs and fat people not understanding each other, being suspicious of each other because of bad experiences, being on the fringe (being the "freaks") and not being understood by society in general or by each other and being associated with all the stereotypes that we are associated with. I won't even get into the self esteem issues... (one run on sentence like that last one is enough...  ) I don't think a fat person should feel that they need to opt for a non-FA because choosing a FA will ultimately be to their disadvantage, I think that's one of those misconceptions. Being a fat person and dating a non-FA will also have it's disadvantages, there is no perfect relationship.




edx said:


> ...
> But I think you make a good point, that if we can hold onto our hearts we have better chances of making good choices. This is where it is great, I think, that so many younger folk discover places like Dimensions, and learn that there are a variety of views out there. This gives them at least a chance to look for the right match in these matters.


Like you said Ed, it's about making right choices, about getting to know each other and learning from each other. Maybe it's too late for my generation, but if the younger folks can learn from each other they will have a better relationship with each other (the FAs and the fat folks). I think fat people need to be more accepting of themselves, and better understand where the FAs are coming from, and the FAs need to better understand the fears that fat people have, the realities of what it is like being fat and quite frankly many of the FAs need to learn how to behave themselves (the males in particular) and be more realistic in what they expect from a relationship.


fa_man_stan


----------



## Bagalute (Jan 24, 2008)

Edens_heel said:


> The question of identity in that sense comes from the fact that extra weight is still seen as unhealthy, or a disease, a blight, by so many, even those who have extra weight on them - so if you love and lust after a part of someone that they see as a plague to their existence, how could that not make you question the validity of your preference? Being an FA is a preference like any other, but where it differs is in the possible ramifications of your partners feelings on it and the health involved - because unlike a hair colour, extra pounds have a lot more, pardon me for the pun, weight to them in the world, be it through societal influences, or simply what feels and looks good to someone, or even the state of their health. The preference exists on the same level as the aforementioned example, but it's the possible result of that attraction that is in question here.




Thank you for explaining a second time . I guess I didn't quite get your point earlier (language gaps and me not paying enough attention when reading your post)


----------



## jakub (Jan 24, 2008)

Edens_heel said:


> We all crave the idea of having a true love, a partner in crime, but if you are with a BBW or BHM and they truly want to lose their weight no matter what or how you feel about it and try to make them feel about it, do you feel as if your preference is meant to be maligned against on some level?
> 
> This is about the identity of an FA / FFA. Has your partners feelings and desires to be part of the "thin is ideal" or "thin is healthy" concept made you question your identity? In such a situation, do you feel that there is nothing external that can validate your identity as an FA?



First thing, (I know this will sound unpleasant...sorry). In men's mind true love and sexual attraction is not equal (in my case, I cant speak for others). I love my wife and I'm really attracted to her, but if she looses her weight, there will be a huge problem, not on mental level but on sexual level. Then next question... how long relationship without attraction can last? 

I hate myself because of that. I don't know if there is any "FA" therapy to kill my attraction for SSBBW's. Maybe I'm just one from small sample of "fetishists"  

Now this is not a problem, but what will be in next 10-20 years?

Finally regarding question, I don't care about identity as an FA (I know that I'm the one and it will never change), only what matters is how good/happy my relationship is, and how happy my wife is.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 24, 2008)

fa_man_stan said:


> Not meaning to pick on you about your views of FAs Superodalisque, but this is a perception I've always had to deal with being a FA that I haven't been able to escape. We all have our own personal experiences and that does taint our views and actions. What you are saying is perfectly understandable, but it's based on the assumption that FAs will always attempt to make, or desire their partners to get fatter regardless of their health (or at least stay fat). It's like me saying that FAs should avoid fat women and learn adapt their desires to thinner women because they (the FAs) will inevitably end up being a fat woman's psychotherapist, have their preference for fat women thrown back in their face, and ultimately get blamed for the fatness of their partner and any health problems they may have or develop.
> 
> That has been my experience, over and over again, and believe me I bent over backwards to make clear that my physical preferences are a far second to my partner's health. As I wrote in your "Freaks to Freaks" thread, I think it all comes back to FAs and fat people not understanding each other, being suspicious of each other because of bad experiences, being on the fringe (being the "freaks") and not being understood by society in general or by each other and being associated with all the stereotypes that we are associated with. I won't even get into the self esteem issues... (one run on sentence like that last one is enough...  ) I don't think a fat person should feel that they need to opt for a non-FA because choosing a FA will ultimately be to their disadvantage, I think that's one of those misconceptions. Being a fat person and dating a non-FA will also have it's disadvantages, there is no perfect relationship.
> 
> ...



let me clarify. i don't mean that i tell ALL FAs no. in fact i have begun saying yes pleased to say!  but i still date non FAs too when i like. when i date FAs i do ask THE specific question. i'm very clear and definite. i ask them how they would think they'd handle it if a woman they cared about had to have WLS for health reasons. i've had guys tell me honestly that they would no longer be attracted to her physically --point blank. when a guy says something i do listen. i don't believe in changing people. you have to take them as they come. 

as for my notions about FAs, they've come from FAs themselves. i've asked a lot of questions directly over the past 4 years. and i'll say to you, that you have no idea what really gets said to women and the kind of expectations the majority of people we come into contact with have--and not just on the net. its when someone really expresses a true interest in you and really tells you what their needs are that you truly know what the deal is. i often say to my male friends that i wish they could be me for a while and really learn about whats going on. then you'll know why we women are so happy when guys like you talk. 

i know that every FA isn't a feeder-or even what i call a voracious feeder. i mean by that someone who wouldn't even mind that you died because of the fat. i'm always careful to ask someone i'm interested in exactly what their preferences are. i know that some men just enjoy it that their woman likes her food and indulges herself. i know that some could care less about what or how a woman eats. each person is indeed different.

i try not to hold a man responsible for who or what he is. i just try to hold myself responsible for knowing what i can and cannot handle. i try not to put myself in a position where i make someone else responsible for my health or happiness. if i was to date someone he'd have to have the clear knowledge that i wasn't a feedee etc... i'd tell him that from the beginning.

i don't care for it when a woman blames a man for gaining weight. i cringe when i hear women blaming a man for their health etc... i always feel like asking" and where were you?". the standard answer was "i thought i was in love". but, i believe in thinking before you let yourself get to that point. i tend to like calling women on this because i think its important if she is ever going to enjoy her life. it has nothing to do with an FA or non FA really. if i find myself feeling things for people i feel might be inappropriate for me i try to disengage. its not always easy but it makes more sense. and, its not based on an irrational fear but on real experiences with the person. usually they aren't even fat related experiences.

but i have to add that a man has to be willing to take the hit if he enjoys having a woman totally dependent on him (i'm definitely NOT talking about you Stan). if he is making all of the decisions he has to be willing to take all of the blame.


----------



## The Orange Mage (Jan 24, 2008)

jakub said:


> First thing, (I know this will sound unpleasant...sorry). In men's mind true love and sexual attraction is not equal (in my case, I cant speak for others). I love my wife and I'm really attracted to her, but if she looses her weight, there will be a huge problem, not on mental level but on sexual level. Then next question... how long relationship without attraction can last?
> 
> I hate myself because of that. I don't know if there is any "FA" therapy to kill my attraction for SSBBW's. Maybe I'm just one from small sample of "fetishists"
> 
> ...



Of course love and sex aren't in the same boat at all times...you're programmed to want to be sexual with a woman who, according to your brain, is great for reproducing. In your mind, SSBBWs are the greatest choice for teaming up with to keep the species going well. Taking away that positive feature (her plumpness) would almost ALWAYS harm the sexual attraction in some way, regardless of your love for her.

I don't think it's so much about FA's reconciling thier FA-ness, it's Men reconciling their primitive penis-driven desires. Normal men probably go through the same guilt when/if their woman becomes less sexually attractive to them, and it's probably just as hard.


----------



## southernfa (Jan 24, 2008)

fa_man_stan said:


> ... I bent over backwards to make clear that my physical preferences are a far second to my partner's health.


And that is surely the only reasonable, mature stance to take in a committed relationship.

Nonetheless, someone asked me a question back-channel recently that made me consider my own stance and one of the things that occurred to me is that this issue of one's partner significantly changing shape mid-race is in part an emotional one for most men.

[Warning: guy talking about emotions...] I reckon, when as a guy, you commit to a woman, there is a sort of assessment that 'this' is what she is, the whole lock, stock and barrel. You accept that, as it is (or you don't, in which case there will be trouble) and get on with life. You would generally be quite happy if she stayed exactly as she was for the rest of your lives, impractical as that may sound. (maybe there could a few improvements to the 'early-morning-charisma' and a 30-year trip to Tibet for the mother-in-law, but overall, you accept things they way they are)

Accordingly, a significant weight loss represents 'less' than you initially bargained for and could give rise to some subconscious sense of being deprived. I'm not suggesting this is fair or rational, just a possible explanation for some guys' difficulty in adjusting to the new state of affairs.

Another aspect would be the simple sexual attraction aspect. Lust is desire. Desire always wants more. This is never more evident than in a website that supports the 'weight-gain' community.
Less is not more. It may be a little optimistic to take a FA-man who has such an transparent stance on an issue of lust and expect him to accept something 'less' instantly. Again it's not very fair or rational but developing the acceptance of 'less' may take some time.

In either case, it is a p**s-poor excuse for a man to introduce conditions into an unconditional relationship and probably one of those things that needs to be talked through in the early stages. If a man is open about the need for a minimum weight or somesuch, then the lady has to accept that the relationship on offer is conditional and she should possibly be looking elsewhere if she wants an unconditional relationship.


----------



## stan_der_man (Jan 24, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> let me clarify. i don't mean that i tell ALL FAs no. in fact i have begun saying yes pleased to say!  but i still date non FAs too when i like. when i date FAs i do ask THE specific question. i'm very clear and definite.
> ...


You may also agree here Superodalisque, I'm sensing this is where you are coming from... I actually think it is healthy (in an openminded sort of way) for fat folks to be open to relationships with non-FAs as it is for FAs to be open to relationships with thin partners (or partners of varying physics, not necessarily the most "preferable" that they are seeking...) There is more to a relationship than the physical, just going into a relationship because of physical attraction often times leads to problems later on. Relationships are a fine balance of give and take, and people (voluntarily or involuntarily) change over time. Being open minded and adaptable is going to make long term success of a relationship more likely.



southernfa said:


> ...
> Accordingly, a significant weight loss represents 'less' than you initially bargained for and could give rise to some subconscious sense of being deprived. I'm not suggesting this is fair or rational, just a possible explanation for some guys' difficulty in adjusting to the new state of affairs....


Exactly. There is a sense of "loosing something" when the partner of a FA looses a signifigant amount of weight, but as written above, relationships are give and take. I think a middle ground can be (or should be) attempted in such a situation. If a woman looses weight and a FA looses some of his desire, the FA should attempt to find a new middle ground in the relationship, other mutual interests or whatever is that benefits or interests both. I know in my situation, my wife started riding bicycles & motorcycles with me, something I always liked to do, but something she wasn't able to do when she was heavier. A new middle ground of common interests was found.


----------



## lovessbbw (Jan 25, 2008)

There have been some interesting thoughts and feelings expressed here. I always end up back at one point for me. Decency and respect. Decency and respect aren't real flashy and fall by the wayside to some people. I know to me that if I truly loved someone with an 'unconditional love' then I would have the decency to support her decisions and the respect to accept it. Maybe for some of us the term 'FA' should encompass not just the vessel of the body but all the vessel contains, the heart, the mind and the soul as well as these are always the most admirable measures of a woman.


----------



## James (Jan 25, 2008)

fa_man_stan said:


> ....Maybe it's too late for my generation, but if the younger folks can learn from each other they will have a better relationship with each other (the FAs and the fat folks). I think fat people need to be more accepting of themselves, and better understand where the FAs are coming from, and the FAs need to better understand the fears that fat people have, the realities of what it is like being fat and quite frankly many of the FAs need to learn how to behave themselves (the males in particular) and *be more realistic* in what they expect from a relationship.
> fa_man_stan


 
*I couldn't agree more*. 

The fantasy element of this board (that is now protected from challenge, I might add) doesnt really provide the most helpful context for the development of realistic expectations from FAs towards fat people. Whilst its obviously a great resource for people, it also might not be the most helpful thing for informing 'real world' BBW/FA relationships. 

BBWs with low self esteem from a lifetime of self hatred from being fat shouldnt be subjected to the 'knight in shining armour' treatment by an FA only to be encouraged to change their bodies in the direction of upward. I think that this behaviour lets FAs down and ultimately damages trust in us as a group. Even when consented to, this can still be considered somewhat shabby behaviour on the part of the FA when it is directed toward a BBW with low esteem (in my opinion). 

I think that as a basic rule, a person should not expect or ask a partner to do something to theirselves that they would never consider doing to themself. I mean, how many of us FAs would be actually be happy to weigh 500lbs, to face the *reality* of what that weight actually means on a day to day basis? How can anyone ask, in clear conscience, for that from someone they love or care about?

I'm not attacking the fantasies of those that have them. I just agree with Stan that the expectation for these kinds of fantasy is incompatible with the majority of functional FA/BBW relationships. Of course there are a small minority for which those fantasies are genuinely mutual... but even then, IMO, the morality of applying pressure or validating encouragement to reach a high, essentially disabling weight like 500lbs+ is questionable... to say the least! 

So yeah, the dialogue needs to be both ways... but I reckon the emphasis is probably on the FAs to be more reality-based in order to earn the trust that they want to receive from BBWs.


----------



## imfree (Jan 25, 2008)

James said:


> *I couldn't agree more*.
> 
> The fantasy element of this board (that is now protected from challenge, I might add) doesnt really provide the most helpful context for the development of realistic expectations from FAs towards fat people. Whilst its obviously a great resource for people, it also might not be the most helpful thing for informing 'real world' BBW/FA relationships.
> 
> ...



By going from 271 lbs in 1999 to 440 lbs in 2008, I have lived what you
have written about. While I am happy at this weight, I have several
physical limits as a result of being this heavy, and would never advise
another person to do what I am doing. It was a great fantasy in the
past, but reality has set in.


----------



## Lastminute.Tom (Jan 25, 2008)

I think relationships with too much feeling of obligation are self destructive, you feel that you must stay with someone no matter what you are subjected to then you need to free yourself because you aren't being yourself you're being who you think you're partner wants you to be, and then you loose the reason why you got together in the first place. 

I mean like if the whole reason you got into a relationship was because you found them amazingly attractive and it wasn't so much because you could converse with them till the wee hours or another sentimental reason then once they stop being physically attractive to you, your mind finds no reason for you to stay in the relationship except fear of being alone and unloved, which is never a good reason to stay in a relationship. 

And if you're partner wants you to stay in a relationship that holds no pleasure for you, then they aren't someone you want to be in a realtionship with anyway, a true partner would want you to be yourself even if it meant they couldn't be in a relationship with you. 

I mean roles reversed I would have to let them go, I mean if they had lied to me about being emotionally attracted etc. then I'd be super pissed but if this relationship isn't who they are I would have to let them go otherwise I'd start torturing myself for keeping them miserable. 

So you see, if we're all just a little more honest with why we're in these relationships, hopefully we wont end up in situations that cause us vast amounts of emotional turmoil.


----------



## GTAFA (Jan 27, 2008)

I'm very impressed with how articulate this thread has been, and how deeply it touches upon some of my feelings. I don't have answers, just more questions...

Do any of you, for example, remember VALLEY OF THE DOLLS? there's a place in the novel (which i read as a child) where a guy is totally obsessed with the big boobs of one of the women in the book: a woman who develops breast cancer and requires a mastectomy. In the trashy two-dimensional language of this 1960s melodrama we see the primal terror of a woman whose identity & happiness are based on her boobs, which she has to lose. 

My first wife dieted --no WLS required --from a high close to 300 pounds, down to about 140. I supported her decision as much as I could, but at the same time I couldn't fake orgasms: and so we parted company, largely due to her own efforts to find someone else, someone who would be attracted to her thin self. 

There are some intriguing similarities, don't you think? whereas my wife was not dieting as part of a life-saving procedure, some (outside this community, i guess) would argue that weight-loss is something a woman should be able to do without losing her husband. We're supposed to love the whole woman, right? 

So excuse me if I bring this up in context with husbands of the women who have mastectomies. I wonder what that would be like, not because I am morbid, just because there are various kinds of political correctness involved. Husbands are supposed to support their wives through their crises, right? That's the kind of thing that creates guilt, even if "shoulds" aren't helpful at creating real love between people. 

Forgive me if the questions I've brought up are troubling... I'm troubled.


----------



## stefanie (Jan 27, 2008)

GTAFA said:


> So excuse me if I bring this up in context with husbands of the women who have mastectomies. I wonder what that would be like, not because I am morbid, just because there are various kinds of political correctness involved. Husbands are supposed to support their wives through their crises, right? That's the kind of thing that creates guilt, even if "shoulds" aren't helpful at creating real love between people.



I guess it depends on what your definition of "real love" is. To me, real love is what you do - with your life, your time, with your commitments. Yes, it is possible to fall out of love with someone. Couples *do* divorce when one or the other gets cancer, or some other life-threatening disease. However, I personally don't think that's all that great.

There are an awful lot of things that can make someone lose their appearance - the initial appearance that attracted them to their spouse. Diseases, traffic accidents, natural disasters, you name it. They can cause anything from weight loss to severe disfigurement. They can involve the destruction of not just the ability to have sex, but to even move about or do anything normally anymore.

This is awful, and frightening, but it is part of life. There are no guarantees. It could happen to anyone of us at any time. How we deal with it with ourselves, or a committed partner - that's the measure of love.


----------



## Chimpi (Jan 28, 2008)

I think most of it is based on attitude.
I also think it is important to be with some one that you connect with on more than just a physical level.



jakub said:


> I love my wife and I'm really attracted to her, but if she looses her weight, there will be a huge problem, not on mental level but on sexual level. Then next question... how long relationship without attraction can last?
> 
> I hate myself because of that. I don't know if there is any "FA" therapy to kill my attraction for SSBBW's. Maybe I'm just one from small sample of "fetishists"



How long the relationship lasts afterwards is up to not only you, but her as well. It is possible that you may still love her just as much (not that weight equates to love, as you said) and still be attracted to her. It is also possible that were she to lose a lot of "extra weight", she might want to find some one new to enjoy in her new self and body. Anything is possible. The key to that, I think, is based on how much and how well you two work through things. Talk things through. Live _with_ each other, not just beside them.

Attitude is a huge part of the ball game. Well, at least for me it is. Some one who enjoys themselves just as much as I enjoy them is more attractive than anything else I could possibly imagine. Well, it's high up on the chain.  To quote the wise edx:


edx said:


> I really think most FA would handle reasonably well I dont want to get thinner, but I really need to, for health reasons. Im only going to get as thin as I need to, Ill miss being bigger, and I know youll miss me being bigger, but this really needs to happen. But it is that first part, the I dont want to that is key I think.



So much is based on life experiences, past and present, attitude, development, environments, etc. It is hard to expect some one to love them self when so much negativity, ridicule, and hatred is thrown their way. It is much harder to actually love yourself as you are through all of that negativity, ridicule, and hatred. I think that most "Fat Admirers" want a partner that loves them self, and some might require that (or possibly more). Positivity and common ground is some what of an essential for a lasting relationship (not that opposite individuals cannot last).

*Sigh* There's just so much more to it than one can deal with, some times.



GTAFA said:


> So excuse me if I bring this up in context with husbands of the women who have mastectomies. I wonder what that would be like, not because I am morbid, just because there are various kinds of political correctness involved. *Husbands are supposed to support their wives through their crises, right?* That's the kind of thing that creates guilt, even if "shoulds" aren't helpful at creating real love between people.



To emphasize the text in bold - If that is a "supposed to" nature of husbands and wives, then it should also be assumed that "Wifes are supposed to support their husbands through their crisis', right?" Case in point, the crisis for which so many "Fat Admirers" go through is the rapid decline in mental wellness when their significant other has lost a dramatic amount of weight. Where a husband 'should' (I'm following along the lines of expectancy here, I suppose) support his wife through weight loss surgery (or just weight loss), then I think it is fair that the wife should help the husband through dealing with her weight loss. For some "Fat Admirers", it is a huge deal.

Stemming from jakub's issue, I have had to deal with quite a lot of guilt (for lack of a better term) due to my nature. I love fat women (I think that is obvious). I love fat women that love themselves even more. I also love fat women that desire to get fatter. Inherently, it is in my nature to gravitate towards people that fall within those. But when it comes to a relationship with a partner, especially a partner that is / could be of the _very_ large size, it is also very hard to deal with guilt that comes along with that.
When you love some one, or like some one a lot, it is only natural to not want them to be in pain (mentally nor physically). For a woman of a great size, pain might be an every day issue. Along with that might come the mindset that weight loss is desired or required. There are obvious complications that arise when a partner loses weight (when their partner desires them to be fat), but there are also complications that arise when their size causes them grief (mental or physical).
It has been very hard for me to deal with loving very large women because of that - I do not want people that I like and love to be in pain. I want the very best for them. But, I have come to accept that that is a part of me, and I just have to deal with having the preference/orientation that I have. I no longer feel guilty for loving very large women (and have not for a while). It did cause me quite a lot of grief in the past, however. Such things are maneuverable. 

That is where the emotional and environmental conditions of a relationship come into play. If your partner loses weight and you have a hard time dealing with it, how much else do you have to hold onto with them? Do you both enjoy the same movies? Music? Dreams? Hopes? Careers? Small things? etc...

Relationships are very 'give and take'. And they're also subjective to each individual.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Jan 28, 2008)

imfree said:


> By going from 271 lbs in 1999 to 440 lbs in 2008, I have lived what you
> have written about. While I am happy at this weight, I have several
> physical limits as a result of being this heavy, and would never advise
> another person to do what I am doing. It was a great fantasy in the
> past, but reality has set in.



Good to read someone posting something sensible along these lines.

I like seeing women gain weight, but only within certain limitations of reality.
I think a taboo that's never discussed in this forum is that whether or not weight gain fantasy is healthy or immoral is largely a matter of numbers--of _how much_.


----------



## Fascinita (Jan 28, 2008)

The Orange Mage said:


> I don't think it's so much about FA's reconciling thier FA-ness, it's Men reconciling their primitive penis-driven desires. Normal men probably go through the same guilt when/if their woman becomes less sexually attractive to them, and it's probably just as hard.



I think this is a good point, as then it places the conversation on a level of "well, what can we do about that aspect of ourselves that might drive us to abandon 20-year commitments to strike out looking for better sex."

Of course, the other side of the coin, and one that I wonder if women can relate to better, is the situation where you're married to someone who suddenly decides to stop working and bringing home the bacon, or a man who loses his job and can't find a new one. No blanket statement can serve as an answer to that question. I know, for instance, that I would be willing to help support my theoretical SO for a time if he decided he needed to take time off work to pursue some project that was personally meaningful to him. And I might be inclined to put up with his lack of income in a way directly proportional to how good out relationship has been. But there is no way that I would be down with my significant other deciding that he didn't want to work anymore period; or their not being able to get their (hi, Totmacher!) act together over the longterm, so that I'm stuck supporting us indefinitely.

Would I abandon a 20-year marriage if my man suddenly lost his job and couldn't find employment again? I guess it depends on how long the situation went on, and on how good he had been to me in the time leading to the crisis. I suppose I'm saying that, as far I'm concerned, you have to look at the entire picture: a good relationship is going to be harder to leave, you'll have more invested of yourself in it. Men's image of themselves as self-sufficient may be a factor here. Women don't always have the same sense of fearlessness about facing the world alone as men do. Let's face it, it's still easier--generally speaking--for a man to make a living alone than it is for women (who may also have children to consider.)


----------



## imfree (Jan 28, 2008)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Good to read someone posting something sensible along these lines.
> 
> I like seeing women gain weight, but only within certain limitations of reality.
> I think a taboo that's never discussed in this forum is that whether or not weight gain fantasy is healthy or immoral is largely a matter of numbers--of _how much_.



Thanks Paul. Your statements are liberating to me. Even in the worst of
my fat obsession, I did not desire a woman any heavier, proportionally, 
than I am now. I do not get a thrill from a picture of a woman heavier 
than me and yet I can appreciate her beauty. Weight-gain is sexy and
appealing to me, but loses every bit of appeal if the subject person 
goes above my BMI. My mind's eye, most beautiful vision of a woman 
would be one who is about 5'5" tall, weighs 280-340 lbs, and has 
above average mobility/muscle tone for a person that size. She's on 
the border between fantasy and reality, but she could be out there.
Hmmm......., how awesome, Paul, you've seen her in your mind's eye,
too!!! She looks like one of the three graces!!! There she is!!!


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Jan 28, 2008)

Chimpi said:


> I think most of it is based on attitude.
> I also think it is important to be with some one that you connect with on more than just a physical level.
> 
> 
> ...



Great post, well said!


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 28, 2008)

i really think the crux of the problem too might be love v desire/practicallity. i think a lot of FAs and a lot of men period believe that sexual desire IS a huge component of what they think is love. or some don't actually believe in love at all. its fashionable now to believe its some kind of emotional and societal construct because its so seemingly difficult for people to obtain. i know there are a lot of people who've been manipulated with that word. so i can understand their position. but, i really don't believe that you can lose desire for someone you truly love. its just my opinion. 

its great to desire a person have a great friendship and a mutual respect. but i think there are some people who go through life without ever finding the whole love shebang. thats just not how they operate. for them its great if they can find a sexual partner they respect and get along with. thats enough for them. so finding someone to be with for them is more of a practical matter. its okay to be that. its ok to admit that. that might really be the way to go. but, for many people that won't be enough, so when things get difficult you'll end up letting the person down. life can be hard and love really helps.


PS: love doesn't always depend on getting what you want.


----------



## southernfa (Jan 28, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> ... a lot of men period believe that sexual desire IS a huge component of what they think is love.


Aw shucks, are we really that transparent? 


superodalisque said:


> ...but, i really don't believe that you can lose desire for someone you truly love. its just my opinion.


Dangerous semantics here for does this not imply that if you lose desire then you did not truly love?  Perhaps it might be argued that if one 'truly' loved then compared to that love, desire would be insubstantial ie the icing on the cake, but never mistook for the cake itself. Love would not be altered by desire's waxing and waning.


superodalisque said:


> ... the whole love shebang.



LOL, so what exactly is 'the whole love shebang?'


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 28, 2008)

southernfa said:


> Aw shucks, are we really that transparent?
> 
> Dangerous semantics here for does this not imply that if you lose desire then you did not truly love?  Perhaps it might be argued that if one 'truly' loved then compared to that love, desire would be insubstantial ie the icing on the cake, but never mistook for the cake itself. Love would not be altered by desire's waxing and waning.
> 
> ...



yep, you guys are pretty transparent lol.

i think you said it better with your icing on the cake analogy--i defer to you oh wise one *does appropriate hand motions*

for me the whole love shebang is feeling wanted fulfilled and needed on every level and not having that knawing feeling in the pit of my stomach that something is missing.

LET US EAT CAKE!


----------



## southernfa (Jan 28, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> LET US EAT CAKE!



Indeed! that is a wonderful invitation, let all 'eat cake'!


----------



## Dr. P Marshall (Jan 29, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> i really think the crux of the problem too might be love v desire/practicallity. i think a lot of FAs and a lot of men period believe that sexual desire IS a huge component of what they think is love. or some don't actually believe in love at all. its fashionable now to believe its some kind of emotional and societal construct because its so seemingly difficult for people to obtain. i know there are a lot of people who've been manipulated with that word. so i can understand their position. but, i really don't believe that you can lose desire for someone you truly love. its just my opinion.
> 
> its great to desire a person have a great friendship and a mutual respect. but i think there are some people who go through life without ever finding the whole love shebang. thats just not how they operate. for them its great if they can find a sexual partner they respect and get along with. thats enough for them. so finding someone to be with for them is more of a practical matter. its okay to be that. its ok to admit that. that might really be the way to go. but, for many people that won't be enough, so when things get difficult you'll end up letting the person down. life can be hard and love really helps.
> 
> ...



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to superodalisque again.:doh:

You make some really interesting points here. And I don't think this only applies to men, either.


----------



## Paul Delacroix (Jan 29, 2008)

imfree said:


> Thanks Paul. Your statements are liberating to me. Even in the worst of
> my fat obsession, I did not desire a woman any heavier, proportionally,
> than I am now. I do not get a thrill from a picture of a woman heavier
> than me and yet I can appreciate her beauty. Weight-gain is sexy and
> ...



Thanks...you're very kind. I suppose that's what I visualize is fat women who are free, comfortable with their bodies, and outdoors.


----------



## Tad (Jan 29, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> i really think the crux of the problem too might be love v desire/practicallity. i think a lot of FAs and a lot of men period believe that sexual desire IS a huge component of what they think is love. or some don't actually believe in love at all.



Just to point out, the effect of loss of attraction by one party does not just affect that party. If a woman loses weight, and her husband is not sexually attracted to her anymore, or not nearly so much, their sex life probably goes to hell in a handbasket. Even if he says he loves her and will never leave her, will she stay in a largely or totally sexless relationship--especially if she is actually feeling sexier than she has in a long time?

It is very far from a one way street. And I think that this is what a lot of the guys are really saying: I still love her and want to support her, but I can't will myself to be turned on by her, so what will happen with us?


----------



## imfree (Jan 29, 2008)

edx said:


> Just to point out, the effect of loss of attraction by one party does not just affect that party. If a woman loses weight, and her husband is not sexually attracted to her anymore, or not nearly so much, their sex life probably goes to hell in a handbasket. Even if he says he loves her and will never leave her, will she stay in a largely or totally sexless relationship--especially if she is actually feeling sexier than she has in a long time?
> 
> It is very far from a one way street. And I think that this is what a lot of the guys are really saying: I still love her and want to support her, but I can't will myself to be turned on by her, so what will happen with us?



My Ex and I went through exactly that. Add these to the deadly mix, my
son's ADHD, oppressive work situation, struggling home ownership, 
severe financial pressure, my sleep apnea, and my out-of-control 
diabetes, and we have a marriage attacked from almost every angle.
Mine failed.


----------



## imfree (Jan 29, 2008)

Paul Delacroix said:


> Thanks...you're very kind. I suppose that's what I visualize is fat women who are free, comfortable with their bodies, and outdoors.



That's beautiful, Paul, because in the very deepest part of my heart,
I want to be the male embodiment of that kind of spirit! Amen.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 29, 2008)

edx said:


> Just to point out, the effect of loss of attraction by one party does not just affect that party. If a woman loses weight, and her husband is not sexually attracted to her anymore, or not nearly so much, their sex life probably goes to hell in a handbasket. Even if he says he loves her and will never leave her, will she stay in a largely or totally sexless relationship--especially if she is actually feeling sexier than she has in a long time?
> 
> It is very far from a one way street. And I think that this is what a lot of the guys are really saying: I still love her and want to support her, but I can't will myself to be turned on by her, so what will happen with us?




i understand what your saying. but what i'm saying is that if the desire goes away that easily i question that it is really love. it might be something else. it might be something very close but not the real thing. i could understand if desire went away for health reasons (of the FA) or emotional reasons but if it goes away simply because your partner changes physically it makes me wonder. i don't mean to say its not possible. i'm just saying that i find it sort of suspect. i think a lot of guys fall in love with the fantasy of a big woman and not the woman herself. if any man questions how he really feels about the way he feels he should imagine that a physical attribute that he most likes about his woman no longer exists. would he still be attracted? if the answer is no he might not really be in love with her but an idea of her.

as a woman i really wouldn't want that kind of conditional thing hanging over my head in a relationship. it might be sort of like saying that i lost my desire for a guy i said i loved because he lost his hair, went grey or got a little chubby. i just can't make that idea work for me. i was wondering, if things were reversed and a similar condition was put on you in a relationship how would you react to it. would you feel comfortable? i think i would always feel on edge myself.

this whole idea that a woman MUST exhibit certain physical features is disturbing to me. i know there are a lot of guys who feel they have a "requirement". i also know that a lot of those who have found the love of their life and she has none of those or very few of the physical requirements he says he wants. it worries me because it ends up with a whole lot of women jumping through hoops and not being themselves. thats where fat hatred, the crazy diet, plastic surgery and WLS just for aesthetics came from in the first place. when women feel pressure to be a "type" they end up not being something thats true to them. why is it so hard for men to take women warts and all? have we created a society where men feel like its a right to have a woman physically made to order? i don't just put this all on guys. women do the same thing and women have a lot to do with how men are. we are their mothers. we are their friends. we are the women who pretend to agree when internally we know that we don't because we are so desperate for companionship. so i'm not making men the scapegoat in this situation. i just wanted to say what was in my heart. i feel that a lot of women might feel this way but tip toe around it because they don't want to hurt the feelings of good- hearted men who really are trying but might be somehow misdirected.


----------



## Tad (Jan 29, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> i understand what your saying. but what i'm saying is that if the desire goes away that easily i question that it is really love.



Love and lust, not the same thing, one not required for the other. Nice when they happen at the same time. But you can lust for someone you don't love, and love someone for whom you don't lust.

It is possible that, on average, these are more easily separated for men than women, but I don't really know.

The difficult part is when you've had both, want both, but lose one....

and yes, it is easier to lust after the one you love. I know what I found most attractive changed over the years to more closely match what my wife was like. But that is not to say that it is infinitely mutable.


----------



## southernfa (Jan 29, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> if the answer is no he might not really be in love with her but an idea of her.



With the proviso that it cuts both ways, I think this is an excellent point and probably the nub of most relationship failures.



superodalisque said:


> why is it so hard for men to take women warts and all?



I reckon the previous point answers this one. We paint ideas and expectations onto each other, sometimes to the point that we can no longer see the canvas for the paint.



superodalisque said:


> we are their mothers. we are their friends.


Thank you so much for saying this. In my own case and working with a lot of other families I have no hesitation in standing testament to the old adage that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. I can't think of a single aspect of modern day life that is more irresponsibly undervalued.

The value of true friendship is hardly less important. A favourite quote of mine is that a true friend is that which puts you on your best behaviour. 



superodalisque said:


> we are the women who pretend to agree when internally we know that we don't because we are so desperate for companionship. so i'm not making men the scapegoat in this situation. i just wanted to say what was in my heart. i feel that a lot of women might feel this way but tip toe around it because they don't want to hurt the feelings of good- hearted men who really are trying but might be somehow misdirected.



The women in your part of the world must be very different from the women in my part of the world! LOL I can't think of one lady in a relationship in my social circles who has ever demonstrated the slightest hesitation in telling her man exactly where he is going wrong (with breaking updates by the minute in some cases...). That does it, I shall have to emigrate! 



edx said:


> and yes, it is easier to lust after the one you love. I know what I found most attractive changed over the years to more closely match what my wife was like.



I understand what you are saying Edx but on the whole, I'd have to demur. I think many guys find it much easier to merely lust after women than dare to love and in fact frequently lust after women they will never get close enough to for love or lust. We were all teenage boys once...


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 29, 2008)

southernfa said:


> The women in your part of the world must be very different from the women in my part of the world! LOL I can't think of one lady in a relationship in my social circles who has ever demonstrated the slightest hesitation in telling her man exactly where he is going wrong (with breaking updates by the minute in some cases...). That does it, I shall have to emigrate!




well i think a lot of women everywhere are sometimes full of public bluster and sometimes whimp out a bit privately--especially with those they care about.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 29, 2008)

southernfa said:


> I understand what you are saying Edx but on the whole, I'd have to demur. I think many guys find it much easier to merely lust after women than dare to love and in fact frequently lust after women they will never get close enough to for love or lust. We were all teenage boys once...




i have thought more than once that a lot of this is really about fear of intimacy. its seems we always provide one excuse or another either consciously or unconsciously when we are basically just afraid. i've done it myself.


----------



## southernfa (Jan 29, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> well i think a lot of women everywhere are sometimes full of public bluster and sometimes whimp out a bit privately--especially with those they care about.



One close friend has a t-shirt emblazoned "Be reasonable - do it my way". Just in case the husband forgets... 



superodalisque said:


> i have thought more than once that a lot of this is really about fear of intimacy. its seems we always provide one excuse or another either consciously or unconsciously when we are basically just afraid. i've done it myself.



Fear of intimacy. Isn't this a bizarre thing. What on earth is there to be afraid of? (open question)


----------



## Fascinita (Jan 29, 2008)

edx said:


> I know what I found most attractive changed over the years to more closely match what my wife was like. But that is not to say that it is infinitely mutable.



I have a feeling that it's mutable depending on the quality of the bond you have with someone. So I'm skeptical when I see people write "I love her, but I'm not attracted to her." *I'm not sure, but what if you can't have it both ways? *What if saying "I'm not attracted to her" means "I don't love her?"

We keep insisting that love and lust are not the same thing, and on the other hand we sort of keep saying that love can't exist without lust. Can we have it both ways? *Are you kidding yourself if you say "I love her, I support her, but I don't want her"?* Romantic love and sex go hand-in-hand.* Don't they?

*Please, for a moment, let's leave out the question of lust without love. We all know it exists. I'm asking specifically about situations where people claim that LOVE remains intact but LUST has gone the way of the dodo.


----------



## Candy_Coated_Clown (Jan 29, 2008)

southernfa said:


> One close friend has a t-shirt emblazoned "Be reasonable - do it my way". Just in case the husband forgets...
> 
> 
> 
> Fear of intimacy. Isn't this a bizarre thing. What on earth is there to be afraid of? (open question)



I think some people can be afraid of being let down after getting close (disappointment) or hurt after becoming open (bare and vulnerable). 

In the case of the former, this can come from a past filled with a pattern of disappointments from people who are close to said person...*or* it can stem from a lack of recognizing and learning from patterns that are revealed through one's experiences. 

Some people really can't see the big picture through their choices and what it might mean about -them-. As a result, they superficially figure that getting close to anyone will ultimately cause a disappointment, without really looking at how they might be part of the problem so that there's an end to a pattern they have yet to recognize. They function by generalizing and then internalizing.

Moreover, some people can feel deep down that they aren't deserving of being loved and embraced. It might not be a conscious feeling meaning one that they can articulate, but it's a pervasive underlying emotion that flavors and styles their self-concept and the way they function overall. The challenge is for them to bring those emotions to the surface so they can be recognized for what they are, examine them and then figure out how to heal.

Some people can feel awkward or uncomfortable because they aren't too sure with how to deal with the maturity that comes with closeness. 

I think this ultimately goes back to the fear of being open...or at least it is another branch of it. Some people really don't have intuitive skills on how to express themselves authentically or be emotionally honest. Some people have to learn this more so than others as it doesn't come so naturally. The deeper intimacy gets in a connection, the more the elements of emotional honesty and expression are required. One can find themselves feeling quite handicapped if these elements start to become more of a demand in a developing bond. 

So the automatic reaction is to pull back from discomfort, to distance oneself...to prevent others from getting close and requiring more openness and vulnerability from them. This person might find themselves constantly in a string of jump start relationships that end when everything starts to intensify...or they can find themselves more "comfortable" however limited by and with a string of casual affairs but yet always yearning for something deeper.

This is not to say that anyone in a casual bond pattern has this state of mind...this is to say that *some* can be drawn to these types of relationships repeatedly because of their "limitations" rather than staunch independence.


----------



## southernfa (Jan 29, 2008)

Candy_Coated_Clown said:


> I think some people can be afraid of being let down after getting close (disappointment) or hurt after becoming open (bare and vulnerable)....
> This is not to say that anyone in a casual bond pattern has this state of mind...this is to say that *some* can be drawn to these types of relationships repeatedly because of their "limitations" rather than staunch independence.



So would it be a fair assumption that there isn't much to be afraid of in intimacy itself. I mean, I think we all want, in our deepest heart as it were, to love and be loved unconditionally because we either know from experience or believe that this is a Really Good Thing, possible the Best Thing of All 

And yet, for reasons such as you have outlined, we place other ideas in the way; fears brought forward from the past, hesitations about ourselves, worries about the future. For some reason, it seems we put these lesser things first in our minds. 

Why?

It's a genuine question. I do this all the time and there is always a justification but I can't get away from the nagging doubt that the justification is not the answer.


----------



## Candy_Coated_Clown (Jan 29, 2008)

southernfa said:


> So would it be a fair assumption that there isn't much to be afraid of in intimacy itself. I mean, I think we all want, in our deepest heart as it were, to love and be loved unconditionally because we either know from experience or believe that this is a Really Good Thing, possible the Best Thing of All
> 
> And yet, for reasons such as you have outlined, we place other ideas in the way; fears brought forward from the past, hesitations about ourselves, worries about the future. For some reason, it seems we put these lesser things first in our minds.
> 
> ...



One and the same for some people?

Perhaps It might be that people start to define these things as a part of intimacy although they might have some idealistic view of it otherwise (and perhaps this ideal view is tainted as well); their view of what intimacy is and can be is warped through those smokescreens...the negative associations or at least what they feel they have limitations in. They can't see through a bigger lens because they are boggled down in their own quagmires.

Those difficult situations might ultimately make them associate and define the experience of intimacy in this light although they forever desire it. Kind of like a Pavlov's bell response. I guess they'd need to _reassociate_ and redefine what intimacy is for them through new experiences and a sense of awareness...to change the current stimuli and extinguish the previous so that the condition (of intimacy) can be essentially different.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jan 29, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> I have a feeling that it's mutable depending on the quality of the bond you have with someone. So I'm skeptical when I see people write "I love her, but I'm not attracted to her."
> 
> *Please, for a moment, let's leave out the question of lust without love. We all know it exists. I'm asking specifically about situations where people claim that LOVE remains intact but LUST has gone the way of the dodo.



I need to know are you saying if the lust goes there was never love? Because if so - nothing could be farther from the truth. There are all kinds of love. You love your family - no? Do you want to have sex with your siblings? But you still love them deeply right?

Wayne and I have been married 15 years next month (OMG) and over those years - we've been madly in love and on the verge of splitting up. Hated each other and found a soft warm place for each other. It is completely possibly to love someone madly but not be attracted to them sexually. And it is completely possible for that sexual attraction to die over time. When with someone for a long time you have to work on the love and the sex. It isn't just there 24/7 it takes work on the down times. And usually (not always) it comes back sad thing is most people don't wait around for the upsurge of the love and sexual desire. And they don't understand why love goes away. It doesn't it just takes a break now and then.


----------



## Fascinita (Jan 30, 2008)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> I need to know are you saying if the lust goes there was never love? Because if so - nothing could be farther from the truth. There are all kinds of love. You love your family - no? Do you want to have sex with your siblings? But you still love them deeply right?



Surely, we don't marry our siblings. Right? I'm saying that perhaps romantic love and lust cannot be separated. If that's the case, to say that you don't want someone physically but you still "love" them amounts to the same as saying you love your sister but would never marry her. If we say that romantic love and lust are inseparable, this might explain why people would be willing to leave spouses of twenty years after said spouses lose weight (no lust, no romantic love). Surely we don't leave people we love behind in the dust while we go off to make lives with new spouses. Right? If romantic love existed at all in those cases, then it must not anymore. Saying that romantic love and lust are inseparable could also explain why those with *strong bonds* of romantic love can survive weight loss, mastectomies and other major changes in the appearance of one or the other partner (where there is romantic love, there is lust). I am speaking very broadly here because I'm trying to sketch out an argument. I get that there are days when you don't feel lusty, even if you still feel the bond. But people don't leave their spouses over the loss of one day's worth of lust, right?

To be honest, the idea that one could love one's husband as one does one's brother leaves me completely unmoved to seek and/or maintain a romantic relationship. A lot of the discourse around this topic of women losing weight and FA SOs falling out of lust with them is polarized and off-target, I think. We talk a lot about women wanting love and men wanting sex, but how many women do you know who want to live without sex? And separating the concepts of love and lust starts to feel like a falsification. (I'm not talking about agape, but about eros.) OTOH, talking about love and lust as if they had nothing to do with each other in a marriage makes way for statements about how much people love their significant others, whom they might be willing to leave if the level of disappointment dropped below a certain point--oh, they "love" their wives, but you see, they can't feel turned on anymore. And I'm suggesting that if you loved your spouse, you'd find yourself turned on by them (hi, Totmacher!) again eventually--you'd adjust; and that if you're going to leave them because they don't turn you on, you don't love your spouse anymore, after all. Doesn't romantic love go hand-in-hand with lust? Or do we marry our siblings?

PS - *I like the way you put that at the end, about people needing to understand that there may be something that ebbs and flows about love, and about sticking around through the lows until things get better again. *


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jan 30, 2008)

My point is there are so many ways to love someone that lust may or may not be necessary. The love itself can be what makes you want to show physical love. I really don't see why knowing that you can be deeply in love with someone but not sexually attracted to that person would put you off relationships? Nothing in life stays the same - everything evolves and changes. In the beginning it's hot and you can't keep your hands off each other but that CAN'T last too long - you'd be exhsusted and nothing else would get done. LOL As you go along in a relationship you find a deeper love that connects you. You may not be crazy like you were - but the deepening of love brings about a different kind of turn on. 

I think if you are afraid of lust ending you are never going to know real love. Just go with the flow. Relax and enjoy the ride!! 

In the end - it's the friendship that you develope that keeps couples together for the long haul - not the sex. Really. 




Fascinita said:


> Surely, we don't marry our siblings. Right? I'm saying that perhaps romantic love and lust cannot be separated. If that's the case, to say that you don't want someone physically but you still "love" them amounts to the same as saying you love your sister but would never marry her. This might explain why people would be willing to leave spouses of twenty years after said spouses lose weight (no lust, no romantic love). It could also explain why those with *strong bonds* of romantic love can survive weight loss, mastectomies and other major changes in the appearance of one or the other partner (where there is romantic love, there is lust). I am speaking very broadly here because I'm trying to sketch out an argument. I get that are days when you don't feel lust, even if you still feel the bond. But people don't leave their spouses over the loss of one day's worth of lust, right?
> 
> To be honest, the idea that one could love one's husband as one does one's brother leaves me completely unmoved to seek and/or maintain a romantic relationship. A lot of the discourse around this topic of women losing weight and FA SOs falling out of lust with them is polarized and off-target, I think. We talk a lot about women wanting love and men wanting sex, but how many women do you know who want to live without sex? And separating the concepts of love and lust starts to feel like a falsification. (I'm not talking about agape, but about eros.) OTOH, talking about love and lust as if they had nothing to do with each other in a marriage makes way for statements about how much people love their significant others, whom they might be willing to leave if the level of disappointment dropped below a certain point--oh, they "love" their wives, but you see, they can't feel turned on anymore. And I'm suggesting that if you loved your spouse, you'd find yourself turned on by them (hi, Totmacher!); and that if you're going to leave them because they don't turn you on, you don't love your spouse. Doesn't romantic love go hand-in-hand with lust? Or do we marry our siblings?
> 
> PS - *I like the way you put that at the end, about people needing to understand that there may be something that ebbs and flows about love, and about sticking around through the lows until things get better again. *


----------



## RedVelvet (Jan 30, 2008)

While there has been a lot of very wonderful, deep level conversation going on here, all of which is really impressive....I am going to chime in on a shallow level...ta da!


See....ok. I have never had a problem with a guy saying that if a woman he loved radically changed her looks he would be less attracted to her. 

Of course he would. He fell in love with an entire package, and her looks were part of that (especially for men...and thats ok).

I would never expect a man's attraction to me to remain the same if I altered my looks signifigently from what he is drawn to.....at the same time.....how IS someone going to go with that flow?

For some, its time for them to leave. We would all love to be so good and kind and compassionate that no matter what, our attraction would remain, but its really rather unrealistic. So what DOES remain?

For some...very little...so they go. For others, there is such a rich web of experience and feeling and attachment and interdependence that nothing but death will separate.

And there is no promise of that....even in those we love best.

I would like to think that my current love would still want me if I gained a great deal of weight (he prefers me in the size 18-22 range, and I am on the top end of that now)....but I wouldnt expect it of him..

Meanwhile...he has gained 50 pounds or so since we got together. This has altered his looks quite a bit as it is all to the face and tummy....and yes, I admit it.....I am a little less sexually attracted to him than I was.

I find him now merely very handsome, rather than eye poppingly gorgeous....poor me, eh? I know....not exactly a problem.

But if he gained another 50?....hmm....no. I am not an FA. It would be an issue, sexually.....but I cant even imagine leaving for that reason.

I guess I am all over the place here....I guess I just want to say that I understand the men who feel this way....I feel this way myself...you arent a bad person for wanting someone not to change to the point of being a radically altered person...thats very human indeed.

As to guilt for even wanting a fat woman, vis a vis the idea of wanting something for your self that your partner might find unpleasant to "be"...I know its hard. 

Bless and cherish the women who have found some measure of peace and self esteem in a hugely fat phobic world. She is far stronger than the average woman....she needs to be.

I don't know what to say to people who are attracted to the actual physical signs of ill health without getting into trouble here....panting, struggling, etc.

Fraid y'all are on your own there. 


But to the man who likes a healthy, mobile-as-she-needs-and-wants-to-be fat woman? Goddess bless and keep you.


----------



## Fascinita (Jan 30, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> While there has been a lot of very wonderful, deep level conversation going on here, all of which is really impressive....I am going to chime in on a shallow level...ta da!
> 
> 
> See....ok. I have never had a problem with a guy saying that if a woman he loved radically changed her looks he would be less attracted to her.
> ...




I don't think this is shallow at all. I think it's perfectly deep in that it's true for you, and the best *anyone* can hope to accomplish by writing in one of these threads is to state what one sees as truth. I'm not sure if your characterizing the dialogue above as "deep" is meant to suggest that it is "out of touch," or something along those lines--I'm one of those earnest people that doesn't understand dry wit--almost not at all, especially online--I'm better in person. So I hope I haven't misunderstood you. But I don't think any of what you've said is out of line with what I said above. You grow out of love or you find out there wasn't much love there anymore. Fine. Leave. Just don't say "I "love" you, but I dont "want" you." Because if there were love there, it might be the thing that helps you adjust to the changes and desire that person again. And I think that little false "I "love" you, but..." works as a polite way of congratulating oneself that, even though you don't care at all and are leaving, you can still say "OH, I love you, I just don't 'love you love you.'" Which means you're still a "good," loyal person. After all, you still "love" them. Except that "love" does nobody any good except the ego of the great lover, who's on her/his/its/their way out the door.

I also have had the experience of feeling less sexually attracted to people I've been in relationships with. When I cared for the person, I came to want them again after our relationship survived the rough patch. But in the case of the real MF, guess what? The less I liked him, the less attracted physically I was to him--and he had not changed in the least. I was repulsed by this person because of the repulsive things they (hi, Totmacher!) did. The more I saw of these repulsive things, the less I could imagine any kind of closeness with him/them/it.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jan 30, 2008)

Actually I was being sincere and complimentary ...I find the thoughts expressed here rather profound.

No attempt at wit. Ah well.

(on the other hand.. I am rather confused by the "Hi Totmacher" stuff....but that seems personal)


----------



## Fascinita (Jan 30, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> Actually I was being sincere and complimentary ...I find the thoughts expressed here rather profound.
> 
> No attempt at wit. Ah well.



It's hard to tell online. Forgive my dulled senses. I've taken two melatonin tablets tonight.

I don't know if I've mentioned this, but you look a lot like my sister. SO I have an odd sensation of familiarity whenever I'm reading one of your posts.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jan 30, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> It's hard to tell online. Forgive my dulled senses. I've taken two melatonin tablets tonight.
> 
> I don't know if I've mentioned this, but you look a lot like my sister. SO I have an odd sensation of familiarity whenever I'm reading one of your posts.



Ha!...I hope she doesnt look like me in my current grumpy avatar....

You, as a goldfish, don't look a thing like my sister, but are very cute in spite of this.


----------



## Fascinita (Jan 30, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> Ha!...I hope she doesnt look like me in my current grumpy avatar....



Yes, she is gorgeous. And when she's grumpy, she looks just like that.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jan 30, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> Yes, she is gorgeous. And when she's grumpy, she looks just like that.




There is a nice compliment tucked in there....and I thank you most heartily for it.

:kiss2:


----------



## Tad (Jan 30, 2008)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> In the end - it's the friendship that you develope that keeps couples together for the long haul - not the sex. Really.



On this point, I totally agree with Sandie.


----------



## Tad (Jan 30, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> I
> 
> We keep insisting that love and lust are not the same thing, and on the other hand we sort of keep saying that love can't exist without lust. Can we have it both ways? *Are you kidding yourself if you say "I love her, I support her, but I don't want her"?* Romantic love and sex go hand-in-hand.* Don't they?
> 
> *Please, for a moment, let's leave out the question of lust without love. We all know it exists. I'm asking specifically about situations where people claim that LOVE remains intact but LUST has gone the way of the dodo.



Whoa there! Who keeps saying that love can't exist without lust? I certainly haven't. Perhaps for some people the two are inextricably intertwined, but I don't think that this is the general case.

I don't have the technical vocabulary to explain this thought as well as it probably could be by another, but I'll give a shot at it. For starters, maybe lust is not quite the right word, in that maybe it is too broad. When you love your partner, of course you'd like to make them happy, and bring them joy and pleasure, including the sexual kind. For certain not something that applies to siblings or most friends. But I think you can keep that, but lose the more-or-less animal brain "I look at you and my heart speeds up, my body starts shooting out phemerones (spelling?), and I can't wait to pull you into bed." Maybe you can even lose the "Once in bed with you all other thoughts vanish from my mind and I dive totally into our mutual pleasure." In other words, maybe you lose that 'spark' and sex becomes something you have to work at. It is work worth doing, in a good cause for both of you. But the spark to make it spontaneous and consuming may not be there. (and yes, been through patches like that, on one side or the other. As Sandie said, keep working at things and they get better again).

Note that this can be related to changes in the partner, or to changes in you, and in the latter category can sometimes be generalized loss of libido, for all sorts of reasons. There are a lot of people in partnerships where sex has dried up, for at least some period of time. I really don't think that means that they are all loveless relationships.

One final point, not so much from the post I'm replying to here, but another down the thread: note that most guys who have posted about these situations have been saying "she's lost weight/is losing weight/never gained weight, this is hurting my attraction to her, what do I do about it, what will become of us?" Very seldom do they instead end "...and therefore I'm leaving her." Granted, some may go on to take out their frustration upon their partner, in some form or another, and so drive her away. But most of these guys are not posting because they are leaving, but posting because they want to stay, but don't know how to make things good again in this situation.


----------



## superodalisque (Jan 30, 2008)

southernfa said:


> Fear of intimacy. Isn't this a bizarre thing. What on earth is there to be afraid of? (open question)




it's indeed bizarre. but remember that its harder for someone to hurt you if you don't allow them to get too close.


----------



## lovessbbw (Jan 30, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> it's indeed bizarre. but remember that its harder for someone to hurt you if you don't allow them to get too close.



Fear and the fear of pain can both be not just an inhibitor but a motivator as well. Just depends on how one uses this to move beyond things that can serve as a roadblock in the road of life. A life lived in fear is a life half lived.


----------



## southernfa (Jan 30, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> it's indeed bizarre. but remember that its harder for someone to hurt you if you don't allow them to get too close.



Sure, but isn't that the point. Fear of getting hurt isn't fear of intimacy, it's fear of getting hurt. If intimacy automatically equalled getting hurt then this would make sense. But it doesn't.
So for reasons unknown we make a false imputation that it does. Maybe this is fear of the unknown. May be it is a learned response eg "Avoid Wasps, as they sting!". (Incidentally, hive intelligence is very slow on learned responses eg "Building hive behind toilet is a bad idea/Stinging grey-haired dude is a bad idea/Not avoiding Stung dude packing at least 3 different sorts of toxic chemicals AND machinery is a very bad idea" But I digress...)

The idea that we should fear intimacy based on past experience rather seems to pivot around whether the current situation is the same as the old one.
I suspect that even with the same person this is a fairly big assumption. People change moment by moment and it is fraught with error to assume that the person in front of you will always behave the same way this time. I suppose it could even be limiting to impose such a supposition on someone; you in a sense deny them the opportunity to be different.
With a new partner, assuming that you should fear intimacy based on previous experience with others seems simply to be a mistake.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jan 30, 2008)

southernfa said:


> (Incidentally, hive intelligence is very slow on learned responses eg "Building hive behind toilet is a bad idea/Stinging grey-haired dude is a bad idea/Not avoiding Stung dude packing at least 3 different sorts of toxic chemicals AND machinery is a very bad idea" But I digress...)




Rep for funny wasp story. Ha!


Also.......intelligence is alarmingly attractive, Mister. Yer hot.


----------



## southernfa (Jan 30, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> Also.......intelligence is alarmingly attractive, Mister. Yer hot.



Aww shucks :blush: I don't know quite what to say (and that doesn't happen often), so, umm, thanks. :bow:


----------



## Fascinita (Jan 30, 2008)

edx said:


> Whoa there! Who keeps saying that love can't exist without lust? I certainly haven't. Perhaps for some people the two are inextricably intertwined, but I don't think that this is the general case.



By "we" I mean that these are the kinds of dilemmas I keep seeing expressed here at Dimensions. The "we" is Dimensions at large.

I keep seeing this story: "I am not turned on by this person anymore, therefore I wonder if I should leave--but I really love them!"

Except that, by leaving, you'd be showing you don't love them anymore... That's what I was suggesting. Because if you loved them you wouldn't want to leave them, right? I don't think it's possible to say "I love you, but I don't want to share my life with you or have sex with you or grow old with you or be there for you anymore--all of these things are the stuff that romantic love is made of... _Ergo_, if you don't want to share those things with a person, you don't love them anymore! Or am I wrong?

Your points and Sandie's about friendship in marriage, and sexless marriages are well taken. But in these instances we're not talking about loss of libido, I think we have to say. We're talking about people who want sex, just not with the newly thin or the never-grew-fat spouse. Although I don't know if loss of interest in sex with one partner might not mean there is a loss of libido, without the subject necessarily being aware of it. (Did I just use the word "subject"? I have to roll my eyes at myself... What a weird, clinical word to use... Anyway... )


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jan 31, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> Except that, by leaving, you'd be showing you don't love them anymore... That's what I was suggesting. Because if you loved them you wouldn't want to leave them, right? I don't think it's possible to say "I love you, but I don't want to share my life with you or have sex with you or grow old with you or be there for you anymore--all of these things are the stuff that romantic love is made of... _Ergo_, if you don't want to share those things with a person, you don't love them anymore! Or am I wrong?



Oh there are so many variables in that question. I think you would be surprised how many married couples do not have sex. And I mean are living celibate - not just sex once n a long while. It certainly doesn't mean they don't love each other - it just means their sex drive isn't there anymore.

Do sex and love in a romantic relationship go hand in hand. In an ideal situation of course. Losing one doesn't mean you lose the other. If you (the collective you) can have sex without love - and we all know that is possible and preferable sometimes - why is it such a leap to understand you can have love without sex?

It may not be the ideal situation but for some people it works.


----------



## Fascinita (Jan 31, 2008)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> why is it such a leap to understand you can have love without sex?
> 
> It may not be the ideal situation but for some people it works.



Well, I think it might be possible. But what about those people that say "I can't get turned on by this person anymore. I may need to leave"? Aren't they saying that the lack of desire has killed the love? Because how could you leave someone you were in love with, all things being equal? I certainly can't see myself leaving someone I loved. And I can't see myself loving anyone I didn't also feel attracted to on every level. So it just seems to me that you can't separate romantic love and lust (or sexual attraction, as Ed suggested--that was a good, subtle explanation of attraction, I think, Ed.)

You know, again, if you are in a sexless marriage, can you feel erotic/romantic love for the other person? I can see how you might be able to feel abiding love, agape, affection--whatever you want to call it. But again, you don't marry out of agape.


----------



## southernfa (Jan 31, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> But again, you don't marry out of agape.



Are you sure about that?


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jan 31, 2008)

Well once again you're asking questions that I don't think there are easy answers for. Does love die if sexual desire does? Not necessarily - however - if you are no longer attracted to your partner relationships end - but it doesn't mean the love does.

Have you ever loved someone desperately but there was no way to be with them? It just could not be worked out? I have - and I will love him forever - but the circunstances were all wrong. It's hard - believe me loving someone you cannot be with (even if that means she lost a lot of weight and you aren't attracted to her anymore) is heartbreaking. But sometimes it happens.

Here's another example. A young man and woman get married - they are desperately in love. After about 5 years one of them finally comes to terms with being gay. Does the love die or just the desire??

Love never dies. IMO.It changes, but everyone I have ever loved - I still love even tho 99% of them I will probably never see again. 




Fascinita said:


> Well, I think it might be possible. But what about those people that say "I can't get turned on by this person anymore. I may need to leave"? Aren't they saying that the lack of desire has killed the love? Because how could you leave someone you were in love with, all things being equal? I certainly can't see myself leaving someone I loved. And I can't see myself loving anyone I didn't also feel attracted to on every level. So it just seems to me that you can't separate romantic love and lust (or sexual attraction, as Ed suggested--that was a good, subtle explanation of attraction, I think, Ed.)
> 
> You know, again, if you are in a sexless marriage, can you feel erotic/romantic love for the other person? I can see how you might be able to feel abiding love, agape, affection--whatever you want to call it. But again, you don't marry out of agape.


----------



## Fascinita (Jan 31, 2008)

southernfa said:


> Are you sure about that?



Well, if some people do, they don't count in this particular discussion, since we're talking about people who've enjoyed sexual attraction up to a point, and now that is gone.


----------



## Fascinita (Jan 31, 2008)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Here's another example. A young man and woman get married - they are desperately in love. After about 5 years one of them finally comes to terms with being gay. Does the love die or just the desire??
> 
> )




Only speaking to this part of your post at the moment (maybe the rest later, as it's getting late here).

I don't think that you can be gay and enter into a straight marriage authentically. That is, maybe you are doing so in good faith, but if you're gay you're not going to be feeling the attraction for the straight partner. If you're a gay woman and you marry a straight man (or viceversa), you're not marrying them out of romantic/erotic love. Because if you are attracted to your straight partner, you're not gay. If you're bisexual I suppose it's possible. I can't see someone changing their sexual orientation overnight, either, or even over the course of five years.


----------



## southernfa (Jan 31, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> Well, if some people do, they don't count in this particular discussion, since we're talking about people who've enjoyed sexual attraction up to a point, and now that is gone.



Sorry, I'm a bit lost. Is your statement then "stay married out of agape"? If it is, my question remains, are you sure about that? It's a genuine question.


----------



## Fascinita (Jan 31, 2008)

southernfa said:


> Sorry, I'm a bit lost. Is your statement then "stay married out of agape"? If it is, my question remains, are you sure about that? It's a genuine question.



No. That's not it. I'd write it out again, but it's getting late here. Maybe tomorrow 

Night!


----------



## Candy_Coated_Clown (Jan 31, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> Well, I think it might be possible. But what about those people that say "I can't get turned on by this person anymore. I may need to leave"? Aren't they saying that the lack of desire has killed the love? Because how could you leave someone you were in love with, all things being equal? I certainly can't see myself leaving someone I loved. And I can't see myself loving anyone I didn't also feel attracted to on every level. So it just seems to me that you can't separate romantic love and lust (or sexual attraction, as Ed suggested--that was a good, subtle explanation of attraction, I think, Ed.)
> 
> You know, again, if you are in a sexless marriage, can you feel erotic/romantic love for the other person? I can see how you might be able to feel abiding love, agape, affection--whatever you want to call it. But again, you don't marry out of agape.



I tend to reflect a lot on things so I admit my post will be long (as they tend to be).

But Fascinita, this makes sense. It is kind of complicated in some ways because I do literally know of a few marriages where the love is still romantic but the sex is just not that present as it used to be in the past for the couple. 

However, in most cases where there's no longer sex or sexual intimacy due to whatever reasons, the couple will usually stay together for security and familiarity reasons - there's no romantic and sexual attraction at all. The reason to stay could also be based on guilt and tradition. "Well although I am no longer attracted, I should not leave for shallow reasons because that would make me a bad person" or "Marriages are for the long haul, I can't see myself going through a divorce and being one of _those_ people." Kids might make it hard for some people to leave as well.

The couple might even sleep in separate bedrooms and co-exist this way. They become more like mutually supportive roommates...so again there's no romantic love as I too agree that in -most- cases it can't be separated for a lot of people. I guess that is a good term to use to describe the kind of love that exists without the romantic element - abiding love. 

Abiding love would be that you still care about that person, love them and hope to see them well and happy, but you just aren't sexually and romantically tied to them any longer or at all. Some people still want to keep a marriage union intact although the romantic love is not there because they might just like the security of the relationship, the friendship element and don't want to be alone. It might also mean that they have a lower sex drive now and it's not as important for them to go out and find the complete package at an older age. That might feel awkward and weird to them.

They can pretty much live asexually in this context although they might admit that they can still have sexual attraction to someone else that arouses that lust for them again on some (but still to a lesser degree) level.

I think some people also might hold on expecting to someday rekindle that attraction although it might never arise again. This is when some people (like in the subject matter of this thread) might place conditions such as wanting their partner to look a certain way as they did before if there was a big change...or to behave and act differently in hopes of igniting passion.

Some people even go as far as to consider letting their partner cheat, do threesomes or get involved in swinging...because they just want so much for that attraction to their partner to come back without feeling like they have to *gasp* leave their marriage and become part of the break-up or divorce statistic.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jan 31, 2008)

I just have one questions - have you ever been married? 




Fascinita said:


> Only speaking to this part of your post at the moment (maybe the rest later, as it's getting late here).
> 
> I don't think that you can be gay and enter into a straight marriage authentically. That is, maybe you are doing so in good faith, but if you're gay you're not going to be feeling the attraction for the straight partner. If you're a gay woman and you marry a straight man (or viceversa), you're not marrying them out of romantic/erotic love. Because if you are attracted to your straight partner, you're not gay. If you're bisexual I suppose it's possible. I can't see someone changing their sexual orientation overnight, either, or even over the course of five years.


----------



## Edens_heel (Jan 31, 2008)

I love where this thread has been going and am more than pleased by some of the dialogue and what's been revealed through it, but there were a couple of things that SouthernFA said that caught my attention:



southernfa said:


> The idea that we should fear intimacy based on past experience rather seems to pivot around whether the current situation is the same as the old one.



As I have read it, a few posts have clearly said that this is not true, and that no matter how good or bad the current situation may be, there is no accounting for what the past relationship may have done to an individual. And if the new relationship is in fact a positive and entirely supportive one, there is still ground to regain for the beleagured individual, and no matter how supportive the new partner is, the ghosts of old are truly hard to let go. To say that to fear intimacy because of past relationships is because the new relationship resembles the old one is not understanding just how damaging an individual can be to someone at their very core. That's like saying to someone with an eating disorder that was brought on by peer pressure "get over it - you look good to me," and expecting them to all of a sudden have the proverbial light bulb go off over their head:doh:



> With a new partner, assuming that you should fear intimacy based on previous experience with others seems simply to be a mistake.



Why? I don't understand how you could come to this conclusion. If we want to take it to an extreme for an example, you can use a physically abused woman as the case study. It would be fair to assume that someone who had been through that would have a great deal of fear about letting anyone get close - it would be damaging beyond comprehension. So why is it a mistake to say that someone who had been in an emotionally destructive relationship could more than likely react cooly at first to a new romance? Hurt breeds defensiveness in all creatures.


----------



## Fascinita (Jan 31, 2008)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> I just have one questions - have you ever been married?



Let's say I've made a commitment equal to that of marriage, but without the paper that says "marriage." I am no longer in that relationship, however.


----------



## southernfa (Jan 31, 2008)

Edens_heel said:


> As I have read it, a few posts have clearly said that this is not true, and that no matter how good or bad the current situation may be, there is no accounting for what the past relationship may have done to an individual. And if the new relationship is in fact a positive and entirely supportive one, there is still ground to regain for the beleagured individual, and no matter how supportive the new partner is, the ghosts of old are truly hard to let go. To say that to fear intimacy because of past relationships is because the new relationship resembles the old one is not understanding just how damaging an individual can be to someone at their very core. That's like saying to someone with an eating disorder that was brought on by peer pressure "get over it - you look good to me," and expecting them to all of a sudden have the proverbial light bulb go off over their head:doh:


There was no intention to belittle the effect of baggage from the past. And in practice, obviously many relationships do have to cope with baggage from the outset. So the comments could be taken as 'ideal world' stuff if you like. Speaking from practical experience, sometimes the baggage can be fairly deep and nebulous stuff that isn't always evident early on. In which case, it can take some considerable effort to work on resolving it. Which might be considered an attempt to attain the ideal.


Edens_heel said:


> Why? I don't understand how you could come to this conclusion. If we want to take it to an extreme for an example, you can use a physically abused woman as the case study. It would be fair to assume that someone who had been through that would have a great deal of fear about letting anyone get close - it would be damaging beyond comprehension. So why is it a mistake to say that someone who had been in an emotionally destructive relationship could more than likely react cooly at first to a new romance? Hurt breeds defensiveness in all creatures.


Well, in full acknowledgement of the previous point, suppose the lady meets partner 2 who is wonderful. Her 'past baggage' prevents her relating to him without fear and this so poisons things that she loses him. However
understandable her fears were, they were not applicable to him as he was good. They were inappropriate for her as they did not protect her from a real threat merely and illusory one but prevented her from enjoying a real good. In short, a mistake.
Hurt does indeed breed defensiveness in all species but is it not a defining characteristic of humanity that we can rise above our instinctive nature?


----------



## Edens_heel (Jan 31, 2008)

To clarify my above post further - I am not agreeing and saying that we SHOULD fear intimacy based on past relationships in the face of new ones, only that if we do, it makes sense that a new and different relationship will not wash away the scar tissue from the previous one right away. If a past relationship is truly damaging enough, it will not be something that disappears overnight, no matter how good the new relationship is.


----------



## Candy_Coated_Clown (Jan 31, 2008)

Well that's the thing...I never saw that anyone said that we SHOULD fear intimacy (as I don't think there SHOULD be fear)...it was just a matter of explaining WHY many people *do* because the original question to this tangent implied that it didn't make any sense as to why people were afraid of intimacy...that it was bizarre.

So I pondered a bit and decided to post the various reasons of why people fear and how this fear is expressed and tied into how many define and see intimacy since that was the question at hand.


----------



## stefanie (Jan 31, 2008)

Candy_Coated_Clown said:


> ... I do literally know of a few marriages where the love is still romantic but the sex is just not that present as it used to be in the past for the couple.
> 
> However, in most cases where there's no longer sex or sexual intimacy due to whatever reasons, the couple will usually stay together for security and familiarity reasons - there's no romantic and sexual attraction at all. ...
> 
> Abiding love would be that you still care about that person, love them and hope to see them well and happy, but you just aren't sexually and romantically tied to them any longer or at all.



Even if two long-partnered people can't have sex, that doesn't mean *at all* that they don't have deep romantic and emotional feelings for each other. (I am presuming that there was sexual attraction and interest to start with, as well as romantic love.)

Let's assume the worst case- that *both* sexual desire and sexual function go by the wayside. (It isn't always the case - it's possible to have desire without function.) It's that emotional bond, as well as romantic feelings, which keeps people together even if for some reason (often illness) that sex isn't possible any longer. 

As I see it, everyone who's in a committed, lifelong partnership is going to have to face the possibility of the loss of sexual function, either in themselves, or their partner, or maybe both. Fortunately, many people don't have that experience. But it can happen.

It seems to me that what is the most painful is when someone *wants* to do something for good reasons that might at the same time cause the partner to feel less desire. My sense is that it's the *deliberate* nature of the decision that's causing pain.

Because what if it were the other case, where the weight loss was not deliberate? For instance, many illnesses can cause severe weight loss. Does a spouse stop loving their partner if he or she gets sick and loses weight *inadvertently?*


----------



## Tad (Jan 31, 2008)

stefanie said:


> E
> 
> It seems to me that what is the most painful is when someone *wants* to do something for good reasons that might at the same time cause the partner to feel less desire. My sense is that it's the *deliberate* nature of the decision that's causing pain.
> 
> Because what if it were the other case, where the weight loss was not deliberate? For instance, many illnesses can cause severe weight loss. Does a spouse stop loving their partner if he or she gets sick and loses weight *inadvertently?*



I'm sure it varies from person to person, but I think for most, it would be far easier to take were it not deliberate. I think that would be in part because for a lot of FA, the preference is not strictly applied to the body, but also attitudes/opinions. But that is the view from within my brain, I'm not sure how accurate it is for the wider world.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jan 31, 2008)

That's not true. Many, many gay/lesbian people are in heterosexual partnerships either because they cannot or will not come to terms with their real sexuality.






Fascinita said:


> Only speaking to this part of your post at the moment (maybe the rest later, as it's getting late here).
> 
> I don't think that you can be gay and enter into a straight marriage authentically. That is, maybe you are doing so in good faith, but if you're gay you're not going to be feeling the attraction for the straight partner. If you're a gay woman and you marry a straight man (or viceversa), you're not marrying them out of romantic/erotic love. Because if you are attracted to your straight partner, you're not gay. If you're bisexual I suppose it's possible. I can't see someone changing their sexual orientation overnight, either, or even over the course of five years.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jan 31, 2008)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> That's not true. Many, many gay/lesbian people are in heterosexual partnerships either because they cannot or will not come to terms with their real sexuality.




Ok..but is that "authentic"?...is that what most people would consider a "real" marriage?........"cannot or will not come to terms with their sexuality" seems a poor choice indeed as reasoning for a heterosexual partnership.

Me, I am open to all kinds of definitions of marriage, so I am not judging here...but that one seems kinda sad.

"Authenticity" was Fascinita's point.....


----------



## Waxwing (Jan 31, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> Ok..but is that "authentic"?...is that what most people would consider a "real" marriage?........"cannot or will not come to terms with their sexuality" seems a poor choice indeed as reasoning for a heterosexual partnership.
> 
> Me, I am open to all kinds of definitions of marriage, so I am not judging here...but that one seems kinda sad.
> 
> "Authenticity" was Fascinita's point.....



That isn't authentic. That's a subjugation of your real desires. You're right, that is sad. It's tragic that anyone feels they have to do that. I would in No Way call that a "real marriage."


----------



## ashmamma84 (Jan 31, 2008)

Waxwing said:


> That isn't authentic. That's a subjugation of your real desires. You're right, that is sad. It's tragic that anyone feels they have to do that. I would in No Way call that a "real marriage."



Co-sign. I'm a lesbian and there is no way I could enter into a hetero marriage and call myself being authentic...there would be a constant knawing in my spirit, because I'm not romantically or erotically attracted to men. 

And no, I've never been married, but I don't think I have to be to know "my truth".


----------



## RedVelvet (Jan 31, 2008)

I like boys and girls but choose monogamy. You wouldn't believe how much this confuses people.


----------



## ashmamma84 (Jan 31, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> I like boys and girls but choose monogamy. You wouldn't believe how much this confuses people.



Wow. People.


----------



## RedVelvet (Jan 31, 2008)

ashmamma84 said:


> Wow. People.



cuz...you know...if you arent gettin nekkid with both genders, at the same time....surely, you "need" to and are just looking for an excuse to cheat, right?

yeah.

:doh:


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Jan 31, 2008)

Why can't it be authentic? Why can't there be real love in that situation. I didn't remember I had been sexually abused when I was 7 - until I was 30. Until that point I denied it with venom. But I learned differently. So why can't someone be as deep into denial about their sexuality? And if in their heart they believe they are in love who is to say it's not authentic love?

I'm just sayin.





RedVelvet said:


> Ok..but is that "authentic"?...is that what most people would consider a "real" marriage?........"cannot or will not come to terms with their sexuality" seems a poor choice indeed as reasoning for a heterosexual partnership.
> 
> Me, I am open to all kinds of definitions of marriage, so I am not judging here...but that one seems kinda sad.
> 
> "Authenticity" was Fascinita's point.....


----------



## RedVelvet (Jan 31, 2008)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Why can't it be authentic? Why can't there be real love in that situation. I didn't remember I had been sexually abused when I was 7 - until I was 30. Until that point I denied it with venom. But I learned differently. So why can't someone be as deep into denial about their sexuality? And if in their heart they believe they are in love who is to say it's not authentic love?
> 
> I'm just sayin.




I wasnt saying that there was no such thing as denial to the point of UNKNOWING....if you genuinely don't "know" you are gay at that time...what can you do?

...But you _also_ used the term "or will not come to terms"....as in...don't want to deal with it..as well..and...thats a different story.


----------



## Fascinita (Feb 1, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> cuz...you know...if you arent gettin nekkid with both genders, at the same time....surely, you "need" to and are just looking for an excuse to cheat, right?
> 
> yeah.
> 
> :doh:



Ah, the "dirty bisexual" theory...  

Bisexuality/Pansexuality is widely misundestood. It's sort of the _Terra Incognita_ of sexuality, isn't it?


----------



## RedVelvet (Feb 1, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> Ah, the "dirty bisexual" theory...
> 
> Bisexuality/Pansexuality is widely misundestood. It's sort of the _Terra Incognita_ of sexuality, isn't it?




No respect, I tell ya....no respect.

Also...when you do something ....are something....for 25 years?...(Im 39, to give you a hint).........its not a phase.

Also...its not for my partner's turn on or benefit. In fact, the fact that I like women makes him just the tiniest bit nervous.


Anyway....enough about me and my thread hijacking skills.


----------



## Fascinita (Feb 1, 2008)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> Why can't it be authentic? Why can't there be real love in that situation. I didn't remember I had been sexually abused when I was 7 - until I was 30. Until that point I denied it with venom. But I learned differently. So why can't someone be as deep into denial about their sexuality? And if in their heart they believe they are in love who is to say it's not authentic love?
> 
> I'm just sayin.



I'm not sure that this is the best example to illustrate a point about romantic love, Sandie, as it seems to skate dangerously close to the idea that romantic love can exist in a union where the attraction does not exist, without making any gains for your argument that it can. Here is a situation where you're relying on denial about a person's sexuality to make your point that sexual attraction is not essential in a romantic union. I guess I don't feel like this is any different than the case of the person who says they love their SO, but they just aren't "in love" with them anymore. I find it hard to believe that the erotic element could be present in a outwardly "straight" marriage, in which one of the partners was "unaware" of his/her authentic gay orientation. You seem to be saying that this theoretical gay person who does not know she is gay can enjoy an attraction to a man and then one day find out that she does not, because she is now attracted to women. Although it's complicated, most of the handful of people I've known who found their gay sexuality later in life have told me that they always knew, but felt they must follow the rules of straight society by marrying, until one day they grew tired of playing along and decided to just live their lives.

Alas, neither of us is likely to change her mind on this anytime soon, it seems.


----------



## Fascinita (Feb 1, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> Also...its not for my partner's turn on or benefit.



Right? It's not like I want to have two relationships at once! If you're the monogamous type, it's not an option to bring in a third person.

Threadjacking is a wonderful skill that must be practiced often in order to be maintained!


----------



## Mr Happy (Feb 1, 2008)

Bagalute said:


> If being an FA is a preference like any other (like you said) your partner losing weight would be quite comparable to a blonde changing her hair to brunette. I doubt the latter one would make the "blonde admirer" question his identity (unless it's a real fetish)...



That about sums it up, love is about love, I think physical appearance first attracts us to each other hence why an FA would be with a BBW, but if there relationship grows into love then an attraction develops that tranceeds physical appearence.


----------



## waldo (Feb 1, 2008)

Mr Happy said:


> That about sums it up, love is about love, I think physical appearance first attracts us to each other hence why an FA would be with a BBW, but if there relationship grows into love then an attraction develops that tranceeds physical appearence.



Physical attraction always remains a large part of the relationship and it is a VERY poor analogy to compare being an FA to a preference for a certain hair color. Being an FA is much much much more than that. It is not a preference but a distinct sexual orientation. I think people try to downplay FAism as 'just another preference' probably because they are wanting to diffuse the typical concerns from the fat partner that it is the primary (only) reason for the attraction to him/her or that we are more interested in their fat than the total package. Is being a homosexual a preference? NO. Is being an FA a preference? NO! I would prefer to be attracted to thin women but that isn't how it is.


----------



## Mr Happy (Feb 1, 2008)

waldo said:


> I would prefer to be attracted to thin women but that isn't how it is.



REally? I feel for you man, I'd never want to be anything other than an FA, its the best feeling ever I only wish I'd realised it when I was younger, In fact that sounds like a strange thing for you to say on a size acceptence forum, doesn't sound like you accept size at all.

but being an FA doesn't give a guy the right feel put out or personally attacked if their girlfreind wants to loose weight does it? I think this is what the other dude was getting at, anyone who thinks a change in their partner's body is an attack on them and their values is and ass and obvoiusly doesn't love the other person.


----------



## RedVelvet (Feb 1, 2008)

waldo said:


> I would prefer to be attracted to thin women but that isn't how it is.




May I ask why? I am genuinely curious. Its not as if there is a shortage of pretty fat girls in the world....so I am wondering what it could be?


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Feb 1, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> May I ask why? I am genuinely curious. Its not as if there is a shortage of pretty fat girls in the world....so I am wondering what it could be?



It's easier to be atracted to socially accepted thin women?

That's al I could come up with.


----------



## Tad (Feb 1, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> May I ask why? I am genuinely curious. Its not as if there is a shortage of pretty fat girls in the world....so I am wondering what it could be?





Sandie_Zitkus said:


> It's easier to be atracted to socially accepted thin women?
> 
> That's al I could come up with.



Im not the posting that you are asking, so I dont know for certain why he said that. But looking at both his post and the thread as a whole, I have a guess. Maybe it is too obvious? I dont know.

Why wish not to be an FA: Because then you would never feel guilty for preferring that your partner be fat, when she is apt to prefer to be thin, or needs to lose weight for medical reasons. In other words, your preferences for your partner are vastly more apt to line up with your partners preferences for themselves.

In personal terms, in my life, on the one hand I would not want to stop being an FA, because it is a big part of my identity, and I don't want to change who I am. But on the other hand, in practical terms, while I would always want to be size accepting, yes, life would be better were I not an FA. So I entirely sympathize with the poster you were questioning.

In general terms, to be honest, the signals FA's receive from Dimensions are pretty mixed. There are women here who say they are happy to be fat, and on threads of "would you prefer to date an FA or non-FA" type questions, probably most of the women say an FA. But on the other hand, any time a guy says he's struggling because his partner is losing weight, and therefore he's finding her less attractive, he gets frankly battered. Not by everyone, but by the majority of respondents. And given that the "would you prefer to date..." threads are abstract, and the "my wife/gf is losing weight" threads are concrete, I know I read this as overall, in real life, most of the women here are not really comfortable with FAs in a practical sense, at least not in a let's get married and be together for always. 

Or maybe I'm just being cynical this afternoon, because it has been a long week, and I'm tired.


----------



## chunkeymonkey (Feb 1, 2008)

edx said:


> Im not the posting that you are asking, so I dont know for certain why he said that. But looking at both his post and the thread as a whole, I have a guess. Maybe it is too obvious? I dont know.
> 
> Why wish not to be an FA: Because then you would never feel guilty for preferring that your partner be fat, when she is apt to prefer to be thin, or needs to lose weight for medical reasons. In other words, your preferences for your partner are vastly more apt to line up with your partners preferences for themselves.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the insight. Being married to a FA can be challenging at the best of times. Mainly due to the practical sense of the ideal. My husband and I lock horns majority of the time. The reason that I really cant figure out if a FA is truly happy or if he might settle for practical reasons but live a fantasy that his partner will never be able to live up to...... I would love to see a couple FA's up on the lie detector chair and ask a bunch of questions. 

Sorry I am just fantasizing in my head....


----------



## waldo (Feb 1, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> May I ask why? I am genuinely curious. Its not as if there is a shortage of pretty fat girls in the world....so I am wondering what it could be?




Sandie and edx summed it up quite well. Most people would 'prefer' to conform to societal norms. But more importantly, as edx described, an FA often finds their hopes and desires to be somewhat at odds with their partner's feelings and reality (such as the spectre of weight-related health problems). I have personally dealt with the issues that come with a fat spouse's significant weight loss. Subsequently she has gained most of it all back but the concern over health problems tempers my enthusiasm for these developments and I find myself hoping she will plateau instead of continuing to gain even though the latter would would be very appealing to me strictly from a sexual attraction standpoint.

Overall I don't feel bad that I am an FA despite the associated baggage. I think it is nice that there are FAs in this world for all those pretty fat girls out there. As an FA who has followed my desires I feel fortunate to have had the strength to resist conforming to society. I wish more FAs could do the same instead of skulking around in the shadows and online.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 3, 2008)

stefanie said:


> *We can't (and shouldn't, IMO) want someone to stay fat for us if they don't want to be fat. *
> 
> I don't see any guilt or problem with loving large people - as long as we understand how they feel about themselves, about their own bodies. There's always that possibility, that they don't feel about themselves what we feel, that they don't see themselves as we see them. *That doesn't make our feelings or perception wrong.* What would be wrong would be to force, guilt-trip, etc. our feelings onto them (not that I see anyone seriously in this discussion doing that; I'm just saying.)



Thank you for this.....:bow:


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 3, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> * i don't believe in changing people. you have to take them as they come. *



I believed in it once.......it was a foolish belief indeed. You DO have to take people as they come because that is all you're ever going to get  :bow:



superodalisque said:


> *i try not to hold a man responsible for who or what he is. i just try to hold myself responsible for knowing what i can and cannot handle. i try not to put myself in a position where i make someone else responsible for my health or happiness.* if i was to date someone he'd have to have the clear knowledge that i wasn't a feedee etc... i'd tell him that from the beginning.
> 
> i don't care for it when a woman blames a man for gaining weight. i cringe when i hear women blaming a man for their health etc... i always feel like asking" and where were you?". the standard answer was "i thought i was in love". but, i believe in thinking before you let yourself get to that point. i tend to like calling women on this because i think its important if she is ever going to enjoy her life. it has nothing to do with an FA or non FA really. *if i find myself feeling things for people i feel might be inappropriate for me i try to disengage. its not always easy but it makes more sense. and, its not based on an irrational fear but on real experiences with the person. usually they aren't even fat related experiences.*
> 
> but i have to add that a man has to be willing to take the hit if he enjoys having a woman totally dependent on him (i'm definitely NOT talking about you Stan). *if he is making all of the decisions he has to be willing to take all of the blame.*




Once again, wise words Felecia


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 3, 2008)

fa_man_stan said:


> There is more to a relationship than the physical, just going into a relationship because of physical attraction often times leads to problems later on. Relationships are a fine balance of give and take, and people (voluntarily or involuntarily) change over time. Being open minded and adaptable is going to make long term success of a relationship more likely.



Exactly Stan- I fully agree 



fa_man_stan said:


> I know in my situation, my wife started riding bicycles & motorcycles with me, something I always liked to do, but something she wasn't able to do when she was heavier. A new middle ground of common interests was found.



Wow...what a nice thing to share.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 3, 2008)

James said:


> *I couldn't agree more*.
> 
> The fantasy element of this board (that is now protected from challenge, I might add) doesnt really provide the most helpful context for the development of realistic expectations from FAs towards fat people. Whilst its obviously a great resource for people, it also might not be the most helpful thing for informing 'real world' BBW/FA relationships.
> 
> ...



You're a class act and a genuine Gentleman, James :bow:


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 3, 2008)

Lastminute.Tom said:


> I think relationships with too much feeling of obligation are self destructive, you feel that you must stay with someone no matter what you are subjected to then you need to free yourself because you aren't being yourself you're being who you think you're partner wants you to be, and then you loose the reason why you got together in the first place.



Ain't this the f**king truth?


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 3, 2008)

stefanie said:


> I guess it depends on what your definition of "real love" is. To me, real love is what you do - with your life, your time, with your commitments. Yes, it is possible to fall out of love with someone. Couples *do* divorce when one or the other gets cancer, or some other life-threatening disease. However, I personally don't think that's all that great.
> 
> There are an awful lot of things that can make someone lose their appearance - the initial appearance that attracted them to their spouse. Diseases, traffic accidents, natural disasters, you name it. They can cause anything from weight loss to severe disfigurement. They can involve the destruction of not just the ability to have sex, but to even move about or do anything normally anymore.
> 
> This is awful, and frightening, but it is part of life. There are no guarantees. It could happen to anyone of us at any time. * How we deal with it with ourselves, or a committed partner - that's the measure of love*.



The system won't allow me to rep anyone right now but I owe you some  :bow:


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 3, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> I think this is a good point, as then it places the conversation on a level of "well, what can we do about that aspect of ourselves that might drive us to abandon 20-year commitments to strike out looking for better sex."
> 
> Of course, the other side of the coin, and one that I wonder if women can relate to better, is the situation where you're married to someone who suddenly decides to stop working and bringing home the bacon, or a man who loses his job and can't find a new one. No blanket statement can serve as an answer to that question. I know, for instance, that I would be willing to help support my theoretical SO for a time if he decided he needed to take time off work to pursue some project that was personally meaningful to him. And I might be inclined to put up with his lack of income in a way directly proportional to how good out relationship has been. But there is no way that I would be down with my significant other deciding that he didn't want to work anymore period; or their not being able to get their (hi, Totmacher!) act together over the longterm, so that I'm stuck supporting us indefinitely.
> 
> Would I abandon a 20-year marriage if my man suddenly lost his job and couldn't find employment again? I guess it depends on how long the situation went on, and on how good he had been to me in the time leading to the crisis. I suppose I'm saying that, as far I'm concerned, you have to look at the entire picture: a good relationship is going to be harder to leave, you'll have more invested of yourself in it. Men's image of themselves as self-sufficient may be a factor here. Women don't always have the same sense of fearlessness about facing the world alone as men do. Let's face it, it's still easier--generally speaking--for a man to make a living alone than it is for women (who may also have children to consider.)



Since we're making comparisions in mindsets here.....
What if your man made great money working in a coal mine and was told he would get black lung if he didn't quit? Or what if his stress levels from his high paying job set him up for a heart attack?(Read heavier woman that needs to lose weight for her health) What if he HAD to find a different job....and the only job he could find paid significantly less? What would be more important...his income or having the person you love with you for ANOTHER 20 years?


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 3, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> its great to desire a person have a great friendship and a mutual respect. but i think there are some people who go through life without ever finding the whole love shebang. thats just not how they operate. for them its great if they can find a sexual partner they respect and get along with. thats enough for them. so finding someone to be with for them is more of a practical matter. its okay to be that. its ok to admit that. that might really be the way to go. but, for many people that won't be enough, so when things get difficult you'll end up letting the person down. life can be hard and love really helps.



This post is true....and depressing to me. That seems like such a cop out - like arranged marriages or marriages of convenience. I feel that I deserve better- hence, I hold any man I might be interested in up to, what I perceive to be, a better standard than "convenience". 






superodalisque said:


> PS: love doesn't always depend on getting what you want.



Thank You


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 3, 2008)

imfree said:


> My Ex and I went through exactly that. Add these to the deadly mix, my
> son's ADHD, oppressive work situation, struggling home ownership,
> severe financial pressure, my sleep apnea, and my out-of-control
> diabetes, and we have a marriage attacked from almost every angle.
> Mine failed.




Mine did, too..........funny how weight never played into it. Marriage/relationships are hard to maintain period without a lot of effort, compromise, trust, etc constantly poured into them....by BOTH parties.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 3, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> *i understand what your saying. but what i'm saying is that if the desire goes away that easily i question that it is really love.* it might be something else. it might be something very close but not the real thing. i could understand if desire went away for health reasons (of the FA) or emotional reasons but if it goes away simply because your partner changes physically it makes me wonder. i don't mean to say its not possible. i'm just saying that i find it sort of suspect. i think a lot of guys fall in love with the fantasy of a big woman and not the woman herself. if any man questions how he really feels about the way he feels he should imagine that a physical attribute that he most likes about his woman no longer exists. would he still be attracted? if the answer is no he might not really be in love with her but an idea of her.
> 
> *as a woman i really wouldn't want that kind of conditional thing hanging over my head in a relationship. *it might be sort of like saying that i lost my desire for a guy i said i loved because he lost his hair, went grey or got a little chubby. i just can't make that idea work for me. i was wondering, if things were reversed and a similar condition was put on you in a relationship how would you react to it. would you feel comfortable? i think i would always feel on edge myself.
> 
> ...



:bow::bow::bow::bow::kiss2:


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 3, 2008)

southernfa said:


> We paint ideas and expectations onto each other, sometimes to the point that we can no longer see the canvas for the paint.



I like how you put this 



southernfa said:


> I understand what you are saying Edx but on the whole, I'd have to demur. I think many guys find it much easier to merely lust after women than dare to love and in fact frequently lust after women they will never get close enough to for love or lust. We were all teenage boys once...



I have to admit that I do perceive some men in this light/way.... as in I think they can't get past the physical because of emotional immaturity, selfishness, etc (and yes, I'm sure there are plenty of shallow, selfish women wandering around in this world, too)




southernfa said:


> Fear of intimacy. Isn't this a bizarre thing. What on earth is there to be afraid of? (open question)



I suspect we are afraid of being hurt, ostracized or looked down upon if someone ever got close enough to see the "real" us......goes back to that painting a portrait analogy of yours. We probably go a long way towards contributing to whatever picture is painted of us by others.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 3, 2008)

Fascinita said:


> I have a feeling that it's mutable depending on the quality of the bond you have with someone. So I'm skeptical when I see people write "I love her, but I'm not attracted to her." *I'm not sure, but what if you can't have it both ways? *What if saying "I'm not attracted to her" means "I don't love her?"
> 
> We keep insisting that love and lust are not the same thing, and on the other hand we sort of keep saying that love can't exist without lust. Can we have it both ways? *Are you kidding yourself if you say "I love her, I support her, but I don't want her"?* Romantic love and sex go hand-in-hand.* Don't they?



I sooooo agree with this....a person you are attracted to becomes better looking/more beautiful to you over time if you love truly love them. You start to see them through rose-colored glasses. I want a man that loves the REAL me- not the vessel aka my body that carries my soul. Call me "romantic" or "silly" for such notions but GDI, I get my "fairy tale".... or a life where I just make myself happy alone 


****Btw, I was using sarcasm....I think real love is NOT a fairy tale at all


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 3, 2008)

edx said:


> On this point, I totally agree with Sandie.



As do I 



Btw, I have really enjoyed reading this thread so far (gee, can you tell from all my quotes? )
It has given me a lot to consider/mull over. Thanks for this to everyone that has contributed


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 3, 2008)

Mr Happy said:


> REally? I feel for you man, I'd never want to be anything other than an FA, its the best feeling ever I only wish I'd realised it when I was younger, In fact that sounds like a strange thing for you to say on a size acceptence forum, doesn't sound like you accept size at all.



Any guy that happens to like me at my current size or a bigger (or smaller) size shouldn't have the idea that he is doing me some kind of favor. Any man with me should feel LUCKY to be with me (and vice versa  ) Kudos to you, Mr Happy 



Mr Happy said:


> but being an FA doesn't give a guy the right feel put out or personally attacked if their girlfriend wants to loose weight does it? I think this is what the other dude was getting at, anyone who thinks a change in their partner's body is an attack on them and their values is and ass and obviously doesn't love the other person.



I feel the same way.....we can dance around it in the lily field all day.I suspect that all of us just want to be accepted for WHO WE ARE at the end of the day though- not what we look like. Attraction goes wayyyyyyyyyyyyy beyond physical looks, IMO.


----------



## troubadours (Feb 3, 2008)

my two cents after skimming this thread.

if you're attracted to fat, don't marry someone who is fat but hates it.

there are plenty of us here who ARE fat and like it that way.

i think a lot of guys act like, "oh yeah, i love you no matter what," which is a nice thought and all, but unfortunately, you won't be as attracted to that person, and you'll probably begin spending less time with them sexually, seeking out other alternatives.

which is fine, i mean, you do what you have to. why should you have to give up something you love if your wife was to just lose all that weight on you?

anyways, sorry if that's a bit snarky, i'm in a bitter mood today. my point is that while you still love this person, are you going to want to fuck them as much? no, probably not. good luck having a successful relationship where at least one of the partners feels ugly and undesirable.


----------



## Mr Happy (Feb 5, 2008)

waldo said:


> Overall I don't feel bad that I am an FA despite the associated baggage. .



Baggage? no one has ever given me stick for being an FA and if they did they'd get a whole heap of attitude from me, the way I see it an FA is the luckiest man alive if a BBW chooses to be with them, sod what anyone else thinks


----------



## RedVelvet (Feb 5, 2008)

Mr Happy said:


> Baggage? no one has ever given me stick for being an FA and if they did they'd get a whole heap of attitude from me, the way I see it an FA is the luckiest man alive if a BBW chooses to be with them, sod what anyone else thinks



I am digging the new poster.


----------



## Spanky (Feb 5, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> I am digging the new poster.



Do you speak enuff 'merican to translate the "stick" and "sod" stuff, mon cherie?? 

Tanks! 




Note to Mr. Happy: Just joking with Ms. RV. Welcome to the boards! And you and your post have been.......


----------



## RedVelvet (Feb 5, 2008)

Spanky said:


> Do you speak enuff 'merican to translate the "stick" and "sod" stuff, mon cherie??
> 
> Tanks!



Here..I will make it crudely American.


Replace stick with "grief" or.."shit"

Sod with "fuck"...



(but methinks you know that)



(I love Spanky)


----------



## mossystate (Feb 5, 2008)

so.......laying sod.....redundant......landscapers must giggle...a lot


----------



## RedVelvet (Feb 5, 2008)

mossystate said:


> so.......laying sod.....redundant......landscapers must giggle...a lot



Alas, lassie..."sod" wasnt compared to shite..


----------



## mossystate (Feb 5, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> Alas, lassie..."sod" wasnt compared to shite..





sod=fuck..lay=fuck.....yes?..no?...judges?...heh


----------



## RedVelvet (Feb 5, 2008)

mossystate said:


> sod=fuck..lay=fuck.....yes?..no?...judges?...heh





Oh my..how witty! :smitten: I didn't even see it!

My most sincere apologies...you are perfectly right.

..and funny!


----------



## TraciJo67 (Feb 5, 2008)

mossystate said:


> sod=fuck..lay=fuck.....yes?..no?...judges?...heh



Judge Traci here! And damn, I'd make a very fine judge, if I do say so myself (and I do).

In my professional opinion, sod is both a descriptive noun and a verb; and much like its counterpart _fuck_, can mean many different things (depending on context). For example:

Sod off, Mossy! (Leave, you whore)
Mossy is a whorish sod (chap, fellow, guy)
Sod you, Mossy! (Fuck you, you whore)
Mossy is a sodding whore! (rather handily explains itself).

I hope that I've been helpful.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 5, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> I am digging the new poster.




He's hot thus far :eat2: :wubu:


----------



## mossystate (Feb 5, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> Judge Traci here! And damn, I'd make a very fine judge, if I do say so myself (and I do).
> 
> In my professional opinion, sod is both a descriptive noun and a verb; and much like its counterpart _fuck_, can mean many different things (depending on context). For example:
> 
> ...




I am going to ask for one favor. I want to know if you get any rep for this from people who dislike me. I want names and dates......oh...and...MOD..have this woman arrested..or something.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Feb 5, 2008)

mossystate said:


> I am going to ask for one favor. I want to know if you get any rep for this from people who dislike me. I want names and dates......oh...and...MOD..have this woman arrested..or something.



Thus far, GEF has repped me. Her unedited comments were (and I promise, I'm only SLIGHTLY making this up as I go):


Way to stick it to that whorish whore, Mossywhore!


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 5, 2008)

Actually it was more like 

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL







You have to admit that TraciJo has a unique talent for finding a 101 ways to call someone a whore :O


----------



## TraciJo67 (Feb 5, 2008)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> Actually it was more like
> 
> LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL



See? It was VERY MUCH IMPLIED, Mossyho.


----------



## RedVelvet (Feb 5, 2008)

Gah...too much "whore"....hate that word.


Only thing that will fix it...is bunnies. 

View attachment Bunnies_03.jpg


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 5, 2008)

*Now feels thoroughly shamed by the bunny* V_V


----------



## RedVelvet (Feb 5, 2008)

...and more bunnies... 

View attachment bunny_pik_me.jpg


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 5, 2008)

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

@ that last pic












Yes, Monique is safe now


----------



## RedVelvet (Feb 5, 2008)

and even....baby....BABY....bunnies.

There..now I feel clean. 

View attachment Jim_Robb_holds_baby_rabbits_rescued_from_Rouge_fire_JR.jpg


----------



## mossystate (Feb 5, 2008)

Aw, they are so cute.



I will need many more of them, for this stew I am making...big batch.


----------



## RedVelvet (Feb 5, 2008)

mossystate said:


> Aw, they are so cute.
> 
> 
> 
> I will need many more of them, for this stew I am making...big batch.




When Mossy finally leaves behind this mortal coil..and wakes up in hell (with me, natch)...we will have bunny (not rabbit....bunny) stew....with bread made from the ground bones of teen aged boys.


Gonna be great.


----------



## Santaclear (Feb 5, 2008)

I have yet to receive sod for my FA-ness. 

View attachment woodchuck1.jpg


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 6, 2008)

RedVelvet said:


> When Mossy finally leaves behind this mortal coil..and wakes up in hell (with me, natch)...we will have bunny (not rabbit....bunny) stew....*with bread made from the ground bones of teen aged boys.
> *
> 
> Gonna be great.





I just prefer the boners of teenaged boys (THOSE ONLY 18!!!! THOUGH!!!!) with my stew   









Yes, I'm on the highway to hell with the rest of 'em


----------



## RedVelvet (Feb 6, 2008)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I just prefer the boners of teenaged boys (THOSE ONLY 18!!!! THOUGH!!!!) with my stew




One of the things I like aboutchoo Fairy is that you often talk like a 17 year old boy in a ceramics glass shaping the clay he should be throwing on a wheel into a giant penis.














Yes, this is said from experience.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Feb 6, 2008)

I always felt it there was something wrong with aforementioned teen boys making phallus'- they should be making boobs and leave the big, long schlong crafting to the Fairy Queen....


----------

