# Ruby



## TallFatSue (Oct 29, 2008)

Wow, has anyone seen the adverts for this upcoming reality show? It's about a pretty cool SSBBW in Savannah, Georgia -- but -- it's billed as an "Inspirational Weight Loss Journey" so I have my doubts. On the other hand, I also read that "Popular Savannah resident Ruby Gettinger is fun, fabulous, and beautiful. She also weighs 500 pounds, but that hasn't stopped her from living life to the fullest."







Style Network: Ruby
http://www.mystyle.com/ruby

I'm still waiting for a "Big Woman, Little World" type of show, and this isn't quite it. It might be a start, though -- provided I ignore the weight loss parts and concentrate on the "Living Large" advice like Travel Tips and Fashion Advice.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Oct 29, 2008)

Oh man-- at first I thought something was amiss with the health of OUR Ruby- whew! If this Loser-Wannabee is 500lbs she must be pretty tall-- she looks 320 to me. Mainstream Media circle in closer and closer to Size Acceptance... but how to make it corporate-profitable?


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Oct 29, 2008)

You know that they'll have to bypass DIMENSIONS-- and NAAFA is problematic... maybe this'll be Paul'BigFatBlog'McAleer's moment in the sun-- this'll be VERY interesting to see...


----------



## Hole (Oct 29, 2008)

Ned Sonntag said:


> Oh man-- at first I thought something was amiss with the health of OUR Ruby- whew! If this Loser-Wannabee is 500lbs she must be pretty tall-- she looks 320 to me. Mainstream Media circle in closer and closer to Size Acceptance... but how to make it corporate-profitable?



Why do you call her a loser?

Size acceptance goes both ways. Maybe she finds it hard being the weight she is.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Oct 29, 2008)

Hole said:


> Why do you call her a loser?
> 
> Size acceptance goes both ways. Maybe she finds it hard being the weight she is.



He's referring to the show, "The Biggest Loser."


----------



## Tooz (Oct 29, 2008)

The show looks depressing.


----------



## Hole (Oct 29, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> He's referring to the show, "The Biggest Loser."



Oh right. I watch that show.
But he/she seemed negative about it. *shrug*


----------



## TraciJo67 (Oct 29, 2008)

Tooz said:


> The show looks depressing.



The premise of the show, or the show itself?

I'm skeptical, Sue. One reason is that Ruby is a stunningly beautiful woman. I can only imagine that they chose her with the thought in mind of how "miraculous" her "transformation" would look. If she does lose weight, I doubt they'll show the reality of sharpei skin, nor will they trumpet any possible health benefits for Ruby. It will simply be ... look at how we managed to take this "ugly duckling" and transform her into a beautiful swan! 

I'd love to believe that the show will be more about Ruby *herself* -- her personal journey, her struggles/aspirations, not entirely related to her weight loss desire. That, I'd like to see. But I doubt it would bring in the ratings.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Oct 29, 2008)

Hole said:


> Oh right. I watch that show.
> But he/she seemed negative about it. *shrug*



The negative slant to me seemed more directed at the redundancy of creating a new show about weight loss.


----------



## Tad (Oct 29, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> I'd love to believe that the show will be more about Ruby *herself* -- her personal journey, her struggles/aspirations, not entirely related to her weight loss desire. That, I'd like to see. But I doubt it would bring in the ratings.



Well, they might start off with her aspirations, then show all the ways that being fat stops her from achieving them. Then with the power of media makeovers, *abracadabra!* things start coming together for her, once again proving that there are no problems in life that can't be solved with a good diet plan.

(sorry, feeling a little cynical today....)


----------



## ThatFatGirl (Oct 29, 2008)

Ned Sonntag said:


> Oh man-- at first I thought something was amiss with the health of OUR Ruby- whew! If this Loser-Wannabee is 500lbs she must be pretty tall-- she looks 320 to me. Mainstream Media circle in closer and closer to Size Acceptance... but how to make it corporate-profitable?



I was afraid it was bad news about Conrad's Ruby too. Oye.. Thread titles with only a member's Dim name alway cause me to hold my breath until the page loads. I'm glad it's only a tv show. 

The opening video is depressing. As long as her story isn't chronicling weight loss surgery, I might tune in at some point.


----------



## Hole (Oct 29, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> The negative slant to me seemed more directed at the redundancy of creating a new show about weight loss.



Yeah, my bad. 
I was a little impulsive there.

It might be one of those ugly duckling - swan has happy thin life things so I can see why one would be cynical.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Oct 29, 2008)

Hole said:


> Yeah, my bad.
> I was a little impulsive there.
> 
> It might be one of those ugly duckling - swan has happy thin life things so I can see why one would be cynical.



In a way I'm kind of hopeful that the show will display how difficult it is to lose weight amid real life responsibilities and struggles. Ruby may be a likable figure who can put a human face to the reality of obesity and weight loss for the people who watch OR it could backfire and give them more reason to be critical and hate us.


----------



## steely (Oct 29, 2008)

I've seen the advertisements for it.Let's hope someone does the right thing and shows the real side of being fat.We're just like everyone else,we just do things a little differently sometimes.Not to change them into what is socially acceptable.I'm afraid it will be the latter.


----------



## LalaCity (Oct 29, 2008)

The weight loss aspect notwithstanding, if the show can inspire a little more sympathy for the issues large folk deal with, it may do some good.


----------



## Tooz (Oct 29, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> The premise of the show, or the show itself?
> 
> I'm skeptical, Sue. One reason is that Ruby is a stunningly beautiful woman. I can only imagine that they chose her with the thought in mind of how "miraculous" her "transformation" would look. If she does lose weight, I doubt they'll show the reality of sharpei skin, nor will they trumpet any possible health benefits for Ruby. It will simply be ... look at how we managed to take this "ugly duckling" and transform her into a beautiful swan!
> 
> I'd love to believe that the show will be more about Ruby *herself* -- her personal journey, her struggles/aspirations, not entirely related to her weight loss desire. That, I'd like to see. But I doubt it would bring in the ratings.



Both, I think. In the preview vids, there was a lot of doomsday health talk, and I have to wonder if she's "at risk" for those, or is actually ON THE PATH to those things. If it's the usual "BUT YOU COULD GET DIABETES!" and she actually is pre-nothing, I'll be sad. Also, there is a lot of talk about how she wants to fall in love someday, and wants to do various things...skinny. I'm just unsure about the whole show, you know?

The concept saddens me as well, because it just seems like we'll never get fat women on TV who are not trying to lose weight.


----------



## superodalisque (Oct 29, 2008)

i dont think it matters why she is doing what she i doing. as long as its what she wants to do. its her body. i'm glad she has a show doing her thing. hopefully people will learn some stuff. maybe how futile it is to judge the good or the bad of someone not hurting anyone, instead of just supporting them and allowing them to be an adult and make their own decisions. i still find it pitiful and small minded sometimes how we want support in our choice to be fat and are so intolerant of anothers choice to be thin. she doesn't owe anybody but herself a damn thing. it wouldn't be so important that she was a role model if those of us who've decided to be fat were one in our everyday life.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Oct 29, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> i dont think it matters why she is doing what she i doing. as long as its what she wants to do. its her body. i'm glad she has a show doing her thing. hopefully people will learn some stuff. maybe how futile it is to judge the good or the bad of someone not hurting anyone, instead of just supporting them and allowing them to be an adult and make their own decisions. i still find it pitiful and small minded sometimes how we want support in our choice to be fat and are so intolerant of anothers choice to be thin. she doesn't owe anybody but herself a damn thing. it wouldn't be so important that she was a role model if those of us who've decided to be fat were one in our everyday life.



Agreed. My issue is more with how badly the producers of "her" show are going to exploit her while she's splaying her vulnerabilities for the rest of the world to witness. Again, I understand that it is *her* choice. But I hate that it's likely to translate into yet another prime-time example of why fat is bad and how very much we should loathe ourselves, in direct correlation to how many pounds over the "ideal" we're carrying.

Oh ... and let's not forget how groovy life will be if she does lose the weight. All of her problems will miraculously vanish. She'll meet and marry the love of her life. She'll be whisked off to Paris, where they'll indulge in passionate kisses underneath the Eiffel Tower (insert eye roll here).


----------



## superodalisque (Oct 29, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> Agreed. My issue is more with how badly the producers of "her" show are going to exploit her while she's splaying her vulnerabilities for the rest of the world to witness. Again, I understand that it is *her* choice. But I hate that it's likely to translate into yet another prime-time example of why fat is bad and how very much we should loathe ourselves, in direct correlation to how many pounds over the "ideal" we're carrying.



i can understand your point. maybe we should start a write in campaign to people who produce shows to do one about size acceptance. but wooohooo the dirty laundry that would come out hehe.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Oct 29, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> i dont think it matters why she is doing what she i doing. as long as its what she wants to do. its her body. i'm glad she has a show doing her thing. hopefully people will learn some stuff. maybe how futile it is to judge the good or the bad of someone not hurting anyone, instead of just supporting them and allowing them to be an adult and make their own decisions. i still find it pitiful and small minded sometimes how we want support in our choice to be fat and are so intolerant of anothers choice to be thin. she doesn't owe anybody but herself a damn thing. it wouldn't be so important that she was a role model if those of us who've decided to be fat were one in our everyday life.



I'm not certain anyone here was criticizing her for wanting to lose weight. The problem most if not all the folks posting here have cited is that fat people can never appear on television unless they are in a weightloss commercial, in this case an hour long weight loss commercial once a week. A fat woman can't be running a business, choosing a husband, hosting a variety show or some such thing. It always focuses on the fat itself either to be hated or obliterated in some way. The show promises a positive message but that message often includes the usual stigma of outright shame and dispair that defines the person. Until of course they are miraculously cured right before our eyes. And they must keep the weight off in order to continuously earn the world's respect. It's a tired message that hurts as it helps.


----------



## superodalisque (Oct 29, 2008)

your right. i don't really think overall thats what people are talking about. but i just wanted us to think about being careful about what we say and how we say it. for instance , using a term like "loser" in a certain context can imply something that might not have been intended. but personally i think we know exactly what was intended by that tone just as we know why the producers of the show chose the title "Biggest Loser". thats why someone else also noted it. and, we have been here long enough to know what the reference to her not being 500 lbs anyway is all about-- fat sour grapes that yet another woman has decided to go thin. i just wanted us to be clear because we have people here who have chosen to get WLS who've been emotionally victimized and treated like traitors because of their own personal choices. there are so many of them here who feel they have to keep it a secret because of the tenor of some of the talk. they don't feel free in an acceptance community to be who they are. they've already been segregated to one section to talk about their concerns as though they're doing something wrong and antithetical to acceptance. i just want them to know that people who might not have had WLS and don't even entertain the idea are watching and are looking out for their rights and interests.


----------



## steely (Oct 29, 2008)

Saw the back of the Tv Guide today advertising the show.The catch line is


She Doesn't Know How She Got To 487 Pounds
But She Knows It's Killing Her.
Changing Her Life To Save It.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Oct 30, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> your right. i don't really think overall thats what people are talking about. but i just wanted us to think about being careful about what we say and how we say it. for instance , using a term like "loser" in a certain context can imply something that might not have been intended. but personally i think we know exactly what was intended by that tone just as we know why the producers of the show chose the title "Biggest Loser". thats why someone else also noted it. *and, we have been here long enough to know what the reference to her not being 500 lbs anyway is all about-- fat sour grapes that yet another woman has decided to go thin. * i just wanted us to be clear because we have people here who have chosen to get WLS who've been emotionally victimized and treated like traitors because of their own personal choices. there are so many of them here who feel they have to keep it a secret because of the tenor of some of the talk. they don't feel free in an acceptance community to be who they are. they've already been segregated to one section to talk about their concerns as though they're doing something wrong and antithetical to acceptance. i just want them to know that people who might not have had WLS and don't even entertain the idea are watching and are looking out for their rights and interests.



I don't think that's the reason at all! The woman is clearly not 500 pounds. The media says, "Look! HERE! See this humungous woman, she's 500 pounds!" The viewers go there watching a 385 pound woman tromp around and now everyone thinks that's what 500 pounds looks like. It's misleading. A 500 pound woman goes to look at the show and thinks, "For goodness' sake! " What if the show said, "Come see an 85 year old grandma jump out of an airplane," and the woman depicted is 63? It's an out out lie that insults just about everyone. 

This is a site where fat activism and pop culture is commonly discussed. I think that people here who are contemplating losing weight are doing so at their own discretion. Clearly they should do what is within their own best interests and most of them participate in these discussions without issues. It gets really tiring when we have to interrupt every thread to talk sensitive people down from the ledge every time the subject comes up. Some people attempting or who have attempted weight loss are seeing an angry mob gathered against them where there is none. It is just a discussion of a common peeve on the way fat people are portrayed in the media which always involvs weight loss. Most people get it but I dont know what more we can do to soothe people. We just can't do it.


----------



## JerseyGirl07093 (Oct 30, 2008)

steely said:


> Saw the back of the Tv Guide today advertising the show.The catch line is
> 
> 
> She Doesn't Know How She Got To 487 Pounds
> ...



After reading this thread yesterday my son brought in the mail and when he handed it to me guess what was on top? The TV Guide with the back cover facing up. I had never heard of this show before until reading this thread and then seeing the TV Guide. I would like to check out the show but I don't have the channel that it's on. I have a million channels but this is one of the few I don't have!


----------



## Tragdor (Oct 31, 2008)

I am going to guess this ends up being a commerical for weight loss surgery. TV demands dramatic results,a slow long battle to lose weight isn't going to bring in the viewers in the long run. So WLS will happen eventully because it is dramatic, and I am sure the doctor's will pratically pay fo the show for the adversting they will get from it.

If this is the only kind of treatment fat women on TV are allowed I think it may be for the best that there aren't many fat women on TV.


----------



## ImSoDead (Nov 1, 2008)

I'm looking forward to watching the show after having read the site and watched the videos. While I am not a woman nor over 300lbs, I am borderline diabetic and refuse to get surgery (and refuse to become diabetic). And I can relate to her feelings of helplessness as well as her determination to get it right this time. The show may very well change over time. And if it does, I might stop watching. But for now, she comes across as a real person and I appreciate that.


----------



## steely (Nov 1, 2008)

It's produced by the same people who do Little People,Big World.They did a good job on that program so I'm hoping that they will do the same with Ruby.


----------



## olwen (Nov 2, 2008)

steely said:


> It's produced by the same people who do Little People,Big World.They did a good job on that program so I'm hoping that they will do the same with Ruby.



But that show is on one of the Discovery channels right? If so, then they never do positive shows about fat people. Those shows are always about following fat people around as they struggle to loose weight. Those shows always make me cringe, and make me a little angry, yet I watch with fascination because the shows are about fat people. I don't get much out of those shows, but if someone does then it's good I guess. I'll probably watch it, but I don't have high expectations. What else is new?


----------



## steely (Nov 2, 2008)

I guess you can't expect much from a net work called Style.Everyone knows fat people aren't stylish.Well thats what everyone thinks anyway.


----------



## olwen (Nov 2, 2008)

Oh, it's on the style channel, like it says in the OP. :doh: Well, I watched the videos and clicked around on the site. I'm confused by the marketing. It's a reality show that seems to be marketed almost like a sitcom. And she's the life of the party who never let her weight keep her from having a full social life, until doctor's threatened her with death. Now watch her struggle to loose weight. It seems like a confusing message, and the whole thing rubs me the wrong way. I just hope they're paying her well.


----------



## blueeyedevie (Nov 2, 2008)

I do not post here a lot because of many reasons but have always felt proud to know of and have found friends with in the Dimension community; however I am really put off by the reactions to this show. First I have to pose the question how is it a community of people that have to deal with life and the life of the ones they love not being accepted as normal from every aspect of life daily, can sit around and not want to support another sized person no matter if they are wanting to lose weight or not. From what I can tell Rubys story is not one of how bad her life is but how much better it could be if she was not worried about dying. Even If I was not for losing weight, I would want to watch this show and support the movement of big people being accepted in a public light, not to mention, letting people see the struggles we go threw daily that people should consider and be kinder about. Ruby seems to betraying that she has a happy life but wants more. 
I am 6 ft, 560 lbs. I have lost 95 pounds from the time I first started counting my weight loss. About 150 approximately from my heaviest estimated weight. I have done this without surgery, and without heavy dieting. Just by living life, exercising lightly, and eating correctly. I admire anyone that looses weight naturally like Ruby. When we live in a world where weight loss surgery seems to be the answer, it is to be admired when one can take control of their selves. As far as Ruby not looking 500 lbs they say she is 487 I believe. Nowhere does it say how tall she is. I know if she is as tall as I am, it is very easy to look way under what you actually weigh. 
I know this is a community that loves fat, the more the merrier, but for the ones that are fat and the admirers of Has it really come down to the fact that you are as self hating as those that make our lives complicated that you cant reach out to a fellow fat person on a quest to better their lives. Do I not have a place at dimensions because I have lost weight, and what about my fiancé he loves fat, the more the better, but for me the women he loves, he wants me to live, to have children, to travel etc??? Thank about it.
I think Ruby is a positive thing for the large peoples community. For one of the first times they are not showing some older, stuck in her home women or man, that is needing to be put into a hospital or clinic. Ruby is doing this for herself on her on. The Media is beginning to add more and more large people into roles on TV shows and TV adds that have nothing to do with being fat. I am proud to be a larger person that takes pride in myself. I never see myself as thin, but Healthy is possible. Hopefully with shows like this , and others like it people will realize some of our struggles and be more responsible with their actions.
Sincerely, Evie


----------



## olwen (Nov 2, 2008)

blueeyedevie, I think the problem with shows like these is that the fat people on them end up being made into spectacles. You may see it as a privilege to be let into this person's life so you can compare it to your own life as a fat person, but how much of a percentage of the audience is going to see it as a privilege because it will make them feel better about themselves for "not letting themselves get that way." I don't think a positive potrayal of a fat person is one where they spend all their time fighting their fat. Then it would lead people to believe those are the only stories about fat people that are worth watching. It would lead networks to believe that weight loss shows are the only shows with fat people that are worth the money and effort to produce. After all it's all about the ratings. And ratings = dollars. How is any of that about acceptance? 

And I don't see it as a hooray for fat people moment just because this woman isn't holed up in her house, sitting around on her duff. And you better believe that the network and the producers were aware that's exactly the kind of show people are used to seeing when it comes to fat people, and they used that as an angle to market the show because it will set their show apart and help them make money.

Look, I work for a media company, and I can tell you for a fact that how much a product (in this case a tv show) makes is worth more than the social message. That message is only taken into consideration if it will cause them to loose or gain a helluva a lot of money. I'm not even kidding about that. Take a look at any media trade magazine and you will see loads of articles about how to use a social message to make money - and not alienate audiences. You'll also see articles about how media and advertising companies fail their audiences. In the three years I've been in marketing I've never once seen any iota of concern about alienating fat people. Women, minorities, people of a certain income level, internet audiences, gamers, technophiles sure, but not fat people. We have a long way to go and shows like these don't help. That's the way I see it.


----------



## Fascinita (Nov 2, 2008)

Ned Sonntag said:


> Oh man-- at first I thought something was amiss with the health of OUR Ruby- whew! If this Loser-Wannabee is 500lbs she must be pretty tall-- she looks 320 to me. Mainstream Media circle in closer and closer to Size Acceptance... but how to make it corporate-profitable?



So what if she's "only" 320? I hear what you're saying about the media's manipulation of image, but there's no need to act like you know all there is to know about fat bodies. You look pretty thin to me, in your photos. 

_Many_ people have found ways to make fat acceptance profitable and the number is growing. I'm as anti-corporate as the next person, but there is no "Holier than Thou" position in commerce. Profit is profit.

The way I see it, one fights corporate appropriation of fat by creating something uniquely original and fat-positive that stands on its own merits, not by railing against the corporate-driven media Goliath. I couldn't give a hoot about how a TV show portrays another fat "loser." I'm not vying for my place in a corrupt enterprise. As a fat woman, I'm busy plotting how to take over the world on _my own terms_.


----------



## Fascinita (Nov 2, 2008)

olwen said:


> blueeyedevie, I think the problem with shows like these is that the fat people on them end up being made into spectacles.



But fat people need to stop playing into it. If we're not for ourselves, who will be?


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 2, 2008)

olwen said:


> blueeyedevie, I think the problem with shows like these is that the fat people on them end up being made into spectacles. You may see it as a privilege to be let into this person's life so you can compare it to your own life as a fat person, but how much of a percentage of the audience is going to see it as a privilege because it will make them feel better about themselves for "not letting themselves get that way." I don't think a positive potrayal of a fat person is one where they spend all their time fighting their fat. Then it would lead people to believe those are the only stories about fat people that are worth watching. It would lead networks to believe that weight loss shows are the only shows with fat people that are worth the money and effort to produce. After all it's all about the ratings. And ratings = dollars. How is any of that about acceptance?
> 
> And I don't see it as a hooray for fat people moment just because this woman isn't holed up in her house, sitting around on her duff. And you better believe that the network and the producers were aware that's exactly the kind of show people are used to seeing when it comes to fat people, and they used that as an angle to market the show because it will set their show apart and help them make money.
> 
> Look, I work for a media company, and I can tell you for a fact that how much a product (in this case a tv show) makes is worth more than the social message. That message is only taken into consideration if it will cause them to loose or gain a helluva a lot of money. I'm not even kidding about that. Take a look at any media trade magazine and you will see loads of articles about how to use a social message to make money - and not alienate audiences. You'll also see articles about how media and advertising companies fail their audiences. In the three years I've been in marketing I've never once seen any iota of concern about alienating fat people. Women, minorities, people of a certain income level, internet audiences, gamers, technophiles sure, but not fat people. We have a long way to go and shows like these don't help. That's the way I see it.




women who are fat are already spectacles. we are big. we are different. people see us. for those of us who like and use it to our benefit its all well and good. but if you feel trapped by your fat you should do something. its your perogative. no one should second guess you and your needs wants and wishes and you should have the ability to get whatever it is you believe you want out of life. 

no matter how this show is marketed i think inadvertantly it will be good for fat people. because instead of someone in a suit it will be a real fat person having a real life--well kinda. people will learn something they didn't expect to learn because maybe they haven't been close to it before. there aren't a lot of women our size and a lot of us are not easy to know. but whatever the intention people will, in a way, get to touch someone real who is fat. and it seems to me that she is a loveable person. she has friends and family who love and care about her. i think the audience will grow to care about what happens to her too. she willl no longer just be a blob somewhere. no matter what the original theory was about what the show is it will take on a life of its own as such things do. and i'm sure a lot of things will come up to make everyone question some of their opinions. also things don't always have their intended effect. let the dialog begin.


----------



## olwen (Nov 2, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> women who are fat are already spectacles. we are big. we are different. people see us. for those of us who like and use it to our benefit its all well and good. but if you feel trapped by your fat you should do something. its your perogative. no one should second guess you and your needs wants and wishes and you should have the ability to get whatever it is you believe you want out of life.
> 
> no matter how this show is marketed i think inadvertantly it will be good for fat people. because instead of someone in a suit it will be a real fat person having a real life--well kinda. people will learn something they didn't expect to learn because maybe they haven't been close to it before. there aren't a lot of women our size and a lot of us are not easy to know. but whatever the intention people will, in a way, get to touch someone real who is fat. and it seems to me that she is a loveable person. she has friends and family who love and care about her. i think the audience will grow to care about what happens to her too. she willl no longer just be a blob somewhere. no matter what the original theory was about what the show is it will take on a life of its own as such things do. and i'm sure a lot of things will come up to make everyone question some of their opinions. also things don't always have their intended effect. let the dialog begin.



Now I have to watch this show just to see how it all plays out. I think it would be interesting to watch a show about making a reality show that involves a social message. Oh to be a fly on the wall of those marketing meetings.


----------



## ChubbyBubbles (Nov 2, 2008)

I have to agree with Ned. She looks more like 320 than 500 pounds! Gosh, I can only wish I looked that good! I'm 5'7 and 500 pounds and I definitely look it!! *sigh* I do hope her weight loss journey is a healthy one and not one compromised by weight loss surgery.


----------



## steely (Nov 2, 2008)

I have no problem with Ruby as a person.What she wants to do with her life is none of my business.What I want is for TV to show obese people as true to who they are.I don't want it to turn into a circus sideshow of the fat lady.
People need to know that fat people are just like everyone else.They go to work.They run errands,they have families and friends.They cook,clean,raise their kids.I want a realistic portrayal of the life she lives.No sugarcoating,sometimes it's great and sometimes it sucks but that is life for everyone.Make it real.


----------



## blueeyedevie (Nov 2, 2008)

Well for some people being fat is not all that some make it out to be. I don't give a rats ass about sales . I care that someone that looks like my friends, my family, me ; with their struggles and mine is going to be on the TV screen. To me that is a improvement that I will take. Even if I am let down on Ruby as a show or a person, I will stand on my opinion that this is a step in the right direction, and some of you forget that fat women and men accepting their weight and health problems as a fact of life does not make up all the fat population, their remains some of us that want something different.


----------



## MissMirandaRae (Nov 3, 2008)

I doubt this show will be positive.

I was at the mall and saw the poster from the 2nd floor. I went down and looked at it and the script said "She's 487 lbs and its killing her"


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 3, 2008)

blueeyedevie said:


> Well for some people being fat is not all that some make it out to be. I don't give a rats ass about sales . I care that someone that looks like my friends, my family, me ; with their struggles and mine is going to be on the TV screen. To me that is a improvement that I will take. Even if I am let down on Ruby as a show or a person, I will stand on my opinion that this is a step in the right direction, and some of you forget that fat women and men accepting their weight and health problems as a fact of life does not make up all the fat population, their remains some of us that want something different.



How could anyone in the whole world possibly forget that there are people in the world who hate being fat and wish they weren't? Yes there are plenty of people who hate their fat and OH LOOK, they're in luck! Here is yet another show they can add to the 1,892 other shows that remind them that a flat stomach is the way to go. I'm so glad the networks continually remind us because I would totally forget. 

Once again, said in another way, this is not a condemnation of people who want to lose weight. This is a "HELLO!!?! Weight loss is not ALL we'e about!" I'm glad you have yet another show to watch but what about the rest of us?


----------



## blueeyedevie (Nov 3, 2008)

Well you know what Lilly maybe if (excluding a few people even good friends I have met here) this community was a bit different. The fat community is not exactly welcoming to even those that want to be big happy and content. Their was days that I did want to be fat and happy. In fact I wanted to be very fat and happy. I admired so many of you here and some I still do, However for the most part this has been a community that has had closed doors and closed minds. I enjoy a lot of the conversations that go on , and a lot I just don't understand why.I started here young and stupid, and I would like to think that I have developed a mind of my own in which I like to exercise the right to use. For the record, I never said I wanted a flat anything. I don't even believe that is the way to go. I believe being healthy is the way to go. I almost am certain for a 6ft women who has been fat her whole life that thin would never be the way to go. So I think your stuck with me considering my self part of the community indefinitely. If you are healthy and happy the way you are , and do not give a shit about women such as your self that face or have faced your struggles choosing another path in their life then just don't turn on the TV but please don't bash them get out their and do something to get what you want to see on the TV.


----------



## QuantumXL (Nov 3, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> How could anyone in the whole world possibly forget that there are people in the world who hate being fat and wish they weren't? Yes there are plenty of people who hate their fat and OH LOOK, they're in luck! Here is yet another show they can add to the 1,892 other shows that remind them that a flat stomach is the way to go. I'm so glad the networks continually remind us because I would totally forget.
> 
> Once again, said in another way, this is not a condemnation of people who want to lose weight. This is a "HELLO!!?! Weight loss is not ALL we'e about!" I'm glad you have yet another show to watch but what about the rest of us?



hhmm Let me realistic for a second, i wasn't going to post on this but it seems to be a bigger subject than i thought. There are many shows out there saying how people HATE their fat. But do you seriously know what the show is about? Have you actually watched the show up front and personal? Do you know Ruby? If not why bash people who want to be just like her. The "Rest of us" Is just like you and me. These are real people doing real things being loved by real people. Not those bull crap stories about "OH MY GOD MY LIFE IS SO MISERABLE! I should get a Lap Band because of the situation i am in. I am so ugly..." Blah blah blah so on and so forth. Fat hasn't and isn't accepted, yet. Sometimes you can't run before you can walk. We are a community. Just because someone feels uncomfortable at being at a certain size and wishes to lose weight shouldn't they too be part of the community and know that they are just like you or the other girl next to you even if they do lose that weight and is paper board thin? They'll still be fat accepting since they are part of "Our" community and is a advocate of it since he/she knows where their roots are. There is no purpose in bashing the people who are making a living and doing as they please. She may be losing weight, but if this is a show about them being miserable because of their weight i can understand why you bash and deter such a show. But it doesn't seem that way. You see a happy ol' fat girl on the advertisement and it might just be a happy ol' show about a fat girl who is planning to lose weight. If you really wanted to see a show about our community we have to take it slow. Things don't happen fast. Such people who are Fat Activist out there do what you do. But don't let the public view us as Fat People who just want our way...


----------



## Littleghost (Nov 3, 2008)

Ned Sonntag said:


> Oh man-- at first I thought something was amiss with the health of OUR Ruby- whew! If this Loser-Wannabee is 500lbs she must be pretty tall-- she looks 320 to me. Mainstream Media circle in closer and closer to Size Acceptance... but how to make it corporate-profitable?



That's what I thought at first, but they seem to do a really good job of making her look smaller in all the professional photos. Browsing through the website though her personal pics and videos show her at a more realistic size. They rounded up from 480 of course, but it's not circus billing or anything. I can't really say that the show's completely positive, but from the vids it seems a lot less exploitative than most. There's even some size related links that I found potentially useful! Seems really odd that it's on the Style network and not something like Lifetime or WE, but then I don't know much about that channel. 

I'm keepin' my DVR's fingers crossed...


----------



## Littleghost (Nov 3, 2008)

Supposedly the weight loss will take a more natural route, however I'm not holding my breath over such a claim. If the results aren't all wrapped up before they start airing, then they may have to make adjustments if reality doesn't go as scripted. 



Ruby website said:


> Ruby is an amazing woman trying to lose hundreds of pounds without surgery, miracle diets or shortcuts. Just one personmind, body and soulin the fight to save her life. Straight from Ruby, read what it's like to be in her shoes.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 3, 2008)

blueeyedevie said:


> Well you know what Lilly maybe if (excluding a few people even good friends I have met here) this community was a bit different. The fat community is not exactly welcoming to even those that want to be big happy and content. Their was days that I did want to be fat and happy. In fact I wanted to be very fat and happy. I admired so many of you here and some I still do, However for the most part this has been a community that has had closed doors and closed minds. I enjoy a lot of the conversations that go on , and a lot I just don't understand why.I started here young and stupid, and I would like to think that I have developed a mind of my own in which I like to exercise the right to use. For the record, I never said I wanted a flat anything. I don't even believe that is the way to go. I believe being healthy is the way to go. I almost am certain for a 6ft women who has been fat her whole life that thin would never be the way to go. So I think your stuck with me considering my self part of the community indefinitely. If you are healthy and happy the way you are , and do not give a shit about women such as your self that face or have faced your struggles choosing another path in their life then just don't turn on the TV but please don't bash them get out their and do something to get what you want to see on the TV.



You are just completely missing the point. I don't even know how else I can say it, it's just not going to register. This is you. All you. Adding this negative element to a discussion about the lack of fat women on tv in any roles other than the depiction of weight loss or a focus on her fat. Many people who share this belief and have participated in this discussion are themselves in the process of losing weight or are already thin. I don't know where you are getting this notion that by talking about the need for a wider variety of roles for fat women in the media, it establishes that we don't think tall people or people who want to lose weight should post here or be a part of the community. This is my fourth time saying it in this thread I believe. After lifting the sheet a fourth time to show that there is no monster under the bed there just isn't anything more I can do.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 4, 2008)

I was just reading a great article talking about how gays are becoming increasingly more and more common on television. At one time I saw that happening but was really unimpressed because there always seemed to be a schtick behind it. They were the brunt of a joke or it was a recycled formula of estranged relatives "coming to terms."  I thought it really showed how backward as a society we are. It seems things are looking up! I'd love to see the same happen for fatties.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/entertainment/ci_10858780



Inside Bay Area said:


> .....To that end, Giuliano is pleased to not only see more gay characters on the small screen, but more "fully developed" characters with "substantial depth" to them. In other words, characters who don't serve simply as gimmicks or window dressing or the butt of jokes as many gay depictions have done in the past......


----------



## blueeyedevie (Nov 4, 2008)

I dont want to be seen as negative, I want to be seen as positive. This situation, like a lot others is one where you see one way and I see another. It is you see the lack of shows, showing positive fat excepting lifestyles and that this may or may not be another weight loss show promoting thin is good Fat is bad, I see Ruby as an show about taking your life and making a change, this is different I hope from the normal dieting shows. At least this is someone saying she did have a life, but needs to be healthy. Therefore I do see this as an improvement. Where it has appeared you and others do not. I do get it. Although Melissa McCarthy is not a SSBBW she is a BBW and I am so proud every time I watch (Samantha Who?), in fact I watch it because of her. Her role as Dena is a very positive role for the community, in my opinion anyway. Lilly I think you are a beautiful woman and I respect you and for me it has just been a long building inner-controversy building that erupted on this topic.
Hugs Evie


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 4, 2008)

blueeyedevie said:


> I dont want to be seen as negative, I want to be seen as positive. This situation, like a lot others is one where you see one way and I see another. It is you see the lack of shows, showing positive fat excepting lifestyles and that this may or may not be another weight loss show promoting thin is good Fat is bad, I see Ruby as an show about taking your life and making a change, this is different I hope from the normal dieting shows. At least this is someone saying she did have a life, but needs to be healthy. Therefore I do see this as an improvement. Where it has appeared you and others do not. I do get it. Although Melissa McCarthy is not a SSBBW she is a BBW and I am so proud every time I watch (Samantha Who?), in fact I watch it because of her. Her role as Dena is a very positive role for the community, in my opinion anyway. Lilly I think you are a beautiful woman and I respect you and for me it has just been a long building inner-controversy building that erupted on this topic.
> Hugs Evie



I understand Evie and I don't want you to feel like you're being put down because of your hope in the show. Like I mentioned before, I also am hoping that Ruby's spunk and personality will resonate with people and will humanize fatties in the eyes of the viewers. There is so much vitriol directed at us however that I fear she will be judged for any mistake she makes and give people more reason to say, "See?? Look how terrible those fatties are." Worse yet if she's successful!  Surely I'd love to see her succeed in getting her health and mobility back but if she does the automatic assumption would be that all fatties in the world can do it and they deserve to be looked down upon for being fat. It's the main reason I'm against the showcase of dieting when it comes to showing the human side of fat people. People are already conditioned to judge us about our weight, this just makes it more socially acceptable.


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 9, 2008)

i can't wait to watch it at 8M eastern on the style channel tonight. it will be interesting to see how this thing really goes. i can't wait to see what everybody's opinion will be. i just hope its more sensitive than what the ads for it look like. i'm also crossing my fingers tht she has some fat friends who are healthy and okay with who they are who might waft through occasionally. i can't imagine her not having at least one or two like that but we'll see.


----------



## Theatrmuse/Kara (Nov 9, 2008)

I watched the premiere of "Ruby" tonight. She is delightful and very charming......has great friends and family and it shows! It will be interesting to see how she is portrayed as the series continues.

I think I am a "fan"! Surprised me!
Hugs, Kara


----------



## ChubbyBubbles (Nov 10, 2008)

Theatrmuse/Kara said:


> I watched the premiere of "Ruby" tonight. She is delightful and very charming......has great friends and family and it shows! It will be interesting to see how she is portrayed as the series continues.
> 
> I think I am a "fan"! Surprised me!
> Hugs, Kara




Very cute and very charming, I agree, but as for the show, I doubt it's one I will continue to watch. I was hoping for something more...maybe to feel like I was a part of her journey too. But it's too "Hollywood" for me. Here is an SSBBW who is on disability and even states that "money is tight", however she has a personal trainer, nutritionist, gets ALL of her meals/snacks premade for her, and an aquatic instructor. *SIGH* I can't afford all that so how is someone like me supposed to feel inspired? I was hoping for more normalcy. I was very happy to see it's not about her journey to WLS. At least she's going about it the natural way. Just my opinion though...


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Nov 10, 2008)

Six minutes into it Ruby pulls out a pic of herself and says "here's me at 700lbs," so... she was 200lbs heavier? Sounds like she has techniques for countering the effects of Southern cooking already in place... Nice to see that she's got 2 adoring male in-house feeders in attendance... it'll be enlightening to find out more about their particular motivations and sexuality as the series progresses... It's good for Size Acceptance to show that she's the star of her little scene and how seductive a SSBBW can be... that part was kinda hot!


----------



## Durin (Nov 11, 2008)

> It's good for Size Acceptance to show that she's the star of her little scene and how seductive a SSBBW can be... that part was kinda hot!



Too True. I thought it was tragic that the one guy wanted her to lose weight before he married her. We have to slip her a note that there are guys that like Fat Girls.


----------



## Shosh (Nov 11, 2008)

I have only seen the trailer on the website, as this show may not air here in Australia for a while. She seems so sweet and nice. I wish her all the best.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Nov 11, 2008)

Durin said:


> Too True. I thought it was tragic that the one guy wanted her to lose weight before he married her. We have to slip her a note that there are guys that like Fat Girls.



I wonder how many of those guys would continue to "like" Ruby as she loses weight.


----------



## Durin (Nov 11, 2008)

I think that would depend how skinny Ruby would get. I think if she were somewhere in the 200-500lbs range most FA's would go ga ga


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 11, 2008)

Ned Sonntag said:


> Six minutes into it Ruby pulls out a pic of herself and says "here's me at 700lbs," so... she was 200lbs heavier? Sounds like she has techniques for countering the effects of Southern cooking already in place... Nice to see that she's got 2 adoring male in-house feeders in attendance... it'll be enlightening to find out more about their particular motivations and sexuality as the series progresses... It's good for Size Acceptance to show that she's the star of her little scene and how seductive a SSBBW can be... that part was kinda hot!



guess what? there are some men who actually love and do things for women and love them without trying to get into their panties. tg every man's mind doesn't work on that level.


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 11, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> I wonder how many of those guys would continue to "like" Ruby as she loses weight.




here here! and how many would like her if she really gained to the point they fantasized about and became a real burden or source for guilt for them if she died. i have to say for the guy that at least he isn't a liar about what he can handle and what he can't handle. evidently he was attracted to her in many ways. but its unfair to pretend that your significant other carrying so much eight isn't something that even an FA would have to think about if he is being totally realistic.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Nov 11, 2008)

Durin said:


> I think that would depend how skinny Ruby would get. I think if she were somewhere in the 200-500lbs range most FA's would go ga ga



Well then, an FA (who couldn't see beyond Ruby's body size) wouldn't exactly be doing her any favors, would he? Because Ruby doesn't want to be fat. 

I can't see a difference between a boyfriend who requires her to lose weight, vs one who requires that she doesn't get below a certain size. Either way, it's all about her size, and not about Ruby herself.


----------



## Shosh (Nov 13, 2008)

Well I was able to watch the first episode on the website. I will say it again, Ruby is the most beautiful person. I felt really drawn to her just watching the show. She has such a lovely warm heart and nature.
I admire her courage and bravery to face this head on. It is the hardest thing in the world. 
I struggle to exercise and I weigh a lot less than her, so I can imagine this will be such a mountain for her to climb.
Hopefully all of the episodes will be viewable on the websire after they have aired, because I would like to follow her progress.
Go Ruby!


----------



## moniquessbbw (Nov 13, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> your right. i don't really think overall thats what people are talking about. but i just wanted us to think about being careful about what we say and how we say it. for instance , using a term like "loser" in a certain context can imply something that might not have been intended. but personally i think we know exactly what was intended by that tone just as we know why the producers of the show chose the title "Biggest Loser". thats why someone else also noted it. and, we have been here long enough to know what the reference to her not being 500 lbs anyway is all about-- fat sour grapes that yet another woman has decided to go thin. i just wanted us to be clear because we have people here who have chosen to get WLS who've been emotionally victimized and treated like traitors because of their own personal choices. there are so many of them here who feel they have to keep it a secret because of the tenor of some of the talk. they don't feel free in an acceptance community to be who they are. they've already been segregated to one section to talk about their concerns as though they're doing something wrong and antithetical to acceptance. i just want them to know that people who might not have had WLS and don't even entertain the idea are watching and are looking out for their rights and interests.



You are so right... Enough said....:bow:


----------



## bigsexy920 (Nov 13, 2008)

Going Ga Ga and having a relationship are two very differnt things. Im pretty sure the guy that wanted to marry her was Ga Ga over her but not enough to marry. What would people think. 

Even here in the Dimensions family there is a lot of Ga ga and a lot less real relationships going on. 



Durin said:


> I think that would depend how skinny Ruby would get. I think if she were somewhere in the 200-500lbs range most FA's would go ga ga


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 16, 2008)

bigsexy920 said:


> Going Ga Ga and having a relationship are two very differnt things. Im pretty sure the guy that wanted to marry her was Ga Ga over her but not enough to marry. What would people think.
> 
> Even here in the Dimensions family there is a lot of Ga ga and a lot less real relationships going on.



exactly. i was so proud of Ruby for saying "why would i want to be with a guy who admitted he could only love me if i was thin". well the same goes for the men who say that could only love a woman if she were fat. thats not love. its only sex. and i think a lot of women really prefer a man who can be in touch enough to be stimulated by a true emotion rather than just sexual fixations. sometimes i worry that some of us here settle for that ( the sexual interest) because thats all we feel we can get. often it takes a long time for men to mature . and women have to recognize the men who understand what its all about and leave th rest of them alone. what i adored the most about Ruby is that even though she is trying to lose weight she was a shining example of size acceptance when she said "for the first time in my life i'm falling in love with me. thats what its all about. and where ever her journey takes her it should be all about her. i'm proud of her for recognizing that.


----------



## Theatrmuse/Kara (Nov 16, 2008)

Yeah............that last scene of Ruby in the diary cam talking about "falling in love with myself".............very moving for me.

Good job, Ruby!


----------



## Lady at Large (Nov 17, 2008)

I have accepted that the only kind of fat person that is acceptable to 'society' at large (no pun intended) is a DIETING fat person, but I was a bit leery of the show showing Ruby as a humorous device or to be pitied...which honestly I get enough of on a daily basis! But I find it to be more about her as a person and less about gimmicky happily thin ever afters. 

I was pleasantly surprised, not to mention she is adorable inside and out! Very cute person, and I hope she is successful in learning to love herself and get healthy (yes even if it means losing some weight and even if it doesn't).


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Nov 17, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> exactly. i was so proud of Ruby for saying *"why would i want to be with a guy who admitted he could only love me if i was thin". well the same goes for the men who say that could only love a woman if she were fat. thats not love. its only sex. and i think a lot of women really prefer a man who can be in touch enough to be stimulated by a true emotion rather than just sexual fixations. * sometimes i worry that some of us here settle for that ( the sexual interest) because thats all we feel we can get. often it takes a long time for men to mature . and women have to recognize the men who understand what its all about and leave th rest of them alone. what i adored the most about Ruby is that even though she is trying to lose weight she was a shining example of size acceptance when she said "for the first time in my life i'm falling in love with me. thats what its all about. and where ever her journey takes her it should be all about her. i'm proud of her for recognizing that.



The heart wants what the heart wants. I don't know if it's fair to say it's not love because it diminishes or goes away when someone gains or loses weight? I've had women tell me I'm great but they're only into slim or muscular guys. IMO that's a completely valid _emotion_ and I have no problem with it. 

Everyone is entitled to their tastes and preferences. I don't think it automatically makes someone shallow or superficial to recognize that a certain appearance doesn't turn them on. I think most mature, healthy people relate to a partner comprehensively, as a package. Looks are a part of it; why deny that? Maybe, hopefully once a bond is formed looks become less critical but what if they don't? Does that entitle me to say love wasn't ever there?

I was called to task once here for saying maybe BBW shouldn't be as superficial about looks in a partner. In retrospect I'm clear I was wrong. Looks can matter as much as brains, personality, money, height, whatever is or isn't important to you. In a committed or LTR any intelligent person realizes that aging is inevitable. Nobody at 50 looks the same as they did at 20. Then again they probably don't have the same personality, knowledge, finances, etc. as they did at those different ages. I could judge someone who splits for whatever reason and think "well, hey you loved an ideal and not a person" but wtf business is it of mine, really? _The heart wants what the heart wants_ and it's crazy to think we can know how that works for anyone other than ourself. JMO. :bow:


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 17, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> The heart wants what the heart wants. I don't know if it's fair to say it's not love because it diminishes or goes away when someone gains or loses weight? I've had women tell me I'm great but they're only into slim or muscular guys. IMO that's a completely valid _emotion_ and I have no problem with it.
> 
> Everyone is entitled to their tastes and preferences. I don't think it automatically makes someone shallow or superficial to recognize that a certain appearance doesn't turn them on. I think most mature, healthy people relate to a partner comprehensively, as a package. Looks are a part of it; why deny that? Maybe, hopefully once a bond is formed looks become less critical but what if they don't? Does that entitle me to say love wasn't ever there?
> 
> I was called to task once here for saying maybe BBW shouldn't be as superficial about looks in a partner. In retrospect I'm clear I was wrong. Looks can matter as much as brains, personality, money, height, whatever is or isn't important to you. In a committed or LTR any intelligent person realizes that aging is inevitable. Nobody at 50 looks the same as they did at 20. Then again they probably don't have the same personality, knowledge, finances, etc. as they did at those different ages. I could judge someone who splits for whatever reason and think "well, hey you loved an ideal and not a person" but wtf business is it of mine, really? _The heart wants what the heart wants_ and it's crazy to think we can know how that works for anyone other than ourself. JMO. :bow:



sorry, but if someone is obviously gaga over you and can't get you out of their mind for 6 years but refuses to be with you because your body isn't some fantasy image they had then they ARE shallow. and also its a weak partner that no woman, especially a BBW, needs. it would be the same if an FA fell for a thin girl and asked her to get fat to obtain his love. if you don't have the strength to love a woman as she comes leave her alone. no one owes you their identity. if you prefer something or are so attracted to something in particular to the extent that people claim then you won't be in that predicament anyway. love can't and doesn't account for preference. preference can be artificial. it could even be because of social conditioning. but love is real and not predicated upon someone being one thing or another. the very ephemeral nature of a preference tells you exactly what level of importance a woman should give it when presented to her. a preference is a fickle thing. its impermanent. it fades easily if conditions change. if you really love a woman the way she really wants and needs to be loved its unconditional. i don't think women should ever accept conditions on the affection they get. its not the thing they really want and they shouldn't pretend its ok.

i wonder how many men would feel ok with a woman who told them they had to change before she could decide if she could love him. or how many would like feeling under the gun if they changed a bit. what if she told him she'd leave if he got old or had a bit of a pot belly. what if he were always expected to "perform" like a younger man? i don't think he would go for it unless he had very low self esteem. so why should a woman?

i think your initial feelings about it being shallow for a woman to say she could only be attracted to a certian type were right and honest. but i think you had to do some back peddling on that idea because it might have made you realize how people really might view you and how you might seem to express your preference. i'm not saying your preference is wrong. people find things attractive. but they all have an appropriate place in life. sometimes people manage to put them in their appropriate position and sometimes they don't. i just know how i like someone who is interested in me personally to have his hierarchy ordered.

sometimes i feel that people who rely so highly on preference are not really ready for love yet. they have an excuse to remain closed to the love of others. its an armour that some people wear to avoid real closeness. its a way to justify objectifying other human beings without a thought for their humanity. its a way to justify actions that they themselves would not like to accept. when taken in that way a preference is a limiting thing. when preferences are at their correct balance they should not enslave or entrap anyone. they should free people.


----------



## steely (Nov 17, 2008)

Love is loving someone for exactly who they are.It's when you start trying to change a person into what you want them to be,therein the problem lies.I could never have any respect for a man telling me he would marry me if I lost weight.I couldn't respect a man if I had to tell him how to be or what to be.I could never have any respect for myself.This is personal to me.Other people of course have different views but I have to live with myself.


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 17, 2008)

PS: i often see that people here would like to raise being an FA or an FFA to the level of a sexual orientation. well its not. there is a huge difference between the two and people need to be aware of that.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Nov 18, 2008)

All I'm trying to say is that any notion of what love is is completely subjective. Frankly I personally agree with you on nearly every point you made, SuperO. I just don't feel entitled to assert my opinions about love are the only valid ones. I have no idea how some people say they love one another and treat each other the way they do. Puzzles the crap outta me but I don't feel it's my prerogative to call them liars.

We each deserve our notions of what love should be and we have every right to hold out for someone who can love us in that way. I personally just don't feel we have the right to tell people we're not in love with what love _isn't_. Something may not look, sound or feel like love to me but it's not mine to say unless I need their love. Ultimately you can't prove a negative. It's all subjective and circumstantial. Moreover unless, it's someone I'm in relationship or guardianship with it's none of my business. 

Incidentally I agree that for me FA/SSA is not a sexual orientation, simply a preference. I can love someone at any size. I can't say what's true for anyone else in this regard or what should be true. *JMO*.:bow:


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 18, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> PS: i often see that people here would like to raise being an FA or an FFA to the level of a sexual orientation. well its not. there is a huge difference between the two and people need to be aware of that.



Are you an FFA?


----------



## butch (Nov 18, 2008)

The word is 'sexual orientation,' not 'love orientation,' for a reason. The problem is, as a species we think sex=love, as if each idea is interchangable, and they're not. 

As someone who is a FA/FFA, and queer, I think comparing my sexual desire for fat as an orientation is clear and substantiated. As a fat person, I know there is a difference between how a FA/FFA responds to me sexually, and how a non-FA/FFA responds, and while I'll happily accept the attentions of a non-FA/FFA, sex really is different with a FA/FFA if for no other reason than the fact that both people are more likely to derive pleasure from the particularities of fat, since someone at my size (300+) will experience things like a massage differently than a thin person. 

I don't know if every FA/FFA can claim that their desires rise to the level of an orientation, but mine do, and I'm not keen on seeing my well-informed and studied belief about this possibly being dismissed out of hand because, well, a fear of objectification, perhaps? Plus, like it or not, all sex to some degree is an objectification, and as humans we've decided to layer on top of that all sorts of emotional meanings. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, we assign emotional/spiritual value to all kinds of rituals and behaviors, and that obviously has adaptive adavantages for the species. 

However, sex/love and the fatty, like every other concept in the world, is not so binary. When we work to uphold that binary, one that suggests that a primary physical attraction to fat is always about the selfish need to get off and less about the desire for the whole person, then we will continue to see a world that works overtime to convince everyone, fat and thin, that fat people are undesirable, unsexy, and thus unworthy of love.


----------



## furious styles (Nov 18, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> Are you an FFA?



No no no no .. just stop Lilly. When are you going to get it? FAism is a naive and childish fantasy (let's say a "boyhood fantasy" .. it's easier that way) that is a major enemy of all emancipated fat people, disguised in sheep's clothing. It's a young person's fancy, this .. _lusting_ after one's body. It's really just a big circle jerk with a bunch of assholes that like when people are fat. Heinous. In fact, even having a preference towards a body type in a person is wrong. That's why I think we should all _date our best friends_. I mean, they're the perfect match for us. They've got the personality, we love being together. What? Your best friend is the same sex as you but you're not gay? Vice versa? Never felt any physical attraction to them? Well I don't want to hear it. That shouldn't matter. Look at what's on the inside, not the outside you shallow sycophants. If you won't date someone because you've never felt a physical attraction to them, you're a superficial bastard.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 18, 2008)

mfdoom said:


> No no no no .. just stop Lilly. When are you going to get it? FAism is a naive and childish fantasy (let's say a "boyhood fantasy" .. it's easier that way) that is a major enemy of all emancipated fat people, disguised in sheep's clothing. It's a young person's fancy, this .. _lusting_ after one's body. It's really just a big circle jerk with a bunch of assholes that like when people are fat. Heinous. In fact, even having a preference towards a body type in a person is wrong. That's why I think we should all _date our best friends_. I mean, they're the perfect match for us. They've got the personality, we love being together. What? Your best friend is the same sex as you but you're not gay? Vice versa? Never felt any physical attraction to them? Well I don't want to hear it. That shouldn't matter. Look at what's on the inside, not the outside you shallow sycophants. If you won't date someone because you've never felt a physical attraction to them, you're a superficial bastard.



*hangs head in shame* My best friend is my sister. If I marry her I'm an immoral inbred god forsaken pervert. If I don't marry her I'm an immoral shallow god forsaken pervert. I'm doomed to live.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Nov 18, 2008)

mfdoom said:


> No no no no .. just stop Lilly. When are you going to get it? FAism is a naive and childish fantasy (let's say a "boyhood fantasy" .. it's easier that way) that is a major enemy of all emancipated fat people, disguised in sheep's clothing. It's a young person's fancy, this .. _lusting_ after one's body. It's really just a big circle jerk with a bunch of assholes that like when people are fat. Heinous. In fact, even having a preference towards a body type in a person is wrong. That's why I think we should all _date our best friends_. I mean, they're the perfect match for us. They've got the personality, we love being together. What? Your best friend is the same sex as you but you're not gay? Vice versa? Never felt any physical attraction to them? Well I don't want to hear it. That shouldn't matter. Look at what's on the inside, not the outside you shallow sycophants. If you won't date someone because you've never felt a physical attraction to them, you're a superficial bastard.



This is uncalled for, and not even close to what SuperD was trying to say. This is the very reason why I weary of this type of debate. You're taking one part of what she's actually saying and then blowing it very far out of proportion in order to make your point.

There isn't just one side to this issue. There are two. For purpose of this discussion, the focus is on Ruby. A man who cannot have an initial attraction to her ... or even maintain one, if she gains or loses a large amount of weight, isn't some kind of monster. Is he good for Ruby, though? Is it OK that he can't see past her weight? Most certainly, it is not. Again, though... it doesn't make him a shallow jerk. People can't help the way that they feel (though they certainly have a lot of control over how they *act* on those feelings). What would the honorable thing be? To continue dating her, despite having no attraction ... or to insert himself back into her life now that she's attained a level of fame? 

An FA who absolutely MUST be with a woman of a certain weight, because that physical attraction is a huge part of who he is, owes it to any woman that he's with to lay those cards right out on the table. Many women would then reject him as a potential mate, because most of us want to be loved and valued for who we are, not what we are. Many would have no problem with that, as they understand and agree that physical attraction is a big part of a romantic relationship. In any event, the key here is that people are honest about what they want and need from a relationship. 

This does raise an interesting issue, at least to me. How do people with set physical requirements get past what naturally comes with aging, or the result of an accident or illness? I'm honestly curious about that.


----------



## Spanky (Nov 18, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> This is uncalled for, and not even close to what SuperD was trying to say. This is the very reason why I weary of this type of debate. You're taking one part of what she's actually saying and then blowing it very far out of proportion in order to make your point.
> 
> There isn't just one side to this issue. There are two. For purpose of this discussion, the focus is on Ruby. A man who cannot have an initial attraction to her ... or even maintain one, if she gains or loses a large amount of weight, isn't some kind of monster. Is he good for Ruby, though? Is it OK that he can't see past her weight? Most certainly, it is not. Again, though... it doesn't make him a shallow jerk. People can't help the way that they feel (though they certainly have a lot of control over how they *act* on those feelings). What would the honorable thing be? To continue dating her, despite having no attraction ... or to insert himself back into her life now that she's attained a level of fame?
> 
> ...



<no joking> This is probably a significant reason for the increased divorce rate (when discussing marrieds). People want what they want and they want it NOW. If it is physical attraction uber alles, than you make the mate keep looking the part (surgery or the like) or you trade up for a newer model. 

Sad as it is.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 18, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> PS: i often see that people here would like to raise being an FA or an FFA to the level of a sexual orientation. well its not. there is a huge difference between the two and people need to be aware of that.





TraciJo67 said:


> This is uncalled for, and not even close to what SuperD was trying to say. This is the very reason why I weary of this type of debate. You're taking one part of what she's actually saying and then blowing it very far out of proportion in order to make your point.
> 
> *There isn't just one side to this issue.* There are two. For purpose of this discussion, the focus is on Ruby. A man who cannot have an initial attraction to her ... or even maintain one, if she gains or loses a large amount of weight, isn't some kind of monster. Is he good for Ruby, though? Is it OK that he can't see past her weight? Most certainly, it is not. Again, though... it doesn't make him a shallow jerk. People can't help the way that they feel (though they certainly have a lot of control over how they *act* on those feelings). What would the honorable thing be? To continue dating her, despite having no attraction ... or to insert himself back into her life now that she's attained a level of fame?
> 
> ...



mfdoom, myself, butch, etc. - what we said was in response to this blanket statement made above which was not specifically about 'Ruby.' What Ruby chooses to do with herself and how she approaches her relationships is her decision, one sided, which is her right. Nobody has the right to tell her what to do or decide. They can either take it or leave it. As far as me being an FFA or whatever, that isn't a two sided debate either. Nobody gets to make statements about that but me. Whatever you or Supero thinks she knows is immaterial. I've been me for 42 years and am the formemost expert on that subject. It is not a two sided issue, it is MY issue. How someone wishes to respond to it is their business but I won't sit and say nothing while scholastic theorist declare definitive knowledge of my motives. As for growing old together and all that we adapt the same way everyone else does. Either we do or we don't. There's no noble superiority to any orientation.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Nov 18, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> mfdoom, myself, butch, etc. - what we said was in response to this blanket statement made above which was not specifically about 'Ruby.' What Ruby chooses to do with herself and how she approaches her relationships is her decision, one sided, which is her right. Nobody has the right to tell her what to do or decide. They can either take it or leave it. As far as me being an FFA or whatever, that isn't a two sided debate either. Nobody gets to make statements about that but me. Whatever you or Supero thinks she knows is immaterial. I've been me for 42 years and am the formemost expert on that subject. It is not a two sided issue, it is MY issue. How someone wishes to respond to it is their business but I won't sit and say nothing while scholastic theorist declare definitive knowledge of my motives. As for growing old together and all that we adapt the same way everyone else does. Either we do or we don't. There's no noble superiority to any orientation.




Again, you're extrapolating, Lilly.

I'm not making moral judgments about you, about FA's in general, or about Jesus H. Christ Himself. 

In fact, I'm agreeing with you, in a roundabout way. We end up at the same place, despite the fact that you're arguing it from one starting point, and I'm at another. It's OK to need that physical connection. It's OK to see beauty in every form. It's OK to tie someone up and piss on him/her, so long as he/she agrees to that activity. It's ALL OK as long as there is honest communication between two consenting adults. 

It's NOT OK when one of those adults ends up hurt because he/she couldn't live up to the other's standards, either by accident or design. Again, though ... it doesn't make the other person a monster. Just as you said above ... we know only ourselves when it comes to our desires and what we can/cannot live with. I think ... I could be wrong, and certainly SuperD will correct me if I am ... she's not implying evil intent with respect to FA/FFA's. She's sharing *her* perspective, as a woman of size who doesn't want her body size to be an issue, either positive *or* negative, when it comes to a meaningful relationship. She gets to make these choices too, without someone rushing in with snotty judgments about how she's proposing that we all just marry our siblings or best friends because physical attraction shouldn't matter. 

To her, physical attraction is probably just one component of a meaningful relationship. It certainly is to me. Doesn't make me morally superior, it just means that this is how *I'm* built.


----------



## Lady at Large (Nov 18, 2008)

I am clearly way too stupid to understand all the by play here, but I do think that back to the issue of changing for someone, (or to whether the guy is good for Ruby)...if we do change ourselves to fit into what a person/people want us to be (ie: lose, gain weight, etc) there will always end up being resentment toward that person..."why couldn't they love me when I was thin, fat, christian, not christian, etc, etc, etc". Eventually it does take a toll on the relationship. The only person we should worry about pleasing is our own self.


----------



## furious styles (Nov 18, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> This is uncalled for, and not even close to what SuperD was trying to say. This is the very reason why I weary of this type of debate. You're taking one part of what she's actually saying and then blowing it very far out of proportion in order to make your point.
> 
> There isn't just one side to this issue. There are two. For purpose of this discussion, the focus is on Ruby. A man who cannot have an initial attraction to her ... or even maintain one, if she gains or loses a large amount of weight, isn't some kind of monster. Is he good for Ruby, though? Is it OK that he can't see past her weight? Most certainly, it is not. Again, though... it doesn't make him a shallow jerk. People can't help the way that they feel (though they certainly have a lot of control over how they *act* on those feelings). What would the honorable thing be? To continue dating her, despite having no attraction ... or to insert himself back into her life now that she's attained a level of fame?
> 
> ...



I was being hyperbolic because of the situation, obviously. I do understand what you are saying, and her as well. But you understand as well, I think. I overstated my backlash to a comedic effect, but the point is that the more and more we generalize, the more we lump people together in one group, the more prejudiced we become and it only does harm. It starts out with casual notions, individual accusations. It only grows from there. The knee jerk worsens the more times this is brought to the forefront, which is why I, like you, prefer to avoid these types of confrontations.

A good human being sees someone for what they truly are. They _love_ someone for what they truly are. Shallow individuals exist in all walks of life. It's not an FA-centric phenomenon. You obviously know this, as does Super .. but it seems to get left out of these arguments.

I think the intrinsic problem here is that both parties feel attacked. When that happens, conflict is inevitable and resolution nigh on impossible. One party, that of the partner who worries about their loved one losing interest following a radical change in appearance .. they see this as an attack on them. As a revoking of the right to change themselves, or even be changed by circumstances out of their control. Fair enough, and something I think _everyone_ worries about, at times. On the other hand, the fat admirer sees this argument as an attack on his or her worth, as a person. If the FA cannot love and pursue this thing they have such great desire for, then what is the point of them trying? Why were they made this way, then?

Wouldn't you say these are both valid points? They seem it to me. Both parties hyperbolize and stretch the truth to make their point. Who is right? Are all FA's really that shallow? I don't think so. But are some? Sure. These people do exist in the world. Allowing them to speak for all of us is what I take offense to. 

I love my girlfriend. We have a great dynamic and I think she's an incredibly intelligent and thoughtful person. We both love old cinema; we'll lay together in bed and watch movies for days. We go out and we laugh together, and when we're apart we talk on the phone for hours at night. Every time I fall asleep I wish I could feel her beside me. She is a beautiful entity, from her attitude on life to her taste in music. I'm also a guy in my twenties. We have amazing sex. I'm incredibly attracted to her body. I lavish her with physical affection. Does that make me a criminal? Am I wrong for loving life, for enjoying what it has to offer me? This is what I enjoy, can I not enjoy it without constantly pondering the consequences of some dramatic life change? Where was it written that I must be some sort of super-human, defying my carnal desires in ALL hypothetical situations because it makes me a better person? I never said I was perfect. Who does? _Who can?_ 

This is the feeling of being attacked. I realize that it's over stating, inferring. Just like all human emotions, it can defy logic. Like love, that which is impossible to quantify. 

I apologize for my initial post. I stand by it, but perhaps it was out of line. Human, emotional, et al. Everything is not black and white. I do not have an iron clad system of moral pillars. I am not perfect nor do I claim to be. But I do think I am a decent human being. That is my right. I do my best not to hurt people, I stand up for what I believe to be good. That's why I'm having this very conversation. Each person is different. We all have needs, wants, goals. Some of these could be considered shallow .. I suppose it depends on where you're standing. Could I, at this point in my life, swear to my girlfriend that I'll never date anyone else in my entire life, that I'll love her through any obstacle, no matter what? I don't think so. That's what marriage is, a commitment I know I'm not currently prepared for. But does that mean I do not love her? Lives change, people shift, and the world keeps on moving. Humanity is not so rigid. And in the end, that's what makes this whole argument pointless. Everyone will see things from a different point of view. 

Again, I'm sorry if you took what I said as an attack; it wasn't meant as such. It was a gut reaction, a knee jerk against what I felt to be "wrong." I value both and Super as posters, we might not always see eye to eye but you often make good points. Neither of us is going to convince the other what is right and what is wrong. I guess we can just hope to each take something away from the other, a little window into the viewpoint of someone standing on the other side. That doesn't mean we have to sit around singing kum-bay-yah, of course. I just hope it helps in some way.



TraciJo67 said:


> Again, you're extrapolating, Lilly.
> 
> I'm not making moral judgments about you, about FA's in general, or about Jesus H. Christ Himself.
> 
> ...



Again, I often find myself agreeing with you. I think we agree on a lot of things, especially the last line of what you just said. I just hope you can see why I keep restating the offense I take to the attitude. It's a snowball sort of effect. I see a little of it here, I see a little more there, and all of a sudden I'm starting to worry. 

When you read my above post, realize that my knee jerky demeanor is the result of not just what you or Super has said in this thread. It's from a long string of things. It's from experiences within my own life, not just mutterings around the forum.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 18, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> Again, you're extrapolating, Lilly.
> 
> I'm not making moral judgments about you, about FA's in general, or about Jesus H. Christ Himself.
> 
> ...



_"sorry, but if someone is obviously gaga over you and can't get you out of their mind for 6 years but refuses to be with you because your body isn't some fantasy image they had then they ARE shallow. and also its a weak partner that no woman, especially a BBW, needs._ "​
We will have to agree to disagree then Traci because words like Shallow and Weak come off very much like snooty judgements. Body type is not the only reason relationships falter. People sometimes outgrow each other. It's terrible, it's awful but it happens. Am I shallow for communicating honestly with my partner what's up? People divorce over money, children or a child's illness, something I will never get but what do I know about that? Then there are people who just plain fall out of love with their partner. On the part of the partner there is always the need to place blame and label the other weak or a jerk which sometimes can be true but not always. It's okay for someone to feel whatever they feel but it doesn't mean it's true gospel. Possibly it is in Ruby's case, I watched 'The Simpsons' so I didn't see the show. The generalization that was made about FA/FFA because of what was on the show is what I took exception to. It's not okay to take experiences and apply them everywhere which is what it looked to me like she did.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Nov 18, 2008)

Lady at Large said:


> I am clearly way too stupid to understand all the by play here, but I do think that back to the issue of changing for someone, (or to whether the guy is good for Ruby)...if we do change ourselves to fit into what a person/people want us to be (ie: lose, gain weight, etc) there will always end up being resentment toward that person..."why couldn't they love me when I was thin, fat, christian, not christian, etc, etc, etc". Eventually it does take a toll on the relationship. The only person we should worry about pleasing is our own self.



LAL I couldn't agree more. I didn't see 'Ruby.' From what I gather she had two unsutable men. One who preferred her thin, the other preferred her plump? What comfort could she have with either knowing that to keep their approval she had to adapt to their ideals, something I don't agree with. The idea that they may be gathered 'round her rubbing their hands together in hopes she may fall over to their side of the equasion is wrong on so many levels. Then again, sometimes these TV shows cut and past things together in the final editing to make a story more intriguing. She may be surrounded by two bastards but it seems pretty 'made for television.' I'm a skeptic.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Nov 18, 2008)

DISCLAIMER: Much of what I'm saying is a generalization, and not aimed at you personally, mfdoom.



mfdoom said:


> I was being hyperbolic because of the situation, obviously. I do understand what you are saying, and her as well. But you understand as well, I think. I overstated my backlash to a comedic effect, but the point is that the more and more we generalize, the more we lump people together in one group, the more prejudiced we become and it only does harm. It starts out with casual notions, individual accusations. It only grows from there. The knee jerk worsens the more times this is brought to the forefront, which is why I, like you, prefer to avoid these types of confrontations.
> 
> A good human being sees someone for what they truly are. They _love_ someone for what they truly are. Shallow individuals exist in all walks of life. It's not an FA-centric phenomenon. You obviously know this, as does Super .. but it seems to get left out of these arguments.



Wow. An actual, honest-to-goodness, well-thought-out and genuinely gracious response. If this were Hyde Park, I'd kiss the very ground that you walk on  

I agree with most of the points that you've made, and suspected that we were operating at cross-purposes while trying (essentially) to make similar points. 



> I think the intrinsic problem here is that both parties feel attacked. When that happens, conflict is inevitable and resolution nigh on impossible. One party, that of the partner who worries about their loved one losing interest following a radical change in appearance .. they see this as an attack on them. As a revoking of the right to change themselves, or even be changed by circumstances out of their control. Fair enough, and something I think _everyone_ worries about, at times. On the other hand, the fat admirer sees this argument as an attack on his or her worth, as a person. If the FA cannot love and pursue this thing they have such great desire for, then what is the point of them trying? Why were they made this way, then?
> 
> Wouldn't you say these are both valid points? They seem it to me. Both parties hyperbolize and stretch the truth to make their point. Who is right? Are all FA's really that shallow? I don't think so. But are some? Sure. These people do exist in the world. Allowing them to speak for all of us is what I take offense to.
> 
> ...



This highlighted paragraph is what I want to focus on, because there's a lot of meaning packed into those few short words. Your worldview is formed by your experiences, as are mine. As are SuperD's. I don't want to put words into her mouth; she's perfectly capable of defending her own position. I just believe, I think, that she and I have very similar feelings about this issue. 

She (appears to) think that people who cannot look beyond the physical are shallow. So do I, to an extent (though I acknowledge that there are worse things in life than this mindset, *and* I do not believe that a shallow person is an evil person). I believe this as a result of my experiences, both the good and the painful and the downright awful. I am a woman who has made very significant changes in my physical appearance. You wouldn't recognize me now, if you'd seen me 5 years ago. Then, I was a 300 pound woman with enormous breasts. Now, I am a 150 pound woman with ... nubs  And I look every ... single ... year of my age. I know that my husband preferred some padding, and he certainly enjoyed my large breasts. I'd like to believe that he is OK, MORE than OK, with the physical changes that I have made ... because I *need* to believe that. I didn't lose weight, and have reduction mammoplasty, because I wanted to look like a Barbie doll. And he knows that. My reaction to this issue is always going to include my own particular (peculiar too) set of fears, insecurities, moral compass, and other assorted baggage. 

I loved what you said about your girlfriend. I can easily read within (and between) the lines that you adore her, and that your relationship is about so much more than how she looks ... but you also cherish that physical aspect of the relationship, too. If that should change, if she loses weight or a breast or a limb, and you find that you cannot maintain a level of attraction that you need to feel satisfied with the relationship ... it doesn't make you a monster for leaving her. Shallow? Maybe a little. Maybe a lot, depending on who is judging the situation. I do agree with one thing that Lilly said though, which is (in a nutshell) that the only people who *should* be making those judgments are her, and you. I think you would agree that no matter what choices you made, one or both of you would end up hurt. Obviously, this isn't just a black & white issue. You deserve happiness too. 

I guess that my own knee-jerk reaction has, in part, to do with this feeling, right or wrong, that acknowledging your right (the collective you, ok?) to objectify someone means I have to also agree that it's OK to do so. I don't. Obviously, SuperD doesn't either. I believe that a *meaningful* long-term relationship has to encompass the reality that people change, and that physical attraction can & does (and will) spark and wane, spark and wane. I go through periods of absolutely not even wanting to be *touched* by my husband ... usually when I am fatigued & overwhelmed, sometimes for no particular reason at all. And there are fun & exciting times when I just can't get enough of him. The span inbetween can be days, months, years. Neither of us are what we used to be, physically. I've made adjustments to my expectations, and I damn well know that he has too. To me, the alternative is far more unbearable than the reality of living with those peaks & valleys. 

My own moral indignation comes into play when people end up making terrible choices and then have the audacity to feel outraged when they are judged by those very choices. Can't live with someone because he/she got old, or is no longer a physical ideal? Do that person a favor and leave. Immediately. Not later. Sadly, too many people stay stuck in a bad situation and end up cheating, or becoming emotionally abusive to their partners, or just shutting down altogether. Of course, the ideal would be to hash these issues out before even going into the relationship ... but then, not many of us are actively aware of our internal workings, especially when we're overwhelmed by the excitement and all of the heady possibilities of a new relationship.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Nov 18, 2008)

I just wanted to be clear that because I choose to respect others choices as to how they live and love does not mean I'm neutral or have no feelings on the subject. I actually have quite strong opinions on the subjects of love and commitment. They're just not of any consequence to anyone other than someone I might want to be in relationship with. 

Consenting adults can look for happiness whenever, however and with whoever they deem suitable. As a matter of functionality and respect, not morality, the ONLY inherent and inviolable obligation is _honesty_. There can't be true consent without awareness of the other persons needs and intentions. Even the ugliest truths are better than the most beautiful lies if people are to be together long term. Lies of omission are definitely included here. Say what you're there for and if that changes speak up. JMO. :bow:


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 18, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> I just wanted to be clear that because I choose to respect others choices as to how they live and love does not mean I'm neutral or have no feelings on the subject. I actually have quite strong opinions on the subjects of love and commitment. They're just not of any consequence to anyone other than someone I might want to be in relationship with.
> 
> Consenting adults can look for happiness whenever, however and with whoever they deem suitable. As a matter of functionality and respect, not morality, the ONLY inherent and inviolable obligation is _honesty_. There can't be true consent without awareness of the other persons needs and intentions. Even the ugliest truths are better than the most beautiful lies if people are to be together long term. Lies of omission are definitely included here. Say what you're there for and if that changes speak up. JMO. :bow:



of course people have the freedom to live as they feel they need to. but i also have the right to think as i like and say what i like in the spirit of exploration. the same goes for anyone else here. i note that there is a lot of freedom here when it comes to objectification. but when people stand up and say that they want more than to be just a bag of water with a few minerals and proteins somehow its upsetting and the person talking should shut up and keep it to themsleves. people need to and have the right to speak their own truth. i respect anyone's right to do that whether i agree or not. but, at the same time i have the right. 

all i'm saying is that one of the main elements that should come with acceptance is rights. a woman should have the right to determine her own destiny. her worth shouldn't be tied to whether someone other than herself approves of her body. its okay to prefer something but its the predisposition of certain people to make demands on women that are counter to who they are. thats not kosher no matter who its coming from. also i personally don't see why its such a problem for people to talk about emotional fulfillment. i know lots of men who've slept with lots of gorgeous BBWs and/or lovely slim girls and it didn't fill the empty hole they had in them. maybe someone has to shake them a bit and wake them up so that they can really be happy. for some people the physical is all they want and if that fulfills them thats fine as well. but the rest who want more shouldn't feel weighed down or pressured by their demands.

i think people should take a hint that things have changed a bit and there are people who want real substance in their life. shiny veneer is not always enough. and the pretense that it is has made a lot of people both male and female unhappy. finding that person who fits a fantasy image won't solve all of your problems unless he/she also has that undefined something that lifts your spirit. sure preference is and can be a part of that. but what we were talking about were guys who dont know the difference between a sexual preference and a real connection with someone that happens on all levels. that doesn't discount preference. the guy that Ruby was with didn't get that at all. i'm happy for her that she realized he might not be quite capable of fulfilling her. for too long BBWs have been given the burden of satisfying other people. its nice to know we are waking up and are feeling that we are worthy of satisfaction as well. we don't have to take what we can get. we can take what we chose and we want it all.


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 18, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> Are you an FFA?



i like big guys but i wouldn't call myself an FFA because i like all people of various sizes. but when i'm told by people that its a preference i take them at their word. so since i do know the difference between sexual preference and sexual orientation i make my presuppositions based on that.


----------



## user 29874 (Nov 20, 2008)

There is a new show in town, and is RUBY. A reality show about a plus size girl trying to lose some weight.

Has anyone seen it ? What are your likes and dislikes about it?

For more info, go here on the official website:

http://www.mystyle.com/mystyle/shows/ruby/index.jsp

http://forums.mystyle.com/styleforums/forum.jspa?forumID=42


----------



## morethanabelly (Nov 20, 2008)

i like the show i think she is very brave , i wish her the best of luck, no dislikes


----------



## cute_obese_girl (Nov 20, 2008)

There is already a thread here


----------



## moniquessbbw (Nov 20, 2008)

I absolutely love the show. She is a beautiful woman on the inside and the outside. She is so brave and I admire her for letting the world see how food addiction can take a hold of your life. I have walked in her shoes and I can feel her pain.

Her ex-boyfriend is hot, but I am so glad she had the balls to tell him she was over him. If he cant love you for who you are then he never will. So far I love the show.


----------



## Shosh (Nov 20, 2008)

moniquessbbw said:


> I absolutely love the show. She is a beautiful woman on the inside and the outside. She is so brave and I admire her for letting the world see how food addiction can take a hold of your life. I have walked in her shoes and I can feel her pain.
> 
> Her ex-boyfriend is hot, but I am so glad she had the balls to tell him she was over him. If he cant love you for who you are then he never will. So far I love the show.



I agree Monique.


----------



## steely (Nov 20, 2008)

She's a great girl.Just like most people who are fat.I identify closely with her.I think she's a great role model for what fat is.I hope she succeeds in her journey.


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

I caught episode 2 last night, my first time watching the show. A few thoughts:

1) That has to be the gayest theme song ever. It makes Three's Company's sound like Dvorak. 

2) It seemed like there was about 5 minutes worth of show stretched to 22 minutes. It made the whole thing nearly unwatchable for me, despite my interest, prurient and non-. There were a lot of commercials, as there are on all basic cable shows, but did I need to be treated to a complete recap of everything that's happened so far at the end of each commercial break? Have American attention spans really shortened that much? Felt like I was climbing a hill on skis (though I've never attempted such a thing). 

3) Forgetting the FA eye candy for a second, the highlight for me was her webcam midnight confessional towards the end. I felt for a second like I was watching a real person for the first time, and someone far more attractive than the one presented during the main portion of the show. Filming hersef, she was serious, very intelligent, and insightful, while for most of the episode, she came off as very stilted and mostly full of shit, indicating to me that she was heavily coached, and not for the better. Not to mention that the whole "plot" of the ex-boyfriend returning seemed totally scripted. At the very least, her friends need to take some acting classes to pull that kind of thing off.

Yeah, yeah, a reality show that's fake. Shocking, I know. Yes, there are certain expectations for shows like this, but I don't understand why they need to apply a theme and dramatic arc to a real life, which rarely has that kind of convenient organization. I think there's plenty here that's compelling enough. But if the idea is to make us care about Ruby, the one on the webcam is far more compelling than the other version.


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

Sorry - totally missed the "Ruby the Show" thread below. My snarky title refers to the other Ruby thread.


----------



## sweet&fat (Nov 21, 2008)

can you please not use "gay" as a pejorative term?


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

sweet&fat said:


> can you please not use "gay" as a pejorative term?



Por que?

.....


----------



## thatgirl08 (Nov 21, 2008)

tres huevos said:


> Por que?
> 
> .....



A lot of people find it offensive.


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 21, 2008)

tres huevos said:


> Por que?
> 
> .....



because gay people are wonderful, unlike what your talking about.


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

thatgirl08 said:


> A lot of people find it offensive.



I think it's made the leap into the general lexicon as an adjective. I have gay friends who use it as I did: fey, cloying, over-the-top. "Faggy" I could see people getting bent out of shape over.

Ruby refuses to have a sidetrack-proof thread. Perhaps the show is doomed.


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> because gay people are wonderful, unlike what your talking about.



All of them? I know a few horrible ones.


----------



## sweet&fat (Nov 21, 2008)

tres huevos said:


> I think it's made the leap into the general lexicon as an adjective. I have gay friends who use it as I did: fey, cloying, over-the-top. "Faggy" I could see people getting bent out of shape over.
> 
> Ruby refuses to have a sidetrack-proof thread. Perhaps the show is doomed.



I see what you're saying, but suffice it to say that it's a pretty loaded term to be whipping out casually. 

And is there such a thing as a sidetrack-proof thread? I'd love to see it. Perhaps my work as a thread saboteur (saboteuse?) can continue! Ha- HAA!


----------



## sweet&fat (Nov 21, 2008)

tres huevos said:


> All of them? I know a few horrible ones.



Someone's in the mood for a fight!


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 21, 2008)

well not every FA is so hot either but i try to give them the benefit of the doubt

maybe when some guy who happens to like fat girls does something a little goofy, we girls can use that as a reason to say that anything a guy does to us thats wrong is "so FA". get my drift honey lamb


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> well not every FA is so hot either but i try to give them the benefit of the doubt



You'll learn better.


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

sweet&fat said:


> Someone's in the mood for a fight!



I'm just trying to talk about Ruby, for chrissakes!


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 21, 2008)

we just wanted to tweak ya to see if you were still awake. hey did you read the other thread yet?
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?p=972705#post972705


----------



## sweet&fat (Nov 21, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> we just wanted to tweak ya to see if you were still awake. hey did you read the other thread yet?



ditto.......


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> we just wanted to tweak ya to see if you were still awake. hey did you read the other thread yet?
> http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?p=972705#post972705



Yeah, it sucks.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Nov 21, 2008)

tres huevos said:


> Yeah, it sucks.



Yeah, and this one is rockin' the roof off da house


----------



## thatgirl08 (Nov 21, 2008)

tres huevos said:


> I think it's made the leap into the general lexicon as an adjective. I have gay friends who use it as I did: fey, cloying, over-the-top. "Faggy" I could see people getting bent out of shape over.
> 
> Ruby refuses to have a sidetrack-proof thread. Perhaps the show is doomed.



I am personally not offended and I have plently of gay friends who are not.. but I know that some people are. You're better off using a word that isn't offensive to some people. That's all.


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> Yeah, and this one is rockin' the roof off da house



Hey, I did my best.


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

thatgirl08 said:


> I am personally not offended and I have plently of gay friends who are not.. but I know that some people are. You're better off using a word that isn't offensive to some people. That's all.



The world thanks you.


----------



## Elfcat (Nov 21, 2008)

To quote the title of a recent comedy film, "Pardon My Spanglish, Por que BECAUSE!"


----------



## mossystate (Nov 21, 2008)

Aaaaaaaaaaaand


Scene


----------



## Elfcat (Nov 21, 2008)

Acting arrogant is not a better technique for FAs than it is for anyone else comrade.


----------



## sweet&fat (Nov 21, 2008)

I was just making a point... should have known it would avalanche. Yikes. 

CAN EVERYONE PLEASE GO BACK TO (or start) TALKING ABOUT RUBY?


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

Elfcat said:


> Acting arrogant is not a better technique for FAs than it is for anyone else comrade.



Thanks for setting me "straight." Comrade.


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

sweet&fat said:


> I was just making a point... should have known it would avalanche. Yikes.
> 
> CAN EVERYONE PLEASE GO BACK TO (or start) TALKING ABOUT RUBY?



You couldn't just let the gays defend themselves, right?


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

I caught episode 2 last night, my first time watching the show. A few thoughts:

1) It has a really bad theme song. Let's leave it at that.

2) It seemed like there was about 5 minutes worth of show stretched to 22 minutes. It made the whole thing nearly unwatchable for me, despite my interest, prurient and non-. There were a lot of commercials, as there are on all basic cable shows, but did I need to be treated to a complete recap of everything that's happened so far at the end of each commercial break? Have American attention spans really shortened that much? Felt like I was climbing a hill on skis (though I've never attempted such a thing).

3) Forgetting the FA eye candy for a second, the highlight for me was her webcam midnight confessional towards the end. I felt for a second like I was watching a real person for the first time, and someone far more attractive than the one presented during the main portion of the show. Filming hersef, she was serious, very intelligent, and insightful, while for most of the episode, she came off as very stilted and mostly full of shit, indicating to me that she was heavily coached, and not for the better. Not to mention that the whole "plot" of the ex-boyfriend returning seemed totally scripted. At the very least, her friends need to take some acting classes to pull that kind of thing off.

Yeah, yeah, a reality show that's fake. Shocking, I know. Yes, there are certain expectations for shows like this, but I don't understand why they need to apply a theme and dramatic arc to a real life, which rarely has that kind of convenient organization. I think there's plenty here that's compelling enough. But if the idea is to make us care about Ruby, the one on the webcam is far more compelling than the other version.


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 21, 2008)

lol i feel like i'm watching a tres huevos tennis match. fault!


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> lol i feel like i'm watching a tres huevos tennis match. fault!



And I feel like Jimmy Connors and John MacEnroe's love child. The child whom, if they were in fact gay, they'd be very much entitled to.


----------



## sweet&fat (Nov 21, 2008)

tres huevos said:


> You couldn't just let the gays defend themselves, right?



How was I to know you'd be such a Pandora's box?  

that's a joke, BTW. And back to Ruby!


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

sweet&fat said:


> How was I to know you'd be such a Pandora's box?
> 
> that's a joke, BTW. And back to Ruby!



*Me?!* Screw Ruby. I don't even care anymore.


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 21, 2008)

yes the show is fake but at least her fat is real. unlike some of those shows movies etc... we've been forced to see of thin folks in fat suits. did you see her on the motorcycle? that was real and not a stunt woman. i kept giggling through the entire thing because i was thinking of my FA friends at home drooling over that scene. i could also imagine some person at home going "who knew really fat chicks could ride a bike?". is it just me or was anyone else waiting for the back tire to go flat? *guilty look*:blush:


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 21, 2008)

lol fresh starts are good in the spirit of cooperation i'm transfering my last post on the old one to this one

yes the show is fake but at least her fat is real. unlike some of those shows movies etc... we've been forced to see of thin folks in fat suits. did you see her on the motorcycle? that was real and not a stunt woman. i kept giggling through the entire thing because i was thinking of my FA friends at home drooling over that scene. i could also imagine some person at home going "who knew really fat chicks could ride a bike?". is it just me or was anyone else waiting for the back tire to go flat? *guilty look*

yeah your right, the show is waaaay too short. it should be an hour. and it should have more of her on her personal camera on it


----------



## GWARrior (Nov 21, 2008)

This thread's pretty gay.

























I mean happy!


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

GWARrior said:


> This thread's pretty gay.
> 
> I mean happy!



I knew at least you'd have my back, Gwar.


----------



## altered states (Nov 21, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> lol fresh starts are good in the spirit of cooperation i'm transfering my last post on the old one to this one



Jesus, yeah, I feel like Ali after 12 rounds with Ken Norton. People even calling me out on my Spanish, for chrissake. Next time I'll check with Larry Kramer before writing a post about fat women.



superodalisque said:


> yes the show is fake but at least her fat is real. unlike some of those shows movies etc... we've been forced to see of thin folks in fat suits. did you see her on the motorcycle? that was real and not a stunt woman. i kept giggling through the entire thing because i was thinking of my FA friends at home drooling over that scene. i could also imagine some person at home going "who knew really fat chicks could ride a bike?". is it just me or was anyone else waiting for the back tire to go flat? *guilty look*



That's true - at least it wasn't Tyra weeping because she discovered when she straps a pillow on her ass she doesn't get as good a table at the Ivy Club. And I admit I too was a little surprised the bike moved as well as it did. Good ad for Harley D, I suppose. But then you didn't see the outtakes where they changed tires six times.

But tell me - didn't the boyfriend thing seem like a setup? I don't doubt they once went out, but he didn't just appear out of the blue. And the friends' dialog and reactions were like something out of an Ed Wood movie.



superodalisque said:


> yeah your right, the show is waaaay too short. it should be an hour. and it should have more of her on her personal camera on it



See it wasn't that it was too short, it was the pacing of it. Just way too many recaps. The ex coming back, taking her out, telling her he loved her inside but not outside (...), was, oh, 5 minutes by my reckoning. Then we should have been onto the next situation. Maybe it's me with the short attention span.


----------



## ThatFatGirl (Nov 21, 2008)

So many Ruby threads to choose from... Didn't know where to post this, but did anyone catch at the end of last week's show the announcer said to go to the website to read Denny's blog? And did you think to yourself, uh why? He has little of any substance to say, but the comments left for him are kind of fun. Most are calling him out for seeking his 15 minutes of fame. Here's a link. A couple are sympathetic to how difficult it must have been for him to be out in public with someone of her size or to be involved in a longterm relationship with someone with "lower life expectancy" who would be "prone to miscarriages."


----------



## Fuzzy Necromancer (Nov 21, 2008)

Wait, this was supposed to be a *reality show*? o.o I


----------



## olwen (Nov 21, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> sorry, but if someone is obviously gaga over you and can't get you out of their mind for 6 years but refuses to be with you because your body isn't some fantasy image they had then they ARE shallow. and also its a weak partner that no woman, especially a BBW, needs. it would be the same if an FA fell for a thin girl and asked her to get fat to obtain his love. if you don't have the strength to love a woman as she comes leave her alone. no one owes you their identity. if you prefer something or are so attracted to something in particular to the extent that people claim then you won't be in that predicament anyway. love can't and doesn't account for preference. preference can be artificial. it could even be because of social conditioning. but love is real and not predicated upon someone being one thing or another. the very ephemeral nature of a preference tells you exactly what level of importance a woman should give it when presented to her. a preference is a fickle thing. its impermanent. it fades easily if conditions change. if you really love a woman the way she really wants and needs to be loved its unconditional. i don't think women should ever accept conditions on the affection they get. its not the thing they really want and they shouldn't pretend its ok.....



That's the kicker tho isn't it? What exactly do we mean by unconditional love? The definition may be different for different people. Is it the kind of love you'd die for? What of someone who pushes a stranger out of the way of a moving car and dies in the process? Is that unconditional love? Is that the highest form of it? 

I don't think unconditional love is easy for anyone, not even mothers and fathers for their children. In practical terms it's almost an unattainable ideal. If trying to live up to that means being false (like if the guy pretended he could handle Ruby's size) then, what is it still unconditional? To love that way does a disservice to everyone involved. I think I'd rather have honest love. It may not be what I want, it may not be something I could stomach, but it's real enough. I think it's the best we can hope to do for one another - in practical terms. To ask to give and receive unconditional love seems almost selfish to me. But I'm not saying we shouldn't try to give and receive unconditional love. I just think it might be asking too much, then it almost becomes a sisyphian task.


----------



## olwen (Nov 21, 2008)

butch said:


> The word is 'sexual orientation,' not 'love orientation,' for a reason. The problem is, as a species we think sex=love, as if each idea is interchangable, and they're not.
> 
> As someone who is a FA/FFA, and queer, I think comparing my sexual desire for fat as an orientation is clear and substantiated. As a fat person, I know there is a difference between how a FA/FFA responds to me sexually, and how a non-FA/FFA responds, and while I'll happily accept the attentions of a non-FA/FFA, sex really is different with a FA/FFA if for no other reason than the fact that both people are more likely to derive pleasure from the particularities of fat, since someone at my size (300+) will experience things like a massage differently than a thin person.
> 
> ...



The rep I would have given you if I could have: You're so cool Brewster. Very well put!


----------



## SocialbFly (Nov 21, 2008)

Ernest Nagel said:


> I just wanted to be clear that because I choose to respect others choices as to how they live and love does not mean I'm neutral or have no feelings on the subject. I actually have quite strong opinions on the subjects of love and commitment. They're just not of any consequence to anyone other than someone I might want to be in relationship with.
> 
> Consenting adults can look for happiness whenever, however and with whoever they deem suitable. As a matter of functionality and respect, not morality, the ONLY inherent and inviolable obligation is _honesty_. There can't be true consent without awareness of the other persons needs and intentions. Even the ugliest truths are better than the most beautiful lies if people are to be together long term. Lies of omission are definitely included here. Say what you're there for and if that changes speak up. JMO. :bow:



tha is an excellent point, but requites people to have a clue, so many dont know what they want until they suddenly know they dont have it anymore...just saying...


----------



## ladle (Nov 21, 2008)

OK....on the topic..
anyone know where one can see highlights or replays of this show for us that are at other ends of this earth...
Would love to see this show and see what the fuss is about.
It does take a while for 'new' things to arrive downunder...
Have you seen this new James Bond movie....Sean Connery was a great choice for this new role....LMAO


----------



## olwen (Nov 21, 2008)

ladle said:


> OK....on the topic..
> anyone know where one can see highlights or replays of this show for us that are at other ends of this earth...
> Would love to see this show and see what the fuss is about.
> It does take a while for 'new' things to arrive downunder...
> Have you seen this new James Bond movie....Sean Connery was a great choice for this new role....LMAO



there's a link to the website in the other thread, of which the link is posted above.


----------



## LalaCity (Nov 21, 2008)

OMG i CAN'T BELIEVE THEY DID THIS TO RUBY???


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI


----------



## sweet&fat (Nov 21, 2008)

LalaCity said:


> OMG i CAN'T BELIEVE THEY DID THIS TO RUBY???
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI



DAMN YOU!!


----------



## Shosh (Nov 21, 2008)

LalaCity said:


> OMG i CAN'T BELIEVE THEY DID THIS TO RUBY???
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI



Ugh. I hate that song with a passion. That and "What is love?"


----------



## ladle (Nov 21, 2008)

5 millionth time
DOH!




LalaCity said:


> OMG i CAN'T BELIEVE THEY DID THIS TO RUBY???
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI


----------



## LalaCity (Nov 22, 2008)

ladle said:


> 5 millionth time



I know -- I am really on top of the big internet crazes. I only just found out about the dramatic look prairie dog last week.


----------



## furious styles (Nov 22, 2008)

this thread is surreal, yo




i also love that, despite the title, on a post per post basis it seemingly mentions the show way less than the other thread.


----------



## LalaCity (Nov 22, 2008)

mfdoom said:


> i also love that, despite the title, on a post per post basis it seemingly mentions the show way less than the other thread.



What show?


----------



## furious styles (Nov 22, 2008)

LalaCity said:


> What show?



where am i? what is this place? oh shi-


----------



## altered states (Nov 22, 2008)

olwen said:


> That's the kicker tho isn't it? What exactly do we mean by unconditional love? The definition may be different for different people. Is it the kind of love you'd die for? What of someone who pushes a stranger out of the way of a moving car and dies in the process? Is that unconditional love? Is that the highest form of it?
> 
> I don't think unconditional love is easy for anyone, not even mothers and fathers for their children. In practical terms it's almost an unattainable ideal. If trying to live up to that means being false (like if the guy pretended he could handle Ruby's size) then, what is it still unconditional? To love that way does a disservice to everyone involved. I think I'd rather have honest love. It may not be what I want, it may not be something I could stomach, but it's real enough. I think it's the best we can hope to do for one another - in practical terms. To ask to give and receive unconditional love seems almost selfish to me. But I'm not saying we shouldn't try to give and receive unconditional love. I just think it might be asking too much, then it almost becomes a sisyphian task.



To me, unconditional love is just that - without conditions. Fat, thin, young, old, rich, poor. And yeah, it's when you'd die for the person. I don't know if it's fair or not to expect, or even healthy on some levels, but that's what it is.

Relating this to Ruby, before the breakup she and the ex were together for 8 years. To me, if you're gonna make that sort of time investment with someone, you owe it to them and yourself to make sure you DO feel that strong, unconditional bond, or at least the potential with the person - as they are. Or leave, before you've used up 8 years of each others' lives on a relationship that's never going to make that leap. 

I can understand it if both parties are on the same wavelength, realize what they've got is better than nothing and just "hang" until someone makes a move. But on the show, it wasn't equal at all - seems like he just held out this carrot for her the entire time, which is cruel and selfish. Let's face it: his issue with her weight had way more to do with his own vanity than with concern for her health. Repressed FA, maybe?

I do have a grain of sympathy for the guy, though. I know in my own relationship it's been hard to stand by and support my partner when I felt she wasn't doing the right thing, living the right way, etc. These were times she didn't feel good about herself either, and I would take it personally when she was down, even when it had nothing to do with me. To rise above that resentment and apathy was really difficult, and I wasn't always successful, to put it mildly. When the tables were turned, she's generally done a better job with me than I have with her. I want to think women are better at that kind of thing than men - they feel empathy instinctively while a lot of men need to almost train themselves to be automaticaly supportive.


----------



## altered states (Nov 22, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> yes the show is fake but at least her fat is real. unlike some of those shows movies etc... we've been forced to see of thin folks in fat suits. did you see her on the motorcycle? that was real and not a stunt woman. i kept giggling through the entire thing because i was thinking of my FA friends at home drooling over that scene. i could also imagine some person at home going "who knew really fat chicks could ride a bike?". is it just me or was anyone else waiting for the back tire to go flat? *guilty look*:blush:



That's true - at least it wasn't Tyra weeping because she discovered when she straps a pillow on her ass she doesn't get as good a table at the Ivy Club. And I admit I too was a little surprised the bike moved as well as it did. Good ad for Harley D, I suppose. But then you didn't see the outtakes where they changed the tire six times.

But tell me - didn't the boyfriend thing seem like a setup? I don't doubt they once went out, but something tells me the producers went through her rolodex (dating myself) for people who could add some drama here. And the friends' dialog and reactions were like something out of an Ed Wood movie.


----------



## altered states (Nov 22, 2008)

ThatFatGirl said:


> So many Ruby threads to choose from... Didn't know where to post this, but did anyone catch at the end of last week's show the announcer said to go to the website to read Denny's blog? And did you think to yourself, uh why? He has little of any substance to say, but the comments left for him are kind of fun. Most are calling him out for seeking his 15 minutes of fame. Here's a link. A couple are sympathetic to how difficult it must have been for him to be out in public with someone of her size or to be involved in a longterm relationship with someone with "lower life expectancy" who would be "prone to miscarriages."



In terms of vanity and self-delusion, he even gives other personal trainers a bad name. Many of the comments are horrifying. Let's just say whatever residual good feelings I had from two weeks ago in terms of my fellow Americans' intelligence and good judgment have just flown back out the window.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Nov 22, 2008)

superodalisque said:


> *sorry, but if someone is obviously gaga over you and can't get you out of their mind for 6 years but refuses to be with you because your body isn't some fantasy image they had then they ARE shallow. * and also its a weak partner that no woman, especially a BBW,needs.  it would be the same if an FA fell for a thin girl and asked her to get fat to obtain his love. if you don't have the strength to love a woman as she comes leave her alone. no one owes you their identity.  if you prefer something or are so attracted to something in particular to the extent that people claim then you won't be in that predicament anyway. love can't and doesn't account for preference.* preference can be artificial. it could even be because of social conditioning.* but love is real and not predicated upon someone being one thing or another. the very ephemeral nature of a preference tells you exactly what level of importance a woman should give it when presented to her. a preference is a fickle thing. its impermanent. it fades easily if conditions change. if you really love a woman the way she really wants and needs to be loved its unconditional. i don't think women should ever accept conditions on the affection they get. its not the thing they really want and they shouldn't pretend its ok.
> 
> *i wonder how many men would feel ok with a woman who told them they had to change before she could decide if she could love him. or how many would like feeling under the gun if they changed a bit. *what if she told him she'd leave if he got old or had a bit of a pot belly. what if he were always expected to "perform" like a younger man? i don't think he would go for it unless he had very low self esteem. *so why should a woman?*
> 
> ...



A-friggin-men

The choir is out....and I'm singing Hallelujah 

One of your best posts Felicia...out of many  :bow:



superodalisque said:


> a preference is a fickle thing. its impermanent. it fades easily if conditions change.



This part.....there are two FA threads, at least, about how their preferences have changed over time......so she could be correct, IMO.


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 22, 2008)

ThatFatGirl said:


> So many Ruby threads to choose from... Didn't know where to post this, but did anyone catch at the end of last week's show the announcer said to go to the website to read Denny's blog? And did you think to yourself, uh why? He has little of any substance to say, but the comments left for him are kind of fun. Most are calling him out for seeking his 15 minutes of fame. Here's a link. A couple are sympathetic to how difficult it must have been for him to be out in public with someone of her size or to be involved in a longterm relationship with someone with "lower life expectancy" who would be "prone to miscarriages."




sounds likes he needs a little NAAFA education. how does he know he wouldn't meet a thin woman prone to those things? it would be kind of funny if Ruby decided not to lose weight, met a great guy, had babies and lived a long and happy life. cut away to Denny with a thin woman who couldn't have children and died before her time. it happens everyday. i just think he wants the world to roll his way without any work on his part.


----------



## superodalisque (Nov 22, 2008)

is this thread giving anyone else existentualist issues? which dimension am i in anyway


----------



## hiddenexposure (May 23, 2011)

I may have picked the wrong Ruby thread, but is anyone still watching the show and if so how do you feel about where she/the show is now vs where it all started. 

I personally feel as though it is not the same show about a woman taking control of her life and now it's fallen into her almost regressing in so many ways. I am watching the season finale for season 4 now and to hear her complain while being in NYC for being plus size in the city really blows my mind. It's as though she cannot function without mentioning either the weight gain or that she cannot "fit" in the city and how hard life is. She used to inspire me but now not so much.


----------



## fluffyandcute (May 23, 2011)

I am glad someone else commented on this today. I watched this program earlier this morning. It seems as if Ruby is holding on to alot from her past. She went to the Rosie show in New York and they were talking about sexual abuse. I have never heard Ruby admit to be being sexually abused before. Is this all something new that is coming out?


----------



## hiddenexposure (May 23, 2011)

The past couple of seasons have been about this secret and her unearthing her past. She's kind of refusing to admit that she has been abused because she cannot remember anything and nothing is showing conclusive evidence. 
I feel like all this focus on this and her refusal to admit and really deal with it all is hampering any progress and causing her to unravel. It seems like she's going backwards in every way, from the weight gain to her relationship with Denny.


----------



## spiritangel (May 23, 2011)

I havent watched much of this season it irritates me I want to smack Dennys head in every time I see him for some reason

but have to agree with the above I get the honest fly on the wall approach but it is hard to watch her hate on herself I wonder if anyone ever told her places like dims exist?


----------



## fluffyandcute (May 23, 2011)

She seems like such a great person! I hate to see her go through such a tough time in trying to reveal the past. Seems like she has a great support system tho!


----------



## hiddenexposure (May 23, 2011)

spiritangel said:


> I havent watched much of this season it irritates me I want to smack Dennys head in every time I see him for some reason
> 
> but have to agree with the above I get the honest fly on the wall approach but it is hard to watch her hate on herself I wonder if anyone ever told her places like dims exist?



I feel like her friends are enabling the behavior instead of trying to help her out of this spiral. I think she mentioned the weight gain no less than 20 times in that episode alone and it seems to be the thing that prevents her from doing anything. She cannot walk as long because of the weight gain, she cannot find a date because of the weight gain, NYC is a terrible city, because of the weight gain, I could go on but you get the overall point. I think because she is focusing on that and now really embracing herself as she did in the first season she's feeding into that stereotype that all fat women hate themselves. 

As far as Denny, I have always gotten a vibe from him that he is there for the cameras and less for Ruby. I think he has taken her for a ride and she has allowed him to do so and that is their dynamic. She mentions in the episode I saw that they are best friends and to me how he treats her is not as a best friend. I had a guy in my life like that and it was emotionally abusive not a functioning and mutual friendship. She deserves so much more and I hope that she musters up the confidence and has the support to really make that happen.


----------



## lypeaches (May 24, 2011)

I've followed the show, and you're right, it has gotten more depressing. I'm no psychologist, but I find it weird that Ruby and her group of friends kind of act like children. And I'm not trying to be a smart ass when I say that, I mean literally, it's like they never matured past high school. I find it a little disturbing.


----------



## Fox (May 24, 2011)

She looks positively lovely. I wish the lady luck with whatever she wants to do with her body/life. ^_^


----------



## hiddenexposure (May 24, 2011)

lypeaches said:


> I've followed the show, and you're right, it has gotten more depressing. I'm no psychologist, but I find it weird that Ruby and her group of friends kind of act like children. And I'm not trying to be a smart ass when I say that, I mean literally, it's like they never matured past high school. I find it a little disturbing.



I agree 100% I feel as though Ruby is totally stunted in her emotional development. She is a 47 year old woman and while I know it is unfair to generalize but one would assume that at 47 she would have a better grasp on human interactions etc. 

Did you see the episode when she went on the date with bartender? Talk about awkward!


----------



## Tracyarts (May 25, 2011)

" I agree 100% I feel as though Ruby is totally stunted in her emotional development. "

I haven't watched more than a few epsiodes, but I kind of got that impression too. She really reminds me of some young women I have known who have reached adulthood without ever having much in the way of life experience. Naive maybe but also stunted. It probably has a lot to do with whatever it is that happened to her and was so bad that she is blocking it out of her memory. Maybe whatever age she acts is the age she felt safest at? 

Who knows? I just know that there's a lot going on with her and it's hard for me to watch because it seems like there isn't much progress being made with her issues. It feels as if the show is dragging her drama out to keep churning out regular episode fodder. 

Tracy


----------



## hiddenexposure (May 25, 2011)

100% agreed. 
Granted she is also not really allowing for a lot of break through. She's been to a prominent religious leader, a therapist (actually 2 maybe 3) if memory serves) a food addiction specialist and even Rosie O'Donnel has told her some intense things and I don't think it's really hitting her or rather that she is allowing it to hit her and restore her worth. I just wish I could hang out with her and show her that being large does not mean your life stops and that your worth is not fully implanted in how much you lose or gain.


----------



## spiritangel (May 25, 2011)

hiddenexposure said:


> 100% agreed.
> Granted she is also not really allowing for a lot of break through. She's been to a prominent religious leader, a therapist (actually 2 maybe 3) if memory serves) a food addiction specialist and even Rosie O'Donnel has told her some intense things and I don't think it's really hitting her or rather that she is allowing it to hit her and restore her worth. I just wish I could hang out with her and show her that being large does not mean your life stops and that your worth is not fully implanted in how much you lose or gain.



yes it is a case however one it is supposed to make for good television to aid her in running away from the issue (because then they get a program that runs for longer) and two like any person in an abusive relationship until she is ready to face that demon she wont move past it 

I so wish she could go to a bash and see all the large and happy people there mayby she would feel better about who she is 

I think the friends are somewhat clueless and having been friends for the time they have been there is bound to be an element of regressed behaviour and dont forget some of it could be staged for the cameras

I agree I think denny is there for denny you just have to see how he looks at the hot skinny chicks to know he has never been that into ruby but she fullfills a need for him in some weird co dependant way.

I so hope she finds her way to happiness at whatever size she is


----------



## CastingPearls (May 25, 2011)

I saw the show once with high hopes and was so disgusted and disappointed how she threw a tantrum over a freakin piece of pizza that I never watched it again.


----------



## hiddenexposure (May 27, 2011)

They have a never before seen footage episode airing now and after watching this I understand her and her relationships a whole lot better. 

Her relationships with her best friends has spanned over 20 years and they admit that their friendship is one of enabling. I think with that much history and that much closeness it is going to take a great deal of time to rework those dynamics and transition into a different, more healthy, style of friendship. 

They also touched on her relationship with Denny and they are 100% dysfunctional with each other. There's is another situation where there is a lot of history some good and some bad. Denny seems to be pretty conflicted on how he feels about Ruby and I don't think she is totally sure how she feels about him either. This love hate thing they have going on is their schtick and it's going to be back and forth. 

The other thing I noticed is Ruby's relationship with Jeff her roommate and best friend. That relationship is the most consistent and loving one I think she's had with a guy. I have always wondered if he liked her as more than friends but it just never got to that point because of Denny. They showed this clip where Jeff proposed to her in a pretty playful moment and she turned him down. I found the look on Jeff's face very interesting, he looked slightly bummed about it. 

It's all very interesting.


----------



## lypeaches (May 28, 2011)

One thing I caught in one episode...Denny mentioned that his brother had died due to some illness (he believed) caused by his obesity, and that he was scared that the same thing would happen to Ruby. I've felt a hair more kindly toward him since then, but just a hair. Hell, we're all messed up to a certain extent. Thank god no one watches my life on tv! lol.


----------



## MLadyJ (May 28, 2011)

I agree with most everything said here. Did you see the episode (maybe the finale) where Denny and Ruby went to a restaurant and in the process of discussing their relationship, Denny got down one one knee and something to the effect of "promise me...promise me..that you'll finish this" and then of course you gotabout a half second of Ruby's face and ..end of show. I would like to do something really painful to that sack of s**t. Oh well, enough of my rant!!


----------

