# Are FA's naturally shallow?



## KnottyOne (Jul 23, 2009)

Ok, so I feel that this is like the first serious question thread I have ever come up with, so bear with me if it's all spacey and all over the place.

I don't know where this thought came from, but it just popped into my head last night, and that is that FA's are naturally more shallow then non-FA's. I'm not talking in the generic "oh, they aren't cute enough" way, but I mean in the, if they aren't fat then they can't be attractive way. I completely understand preferences, and no one should go against what they really enjoy or try to like something that they don't truly desire, I'm just wondering if it is the disposition of someone who has one set preference. This can go into anyone who has standards they refuse to break, something as simple as only dating people with a certain hair color could also fall into this category. But I can't help but think that by limiting yourself to only what you find as the ideal is shallowness in itself. I know there are tons of guys on this board who would only date a fat girl, and even if a skinny girl came by with the same personality that they could like for that, they wouldn't because they were skinny. So I'm just wondering, if someone has preferences that they refuse to budge on, does this just make them really picky or shallow to a point? Anyone else have any ideas about this?


----------



## mergirl (Jul 23, 2009)

For me The Fa side of my sexuality is about as shallow as my gender part. In that i really don't have a choice, so if it is shallow, then it is unintentional. I am just not normally attracted to skinny guys. This is not to say i discount them as people. Some of my good friends are skinny guys. I don't think its shallow, i think its part of your sexuality. I get what you are saying though-Shouldn't personality be enough. I think because 'Fa' has not been classed as an out and out sexuality these kind of doubts crop up with us. It would almost seem crazy to ask a gay guy "Is it not a bit shallow that you wont consider women as potential dates".. I think the same goes for Fa's. I agree though that there is an Fa spectrum (like the sexuality one) where some Fa's will only date Fat people and others might date people of different sizes.. Kinna like bi-sexuality.


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Jul 23, 2009)

From my perspective, I have met some skinny girls with great personalities and thought, well, maybe .. but in the end I know that I am wired to liking fat girls and it'll never go away and that desire is far stronger than it is for thin women. I think it'd be unfair for any thin girl I decided to date, because I know I'd just end up wanting something that just isn't there.

It'd be like a guy who is with a fat girl who simply tolerates her body instead of loving it. As I've been told, it's very different and far more pleasurable, being with an FA over some one who is just overlooking the fat. 

That is how it'd be for me with a skinny girl and I just don't think that's fair to the girl.


----------



## Tau (Jul 23, 2009)

I think for many FA's on this board being into fat girls isn't really a choice they've made. In the conversations I've had many have likened it to a sexuality - almost like gay men can only really be sexually interested in and compatible with other male people, that it isn't a choice and so cannot be labeled shallow. Also, relationships are hard. This is an unbelievably obvious thing to say  but being in love with somebody's personality alone, no matter how amazing that personality is, will not give you the strength and resolve needed not to stray. You've got to be in lust as well as in love and if your body just doesn't find a thinner form arousing you won't be in lust and then you'll be in trouble. Also, if i were a thin girl and found out that my SO was not attracted to me cos of how I looked but cos I have an amazing personality!!! Well, to be quite honest, I'd be hurt and pissed and a dumping would be imminent.


----------



## exile in thighville (Jul 23, 2009)

i'd argue that the shallowness of fas helps rather than hinders and is self-justifying; there is no drought of men for skinny girls to have their pick. fas who do not identify as bisizual should feel no qualms about turning down someone off the bat for not being their ideal size when there are so many fat people who have yet to even know they're wanted. and then the shit tons of single folks here.


----------



## Noir (Jul 23, 2009)

wow thats a tough question to mull around now that i think of it. Interesting take on being shallow but I can definitely see your points. I cant speak for everyone obviously but as for myself, I have dated and been attracted to thinner girls too. However, now that i think about it the smallest girl I went out with was maybe 160-180-ish so I guess it depends on the persons idea of "thinner" or "larger". I definitely see that range as smaller. If me and a girl connect on a personality level, thin or big, ill at least try to get to know them better to see if something could happen. That being said though, you cant fight nature. Nature has proven time and time again to me that Big Girls is where its at for me.


----------



## Emma (Jul 23, 2009)

I don't really think they're anymore shallow than guys who only like thin girls. It's just preference.


----------



## exile in thighville (Jul 23, 2009)

i actually just kind of tackled this


----------



## Blockierer (Jul 23, 2009)

Skinny girls can be the cause of temporary impotence. FA's, in that case everything is ok with you, don't worry.


----------



## mergirl (Jul 23, 2009)

Blockierer said:


> Skinny girls can be the cause of temporary impotence. FA's, in that case everything is ok with you, don't worry.



Can't say i've ever had that problem!


----------



## Russ2d (Jul 23, 2009)

Well if you define shallow as honest then yes FAs are "shallow"


----------



## fffff (Jul 23, 2009)

CurvyEm said:


> I don't really think they're anymore shallow than guys who only like thin girls. It's just preference.



Really. 

This is kind of a stupid question. Anyone who isn't willing to date _everyone_ based on their appearance is some form of shallow. I don't understand this weird feeling in here that FAs are the only ones with any kind of preference. Everyone is hard-wired to be attracted to something.


----------



## KnottyOne (Jul 23, 2009)

fffff said:


> Really.
> 
> This is kind of a stupid question. Anyone who isn't willing to date _everyone_ based on their appearance is some form of shallow. I don't understand this weird feeling in here that FAs are the only ones with any kind of preference. Everyone is hard-wired to be attracted to something.



Honestly I agree with you, I just wanted to get others opinion. Like it really is a question that can be applied to any kind of preference, no matter how simple or precise. So I guess this just kind of asks a completely broader question, is having any preference you don't budge on shallow? I guess I was just trying to give some definition to a very abstract question.


----------



## fffff (Jul 23, 2009)

KnottyOne said:


> So I guess this just kind of asks a completely broader question, is having any preference you don't budge on shallow?



Well everyone is some definition of shallow and it's not really anything to be ashamed of. _However,_ if you're shallow to the point where you only think you deserve the best and your ideal mate I consider it to be more an issue of immaturity and stunted intellectual growth. Like an fa who thinks they are entitled to a 500+ pound mate or a specific shape and will leave anyone who tries to lose weight. 

I think there's a huge problem with men in society who ridicule any woman who doesn't fall into their standard and treat women they aren't attracted to as not being worth their time. I see it here with fas and I see it elsewhere. The only difference is here I feel that men think they can get away with it because they're attracted to something different. As if we're supposed to applaud someone when he describes a thinner woman as being unattractive.


----------



## furious styles (Jul 23, 2009)

you guys need to work more menial labor. regular guys are just as shallow, they just don't use this internet forum to whoop and grunt about it.

if you're attacking shallowness as a whole; cool. but it's not fa-specific. or even centralized.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Jul 23, 2009)

Yeah, I'm agreeing with furious and fffff here. 

Guys who date thin girls because that's what they're attracted to are just as shallow. How many guys attracted to thin girls turn down fatties with great personalities? Plenty. 

I don't think there's anything wrong with that either.. I'm not saying that. Physical attraction is important in a relationship and I'd rather have a guy turn me down for being fat than simply overlooking it because my personality is good enough. It's so rewarding being with someone who truly digs your body.

Anyway, anyone who has a preference is "shallow" to some extent and since everyone has a preference.. well, yeah, connect the dots. We're all somewhat shallow (although I'm not so sure that's the right word.. it sounds so harsh.)


----------



## MissToodles (Jul 23, 2009)

no, but those with such exacting standards regarding physical features without willing to bend a little, yeah that is shallow. it's okay to have an idealized image of the perfect partner, but when you nitpick on the little details, that's a bit wacky. lower the gate to the fortress and let a real person enter.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Jul 23, 2009)

MissToodles said:


> no, but those with such exacting standards regarding physical features without willing to bend a little, yeah that is shallow. it's okay to have an idealized image of the perfect partner, but when you nitpick on the little details, that's a bit wacky. lower the gate to the fortress and let a real person enter.



I don't think "fat" or "thin" is really a detail.


----------



## MissToodles (Jul 23, 2009)

yes, but people have ideals on this website that are totally ridiculous. I also don't think the finding someone through a specific website regarding certain physical attributes is asking for trouble. it's not like some type of common interest.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Jul 23, 2009)

MissToodles said:


> yes, but people have ideals on this website that are totally ridiculous. I also don't think the finding someone through a specific website regarding certain physical attributes is asking for trouble. it's not like some type of common interest.



Yeah, but this thread isn't dealing with those ridiculous ideals.. Knottyone said FA's.. so.. fat. I don't think that's exactly a ridiculous ideal.

Also, do I really need to mention that plenty of couples have met here on Dims and other fat-related websites? I don't think it's asking for trouble.


----------



## The Orange Mage (Jul 23, 2009)

Being shallow isn't bad, in fact it is MUCH better than the alternative. Being in a relationship with someone who you aren't terribly attracted to sexually (and mentally/personality/whatever) is a much more asshole move than politely declining someone who isn't your type in some way.


----------



## joh (Jul 23, 2009)

There are people who are FAs, there are people who aren't, and there is a whole range of people who fall in the middle. I think it depends on where you fall between these two types and your motivation for turning down a girl that is (at least partially) dependent on where you land in this range.

If someone is a FA, is it really that shallow to turn down a larger guy or gal knowing it'd be unfair to that person to express interest because you can't give them the physical adoration they deserve? I don't think so. It's that motivation that is very variably dependent, and is the reason why it's not clear cut whether turning someone else down based on preference is shallow.

Edit - Yeah, pretty much what *The Orange Mage* said is what I'm getting at, heh.


----------



## Durin (Jul 23, 2009)

I don't think being an FA has anything to do with wheather you are shallow or not. Shallow people are only interested on what's on the surface. So there are shallow FA's and FA's that aren't.

The surface might be beutiful but if there isn't anything underneath no amazing spirit or mind then I'm not interested.


----------



## blueeyedevie (Jul 23, 2009)

Shallow... I would not saw shallow, I would say picky! However all guys and girls for that matter have some sort of idea of what they like are do not like. If that makes someone shallow then we are all accused of it. From a relationship point of view, and from a SSBBW's point of view, their is certain comfort in being able to watch TV, and movies and know that the naked chicks and pretty "model" types don't hold a candle to what your boyfriend, significant other feels and thinks of you. Now going to Wal-Mart and Target is another whole thing... Wondering to self why are we fat chicks always in those stores?


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jul 23, 2009)

Well there are some nuances here.

Some people are limitted in their sexual attraction. They can simply only be sexually aroused if a certain element is there, be it size of a partner, gender of a partner, or an outside element such shoes or golden showers or erotic weight gain or feet. That is just how they are wired. It is not about choice.

Sexual arousal is different from choice in friends. There is a huge difference between "I am unable to sexually aroused unless looking at or thinking about a female body which is 400 pounds or over" and "I believe any human being who is not a female weighing over 400 pounds is not worthy of respect." You can love, respect, care about, and enjoy spending time with somebody absent of sexual attraction.

I also believe that sexuality can be somewhat dynamic; I think it's possible for the entirity of a lifetime to be surprised at what you can *suddenly* be attracted to. A committed heterosexual can suddenly become bicurious and an FA can no doubt meet a skinny woman who he inexplicably finds himself attracted to. Several fat women have written about partners who were not FAs and had never been with fat women before them but found themselves inexplicably attracted to a fat woman.

Postings on this site have included FAs who were no longer attracted to partners who lost weight and FAs who said that post weight loss they were still attracted to their partner. Again ther are an infinite number of nuances here; it has to do with the chemistry between partners and other aspects of the relationship. 

I've had two BHM sex partners who lost weight. In one case my reaction was I thought he was still sexy, smart, funny, handsome, interesting and worthy of admiration as a man, but I was less physically attracted. In the other case, merely due to sexual and personal chemistry, my sexual attraction did not decline even a little and the existing chemistry actually made me seek out the beauty and attraction in his new body such as admiring new muscle tone and how a thinner face made his eyes stand out more. The only difference was intangible chemistry with one partner.

Does the above make me shallow? I dont' think so.


----------



## AnnMarie (Jul 23, 2009)

1. I don't think dating/partnering with your preference is shallow. Shallow is superficial/artificial (to me) and sticking with your preference (whether in personality or looks) is not shallow, it's just your choice. 

2. I think most FAs have a much wider range of "dateable" partners than most who prefer thin/normal women. I know many FAs who'd date a woman from 300-500lbs or more or slightly less, etc. I hardly find that a constrained range - whereas most guys I know who prefer thin women will date only from 120ish (or less) to MAYBE 160-170, and she'd be tall, etc. 


Sorry, but no matter how I slice it... nope, FAs are not more shallow. (And if the question is directed to the idiots who pull out a tape measure for the "your waist has to be this much percentage of your hips" type of "preference"... I discount them as morons and NOT FAs.)


----------



## stan_der_man (Jul 23, 2009)

AnnMarie said:


> Sorry, but no matter how I slice it... nope, FAs are not more shallow. (And if the question is directed to the idiots who pull out a tape measure for the "your waist has to be this much percentage of your hips" type of "preference"... I discount them as morons and NOT FAs.)



I completely agree with AM... I don't think FAs (m/f) are any more shallow than other people per se. All people have physical preferences whether or not they admit to it... FA or not.

And that person potentially pulling out the measuring tape could also be measuring for how skinny a potential mate is... There are plenty of non-FAs who appear to be concerned about the numbers of how much (or little) others weigh.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Jul 23, 2009)

Everyone has preferences. Men have them and women have them. There is nothing wrong with having a predilection for dating whomever you want as long as it's not a kid.


----------



## Elfcat (Jul 23, 2009)

For myself, there are many aspects of a person that are attractive to me. I am heterosexual. I am fat-positive. I also tend to prefer strong-willed women who are not completely inimical to talking politics and like to make trouble. And a sick and wicked sense of humor helps greatly.

It seems to me that those who level the accusation of shallowness are often committing the offense themselves, because they are isolating one of my many aspects to assail it, ignoring other of my preferences which would be obvious to anyone who is around me for any length of time.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 23, 2009)

yes, i definitely think it can be shallow depending on how a preference is approached. i think its fantastic that a man is attracted to your body. i personally love being appreciated physically. i love being fat and if someone is over the moon about that its exciting. but the body can be a very ephemeral thing and it can change for many reasons. it wouldn't really matter if a guy had such narrow preferences if you are just looking for sex. but if you are looking for more than just sex it can be problematic.

i think most women want to be sure to be loved for ALL of who she is and not ONLY her body. i'm definitely not talking about being loved in spite of your body. i'd HATE that. i think its especially worriesome for me if someone who says they love me would leave only because i might lose weight particularly if it gets to be a life or death choice. was it really love in the first place? does the person really know what love is? its really complicated. even though i have no intention to lose weight it can be kind of tough trusting someone who might be so totally dependent on your exterior to be attracted to you. it would also feel limiting to my personal freedom if i knew i had to meet someone's definite criteria to have thier affection and passion.

i personally prefer someone whose libido is more attached to character and personality than just the physical aspects of a person. that would mean someone who has such a wide range of physical preference that it becomes a nearly moot issue--it would not mean they were settling for something they are not attracted to or only tolerating it. i think here people often assume that if a guy is not a card carrying FA he is merely dealing with a fat body rather than appreciating it or loving it as much or even more than an FA. just because a man also is arroused by thin women it does not mean he hates fat women. the two things are not necessarily mutually exclusive. i feel that a lot of BBWs prefer exclusive FAs because deep down they feel afraid they might have to compete with thin women. there are some BBWs who are openly hostile toward FAs with a broad prefernce or with a preference for smaller BBWs because they think they can't "win" in comparison. so they chose exclusive FAs out of fear and a serious lack of self confidence. so there can be a kind of codependent relationship sometimes. i think great communication and an honest loving relationship with someone who is attracted to you in such a way that they they lust after and appreciate your body at any size just because its my "house" is ideal for me on an emotional level. i don't feel as personally trapped by that idea.

i've been trying to figure this out for some years --ever since i discovered there was such a thing as an FA. i love my FA friends because they share the aesthetic appreciation of the loveliness of fat with me. we like the same things. but my feelings have always been that i'd rather be loved for all of me. everything i've found out about the community has convinced me of it even moreso. the evidence i've seen is that women who rely on a man's fetish to "get" him end up alone. sure they can have lots of sexual partners and playmates. but, in the end thats not enough for anyone to want to stay with them long term because they are just appealing to thier lowest common denonimator as a human being. one day the man grows up and understands that there is more to happiness. he moves on to explore that. i think a lot of women who appeal to men on that level count on them being shallow. i think they probably deep down don't like FAs very much and really feel they aren't capable of more than just kneading ( punn intended) thier fat. even though they pretend otherwise they really feel that they can't be loved, only fetishized.

the women who rely too heavily on prefernce and fetish end up getting older and more alone. appealing only to a man's crotch will get you just so far and then no further. in order for women to feel fulfilled i think they have to have the confidence to be who they are and not just someone who panders to a fetish or a preference. if a guy has an extreme preference a woman can, but not always, end up sublimating who she really is. its important for her to understand that though important sexuality isn't all a woman has to offer. if more BBWs fully understood that then they wouldn't be so surprised and confused about the fact that a lot of guys from here who want something deep and meaningful and who adore fat women can also end up falling for a thin woman. guess what, preferences are not always exclusive.


----------



## Fascinita (Jul 23, 2009)

As Felicia said, it starts feeling shallow if in the scope of a serious relationship suddenly it becomes clear that the FA is not OK with his/her partner losing weight for whatever reason. In essence, that kind of attitude--not sure how rare or widespread it is among actual FAs--can pre-empt a serious relationshio from feeling... well, serious.


----------



## AnnMarie (Jul 23, 2009)

Yeah, I guess it all depends on who the individual defines shallow. I don't think a man who dates a thin woman and leaves her for gaining 100lbs is shallow, I think he's got a preference and she's gone WELL outside it. I think it's a relationship where a significant component has been altered and such changed, and then perhaps the relationship is lost as a result. 

By the same token, if a relationship with an FA ends because of drastic weight loss, I don't think that's shallow. I think it's a relationship where a significant component has been altered and such changed, and then perhaps the relationship is lost as a result.

Add in possible personality changes from drastic weight change in either direction and you've got a relationship issue that could drive most couples apart. I just think that it's reasonable that physical changes impact relationships. If you're not a person who believes physical changes or attraction are integral parts of relationships then I can certainly see why you'd classify such actions as shallow. 

Just don't agree.


----------



## Fascinita (Jul 23, 2009)

AnnMarie said:


> If you're not a person who believes physical changes or attraction are integral parts of relationships then I can certainly see why you'd classify such actions as shallow.



Well, I'm saying that I think attraction that hinges solely on physical attraction isn't deep enough for serious relationships. Besides physical attraction, serious relationships require commitment and work. Knowing that someone was apt to abandon our commitment and investment together solely because my looks changed wouldn't let me feel confident enough in that person's seriousness over the long term to enter into a serious relationship with them. If I lost a leg in an accident and my husband of twenty years left me because he couldn't get turned on anymore, I'd say that qualifies as shallow. Depth is depth.


----------



## StarWitness (Jul 23, 2009)

AnnMarie said:


> I just think that it's reasonable that physical changes impact relationships. If you're not a person who believes physical changes or attraction are integral parts of relationships then I can certainly see why you'd classify such actions as shallow.



But if you're in a committed relationship that you intend to last for a long time, you pretty much have to accept the fact that your partner is going to change physically over time-- unless you're dating Joan Rivers, in which case, ew. And yeah, relationships themselves change over time too, but if looks are a dealbreaker... do you really want to be in something long-term with that person?


----------



## Chef (Jul 23, 2009)

*Shallow* - _Judging a person based strictly on looks, not factoring in their personality whatsoever._

I think FAs, and myself, are guilty as charged on this board considering it is very difficult to obtain a sample of personality, since many people broadcast a completely different personality here than they do in r/t. Judging from comments made on the Fat Sexuality and Pay-Site threads, we seem to be quite shallow.


----------



## AnnMarie (Jul 23, 2009)

But there's a big difference with physical changes that we all are subject to and HUGE change that may occur very deliberately (weight loss or gain). 

I can date someone who changes weights by up to 50lbs or something, maybe more or less depending on where they started, etc. But if I were dating someone who's weight changed by 100lbs or more - it WOULD be an issue. I can still love them and laugh and share, but our sex life would change and while that may or may not be ok at the time, I don't rule out that that could be something that ends the relationship. 

I just don't find it reasonable to expect anyone, of any gender/orienation, to stay in a relationship that no longer fulfills them in all the ways they need/want/deserve to be fulfilled. 

Factor in personality changes that go with those other physical changes and ... yup, things could be doomed.


And accidents/illnesses are completely different and unrelated to this particular conversation, so I'm not even going to go into that.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 23, 2009)

Chef said:


> *Shallow* - _Judging a person based strictly on looks, not factoring in their personality whatsoever._
> 
> I think FAs, and myself, are guilty as charged on this board considering it is very difficult to obtain a sample of personality, since many people broadcast a completely different personality here than they do in r/t. Judging from comments made on the Fat Sexuality and Pay-Site threads, we seem to be quite shallow.



well lets be fair. paysites are playsites and not real life. a lot of people want a place to blow off steam --like a whole lot of women going to see thunder down under or chippendale dancers in vegas and making cat calls. but thats very different from real life. i think shallowness is really a question of how do people conduct themselves in real life with a person they want to have a relationship with that they claim they care about. so its hard to make the blanket statement about all FAs. sometimes if you read some things here it doesn't look so good but there are a lot of really nice FAs out there. i know them. just that i haven't personally found the one for me. but then i'm an oddball anyway. having said that, if they are exclusively dating fat women and dumping them if they decide to lose weight after professing love. if they are always sampling one fat girl after another in so called serious relationships but running hither and yon with a tape measure and comparing flesh density --you might be a shallow FA.


----------



## BarbBBW (Jul 23, 2009)

I would rather have some described as "shallow" then be with someone who,...just likes ALL women. Like me cause I am fat, then get to know me! I have been with way too many men that "can deal" with a fat girl, cause she is pretty, or sweet etc. That drives me absolutely crazy! Thats why I am so into "FA's" I am just as shallow for choosing only FA's. Make sure he is a FA first,... then find out what he looks like and what his personality is.


----------



## Fascinita (Jul 23, 2009)

AnnMarie said:


> I just don't find it reasonable to expect anyone, of any gender/orienation, to stay in a relationship that no longer fulfills them in all the ways they need/want/deserve to be fulfilled.



I think it's totally reasonable to want/need to be fulfilled in a relationship. And I think most reasonable people are attracted to their mates in ways that encompass a spectrum of qualities. I disagree that physical attraction alone can make or break a deep, serious relationship.


----------



## Santaclear (Jul 23, 2009)

I suppose the question of whether FAs are more shallow than non-FAs is like deciding whether the glass is half full or half empty. If attraction is based _solely_ on appearance then yeah, that's shallow. (But like anything else _attraction_, and the question of why one is attracted, can be viewed as infinitely deep too.)

Do we FAs who recognize the natural superiority of fat women or men lack depth? :smitten: I think not. :bow:


----------



## kioewen (Jul 23, 2009)

Chef said:


> *Shallow* - _Judging a person based strictly on looks, not factoring in their personality whatsoever_.



I don't buy that definition at all. I don't see what makes a person who reject someone else based on, say, intelligence any more "deep" than someone who rejects someone else based on looks.

So the guy who puts down a girl by saying "You're too dumb for me" is somehow morally superior to the guy who puts down a girl by saying, "You're too ugly for me"? I don't see how one rejection makes the guy any better than the other.

After all, just as some people are blessed with great looks, others are blessed with being charismatic, or intelligent, or whatever. They won the personality lottery, just as others won the looks lottery. It doesn't make the one a morally superior person to the other, and it doesn't make the person who chooses someone based on one set of gifts better than a person who chooses someone based on another set of gifts.

Rather, I think the person who said that people are simply "picky" has it right. There's nothing "shallow" about it. We all follow our instincts when it comes to selecting a significant other, and it's a poor practice to be judgemental about people's impulses or choices in this regard.


----------



## mergirl (Jul 24, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> Anyway, anyone who has a preference is "shallow" to some extent and since everyone has a preference.. well, yeah, connect the dots. We're all somewhat shallow (although I'm not so sure that's the right word.. it sounds so harsh.)



I don't agree with this. If you were to date someone simply because they were fat/thin because that body type was your preference _regardless_ of thier personalities then i think THAT would be shallow. If we are ALL shallow then none of us actually can be, because without depths there can be no comparison.


----------



## Webmaster (Jul 24, 2009)

I think it depends on what one's definition of "shallow" is. If shallow means one is to turn a blind eye to any sort of physical appearance and completely disregard it when it comes to selecting a partner, then I think we're probably all shallow.

On the other hand, given who and what we are, I see nothing wrong with seeking out that which gives us joy and pleasure in life. I went through formative years in my life when I came to realize that I wanted and needed a fat partner, and nothing else would do. It still has to be the RIGHT fat partner, of course, and having a preference cuts down the number of potentially right people.

As for the sexual arousal part, I think that's where it gets a little difficult. There can be a situation where you're with someone who fits your ideal of what is sexy and appealing, yet the chemistry just isn't there at all, and nothing is happening. Likewise, it's very possible to have a terrific sexual attraction with someone who may not be one's physical ideal. A lot is in how two people relate and interact.

In the end, if you're an individual who gets a warm, happy smile on their face every time you see a fat person, then by all means don't settle for anything else. Just realize that you still need to find the right person inside the body, too.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 24, 2009)

joy and pleasure in life is a wonderful thing. everyone should go for it. but i think it gets to be shallow if when your in the process you don't care if you hurt another person. if you sublimate someone elses well being and happiness for physical desires that would mean a lack of care for who they are as a human being. being attracted to or having a preference is one thing but treating people as though they are disposable is another altogether. so if someone is easily disposed of just because they change physically i personally don't think it was really love in the first place. it really makes you wonder how far preference should go when it comes to chosing someone. its like heterosexual males saying they have a preference for women. not just any woman should do. and one would hope that if that woman got ill or was in an an accident or just got older ... a person's preference may be an inital attraction but if it doesn't develop into more than just that over time then it probably is shallowness.


----------



## Tad (Jul 24, 2009)

My Friday afternoon response......


Only the thin FA are shallow, the fatter ones might stick up above water more but also go deeper below the surface....simple physics really 

(more seriously, I think people who put part ahead of the whole, be that part 'FA' or any other, are being shallow. On the other hand shallow is probably not the biggest crime in the world)


----------



## joswitch (Jul 24, 2009)

KnottyOne said:


> Ok, so I feel that this is like the first serious question thread I have ever come up with, so bear with me if it's all spacey and all over the place.
> 
> I don't know where this thought came from, but it just popped into my head last night, and that is that FA's are naturally more shallow then non-FA's. I'm not talking in the generic "oh, they aren't cute enough" way, but I mean in the, if they aren't fat then they can't be attractive way. I completely understand preferences, and no one should go against what they really enjoy or try to like something that they don't truly desire, I'm just wondering if it is the disposition of someone who has one set preference. This can go into anyone who has standards they refuse to break, something as simple as only dating people with a certain hair color could also fall into this category. But I can't help but think that by limiting yourself to only what you find as the ideal is shallowness in itself. I know there are tons of guys on this board who would only date a fat girl, and even if a skinny girl came by with the same personality that they could like for that, they wouldn't because they were skinny. So I'm just wondering, if someone has preferences that they refuse to budge on, does this just make them really picky or shallow to a point? Anyone else have any ideas about this?



Disclaimer: You'll find some anger in my response here. This is not directed as you personally, but rather this persistent and IMO unpleasant idea.

I am so sick of this neo-puritan BS idea that owning your sexual orientation and dating the people you are sexually attracted to makes you somehow "shallow"! For a lot of folk sex is a DEEP and powerful connection and sex with someone you love is as DEEP as it gets! So I reject this "shallow" judgement wholeheartedly!


I think this "shallow" attitude stems from a number of different myths:
Myth - 1)
The *false dichotomy of mind/body* - that "you" are not *really* your body, but something else that "happens" to inhabit your body... This dualism is formalised and given mainstream acceptance in religion. Humans are "monads" - *mind/body = "one thing"!* The sooner folks "get" this, the better for all IMO.
Strongly allied to this / a subset of this false dualism is the myth (1a lol! at self) That *fat is somehow "alien" and "separate" *and "other" and not actually PART OF YOUR BODY! Sure, no-one is *just* their fat - but *fat *is* PART of you - in an entirely holistic sense*... so many anti-fat ranters and sadly, big folks themselves, speak of their fat as being a "thing" which they are somehow divorced from... this is a fundamental cognitive disconnect in a similar way to someone who wishes to amputate a body part before they feel "right" in themselves....In this sense - the main difference between the person who wishes to amputate a limb and the person who wishes to "amputate" their fat, is that the first idea is considered horrifying by mainstream society and the latter is considered marvellous and wonderful  and the right thing for everyone to do...

Myth 2)
That sexual attraction is a "choice" and something that you can change your mind about... Seriously I don't feel that I need to advance an argument on this one - listen to what gay folks have had to say in response to decades of efforts by the mainstream to "heterosexualize" them... I can sum it up in two words - the second is "OFF!" Loving big, fat beautiful women is my sexual orientation and I'm not ashamed of it and it's not ****** "shallow"! *bangs table*

Myth 3)
That sex and sexual attraction "shouldn't really matter" if you are truly "in love" with someone. *Crap.* For two adults to truly be lovers, *most* of the time BOTH LOVE and LUST are required... Certainly for me. 
(N.B. There are people for whom sex is genuinely not important, and that's just dandy!  - for them! I suspect they are a minority of humans - I will not speculate as to the size of that minority big or small... their being a minority does not make their experience any less valid... just as my being minority does not make my FAness any less valid ) 
Having had wonderful LTRs with gorgeous BBWs and having experienced the DEEP and powerful connection that was love and kissing and hugs and SEX with someone I found 100% desirable, someone I didn't have to fantasise with to "finish off" :blush: because I could actually be right there, in the moment with her and *she actually was everything I desired*... *To be with someone that when I held her in my arms and kissed her everything felt suddenly and somehow in every way completely RIGHT.... How could that depth of feeling possibly be "shallow"??* and how could I possibly go back to being divided against myself with someone I didn't find as physically desirable... Why would I do that? When there are women out there who I find gorgeous for ALL of themselves? *waves arms*

Myth 4)
The idea that most FAs are less "flexible" in their preferences than most non-FAs.... is basically garbage.... It's an artefact of P.O.V. because mainstream thinking divides people along these lines:

A) Fat people. For sheeple that's it. End of. Because of the way they dismiss fat people from "being attractive". No further distinctions are made by sheeple in this category. Hence the dumbass friend who on learning you are FA thinks you *must* be attracted to EVERY fat woman you see!:doh:
B) Thin people - or as sheeple would think of them "everyone else"... sheeple procede to make endless distinctions among this popluation, because this is the group of people that they happen to value as "attractive".

In fact I'd guess that if I'm typical in anyway of (any subgroup) of FAs, that FAs are probably attracted to partners in a broader weight range than mainstream people...
Example: my "range of attraction" encompasses BBWs who might weigh from about 200lbs - 420lbs++ (the ++ cos that's outside my experience, but I don't have a "top limit" of attraction - that I've experienced). So that's a range of variation of 220lbs++ for me... Now go out and poll a bunch of "mainstream" people I think you'll find that their "range of attraction" is a hell of a lot less broad than that!

/rant

Summing up:
*Sexuality is a deep and fundamental subset of human feeling. To own, value and live your sexuality and to exchange joy in it - is NOT "shallow"!*


----------



## joswitch (Jul 24, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Well, I'm saying that I think attraction that hinges solely on physical attraction isn't deep enough for serious relationships. Besides physical attraction, serious relationships require commitment and work. Knowing that someone was apt to abandon our commitment and investment together solely because my looks changed wouldn't let me feel confident enough in that person's seriousness over the long term to enter into a serious relationship with them. If I lost a leg in an accident and my husband of twenty years left me because he couldn't get turned on anymore, I'd say that qualifies as shallow. Depth is depth.



Your analogy needs tweaking -

Try to imagine that your bf decided to cut off his legs. His finely muscled, strong functional legs (say) that you'd adored as an *integral* part of him from the moment you met... 

Imagine that he did this thing because he wanted to fit in with a mainstream society that held amputation to be the "ideal"....
Imagine that he did this bit by bit...
toes first, (and you're like... ok I can deal with that, it's fine)
then a bit later feet, (and it's starting to freak you, but you can deal)
then to the knees (and now *you're crying inside*, every time you lose a bit more of him)
and so on, unto stumps of thighs... 

Imagine he did that... *deliberately*...
Imagine he did that despite knowing from your first meeting that you adored him exactly as you found him...
Imagine the angusish and worry you'd feel as he went through this dangerous and fundamentally altering process....
Imagine how ****** ALONE you'd feel as everyone, his friends and relatives and colleagues lauded and praised his "progress" at every opportunity...
Imagine how *disgusted you'd feel at a world of people* who praised your lover for making *this* change FAR more than any of your lover's other pretty damn awesome achievements and wonderful qualities... 
Imagine how angry you'd feel at a world of people who "brainwashed" / abused your lover from their childhood with _the idea that amputation was a requirement for true value as a human_, to the point your lover CHOSE to change themselves THAT much....

That's what it *felt like for me* to see my most recent ex drop about 90lbs in 6 MONTHS on a starvation diet less than 1/4 of the recommended daily intake...

She is a lovely girl and it's a measure of how much I love(d) her that I held on and held on as she vanished and melted away... I got actual ulcers... (never had that before, ever)... In the end it became clear that we couldn't be happy together, given that I couldn't suddenly stop being FA and she wasn't ready to stop starving and I couldn't cope anymore... so we split...

And yeah I felt like s*** for a long time...

But you know what - none of that was "shallow"!
*You can call me "limited" certainly.*
Yeah, I'm not "all that".

But nothing about that experience and how I felt about it and how I felt /feel about my (now ex) gf was "shallow".

[And *yes* I've happily been in a LTR with a BBW whose weight went up and down in 40lb ish range due to various non-diet things and I was cool with that... And *no* I wouldn't have felt the same if my gf had lost weight due to illness, because I would not have felt "divided against myself" - in that wanting her to get healthy would've meshed with wanting her to regain some/most of her previous weight]


----------



## joswitch (Jul 24, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> ...its like heterosexual males saying they have a preference for women. not just any woman should do. and one would hope that if that woman got ill or was in an an accident or just got older ... a person's preference may be an inital attraction but if it doesn't develop into more than just that over time then it probably is shallowness.



How about if that woman *decided *to.... become a man?
Would you condemn her lover for being shallow if he broke up with her then?

Major changes.
Chosen. Not through accident.
Sudden. Not gradual ageing.

Different situation.
Different feelings.


----------



## rollhandler (Jul 24, 2009)

In my opinion a persons sexuality is every bit the same as their preference. By this I mean that if a person is gay then they simply wont date outside of it and partner with a person of opposite gender. The same applies if one is straight not wanting to date or mate with one of their own gender. If ones preference happens to be skinny people you would naturally only find them attractive within the degree of your preference identification. It is all on the bell curve with some prefering some fat or thin, some only thin, and some only fat.

From there it becomes a matter of what type of fat person you enjoy within that preference. IE: redheads, blondes, tall/short, long/short hair, big bellies or barely there, merely chubby or extremely obese. 

When it comes to relationships it seems that women are less visually shallow than men but when it comes to preference its all a matter of what turns us on, period.
Rollhandler


----------



## Fascinita (Jul 25, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Your analogy needs tweaking -
> 
> Try to imagine that your bf decided to cut off his legs. His finely muscled, strong functional legs (say) that you'd adored as an *integral* part of him from the moment you met...
> 
> ...



I tried to imagine my boyfriend alone in the wilderness with his legs caught under a boulder. It was very dramatic and I got carried away. Nearly started crying! Then I imagined his having to tourniquet and cut off his legs in order to try to crawl for his life to where he might have a chance at being found and rescued. Then I imagined that he had made it! Hurray! Thank goodness.

Then I tried to imagine me looking at his self-amputated legs and thinking, "God, can I "get it up" for boyfee again?" And I just can't. All I can think of is, "He did what he had to do for his own good, and I'm grateful he's still around."

For some fat people, losing weight is not just a cosmetic choice.

And in any case, a person who has an overwhelming need for a certain physical charasteristic in order to maintain an attraction should make it clear to everyone she or he gets involved with that this is the case. That way the potential partner knows what he or she is getting into, knows the depth of the person's ability to commit seriously and for the long term. This is all I'm saying: yes, there are some who are shallow and some who are not, just as with any demographic--and since it's the case that some have a "make it or break" need for a certain physical characteristic in order to remain attracted, that should be made clear to any potential love interest.

This has all been "just hypothetically" speaking. And I do understand and support anyone's desire to go after what makes them happy in life, as long as it's done in a considerate manner where the happiness of another human being is also at stake.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jul 25, 2009)

I don't think any man is shallow just because he looks at me, or other women, and is sexually attracted to us for whatever physical reason.

I don't think a man is shallow if he doesn't find me, or any other particular woman, physically attractive.

I do start thinking he's shallow, though, when that seems to be all he cares about.


----------



## Fascinita (Jul 25, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I don't think any man is shallow just because he looks at me, or other women, and is sexually attracted to us for whatever physical reason.
> 
> I don't think a man is shallow if he doesn't find me, or any other particular woman, physically attractive.
> 
> I do start thinking he's shallow, though, when that seems to be all he cares about.



Thank you. You've expressed exactly how I feel in many fewer and clearer words. (Look! There's even an oxymoron in my last sentence! How DO I do it? ) 

Seriously. What GEF says. :bow:


----------



## frankman (Jul 25, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I don't think any man is shallow just because he looks at me, or other women, and is sexually attracted to us for whatever physical reason.
> 
> I don't think a man is shallow if he doesn't find me, or any other particular woman, physically attractive.
> 
> I do start thinking he's shallow, though, when that seems to be all he cares about.



That just about wraps it up. 
Great post.


----------



## Fascinita (Jul 25, 2009)

joswitch said:


> I think this "shallow" attitude stems from a number of different myths:
> Myth - 1)
> The *false dichotomy of mind/body* - that "you" are not *really* your body, but something else that "happens" to inhabit your body... This dualism is formalised and given mainstream acceptance in religion. Humans are "monads" - *mind/body = "one thing"!* The sooner folks "get" this, the better for all IMO.
> Strongly allied to this / a subset of this false dualism is the myth (1a lol! at self) That *fat is somehow "alien" and "separate" *and "other" and not actually PART OF YOUR BODY! Sure, no-one is *just* their fat - but *fat *is* PART of you - in an entirely holistic sense*... so many anti-fat ranters and sadly, *big folks themselves*, speak of their fat as being a "thing" which they are somehow divorced from... this is a fundamental cognitive disconnect in a similar way to someone who wishes to amputate a body part before they feel "right" in themselves....In this sense - the main difference between the person who wishes to amputate a limb and the person who wishes to "amputate" their fat, is that the first idea is considered horrifying by mainstream society and the latter is considered marvellous and wonderful  and the right thing for everyone to do...



Yes, Monsieur Leibniz _a la monad._ Fat folks wants more talking to about how they should feel about their bods. Low-brow invective be damned! We need a philosophically grounded analysis of why it is we don't know what's good for us. 

OK. I don't want to be snarky. I can appreciate a lot about your post and your position. But...

This may surprise you, but there are plenty of fat people who are enlightened and schooled enough to understand a thing or two about what it means to be fully human. That means that we live our lives as fully realized human beings not miserable in our fat bodies, that we are achievers, that we're talented, that we manage to negotiate our lives as anyone else does without succumbing to or buying into the nonsense dogma about fat that is oppressive to EVERYONE, not just those of us who happen to be fat. Many of us feel downright LIBERATED in our fat bodies. It's the rest of the world who's struggling to catch up, the way I see it.

The pressure to be fat is no different than the pressure to be thin. Some of us have a difficult time accepting that we should be content knowing that a person we love and who claims to love us is apt to leave us the instant we--for a host of real human reasons that have nothing to do with being willful or hating ourselves or caving in to popular standards--need to drop more than 20 lbs. It's not because we're stoopid or have been brainwashed into hating ourselves. It's because, in life, shit happens sometimes. Weathering that shit together is part of what's involved in pair bonding. So really, it's a question of being allowed to be human, of having our full humanity acknowledged. Those that aren't capable of doing that should simply be very frank with themselves and with their potential partners, lay it out like mature adults from the start. That seems fair, doesn't it? 

To call for unqualified acceptance of an "I'll be with you in good times, but you're on your own when I've stopped having my fun" mode of behavior seems to me misguided. And that's what you're doing when you don't acknowledge that, indeed, just as with any other demographic, there are extremes of FAness that tend to render as "shallow" when all is said and done--just as there are extremes of thin-nophilia that are shallow in the sheer ideological resistance to the fact that humans aren't "perfect," that people change, gain and lose weight (just for starters) all the time--and not always of their own will. I tend to think the OP was struggling with the question, really looking at the implications of the preference when taken to its extremes, rather than outright asserting that FAs are all categorically shallow. That CLEARLY isn't true. I KNOW that the distribution of "shallow" and "deep" among FAs is about the same as with any other demographic. (I also happen to be in a relationship with an amazing guy who adores fat women.) So isn't it OK to keep an eye out on our behavior, to explore our values among others like us here?

I'll also add that I'm sorry you've had such negative experiences with some of the women you've been involved with. It also sounds like you've had some very positive experiences. Isn't that just part and parcel of life for everyone, regardless of their size or preference for size?


----------



## fffff (Jul 25, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Your analogy needs tweaking -
> 
> Try to imagine that your bf decided to cut off his legs. His finely muscled, strong functional legs (say) that you'd adored as an *integral* part of him from the moment you met...
> 
> ...




Guess whose never had a weight problem..... 

Imagine now that your partners leg was infected and spreading toxins to the rest of his body. The only way to reserve any quality of life for him was to have his gorgeous, yet detrimental leg amputated. 
You can bet I'd damn well be supportive and wouldn't bitch and bemoan the lack of a leg. 

Fat is not always a health issue but sometimes it damn well is. Speaking as someone who at one point in my life was extremely overweight comparing weight lose to cosmetic amputation is repulsive. 

You should be ashamed for the complete lack of empathy you've just displayed for the women you claim to admire. 

Even if your former girlfriend's health wasn't at risk, you don't know what it's like. You don't know how it feels when people look at you wish disgust in their eyes. You don't know what it's like to want to go out with other people but be worried that their might be too much walking or other physical activity. You don't know the shame of being ridiculed because of your weight. 

And that isn't some made-up hypothetical fantasy world where amputation is considered beautiful, it's _the fucking reality of now._ So if you want to use that comparison, or bemoan any loss of weight as being some stupid societal pressure, please remove your head from your verbose ass and read what some of the woman here have to say.


----------



## Scorsese86 (Jul 25, 2009)

I don't know if a FA is more shallow, really. I mean, there have been a few crushes I've had on thinner girls, but I am more attracted to larger girls. I think Angelina Jolie and Amy Adams are gorgeous as hell, and they're far from fat. And I don't know them either, like the girls I've had crushes on. Yes, I find it more attractive if the girl has a sizeable belly, but that's not all. When it comes to a serious romance, it's the whole person that counts. Yes, I prefer larger, but if I am together with a slimmer girl, I wouldn't fatten her up to find her more attractive. Personality is a must. Do I make sense? Probably not. Am I shallow? Don't know, but I don't feel shallow.


----------



## joswitch (Jul 25, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> I tried to imagine my boyfriend alone in the wilderness with his legs caught under a boulder. It was very dramatic and I got carried away. Nearly started crying! Then I imagined his having to tourniquet and cut off his legs in order to try to crawl for his life to where he might have a chance at being found and rescued. Then I imagined that he had made it! Hurray! Thank goodness.
> 
> Then I tried to imagine me looking at his self-amputated legs and thinking, "God, can I "get it up" for boyfee again?" And I just can't. All I can think of is, "He did what he had to do for his own good, and I'm grateful he's still around."



Well I'm glad you actually had a go at the thought experiment!  - and yeah if you felt like crying you're getting some of the idea of how I felt...

BUT (and it's a BIG but, no pun intended)
That you chose to use a 
1) sudden, catastrophic, 
2) life-threatening situation in which 
3) amputation was compulsory if his life was to be saved 
changes the way it *feels* beyond comparison though...

I'd like to invite you to re-imagine the scenario from the point of view of choice motivated by cosmetics / conformism. 

One of the things I really struggled (not to feel all hard done by) with was that from my P.O.V. it seemed to me that she chose what she did largely to placate other people, who had been abusive to her / didn't love her. 

As she put it she needed to feel good about herself when she WASN'T with me, too.... 

My ex gf *chose* what she did (and is still doing - that's a YEAR of close to starvation - btw) in large part* to "fit in" with society / her self-image**. Not because her life /health was in danger.

(*not solely - some of it was to do with improving her fitness... but frankly just two months in, having cut out all booze, swimming twice a week and just 30lbs down from her top weight she happily walked 3miles with me to a nearby village and back again the following day. That 3mile journey talking about 50mins... That's not someone who's "out of shape", nor "mobility restricted".
At that time she was no-where near the "danger zone" of losing 20% or more of her body weight, see below, and so I wasn't worried for her health at that time...

**strongly influenced by a lifetime of sh*t from the people around her.  )



> For some fat people, losing weight is not just a cosmetic choice.



True. For some. 
For instance if your weight has immobilised you there is no doubt that you are at risk from bed sores / cellulitis (tissue infection) that is both excruciatingly painful, potentially fatal and difficult to treat... In such a situation where weight loss is a prerequisite to *any* movement - i.e. before aqua physio can be brought to play to (re)-build that persons musclature - then yeah I'd agree, that's not a cosmetic choice AT ALL. I'd strongly disagree with most physicians first choice interventions in these iinstances (see below) but that's for another thread.

But many, and I'll go out on a limb and say MOST people who are dieting / trying to lose weight aren't doing it for their health. Including millions who've been misinformed that dieting is good for them! When in fact it's harmful. (see below)

Of those women I known who were dieting - particularly ex-gfs - all were starving themselves smaller for cosmetic reasons.

And one of the things that really p*sses me off (partly on behalf of those women) is that many women are doing insanely dangerous things to try and fit into this false BS mould that society has made for them. I can count at least a dozen girls I know who specifically SMOKE to try and keep their weight down. I can point to a bunch of instances when women in their low-mid 200lbs range have gone in for WLS (the *surgery alone* has FOUR TIMES the death rate as a heart bypass!) I remember at least one article where a woman died getting WLS, leaving a husband and child grieving... she weighed *224lbs*... In the first month my ex-gf was on her extreme diet there was an article in the paper about one woman who died due to her adherence to same... (consumed too much water - a big part of this "regime", some legit scientific reasons for this, but requires great care - the woman in question screwed her electrolyte balance = fatal)

Now here's the reason I put in the phrase: 
*Imagine the anguish and worry you'd feel as he went through this dangerous* and fundamentally altering process....
I should have made more of this in my scenario.
I've been digging deep into the actual research for months now (and I'm qualified to critique it, too) and the truth is that "overweight" / "obesity" is not the OMG DEATH FATZ that Big Pharma / Most Medics / Politicians / Media would have us believe... And dieting (i.e starving) is not beneficial to health. It's HARMFUL. 

(Aside: I'm really surprised that this isn't more widely known here on DIMS... I've been reading a lot of the "Fatosphere" blogs (Kate Harding's Shapely Prose and the like) and it seems to be common knowledge over there.)

*Hence a good portion of my anguish was worry about my then-gfs health being destroyed by the choice she had made*

The balance of *reputable* research shows dieting/weightloss is BAD for 
health. Furthermore, weightloss (of >= 20% body mass) has been demonstrated to reduce lifespan 
- see my OP & research references in thread - 
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60961

Dieting is phsyiologically and mentally damaging to the human body.
Here's more evidence plus the HOW and the WHY!
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1235031#post1235031


(Which is a summing up of this earlier thread - which let's be honest got 
waaaaay too sciency for most folks!
A science based response to the weightloss pusher's mantra "Calories 
In=Calories Out"
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61164)





> And in any case, a person who has an overwhelming need for a certain physical charasteristic in order to maintain an attraction should make it clear to everyone she or he gets involved with that this is the case. That way the potential partner knows what he or she is getting into, knows the depth of the person's ability to commit seriously and for the long term.



Aha! I see our disconnect on the "shallow" issue here! Eureka!

You're talking about depth of COMMITMENT.
'Cos (I guess) that's what YOU value most highly.
I'm talking about depth of FEELING.
'Cos that's what I value most highly.

Now I see! 

I don't see how it's possible to "guarantee" you'll always feel the same way about someone. You don't have control over your feelings. And feelings are difficult to predict. I'm fairly at ease with the idea that from one day to the next someone can change her mind about me (although damn! that hurts).
Sure you can "guarantee" to STAY with someone no matter what.

But why? Why would anyone stay in a situation that makes them unhappy, unless they have no choice? I wouldn't want any woman to stay with me if she was no longer attracted to me. The idea actually freaks me out. I don't want to be anyone's "pity-partner".  

The full stop to my last realtionship was that we came to the mutual conclusion that it wasn't possible for us both to be happy at the same time. So this sucked out the possibility of HOPE from our future. We both felt we'd be better off trying to find someone else.



> This is all I'm saying: yes, there are some who are shallow and some who are not, just as with any demographic--and since it's the case that some have a "make it or break" need for a certain physical characteristic in order to remain attracted, that should be made clear to any potential love interest.



Yup. I do this. Did. In fact, right from the get go with last relationship.
We both kinda knew it was doomed from the start.

On the one hand I'll almost certainly continue to do this "'fessing up(front)". Not least cos I want to avoid going through "dieting hell" again... 

But on the other hand, it does feel kinda "off"....
To pick out a few preferences so mainstream they are cliche:
No-one out there who is "wired-to-want" say: TALL people.
Or guys with deep voices.
Or (in our current western society) THIN people.
Feels they have to go into an "explanation" of how if that person chose to change that it'd be a deal breaker...
Those people just ASSUME that won't change!

And (taking a trip to the absurd for the sake of debate) no-one has a go at women for being sinister and shallow for loving men - cos don't you know that men don't live as long as women? Truth! It's not as "healthy" to be a man... unless you're castratii!  And no-one's out there advocating that as a health benefit! 




> This has all been "just hypothetically" speaking. And I do understand and support anyone's desire to go after what makes them happy in life, as long as it's done in a considerate manner where the happiness of another human being is also at stake.



Surprisingly, my ex says she got a fair bit of postitivity out of dating me (including re. her body image)....
And more surprising still we are still friends....
So I guess my efforts to not be a total asshole were not entirely in vain....


----------



## Fascinita (Jul 25, 2009)

joswitch said:


> I don't see how it's possible to "guarantee" you'll always feel the same way about someone. You don't have control over your feelings. And feelings are difficult to predict. I'm fairly at ease with the idea that from one day to the next someone can change her mind about me (although damn! that hurts).
> 
> Sure you can "guarantee" to STAY with someone no matter what.
> 
> But why? Why would anyone stay in a situation that makes them unhappy, unless they have no choice? I wouldn't want any woman to stay with me if she was no longer attracted to me. The idea actually freaks me out. I don't want to be anyone's "pity-partner".



Really? So you're someone who never sees yourself marrying or making a commitment to build a life together with someone?

Then I'd say you're in a minority.

Good for you on choosing to be perfectly frank with your partners about your preference. That's all I think is required. When depth of feeling depends on the state of a body's appearance, then of course it's not possible to commit for the long term. Changes happen--that's a constant--sometimes voluntary, sometimes not. Aside from that, in a state of perfect instability in pairing, such as you propose, anyone can change her mind about being with her partner the minute someone more ideal, or who provokes more "feeling," walks into the picture.

By the way, this as I see it is an issue that applies to all people, FA or not. If I were thinner or taller or blonder, I'd still want to know if a potential partner was apt to leave me when my appearance changed.

I think we're in agreement at last! Annnnnnnnd... I appreciate and agree with some of your explication of how the pressure to be thin affects everyone. (It does affect everyone, including the non-fat: After all, if you're going to be upset at a fat person who loses weight, why not be upset at a thin person who REFUSES to gain weight?  )


----------



## frankman (Jul 25, 2009)

Is it just me or is the entire "amputate stuff" analogy a little over the top?


----------



## AnnMarie (Jul 25, 2009)

frankman said:


> Is it just me or is the entire "amputate stuff" analogy a little over the top?




Not just you, but it started wayyyyy up with accidental loss of limb. 


I just can't believe there's still no ability here to see the major difference between life changes of age/time/expected variances in weight, etc... and major life changing body alterations in EITHER direction. 

If the moral of this thread is that I (and all those nasty, awful FAs who like fat women) have to admit to being shallow for knowing full well that my relationship _would be effected (and possibly not survive)_ by a 100lbs or more weight change, then I guess that's how it is. Clearly, because of that, I'm incapable of loving someone deeply, being committed, and being in a sustained, meaningful, supportive, long-term relationship. 

At least now I have a reason. 


FFS.


----------



## joswitch (Jul 25, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Yes, Monsieur Leibniz _a la monad._ Fat folks wants more talking to about how they should feel about their bods. Low-brow invective be damned! We need a philosophically grounded analysis of why it is we don't know what's good for us.
> 
> OK. I don't want to be snarky.



S'okay. I can handle a little snark. 



> I can appreciate a lot about your post and your position. But...
> 
> This may surprise you, but there are plenty of fat people who are enlightened and schooled enough to understand a thing or two about what it means to be fully human. That means that we live our lives as fully realized human beings not miserable in our fat bodies, that we are achievers, that we're talented, that we manage to negotiate our lives as anyone else does without succumbing to or buying into the nonsense dogma about fat that is oppressive to EVERYONE, not just those of us who happen to be fat. Many of us feel downright LIBERATED in our fat bodies. It's the rest of the world who's struggling to catch up, the way I see it.



YES! YESYESYESYES! Entirely agree! 
I have met some women with this attitude! *waves at you if you're reading*
And I hope to date someone who feels that way one day!

My "4 point" post (lol!) in large part was addressed to an "anti-sexuality-as-emotionally-valid" theme in OP and that I've seen all over these forums and others lately.... Also a prevailing idea that FAs should feel "bad" for being what they are....



> The pressure to be fat is no different than the pressure to be thin. Some of us have a difficult time accepting that we should be content knowing that a person we love and who claims to love us is apt to leave us the instant we--for a host of real human reasons that have nothing to do with being willful or hating ourselves or caving in to popular standards--need to drop more than 20 lbs.



Well poetic licence and all, but in my defence, I'm not THAT inflexible!  (6months and 90lbs and it *was* to do with "fitting in". And I hung on in there 'til I was well ****ed up in a whole bunch of ways.)
But I can see you're exaggerating to convey how it feels to YOU (which is what was doing earlier with the "legs" analogy) so yeah, onward...



> It's not because we're stoopid or have been brainwashed into hating ourselves. It's because, in life, shit happens sometimes. Weathering that shit together is part of what's involved in pair bonding. So really, it's a question of being allowed to be human, of having our full humanity acknowledged. Those that aren't capable of doing that should simply be very frank with themselves and with their potential partners, lay it out like mature adults from the start. That seems fair, doesn't it?



I don't agree that my choosing not to "stick it out" with my ex somehow failed to acknowledge her full humanity. My attempts to talk to her on the subject (then and now) always acknowledged that it was *her body* and *her choice* - *because* she is a human being worthy of respect and self-determination. In all that was said between us, I *never expected* her to change course for me and I would've been hella shocked if she had chosen to do so.

I do agree with the idea that potential partners ought to know of my *orientation* as FA. And that I am "limited".  If you like. So that they have a *free choice* re. whether or not to get involved with me. 

(I practised what I'm preaching here with my most recent ex btw)



> To call for unqualified



Hmmm... I'm pretty sure I *qualified* my points "out the wazoo"... 



> acceptance of an "I'll be with you in good times, but you're on your own when I've stopped having my fun"



A large part of what I was trying to convey was that sex ain't JUST fun... but that sex and sexuality are in themselves central & powerful in love and that being with someone who I truly desire makes me feel *whole* and simultaneously *ego-annihilated* in myself .... 

OneHauteMama said it well over on the BBW board in regard to how she feels as an FA when she hugs and holds a BHM -
".....my heart is full....."

This.



> mode of behavior seems to me misguided. And that's what you're doing when you don't acknowledge that, indeed, just as with any other demographic, there are extremes of FAness that tend to render as "shallow" when all is said and done--



Well, I feel you've drawn my points into a reductum absurdum.... So I kinda agree with what you're getting at, but disagree with you that I was doing that...  I wasn't trying to speak *for* all FAs everywhere. Just to voice and contextualize my own feelings. In a way that I hope(d) would connect with others who have either felt the same (or different).



> just as there are extremes of thin-nophilia that are shallow in the sheer ideological resistance to the fact that humans aren't "perfect," that people change, gain and lose weight (just for starters) all the time--and not always of their own will. I tend to think the OP was struggling with the question, really looking at the implications of the preference when taken to its extremes, rather than outright asserting that FAs are all categorically shallow.



Yeah, hence my disclaimer right at the top of the "4points" post. OP was entirely reasonable.



> That CLEARLY isn't true. I KNOW that the distribution of "shallow" and "deep" among FAs is about the same as with any other demographic. (I also happen to be in a relationship with an amazing guy who adores fat women.) So isn't it OK to keep an eye out on our behavior, to explore our values among others like us here?



For sure. 



> I'll also add that I'm sorry you've had such negative experiences with some of the women you've been involved with. It also sounds like you've had some very positive experiences. Isn't that just part and parcel of life for everyone, regardless of their size or preference for size?



Absolutely! It's been a roller coaster!  
And I expect it to continue being such. 
And for the record (again) Je n'regrette rien.
For all the "poor-me" bleating I've done above about my last relationship I wouldn't have missed being with my most recent ex.
It was worth it.
She was (and is) worth it.


----------



## frankman (Jul 25, 2009)

AnnMarie said:


> Not just you, but it started wayyyyy up with accidental loss of limb.
> 
> 
> I just can't believe there's still no ability here to see the major difference between life changes of age/time/expected variances in weight, etc... and major life changing body alterations in EITHER direction.
> ...



It's really odd, you know, that because being fat or liking people who are fat gets placed into an entirely different category than, let's say, digging Asians only.

How is digging fat exclusively diferent from digging any other type exclusively? People can't control who they fall in love with, much less what their privates react to.

Digging fat exclusively (which I don't, by the way) is just another personal feature, not some nasty character trait.


----------



## Fascinita (Jul 25, 2009)

AnnMarie said:


> (and all those nasty, awful FAs who like fat women)



I think you're taking it too far with your reading, AnnMarie. For my part, there is *no* implication whatsoever in my arguments that FAs are nasty or awful as a category. None. I've met a ton of wonderful people who identify as fat admirers, many of them members here.

In fact, I've tried to make it clear that for me this is not an issue about FAs and fatties specifically, but about _all_ romantic relationships between people. That's why I think it's helpful to think of this in a context of physical changes other than weight loss or gain. And I stated very clearly in my first post in this thread that only in certain cases, under certain conditions, does the pressure to remain fat begin to feel "shallow" and thereby oppressive.


----------



## Fascinita (Jul 25, 2009)

frankman said:


> It's really odd, you know, that because being fat or liking people who are fat gets placed into an entirely different category than, let's say, digging Asians only.
> 
> How is digging fat exclusively diferent from digging any other type exclusively? People can't control who they fall in love with, much less what their privates react to.



Except that no one becomes less Asian or less naturally brown-eyed as one ages or under different life circumstances. So that in terms of weight being just one of those things that may have to change at some point in the natural course of a life, how is the adherence to one preference for weight different than, say, a preference for unwrinkled skin or a perfectly unscarred body? I think we'd all like to remain forever young and beautiful, but I also know that few people want to die old and alone, if you get my drift. 

I see weight in a category of attributes that are prone to changing over the course of a lifetime, for any number of unavoidable reasons. If you can't see that, I'm not sure we can come to an understanding about what's reasonable and what not.


----------



## joswitch (Jul 25, 2009)

fffff said:


> Guess whose never had a weight problem.....



guess who's wrong! 

I was often referred to at school as "Belsen Boy". 
I was so ****in thin I was once picked up and blown away in a strong wind. 
(no sh*t, true story)
I was the scrawny, smart, talkative, tall kid everyone liked to bully 
(til I grew up a bit more and started karate)
Hell, I got beaten up by the girls! ('til I was 12 or so)
I was always cold and got chilblains all the time.
I was pretty weak - to the point that schlepping my bag full of books to school and back seemed like I was carrying a hod full of bricks.
If I had a £ for everytime during those 4 or 5 years someone (especially girls) told me I should gain some weight or how horrible my body looked I'd be as rich as Croseus today! 



> Imagine now that your partners leg was infected and spreading toxins to the rest of his body. The only way to reserve any quality of life for him was to have his gorgeous, yet detrimental leg amputated.
> You can bet I'd damn well be supportive and wouldn't bitch and bemoan the lack of a leg.
> 
> Fat is not always a health issue but sometimes it damn well is.



See my response about fat and health to Fascintia.



> Speaking as someone who at one point in my life was extremely overweight comparing weight lose to cosmetic amputation is repulsive.



The analogy was *meant* to be horrifying. Because the purpose of it was to convey how much I felt (from my P.O.V.) the insanity of what was happening and how the world around me responded to it. Also to convey the *loss and loneliness* that I felt as my lover disappeared piece by piece.

I'm sorry that you found that analogy "repulsive". Nothing else would've come close to evoking how I felt at the time to someone who's non-FA-as-orientation.



> You should be ashamed for the complete lack of empathy you've just displayed for the women you claim to admire.



When I need *you* to tell me *how I should feel*, I'll send you an *invitation* to do so. Just so as we're clear, it'll be on gilt-edged card, carried on a velvet cushion by a footman in uniform. 
Until then - back. off.

I will NOT be "shamed" for expressing how I feel / felt, by you or anyone. 

That *I haven't gone into how my ex felt* at the time and dissected her motives and expressed how I sympathised and empathised with her (and still do) is because it's* not my place to tell HER story* and it's not my place to vocalise her feelings to the world.* It's HER story and HER feelings and if she wants to share them or NOT it's her choice. To date her choice is NOT. And I respect that choice.* So I've kept her side of things to a minimum in my posts. That this makes me look somehow heartless to you, I can deal with.

I didn't post all this to make myself look good.
I posted it to share how I felt.

In a forum that's meant to be a "safe-space" for FAs to share feelings *without censure.* 



> .... you don't know what it's like. You don't know how it feels when people look at you wish disgust in their eyes. ... You don't know the shame of being ridiculed because of your weight.



Ah, but I do. See above.



> You don't know what it's like to want to go out with other people but be worried that their might be too much walking or other physical activity.



OK I don't "know" that.



> And that isn't some made-up hypothetical fantasy world where amputation is considered beautiful, it's _the fucking reality of now._ So if you want to use that comparison, or bemoan any loss of weight as being some stupid societal pressure, please remove your head from your *verbose* ass



*Here's my expression of how I felt in gentler terms and with far fewer words.
It's a poem I wrote. 
I express best and most concisely in poetry rather than prose.
I got a gentle mod "slap" for posting this on the main board.
Got told it should go in the "Fine Art" section.
But I don't think poetry should be kept under glass in an art ghetto.
I think it should be part of life.
Fair warning - it's sad.
AllofYou*



> and read what some of the woman here have to say.



Yeah. Sure. 
Cos I didn't read the entire thread FIRST.
Cos I haven't read page after page of what women have written here.
Cos us menz shouldn't express our feelingz and shiz.
We should just bottle. it. all. up.
And. shut. up. and. listen. 

/snark


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jul 25, 2009)

Way down deep we're all superficial (at least some of the time). No one is *always* as evolved, balanced and self-actualized as they'd like to be. Mostly we see what we're expecting though and the Pygmalion effect impacts both men and women of all sizes to some degree or another. So, looking for creepy, banal or shallow FA's (men, Italians, golfers, etc) probably improves your odds of finding them. If you saw one (or more) before you started seeing a pattern, chicken~egg, eh? JMO. :bow:


----------



## fffff (Jul 25, 2009)

joswitch said:


> guess who's wrong!
> 
> I was often referred to at school as "Belsen Boy".
> I was so ****in thin I was once picked up and blown away in a strong wind.
> ...



Yes, that is exactly the same thing as every kid in your second grade class pretending there was an earthquake while you were waking down the hall. :doh:

I stopped reading there because there is just no point. 

btw continuously using the bold feature to emphasize a point is hella annoying.


----------



## joswitch (Jul 25, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Really? So you're someone who never sees yourself marrying or making a commitment to build a life together with someone?



As things stand for me now... Unlikely. My feelings and circunstances might change in the future.



> Then I'd say you're in a minority.



Hell yeah. I'm a minority of a minority of a minority.:doh:
FA. Bit of a feeder. Polyamorous by inclination. Anarchist. River gypsy. Musician. Poet. Fool.
Frankly, in context of this world I am a bloody ridiculously out-of-place person.:doh::doh:



> Good for you on choosing to be perfectly frank with your partners about your preference. That's all I think is required. When depth of feeling depends on the state of a body's appearance, then of course it's not possible to commit for the long term. Changes happen--that's a constant--sometimes voluntary, sometimes not. Aside from that, in a state of perfect instability in pairing, such as you propose, anyone can change her mind about being with her partner the minute someone more ideal, or who provokes more "feeling," walks into the picture.



And yeah, that's happened to me....



> By the way, this as I see it is an issue that applies to all people, FA or not. If I were thinner or taller or blonder, I'd still want to know if a potential partner was apt to leave me when my appearance changed.
> 
> I think we're in agreement at last! Annnnnnnnd... I appreciate and agree with some of your explication of how the pressure to be thin affects everyone. (It does affect everyone, including the non-fat: After all, if you're going to be upset at a fat person who loses weight, why not be upset at a thin person who REFUSES to gain weight?  )



Oh those thin girls who refuse to gain! oh they twist my melon! 

Actually I resolved to stop dating thin(ner) girls and offering to fatten them up* about 10 years back. (Flame me now. I brought marshmallows!  )

Decided that was hurtful. And y'know. Hurtful = bad.

Decided to only date fat girls 'cos I desired them exactly as I found them.
As you can see that's yielded mixed results...:doh: lolz...
But I can't really think of a better plan.
That doesn't involve any or all of.
Castration.
Lobotomy.
Becoming a Buddhist monk.

(*Except for aspiring-to-be-fat feedees. That's cool.  )


----------



## frankman (Jul 25, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Except that no one becomes less Asian or less naturally brown-eyed as one ages or under different life circumstances. So that in terms of weight being just one of those things that may have to change at some point in the natural course of a life, how is the adherence to one preference for weight different than, say, a preference for unwrinkled skin or a perfectly unscarred body? I think we'd all like to remain forever young and beautiful, but I also know that few people want to die old and alone, if you get my drift.
> 
> I see weight in a category of attributes that are prone to changing over the course of a lifetime, for any number of unavoidable reasons. If you can't see that, I'm not sure we can come to an understanding about what's reasonable and what not.



I know what you mean. I'm just hoping that when people love eachother(as in relationships and such), people can look past that sort of stuff. I know that in my case it's easy, digging every size except super skinny, but I'm naive and romantic like that.

Otherwise, one has to ask him or herself: how many lbs do I love my partner? But I hope that when you consider people liking people for a lifetime, people start loving people for who they are instead of what they look like.

But then again, I'm not the one to talk, cause I dig the entire weight spectrum.


----------



## joswitch (Jul 25, 2009)

fffff said:


> Yes, that is exactly the same thing as every kid in your second grade class pretending there was an earthquake while you were waking down the hall. :doh:
> 
> I stopped reading there because there is just no point.
> 
> btw continuously using the bold feature to emphasize a point is hella annoying.



Wow! nice one! 

You belittle and dismiss my feelings and experiences - in order to claim that your feelings and experiences are more valid/important.

That's not annoying in anyway at all!
I feel so glad I took 20minutes out of my life to respond to you!


----------



## joswitch (Jul 25, 2009)

> Originally Posted by frankman
> Is it just me or is the entire "amputate stuff" analogy a little over the top?





AnnMarie said:


> Not just you, but it started wayyyyy up with accidental loss of limb.



I started it :blush: and with the loss as a deliberate choice...
And the analogy was over-the-top in an effort to convey depth of feeling to those who "don't get" the FA-weightloss-blues....


----------



## fffff (Jul 25, 2009)

joswitch said:


> Wow! nice one!
> 
> You belittle and dismiss my feelings and experiences - in order to claim that your feelings and experiences are more valid/important.



Yep - fat girls know more about being fat girls than skinny guys. Weird.


----------



## CrankySpice (Jul 25, 2009)

What if your life partner decides to change faiths? Goes from being, say, Catholic to Muslim? Or from a pacifist to a gun-toting anarchist? Are those changes that should be fully and totally accepted at no question? Everything's hunky-dory in the relationship because, after all, you're committed?

I think that drastic physical changes are in the same class. It's not only an alteration of your appearance, but a drastic change in how you view yourself & the world around you and how you live your day-to-day life. You can't lose 100 lbs. and be the same person. You just can't. Something had to change. You had to be strict and measuring with your food, you had to make time for exercise when you formerly did not, you have to stop sharing meals that were formerly shared experiences. This type of change doesn't just change the physical attraction side of the relationship, but the day to day living, the formerly share philosophies, pretty much every thing that would hold a relationship together. And that kind of change makes an FA shallow? 

I'm not buying it.


----------



## CrankySpice (Jul 25, 2009)

fffff said:


> Yep - fat girls know more about being fat girls than skinny guys. Weird.



Except....you didn't say fat girls. You said "weight problem". Which he then shared. So, yeah. fffff that.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Jul 25, 2009)

This could all simply be a matter of perspective and different needs for different people.

Some people need a partner that will always weigh XYZ and have it stored in XYZ area. 

Some people will need the security of knowing that they are loved no matter what life changes bring about physically because everyone is going to change physically over time- no matter what your opinion or sexual preference is. 

Some people are comfortable with the idea of a partner setting a condition on the relationship. 

Some people are not. 

Some might see the set of conditions being placed as less important than other factors or these same factors might be equally important to both partners. 

Some people need to know that if they make a commitment to someone long term and are willing to do whatever it takes to make it work, that their partner is willing to do the same/make the same compromises. 

Personally, I think the most important thing here is honesty.

I think if it's important to have your partner weigh XYZ always and forever, then that needs to be said up front. Let whomever decide if they are okay with it. No one is right or wrong for wanting what they want or needing what they need. 

If it's important to you that your partner values other details as high, if not higher, than sexual needs, then that needs to be stated openly. Let whomever decide if they feel the same way.


It's hard to find someone that thinks exactly like you do....and when/if you find them, each of you constantly struggle with getting what each of you want out of the relationship. 

I don't know.....I still don't have everything I wan't/think I need from a relationship set in stone. At the end of the day and all that has been said and done in my life, I only know what I DON'T want.....and run with that idea now. *shrugs*


----------



## mabigbuy (Jul 25, 2009)

well i do have a preference i would not let it get in the way of anything although one time i was with my first what would be considered a really skinny lady and i was thinking as i grabbed what would have been love handles but were hip bones and the thought it feels like a boy ran through my head so i dont think this helps very much but i have experiences it so i figured i would respond since were are all at the point were we would like more insight


----------



## joswitch (Jul 25, 2009)

fffff said:


> Yep - fat girls know more about being fat girls than skinny guys. Weird.



You said "weight problem". That you can't conceive of very skinny as being a "weight problem" demonstrates a lack of empathy - on your part. 
That I have been very skinny (and fought hard to change that) did actually help me empathise with what my ex was going through. 

Also - that you chose to flame the hell out of me for one post, but couldn't even be bothered to read my response!! shows that you're not interested in any point of view but your own.

You may now have the floor for a snarky last word.
Enjoy it.
I'm done here.
I need shower and sleep.


----------



## joswitch (Jul 25, 2009)

CrankySpice said:


> you have to stop sharing meals that were formerly shared experiences.



This.
A big deal for me.
See the "Feeding as Love" thread over here:
http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61712


----------



## Adrian (Jul 25, 2009)

I for one feel being an FA as being no different than any other preference. I doubt if anyone is prepared to call John Derek (Bo Derek's former husband) a size bigot! His wives look as though they were created on a production line!
FAs have their right to their preferences just other men. Most men have a preference whether it is considered politically correct or not. Whether it is politically correct, bigoted, etc. to prefer a particular size, "so be it!"
Relatives, friends have made comments about my preference for large women. If they feel it is positive -great, if they don't... oh well! If it really bothers them then, keep your distance from me and my family! Of which some have done.
If I am some bigot and that is the worst thing a person can say about me then, I am a fortunate man.


----------



## Santaclear (Jul 25, 2009)

It's unreasonable and unrealistic to expect that a partner's weight will always remain within a certain range.

If you're with someone a long time, it's unlikely that they WON'T change in some way. Cranky's examples below are hypothetical things that could happen to exert strain on a relationship.



CrankySpice said:


> What if your life partner decides to change faiths? Goes from being, say, Catholic to Muslim? Or from a pacifist to a gun-toting anarchist? Are those changes that should be fully and totally accepted at no question? Everything's hunky-dory in the relationship because, after all, you're committed?
> I think that drastic physical changes are in the same class. It's not only an alteration of your appearance, but a drastic change in how you view yourself & the world around you and how you live your day-to-day life. You can't lose 100 lbs. and be the same person. You just can't. Something had to change. You had to be strict and measuring with your food, you had to make time for exercise when you formerly did not, you have to stop sharing meals that were formerly shared experiences. This type of change doesn't just change the physical attraction side of the relationship, but the day to day living, the formerly share philosophies, pretty much every thing that would hold a relationship together. And that kind of change makes an FA shallow?
> I'm not buying it.



What Fascinita and GreenEyedFairy are calling for is honesty. If one requires a certain body type or size, that should be known up front.

Using the word "shallow" in this thread kinda mucks up the issue, 'cos it's just a judgmental and bad word. Who wants to be shallow?


----------



## LoveBHMS (Jul 26, 2009)

> Using the word "shallow" in this thread kinda mucks up the issue, 'cos it's just a judgmental and bad word. Who wants to be shallow?



In total agreement. I personally consider being an FFA and feeder nothing beyond my personal sexuality. It's not shallow, it's just part of who and what I am; it's not a choice.

Beyond that, the fact that I am "bisizual" does not make me less shallow or a better person or a more open minded person. I can, and have been, attracted to skinny men. It's not common, and skinny guys are not the ones who turn my head if they walk by, but on an individual basis there have been skinny men I've encountered where I have been fully attracted to them.

There are FFAs and FAs who are not bisizual. They just can not be sexually aroused absent a fat partner. They can't do it and that is not shallow.

Having a fetish, preference, or orientation is not the same thing as rejecting that which does not fit. A lesbian female, being a lesbian, is not "rejecting" men. A Caucasian male who has "jungle fever" and is sexually aroused by women of color is not a racist who hates white people. A man who buys "Barely Legal" magazine is not being ageist against older women, he is merely pursuing sexual gratification for himself.


----------



## Blockierer (Jul 26, 2009)

LoveBHMS said:


> .
> There are FFAs and FAs who are not bisizual. They just can not be sexually aroused absent a fat partner. They can't do it and that is not shallow.
> .



Speaking for the nonbisizual FA/FFA:
*Yes we can not!*
And that is true :blush:and not shallow. We don't have to excuse ourselves. We need no therapie! We need fatties. We are are built for loving fatties.


----------



## Scorsese86 (Jul 26, 2009)

frankman said:


> Is it just me or is the entire "amputate stuff" analogy a little over the top?



Oh no. Have you not seen _Boxing Helena_?


----------



## bigsexy920 (Jul 26, 2009)

In my over 20 years experiance with men - most are shallow at first - but so am i I need to like how a person looks to be attracted but like most, its other things that make them stay or me for that matter. 

I think I notice FA's inital shallowness more because I see it more. Ass no ass tits no tits big belly no big belly - not big enough not tall enough can you pin me you know the usual.


----------



## Ernest Nagel (Jul 26, 2009)

bigsexy920 said:


> In my over 20 years experience with men - most are shallow at first - but so am i I need to like how a person looks to be attracted but like most, its other things that make them stay or me for that matter.
> 
> I think I notice FA's inital shallowness more because I see it more. Ass no ass tits no tits big belly no big belly - not big enough not tall enough can you pin me you know the usual.



I think your observations are accurate (intelligent and objective, imo, as well) but let's consider why that would be true, especially the last bit. Men with "conventional" body-type preferences are exposed to endless images of an ideal female figure. They are thoroughly indoctrinated in what the mainstream considers _desirable_ well before puberty.

If we escape that acculturation do we simply expand all proportions of the mainstream feminine ideal or do we actually embrace our freedom to accept _whatever_ we find attractive without reservation? Even if the thin-centric brainwash doesn't take and we can unabashedly acknowledge that we get a charge from large I think we may still experience some pressure to choose an ideal template? 

When I was young I tended to prefer very buxom BBW. As I got older a big, round derriere' became more important. Big bellies and thighs were always good. That said I've never been in relationship with a woman I didn't consider at least my peer intellectually. Even in my horn-dog teens I realized that a relationship means you're inevitably gonna spend more time talking than fucking. I think on balance my definition of intelligence has broadened far more than my standards of physical attractiveness but both subsume almost infinite permutations, even and including thin chicks. All other things being equal though, fat is where it's at (or was) for me. If that means I'm shallow, so be it. I've been called much worse.


----------



## mango (Jul 28, 2009)

*I got together with a group of friends over the weekend and we discussed this very thread and the issues raised.


The consensus was:

FA's aren't shallow, BBW's are deep.




(it's all about perspectives y'see....)
*


----------



## mergirl (Jul 28, 2009)

mango said:


> *I got together with a group of friends over the weekend and we discussed this very thread and the issues raised.
> 
> 
> The consensus was:
> ...



haha.. excellent. Wish i could rep that!


----------



## BarbBBW (Jul 28, 2009)

mango said:


> *I got together with a group of friends over the weekend and we discussed this very thread and the issues raised.
> 
> 
> The consensus was:
> ...



rep sent for that hilarious post !


----------



## exile in thighville (Jul 28, 2009)

i think the shallowness of fas has more to do with shape and proportions rather than size. two people who are 300 lbs look very different from each other. some have qualms about double bellies, double chins, height, etc. there's nothing wrong with any of this, but you limit your range at your own peril.


----------



## mergirl (Jul 28, 2009)

BarbBBW said:


> rep sent for that hilarious post !



Oooh i repped him too now..well, he deserved it!


----------



## StarWitness (Jul 28, 2009)

mango said:


> *FA's aren't shallow, BBW's are deep.
> *



The looser the waistband, the deeper the quicksand; or so I have read.


----------



## superodalisque (Aug 3, 2009)

joswitch said:


> How about if that woman *decided *to.... become a man?
> Would you condemn her lover for being shallow if he broke up with her then?
> 
> Major changes.
> ...



1. i wouldn't condemn anyone and i'm not

2. if i met a man that i found highly physically attractive--thats why its aways important for me to take my time and find out what that person is about and how they really feel about themselves. is he comfortable with who he is? if i just make my preferences known if he has interest in me he might try and shape himself into the thing that i think i want. i need to be able to make him feel safe enough that he can tell me who he really is so i can decide if i can deal with that. if i can i get involved. if i can't or don't have enough information i don't. it all depends on what i can handle. but i'd never get involved with him just for his looks and know he is uncomfortable with who he is and then try and press him to continue to be something that made him unhappy. and i'd never, after paying attention and having him tell me the truth, get into a deep relationship with him and then just dump him when he tried to be himself. we would never get to that stage because i would love him enough as a human being not to do that to him.

thats the real problem for FAs too when preference takes the front seat too much in a relationship. sure you can begin something with someone because you find them attractive. but you have to make an effort to get to know the person well enough to see if you both have similar beliefs. a lot of the time the preference might get in the way of that. and thats when it becomes shallow. it doesn't matter if its just a hookup. but if you want to develop a deep relationship and you still aren't interested in finding out what the other person really wants and are only interested in what you are getting that is definitely shallow. 

with a thing like weight you have to be extremely cautious because a lot of women really feel trapped by thier weight. so you have to get to know the woman to be able to have an idea of whether she actually wants to keep it or not. i agree that its unfair for a BBW to act as though they like weight they don't just to have a relationship and then go for WLS. it happens a lot though because some women think a relationship will cure how they really feel about themselves. and when they figure that out they think taking off the weight will. what a lot don't realize is that taking off weight might not do much for their self esteem either. having a man, being thin mean nothing if you still don't know how to love yourself. at each step we take as people if we fail to address what is really going on with us its hard to ever be happy. all of these external things don't have much to do with how we really feel. 

thats why its important especially in the beginning to maybe keep some of your preference to yourself and be a bit relaxed about it. then she'll feel more free about telling you who she really is and what her true vision of her future self is to you. thats why its so important to approach things seriously if you intend to get serious and not to play around too much with things that you haven't invested enough time energy and attention in.

3. if someone decided to lose weight just because they wanted to--it depends . i think an FA should have invested enough time in talking to the person to figure that out. if she lied to the FA, its like any other thing in a relationship when you've been lied to. of course it could be a deal breaker. if an FA tries to force her into the idea in the first place its shallow because there was more care about the fat than how she felt about it. 

i guess the main thing is the level of care and love you give to the person. using someone because they look a certain way and loving them are not exactly the same thing. ideally everyone wants to have a mixture of love and attraction. the problem is when people separate the two things and think its ok. in a relationship those two things belong together. everyone knows what proportions they are looking for in a partner. its different for different people. it depends on what they are comfy with. i just know that i prefer someone i can count on in a pinch who doesn't have a low committment level.

to cut to the chase: people who engage in shallow acts are shallow , but people who don't aren't. it would depend on the FA.


----------



## gangstadawg (Sep 27, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> i actually just kind of tackled this



that link was a some good reading material.


----------



## gangstadawg (Sep 28, 2009)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> Everyone has preferences. Men have them and women have them. There is nothing wrong with having a predilection for dating whomever you want as long as it's not a kid.



or your own family member.


----------



## xysoseriousx (Jul 2, 2010)

I don't think i'm shallow. I mean I am obsessed with BBW's, but I have a great personality and everything in real life.


----------



## frankman (Jul 3, 2010)

xysoseriousx said:


> I don't think i'm shallow. I mean I am obsessed with BBW's, but I have a great personality and everything in real life.



And you're really modest


----------



## xysoseriousx (Jul 3, 2010)

frankman said:


> And you're really modest



Thank you.


----------



## truebebeblue (Jul 4, 2010)

I think it is interesting how you RARELY see this from women...they tend to more easily accept physical changes in partners.
Do women have a greater capacity to evolve in a relationship?Is their love more enduring?

I like dating men who like me... If my weight fluctuating 50 or 100 lbs(I've gone from 300 to 500 and back down) is gonna be a deal breaker then you are not the one for me. I like men who are a bit more complex than that.

If this is an issue of yours guys you should very clearly state it early on in the relationship,it's only fair to the other person.


True


----------



## wrestlingguy (Jul 4, 2010)

truebebeblue said:


> I think it is interesting how you RARELY see this from women...they tend to more easily accept physical changes in partners.
> Do women have a greater capacity to evolve in a relationship?Is their love more enduring?
> 
> I like dating men who like me... If my weight fluctuating 50 or 100 lbs(I've gone from 300 to 500 and back down) is gonna be a deal breaker then you are not the one for me. I like men who are a bit more complex than that.
> ...



I think you hit the nail on the head. My experience is that women tend to love in a more enduring way than men do. From my experience, the women in my life have all adjusted to the physical changes in me over the years, and the result of that has been for me to reciprocate. The point is that I've learned how the women in my life have loved me, and can see the difference in how most men enter relationships.

Yes, in my opinion, it's more superficial, since they are quick on the trigger to bail when something major changes in the physicality of their "partner" in their relationship.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 4, 2010)

i think it would be very easy for an FA to end up being shallow but not just because he may be naturally a shallow person. i think an FA who is shallow is many times made that way by his environment and the type of ideas that surround him and shape him. regarding FAs socially, there is very little that encourages him to notice more in women than what their bodies look like. unlike other women BBWs have almost absolutely no romantic energy or attention centered on them. everything is sexualized to a large degree. so its very easy for an FA to overlook or ignore other things that BBWs might have to offer in a social environment that focuses mainly on a fat persons physical appearance and very little on who they are as a person. so maybe if a guy is shallow its because he is a product of his environment. instead of totally blaming FAs alone for being shallow maybe we need to examine what fat society can do to help him be less so.


----------



## joswitch (Jul 4, 2010)

truebebeblue said:


> I think it is interesting how you RARELY see this from women...they tend to more easily accept physical changes in partners.



Necropostacular.

Disagreeing with you there.

There's been plenty of FFAs lately having a moan about bfs bodies on here, for a start.
If you've ever visited (and I strongly recommend you don't bother) the fat-hate-fest that is myfatspouse.com, then you'll see LOTS of women kvetching about their newly fat husbands.

There's a couple of artefact issues too, some of which (while we're playing the Swinging Generalisation game  ) are:
- The physical things women tend to dig about men are often non-labile e.g.: tall.... Lotsa girls are very big on the tall.
- Where women are dissatisfied with men's bodies they have often been taught not to vocalise this as part of the whole good-girls-must-be-submissive-supporters thing.
- Where women DO choose to voice their dissatisfaction re. some aspect of their blokes appearance, this is "lack " is often swiftly corrected (where possible ) by the bloke whether or not under pain of withdrawl of sex. 
Men have not been taught that any criticism of their physical body is verboten and a rejection of their essential self. 
Maybe they should be taught that?



> Do women have a greater capacity to evolve in a relationship?Is their love more enduring?



Not in my experience, no.



> I like dating men who like me... If my weight fluctuating 50 or 100 lbs(I've gone from 300 to 500 and back down) is gonna be a deal breaker then you are not the one for me. I like men who are a bit more complex than that.
> 
> *If this is an issue of yours guys you should very clearly state it early on in the relationship,it's only fair to the other person.*
> 
> ...



^Yeah, already been discussed to the nth degree upthread.


----------



## joswitch (Jul 4, 2010)

wrestlingguy said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head. My experience is that women tend to love in a more enduring way than men do. From my experience, the women in my life have all adjusted to the physical changes in me over the years, and the result of that has been for me to reciprocate. The point is that I've learned how the women in my life have loved me, and can see the difference in how most men enter relationships.
> 
> Yes, in my opinion, it's more superficial, since they are quick on the trigger to bail when something major changes in the physicality of their "partner" in their relationship.



When I was dumped from two of my LTRs, it wasn't due to physical "changes"...
Rather, respectively:
1 - I didn't fit in with her plans - for money/wedding/house/kids.
2 - She had met someone else she wanted more, and lied about it.

I'm not seeing how those^ are somehow less "superficial" than dumping someone due to extreme physical changes. They're just different reasons. Neither better nor worse, neither shallower nor deeper.

I think there's another artefact at play in all this judging: 

The language of relationships has largely been put together BY and FOR women. Men are not raised to think/talk/discuss/concern themselves with relationships. In the absence of active male input to relationship debates the *things that women, generally, want are generally characterised as good/deep/meaningful and the things that men, generally, want are generally characterised as bad/shallow/meaningless.*


----------



## joswitch (Jul 4, 2010)

superodalisque said:


> i think it would be very easy for an FA to end up being shallow but not just because he may be naturally a shallow person. i think an FA who is shallow is many times made that way by his environment and the type of ideas that surround him and shape him. regarding FAs socially, *there is very little that encourages him to notice more in women than what their bodies look like*. unlike other women BBWs have almost absolutely no romantic energy or attention centered on them. everything is sexualized to a large degree. so its very easy for an FA to overlook or ignore other things that BBWs might have to offer in a social environment that focuses mainly on a fat persons physical appearance and very little on who they are as a person. so maybe if a guy is shallow its because he is a product of his environment. instead of totally blaming FAs alone for being shallow maybe we need to examine what fat society can do to help him be less so.



^I think you're making a HUGE leap there in assuming that FAs ONLY "notice" what their gfs look like. 

Certainly in my LTRs, I have loved my gfs for their personalities, their attitudes, their quirks and foibles - all the things that made my lovers WHO they are. As well as their physical beauty.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 4, 2010)

joswitch said:


> ^I think you're making a HUGE leap there in assuming that FAs ONLY "notice" what their gfs look like.
> 
> Certainly in my LTRs, I have loved my gfs for their personalities, their attitudes, their quirks and foibles - all the things that made my lovers WHO they are. As well as their physical beauty.



i think you misunderstood what i'm getting at. i never said they only notice what their gfs look like. what i'm saying is that in general the culture around the community is mostly focused on what someone looks like. what shape are they, how big they, how much they may or may not eat or weigh etc... are all a central topic of conversation. there are hardly any if any BBWs out there playing romantic leads. probably 99.99% of the things online are about BBWs sexuality not how beautiful their hearts minds and personalities are or how basically lovely or graceful they might be. a lot of it isn't even what most people would call sensual. its generally pretty sexual porn or pandering to fetish. there is hardly any that is just all about a lovely girl a man might just like to get to know. he has to be looking for that on his own anyway and basically create it in his own mind from whats available. a guy like that already has it in his personality.


if a guy needs to be introduced to that way of thinking about fat women he has very little to rely on. it would be nice if an FA could also have those things spelled out for him totally sometimes. i have too many FA friends who've admitted to me that they weren't even led to believe it was possible to feel more deeply about fat women in a community setting because thats wasn't what any of it was about. it was all about getting an itch scratched. 

i think a guy who was always exposing himself to that would have to be a superman to not be affected by all of that in some way or form. an inexperienced person can be and often is influenced by the atmosphere they are in. i don't feel FAs have the opportunity to get the type of varied experiences related to women that other guys can get. 

it doesn't make an FA bad if he is influenced by all of that. who wouldn't be. look at how many fat girls are influenced by people saying that a fat body isn't pretty even when they don't want to believe it. FAs even rightfully believe a BBW is sexy. but sometimes thats all he gets help to notice. if you haven't really had relationships i think it would very easy to focus on just the hot sex you could have--because you could!  lets face it, just how often do you see guys on here write long expositions on a fat girls beautiful face, luminous eyes, luxurious hair or how she smells. fat women have that stuff too but it gets ignored a lot.

so in the end it is probably not so much that they are naturally shallow but that they are made shallow by their environment. i guess its sort of a nature v nurture argument in a way. i think any FA has a potential to be loving, caring, romantic and thoughtful. but what if thats not what he is seeing around him. how is he going to learn how to appreciate it if he needs a little nudge?


----------



## joswitch (Jul 4, 2010)

superodalisque said:


> i think you misunderstood what i'm getting at. i never said they only notice what their gfs look like. what i'm saying is that in general the culture around the community is mostly focused on what someone looks like. what shape are they, how big they, how much they may or may not eat or weigh etc... are all a central topic of conversation. there are hardly any if any BBWs out there playing romantic leads. probably 99.99% of the things online are about BBWs sexuality not how beautiful their hearts minds and personalities are or how basically lovely or graceful they might be. a lot of it isn't even what most people would call sensual. its generally pretty *sexual porn or pandering to fetish*. there is hardly any that is just all about a lovely girl a man might just like to get to know. he has to be looking for that on his own anyway and basically create it in his own mind from whats available. a guy like that already has it in his personality.
> 
> 
> if a guy needs to be introduced to that way of thinking about fat women he has very little to rely on. it would be nice if an FA could also have those things spelled out for him totally sometimes. i have too many FA friends who've admitted to me that they weren't even led to believe it was possible to feel more deeply about fat women in a community setting because thats wasn't what any of it was about. it was all about getting an itch scratched.
> ...



Wow.
Not every FA has his or her attitudes to their lovers built on porn.:doh:
Maybe only the dumb ones who think porn is real?

Yeah, there's fewer chances for FAs to meet BBWs than for most blokes to meet most women, but even so...
There's meet-ups and discos and there's facebook and myspace etc...
And you won't read about eyes/hair etc.. on DIMS so much cos that's not fat specific and the site is... but that doesn't mean that FAs aren't into all that, and it doesn't mean we don't say so to our lovers!

I know you're trying to defend FAs from the accusation of being shallow, but I'd rather be painted as shallow than a clueless, porn-obsessed, horndog.... Which seems to be the get-out-of-jail card you're offering....


----------



## CarlaSixx (Jul 4, 2010)

I have to agree with Joswitch.

The guys that have been interested in me have more often commented on my eyes, hair, or smell, than on my size or what they'd like to do to me in bed. 

I don't like the excuse of "they're porn driven, so they can be excused" because I know that to not be true.


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 4, 2010)

joswitch said:


> Wow.
> Not every FA has his or her attitudes to their lovers built on porn.:doh:
> Maybe only the dumb ones who think porn is real?
> 
> ...



i don't think i used the word every. and this doesn't reflect on you personally. i'm just speaking to the fact that how the community is approaching the issue of fat people might have something to do with the perceptions people have about FAs. it may even be a kind of self fulfilling prophecy at least temporarily for some FAs. haven't you noticed all of the posts written by FAs themselves where they talk of getting lost in that environment before they discover more. 

its not so different from what happens to other guys except that FAs don't have as many varieties of choice and influences when it comes to how fat women are presented to them. if the only thing you are given where you can see a fat woman is porn then thats where you might go to look because your eyes are starved or that kind of beauty. it doesn't make you a horndog if no one is making much of anything else available to you. you are just trying to make do with what you've got. don't you ever think that you may look at a lot more porn websites than you might if SSBBWS were more personally available to you?


----------



## superodalisque (Jul 5, 2010)

joswitch said:


> Wow.
> Not every FA has his or her attitudes to their lovers built on porn.:doh:
> Maybe only the dumb ones who think porn is real?
> 
> ...



take a look at post #2. i think an FA explains it much better than i could: http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1492725#post1492725


----------



## joswitch (Jul 5, 2010)

superodalisque said:


> take a look at post #2. i think an FA explains it much better than i could: http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1492725#post1492725



Yeah, I've read that before. I don't really agree with it. 
Maybe cos I've had actual, RL, LTRs with women, including, especially BBWs.

And ftr, yeah I look at porn. Cos, y'know, I'm a grownass man.
But probably nowhere near as much as you seem to think*.... 
I *never* thought it was in anyway real.
And I *always* assumed that BBWs would have the same range and depth of emotions and emotional needs as other women.
And in my experience = I was right.

If there are people out there who build their idea of the opposite sex from porn?
Their FAness is not their issue(s).
Their issue(s) is / are waaaay more fundamental than that.


(*I was on the computer all day yesterday - reading about.... micronations  )


----------



## TwoSwords (Dec 22, 2017)

KnottyOne said:


> I don't know where this thought came from, but it just popped into my head last night, and that is that FA's are naturally more shallow then non-FA's. I'm not talking in the generic "oh, they aren't cute enough" way, but I mean in the, if they aren't fat then they can't be attractive way. I completely understand preferences, and no one should go against what they really enjoy or try to like something that they don't truly desire, I'm just wondering if it is the disposition of someone who has one set preference. This can go into anyone who has standards they refuse to break, something as simple as only dating people with a certain hair color could also fall into this category. But I can't help but think that by limiting yourself to only what you find as the ideal is shallowness in itself. I know there are tons of guys on this board who would only date a fat girl, and even if a skinny girl came by with the same personality that they could like for that, they wouldn't because they were skinny. So I'm just wondering, if someone has preferences that they refuse to budge on, does this just make them really picky or shallow to a point? Anyone else have any ideas about this?



This is an older topic, but I wanted to answer it, because I noticed it, and it jumped right out at me. You make two major points in this opening post...

1. FAs won't find thin women attractive.
2. FAs shouldn't limit themselves to only their ideal.

I'll respond to each point in turn.

1. Firstly, this is not true in all, or even most cases. Most people who find fat women attractive are also attracted to *some* thin women as well, so in this area, the usual FA is actually *less* shallow than the majority, who dismiss fat women just for being fat.

Secondly, the weight range that is considered acceptable by the majority is really quite small, usually not varying by more than 50 or so pounds, while the weight range which an FA considers acceptable can sometimes be 6-12 times that, if not more. So, in this area also, the FA is less shallow. One only sees this as shallowness, if one lumps all fat people and all thin people into single categories, and treats those categories as equal.

Third, even if, like me, you're just not able to feel attraction for a thin woman, no matter what, this is only an emotion, and as an interpersonal obstacle, it can usually be overcome. Those who overcome it, to befriend thin people and such, would be far less shallow than the majority, who make no attempt to overcome their fat prejudice.

Finally, shallowness is about thinking of a person only in terms of one quality that they have; usually a physical one. However, just because a physical quality may be a deal-breaker, doesn't mean a person is shallow. At most, it means physical qualities are *one of* the important factors that go into making relationship decisions for that person. That's what it's like with me. I have four qualities that I look for in a woman, only one of which is physical in nature, but I don't believe it would be wise for me to try to start a relationship with a thin woman. It'd be a recipe for disaster, because neither of us would be happy.

2. Your second major point is a very philosophical one, and relates to what it means to pursue the ideal, but while I do think that the ideal is often unattainable in a *purely physical* sense, I stand firmly behind those who believe in pursuing the perfect ideal to the best of their ability, provided it doesn't involve behaving immorally. "The ideal" means perfection. It means totally, purely, completely what is needed. It is a very real, very unearthly thing, and should not be expected of human beings. However, on the same level, I strongly believe that it is attainable as a gift, if one is willing to strive towards it, and if you are one of those people who feels that shunning faulty, human company in favor of pursuing the pure ideal is worth it, then I can only admire your vision, commitment and strength of will.

However, if by "ideal," you don't mean "ideal *absolutely,*" but only "the general kind of person I want to be with," my initial reply is; if you don't want to be with a person, you're under no obligation to be with them. You're not doing them any favors by hanging around someone you can't stand, and sooner or later, they'll realize it too, which will just make them dislike you.

Also, I think the word "shallowness" is often used by very selfish people, to blame others for the consequences of their own unwillingness to try to please other people. Often, a simple greeting, or a friendly look, or a smile, even when we're feeling down, or a simple pat on the head, or a hug if a person looks depressed... These simple things can please our friends and relatives, and significant others, and many, many people are unwilling to put themselves out to the extent of giving even these. As a result, others don't enjoy their company, and decide to hang around with other people who *will* give them some reason to. Then the selfish person accuses the normal person of shallowness, hiding behind that claim as an excuse to avoid facing their own problems. It's a pattern I've seen on countless occasions.

And no, this doesn't apply to weight loss. Permanent, sustainable weight loss is either impossible, dangerous, or much too time-consuming and difficult to be worth it, if you're only doing it to make other people happy, depending on who you are. The actions I'm talking about can be done by anyone, anywhere, with, at most, a few seconds to prepare.


----------

